The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
If temperature rises are always a precursor to increases in CO2, what does that say about transient climate sensitivity which is all about CO2’s ability to increase temperatures. How do the two factoids co-exist?
You are asking a question which will get you banned from all social interaction, but I will answer it.
Modern science does not operate using white patriarchy logic, but rather through rainbow diversity feelings. What these are at any one time are defined by activists and government bureaucracy.
The key word to understand here is ‘doublethink’ (see Orwell, 1984). This is the technique of holding two opposing opinions on your head at once, as defined by the Government…
It is criminal that we are being so misled about climate change but the whole premise precludes us from using fossil fuels which with clean emissions can do no harm. Carbon dioxide is a good gas and essential to life !!
Criminal indeed. I have often thought that if charges were brought against CO2 it would be laughed out of court as there is no credible evidence. Lots of conjecture and failed predictions, but actual proof? There is none.
Ever read Massachusetts v. EPA the Endangerment Finding???
So is oxygen. But too much of it can kill you. It’s all about the dose.
And we are orders of magnitude away from having “too much” of either O2 or CO2!
I sympathize with your view on the politics of climate scammery. It’s true enough that asking a question that calls into doubt the Climate Catastrophe is frowned upon like a fart in church once was (when people went to church).
But I have to disagree about the need for doublethink in this case.
The challenge for us skeptics is to resist the temptation of being just as faith based in our opinions as the alarmists are. The truth is complicated, but true science, built on data, is on our side.
I’m afraid you can bang away at science all you want, but when 90% of the planet’s population barely understands the subject far less has a qualification in it, you are wasting your time.
The left has never used science to persuade people there’s a climate problem, they have used naked propaganda, which everyone understands.
Your last paragraph is partly right, that for the last 40+ years sceptics have been wedded to the idea that science will prevail, yet it’s got us precisely nowhere.
Biden and Putin have, unwittingly or otherwise, done more to expose the crisis at the heart of the climate scam since early this year (and Biden’s strangling America’s energy security by executive order) than 40 years of science has achieved.
Even with 35 years of concurring satellite and balloon data demonstrating conclusively that there is no meaningful warming issue, the morons are still churning out computer models government incentivised NGO’s and corrupt government officials are profiting from.
Even the frauds are exposed yet it makes not a bit of difference. The gravy train marches on as bureaucrats and government scientists rely on climate change for a handsome income, with numerous annual jollies across the planet.
Only when people actually recognise that the west is suiciding itself at the feet of Russia, China and India will they begin to understand what’s going on. Nor are we even nearly there yet. It’s going to take even more expensive energy costs and a few years of rolling blackouts across continents to have people recognise what climate change really means.
We have two and a half years of Biden’s deranged lunge at a legacy he believes will see him deified before (election fraud allowing) there is a, hopefully, sane Republican government elected to the WH.
It will then take no less than an official announcement that there is no threat from the climate and the gutting of government departments of all climate related personnel and defunding of universities and other organisations who continue to peddle it.
There will need to be open warfare waged against the MSM to have them drop the issue. Although I do get the suspicion that CNN is about to begin changing in response to looming bankruptcy. Perhaps if they see growing viewership from Conservative’s thanks to decent journalism returning the rest may themselves ‘follow the money’.
The next two years will be tough, but I suspect we’re probably too late anyway as I’m fairly convinced the whole objective is to ram through Digital Currencies across the west which Conservative governments across the west will embrace as eagerly as socialist governments.
Even the second amendment won’t help America then as there will be control of every single thing you buy, including guns, ammo and accessories. Red Flag laws? No problem, just shut down your access to everything until you hand over your guns.
That we cannot afford to be timid in defending the truth and our rights, I’m in complete agreement, HotScot.
What’s more, I think your assessment of skepticism’s effectiveness is accurate, it’s miserable. We counter “cuddly” polar bears with complex charts.
By all means counter the emotional appeals with emotional appeals. But my dispute is tactical in nature. If our side abandons accuracy, it will be short work for the moonbats to discredit us and paint every skeptic with the same broad brush. We enable an emotional appeal that claims we are k!lling the children with our lies, blah blah blah.
Totally agreed that much more has to be done by skeptics than counter the CAGW pushers with scientific facts. IMO one of the best ways to do that (which, as you said, Biden and Putin are already demonstrating) is to show people the misery and suffering that they will endure if the world (well, not China and India) gives up fossil fuels. Even the most stupid person on the street (who can’t tell time on a clock with hands and can’t say how many justices are on the supreme court) can easily understand that he/she might be forced to give up all of the modern conveniences that most people presently enjoy. I don’t care what party they belong to, most people will resist giving up 24/7 electricity, heating, cooking, driving whenever and wherever they want to, and all of the things made possible by oil and gas. Not only will they resist, many will do so quite strongly!
Therein seems to lie the problem of the skeptic – demonstrating the destructive folly of “going green”.
Do you think the FBI used their feelings framing Trump or do you still believe in Russia colluuuusion and unicorns;)
dodgy, adding a random thought as I read your post….
Doublethink is the retention of thought processes (philosophies) by which the assumption that the result of “truth A” that holds in the short term, is the opposite of the result of “truth A” in the long term. For example killing was against the Commandments, yet burning witches at the stake was considered to be justified by “saving souls” in the long term.
The whole short/long term aspect really opens up the debate to irrational thinkers and political manipulation. The good accomplished by fossil fuels today versus long term possible negatives due to buildup of CO2 is a prime example….with autistic young girls as analogs or antilogs to witches being in there somewhere….
Back in 2006 I visited Glacier Bay in Alaska and noted that the glacier which had filled that large bay in the 1700’s had mostly melted during the 1800’s, prior to the invention of the airplane and the mass-production of the automobile. There was no increase in CO2 as the earth recovered from the cold of the Little Ice Age, which on turn was not related to any decrease in CO2.
Prior to the Little Ice Age earth was warmer than it is today.
I to visited Glacier Bay and that is correct .
Only a very small amount of ice has melted since 1900.
CO2 warmed the world millions of years ago but scientists that I know tell me that a doubling of CO2 will cause very little warming .
Nothing to get alarmed about .
The same alarmism is happening with sea level rise and sinking coastal land .
A TV documentary was screened here in New Zealand a week ago full on alarmist about a village on our coast that was threatened by see level rise .
The village was over 30 meters above high tide .
Our see level is increasing by 1.5 millimeter’s per year and some parts of our coasts are sinking by the same amount .
3 millimeters a year in some situations but on some coasts the land is rising .
A worst case sea level and land subsidence might increase the rise to 30 centimeters in 100 years .
Why get worried about that when there are much greater challenges facing the world in the next 5 years ?
I don’t see any contradiction, Tim. It’s indisputable that higher temperatures reduce solubility of CO2 in sea water, so that warmer temperatures lead to higher CO2. I don’t know of anyone who disputes that.
A significant group on WUWT will dispute that greenhouse gases reduce radiation loss to space, but most of us recognize that it’s also valid science. It’s a minor positive feedback to any warming that might occur for various reasons. It’s not a major factor, maybe 1.7K per doubling of CO2.
You may object that any positive feedback leads to runaway temperatures which have never been observed. But that is only a valid argument in the case where there are no negative feedbacks simultaneously present (such as clouds and thunderstorms for example) which are sufficient to counteract the slight warming due to the additional greenhouse effect.
The actual temperature change will depend on the net effect of all the feedbacks, positive and negative and typically all of the feedbacks will be dynamic, complex functions.
The climate is extremely complex. There is no master control knob, no one factor that explains it all. Alarmists over-simplify it to fit their bias. Let’s not follow their example.
Yes, the innumerable influences on climate(s) behaviors are all legitimate and valuable fields of scientific inquiry and studies.
Where this whole topic has gone off the rails imo, is welding energy sources and applications to the academic debates about climate behaviors.
Climate scholars should be kept in their lane, and let energy producers work out & develop the most efficient, economic deployable and safe solutions for all the world to access.
Rich says:”It’s not a major factor, maybe 1.7K per doubling of CO2.”
I say there is no increase in temperature due to the increase in CO2.
Yes, I noted that some will want to oversimplify to win an argument.
And to be fair, 1.7K/doubling is an empirical estimate. The practical difference between your “estimate” and the Curry/Lewis estimate is minimal in terms of economic impacts. You’re not taking enough credit for the beneficial impact of GHG warming.
“1.7K/doubling is an empirical estimate”
If you ignore all other causes,
… you know, like the SUN. and the oceans, and the clouds
ie… It is meaningless.
It’s not meaningless, it provides evidence that regardless of which side has the physics right (and allowing for both having it wrong), the data says that the alarmist predictions have failed and we are not facing any catastrophe.
Lukewarmists like Rich Davis give climate alarmists the credibility they don’t deserve.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the greenhouse gases have any effect on surface warming.
That’s why nobody has ever managed to produce a peer reviewed paper on that dodgy hypothesis.
I am sick of hearing “scientists say” rubbish like most of the excess heat in the atmosphere is going into the oceans.
How does that possibly happen?
Do the fish suck the heat in.
ECS ~= 1.7C/doubling is close enough for a MAXIMUM UPPER BOUND of the parameter. However, since atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record (MacRae 2008), ECS may in fact be so low as to be non-existent.
These authors both used full-Earth-scale observations to calculate their upper-bound CS. Repeating, see underlined below:
Both Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming. To calculate an upper-‐bound on climate sensitivity to CO2, both papers made the same very conservative assumption:
Both papers assumed that ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, and then calculated the maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 of only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
1. Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
“Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures As A Metric For Climate Sensitivity”
By John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
Asia-‐Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-‐518, 2017
2. Lewis and Curry 2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
“The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data
on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity”
By Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than ~1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of catastrophic global warming.
That approach is as good as it gets – full-Earth scale so no scale-up errors, and a conservative assumption that ALL observed warming is due to increasing CO2 – so it is an upper bound solution for CS. If NO warming was due to CO2. calculated CS would be zero. Theoretically, CS could be zero or even negative, but it is highly improbable that it is more than ~1C/doubling.
More extreme/esoteric arguments are possible, but not that credible.
I agree that it may be lower, but even if it’s a little higher, it’s probably still net beneficial. Which is the important question. We would not have loons proposing $100trillion “solutions“ that are being taken seriously if it were acknowledged that any warming we may have coming, is beneficial.
A little modesty about what we think we know would be wise. We don’t need to disprove the theory of greenhouse gases to show that the question is moot.
Also, attacks such as are mounted periodically by the likes of leitmotif against “lukewarmists” are friendly fire when we actually have a practical agreement on what matters most—there is no climate emergency.
You attack warmists for producing no evidence for CAGW but at the same time you support the belief that ghgs cause moderate warming.
The evidence for either stance is non-existent and would require the same experimental data to lend credence to either claim.
Rich Davis – you and your ilk is the problem not the solution.
I’ve always wondered what an ilk is, and apparently now I have one. And if Willis Eschenbach is my ilk, then thank you so much for the high praise.
As for you leitmotif, whatever your ilk is, it seems to be angry, obstinate, and focused on being right, rather than being effective.
I’m quite honestly not all that interested in providing a perfect explanation of the physics of how the atmosphere heats and cools. Granted I find it interesting up to a point. Up to a point where I recognize that it is actually too complex to describe in simple terms.
I am far more animated by the urgent imperative of rejecting the civilization-ruining schemes that politicians and rent-seekers are foisting on us in the name of a non-existent climate emergency.
Apparently you don’t much care about being effective in stopping the insanity. To be your ally, we must deny the false gods of back-radiation. Anything less and we’re enemies! The Problem, not the Solution.
If the whole world settled on the so-called “lukewarmist” view as my ilk thinks on balance to be a best guess at what reality might be, then the real problem would go away.
I for one would lose interest in the whole topic and could care less what you think about it.
The prospect of convincing a majority to embrace your pure doctrine untrammeled by impure thoughts of back-radiation, is of course vanishingly small. But being effective is of no concern to you. Got it.
Rich, your arguments seem to make political sense because so many people have been conditioned to believe that back-radiation keeps Earth’s surface warm. But, consider this.
Back-radiation was once thought to explain why the inside of a sun-lit glass enclosure warms more than its surroundings, but it has been shown that the warming is because the enclosure prevents free convection, not because the glass surface is back-radiating. Why should CO2 warm Earth’s surface?
I care about putting a stop to the bullshit politics.
I do NOT CARE whether there’s a tiny warming from a so-called greenhouse gas or if it is coincidental natural warming. It’s global milding. It’s improving weather. It’s increasing agricultural output. It’s ALL GOOD, but insane corrupt politicians are trying to destroy civilization.
Why in God’s name would you care more about nuances of atmospheric physics than about the future of society? The house is burning down and you want to adjust the draperies. The stormtroopers are marching down your street and your only focus is to argue that their uniforms are taupe, not brown.
In other words you like to bask in your own ignorance, Rich?
I think I will just leave you alone.
That would be grand.
Thank you Rich – that is the ONLY important point here – there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. My internet was down today, and for once I am grateful – to have not participated in the following pointless, acrimonious debate.
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes (by ¼ cycle at all measured time scales [Yea Janice!]. I explained why in a paper published years ago and I cannot be bothered looking it up to cite it – it’s the ¼ cycle lag of an integral after its derivative).
It’s this beautiful correlation that I published in Jan2008:
The future cannot cause the past – and that is what the warmists are claiming and they are 100% WRONG – and those fraudsters have known that they were lying for decades.
Details, details, who cares? What matters is this – the climate crisis fraudsters have controlled the false narrative for decades and all this time they knew they were lying to us and swindling trillions of dollars and wasting millions of lives.
PROOF THE WARMIST LEADERS KNEW THEY WERE LYING FROM DAY 1 ~ CIRCA 50 YEARS AGO:
NO RATIONAL INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP COULD INNOCENTLY BE THIS WRONG FOR THIS LONG.
OUR SOCIETY HAS BEEN FULLY-SUBMERGED IN GREEN FALSEHOODS FOR DECADES.
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
At 60:40 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; at 70:30 the odds against being this wrong are 1 in 13 septillion. It’s not just scientists being randomly wrong – they knew they were not telling the truth.
With their falsehoods, the climate doomsters have wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives, mostly in the developing world. Crimes against humanity!
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT October 20, 2021. Update June 12, 2022
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.
The above paper contains of list of many of my relevant papers published since 2002.
This is a lukewarmist website. Back radiation and ECS rule. Behave yourself.
If you had a degree in Psychology you would understand.
CO2 does absorb and emit energy. Beyond that, I’m not sure what it does with regard to the Earth’s atmosphere.
CO2 “Cause and Effect”. How does that work in our atmosphere? Nobody knows. Some people think it causes net warming of the atmosphere. And some people think it causes net cooling of the atmosphere. Nobody knows for sure.
And here we are bankrupting our societies over CO2 regulation with no more information than this. It’s politics, not science.
It seems climate scientists should know how to warm and cool Earth.
Space cadets know how to cool Earth- use a space sunshade:
Now, what needs cooling is Venus.
Earth is in an Ice Age, it needs warming.
Climate scientists should understand how one can warm Earth.
The only way to warm Earth is by warming it’s cold oceans which
have average temperature of about 3.5 C.
And most of our Late Cenozoic Ice Age [which has been going for about 33.9 millions] has had average ocean temperature higher than 3.5 C.If our ocean had an average temperature of 4 C, it would give us an ice free polar sea in the summer.
And there would a lot benefits of having arctic ocean which had no polar sea in the summer.
“More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans.”
Of course human have probably not warm the earth at all, but point is “more than 90% of global warming has warmed the ocean”.
One should ask how much more than 90%. I think to think more than 95% or closer to 99%. Anyhow the average ocean temperature is thought to have warmed by about .05 C or we need about 10 times more warming of the ocean, to cause the arctic ocean to be free of polar sea ice in the summer.
I would guess an ocean of 4 C is still below the average temperature of ocean over the last 33.9 million years of our Ice Age.
I think it’s a psychiatrist that you need leitmotif, not a psych degree.
But thanks for illustrating my points.
“But thanks for illustrating my points.”
I would need a children’s literature artist to illustrate your points, Rich.
Mr. motif: If you think a degree in psych will advance understanding, you need to “call your office.”
It’s good enough for Willis.
What is your educational background that you are so convinced gives you superior insight?
It’s indisputable that higher temperatures reduce solubility of CO2 in sea water, so that warmer temperatures lead to higher CO2.
For a lark, provide me 2 papers that show this. No fcking models, actual physical testing. I here this claimed yet, I’ve never seen a paper linked from anyone here.
Come on Ruleo, are you a “fcking” (to use your quaint phraseology) moron? You’re asking for a couple of papers that prove that CO2 solubility in water is a function of temperature? Do you also need links to a couple of papers proving that air contains oxygen?
That’s something you can just look up in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook, if you want exact values. But you can also run your own experiment with the carbonated beverage of your choice. Leave a 2L bottle of soda in your car on a hot sunny day and observe what happens when you open the cap.
Why are you wasting our time?
For a lark, Crovetto (1991) and Carroll et.al. (1991). Or talk to any brewer.
As a retired process control engineer, it was always obvious to me that atmospheric CO2 was under control and that the control mechanism was Henry’s Law.
The atmospheric CO2 level is up +50% since the 1700s
and the ocean temperature has increased FAR TOO LITTLE
to explain the CO2 increase from outgassing.
You may have been a process engineer,
but you are not a climate scientist.
Ice core data tells us that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle at all time scales.
Would you please clarify what you just said?
RG said that the oceans have not warmed sufficiently to cause CO2 to outgas to the extent that atmospheric CO2 has risen.
You dispute this by saying that CO2 lags temperature rise by a quarter cycle. I’ll have to fill in the gaps here in your argument, so correct any misinterpretation please.
The cycle to which you refer is the roughly 1000-year period observed between warm periods since the Holocene Climate Optimum, is that correct? A quarter cycle would therefore be about 250 years?
Now 250 years ago, was 1772 during the Little Ice Age. What you have said is that today’s CO2 level should reflect the ocean surface conditions in 1772 during the LIA—water which sunk to the deep ocean 250 years ago near the poles and is just emerging now where cold water is upwelling in the tropics.
I’m trying to follow your argument here. During the LIA, atmospheric CO2 was very low due to cooling oceans absorbing it. So we would conclude that the water was enriched in CO2 compared to today. I guess that the lag theory would be that it takes 250 years for deep water currents to flow through and upwell again. So water supersaturated in CO2 is rapidly outgassing more CO2 than would outgas from surface water warming a bit. Is that your hypothesis?
That implies that CO2 should be likewise cycling between maybe 275 and 450ppm every thousand years. If the additional 140ppm of CO2 that brought the atmosphere from 280 to 420ppm is coming from upwelling water, then that same amount of CO2 has to have been drawn from the atmosphere 250 years ago. Doesn’t that require that CO2 has to have been at 420ppm one thousand years ago in 1022 AD (at a similar point in the cycle to where we now find ourselves)?
As far as I am aware, ice core evidence doesn’t support this. So you’d also need to explain the ice cores away as being invalid in some way.
Also, we shouldn’t require proxy evidence to test your hypothesis if it’s predicated on upwelling water having a much higher CO2 concentration. We could just measure it.
Where is the evidence for any of this? Or did you have something else in mind when you explained that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle?
You are discussing natural CO2 changes in response to natural changes in ocean temperatures.
That has nothing to do with humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
I think you know the two processes are different
and both exist at the same time.
Prove your claim yourself. You have provided NO DATA that proves your claim about ocean outgassing.
Re: human CO2 emissions
They have increased GREATLY. Meanwhile, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 as measured by such places as Mauna Loa hasn’t budged.
The oceans absorb CO2 as long as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than in it is in the oceans. When we burn more fossil fuels, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and thus the oceans absorb more CO2. The oceans cover two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, so they can store a large amount of atmospheric CO2.
A lot of that man made CO2 has already gone into the oceans, and more will until an equilibrium is reached between atmospheric and oceanic CO2.
The temperature of the oceans does have an effect, but that effect is dwarfed by a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2. Meanwhile, the oceans are still absorbing more CO2. There is no net outgassing of CO2. Proof of that is the average pH level, which is slightly decreasing, indicating MORE CO2 in the oceans, not less. We should be thankful so much man made CO2 is still being absorbed.
And you need a science course!
You need some data…..
Richard, could you please provide data showing the ocean temperatures prior to the 1700’s to support your statement “ocean temperature has increased FAR TOO LITTLE”.
We have three Central England thermometers, climate reconstructions and anecdotes. The temperature since the very cold 1690s has increased. The number is in the range of +1 to +3 degrees C. It can be assumed that ocean temperatures had similar changes. FAR from enough warming to explain a 50% increase of atmospheric CO2,
In addition, the burning of fossil fuels added about +200ppm CO2 to the atmosphere which is OBVIOUSLY the cause of the last +100ppm CO2 increase. Or do you doubt that too?
Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that the climate “crisis” is a scam but you’re right that the slight ocean temperature increase isn’t responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The ocean has 3,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The ocean’s heat rise lags well behind the atmosphere, many hundreds to thousands of years. Just the surface layer of the ocean has seen any appreciable warming. Scientific estimates have been done – warming is responsible for just a few percent of the CO2 rise.
That Law does not explain the CO2 atmospheric concentration behavior.
That Law does not explain the surface-atmospheric thermal coupling… and the relation of it to CO2 atmospheric concentration.
Simply only relying in that Law, allows for human CO2 release, to be considered as CO2 emissions… and also requires that the atmospheric CO2 to be considered as coming dawn to surface due to this ‘powerful plant sucking’.
Do not misunderstand me, please… there is nothing wrong with Henri’s Law perse.
(still helps) but;
The wrong is with the treatment and over utilization/dependence of that Law, in the case of climate… while ignoring other factors in the play.
Even without the specifics of that Law… there is enough data and a lot of other knowledge there, to establish the actual understanding of CO2 emissions and CO2 atmospheric concentration.
CO2 atmospheric concentration follows and lags primary and only the CO2 emission flux variation… where and when the CO2 emission flux very much coupled and dependent to the thermal emission flux.
(specifically, in short term, the addressing of CO2 emission flux via temperature variation, is not reliable enough, as temp. variation in short term does not well reflect always the thermal flux variation, especially at climatic turning points).
One is the result of ocean temperature changes.
The other is a result of man made CO2 emissions.
The right question to ask is about what prevents
runaway global warming from these processes.
One possibility is that global warming creates
more clouds that block more sunlight, and cooling
reduces cloud cover. Something regulates the climate
so that there is a limit to cooling and warming trends,
and that something is in addition to planetary
geometry which affects very long term climate changes.
Much of climate science is “we don’t know that yet”.
Those who claim to know everything, and think they can
predict the future climate, actually know nothing.
Thanks Richard. I think I can see a way that despite the apparent paradox both factoids have merit. I’m watching the climate sensitivity shrink with each new analysis over the last decade and it’s forseeable that it will end up closer to zero than 1.
Repeated ECS wild guessing by people with advanced science degrees unwilling to say: “we don’t know”. There are too many variables to know exactly what CO2 does. But we have over 100 years of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to know no one was harmed.
Tim – in answer to your question:
This short paper was published recently by the Frontier Center for Public Policy:
NO EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CRISIS
Commentary, Climate, Allan MacRae, 13June2022
In reality a Carbon Tax, a tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, has never been justified either scientifically or economically. Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is very small, so there is no real fossil-fuel-caused climate crisis. For decades, alarmists have ignored that reality, squandering trillions of dollars and millions of lives with their false climate crisis. In fact, the only measurable impact of more CO2 is hugely beneficial – improved crop yields to feed the world.
The Catastrophic Human-made Global Warming (“CAGW”) Hypothesis is based on a false premise – it assumes that atmospheric CO2 changes drive temperature changes, which is incorrect. If CO2 was a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes, but they do NOT. Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, as proved by MacRae 2008, and Humlum et al (2013). Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature that were ignored for decades.
The CAGW Hypothesis ASSUMES that the future is causing the past. The CAGW Hypothesis is disproved.
In fact, the CAGW Hypothesis has also been proved false in many other ways, but as Albert Einstein famously stated, “One would be enough.”
Baloney — AGW is accepted by at least 99.9% of scientists.
But CAGW is just a prediction with no observations.
How can one disprove a prediction that never happens?
“Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is very small,
so there is no real fossil-fuel-caused climate crisis.”
That quote is not quite right:
(1) Climate sensitivity to CO2 is unknown.
So far the evidence strongly suggests the effect is small
and more CO2 has been beneficial, with colder nations having warmer winter nights, and the greening of our planet.
(2) There IS a “fossil fuel crisis”
That crisis is the false demonization of fossil fuels
and the bizarre Nut Zero project to spend a huge
amount of money to make electric grids less reliable.
Leftists are trying to focus the debate on Nut Zero
spending, timing, 1.5 degree arbitrary targets,
and anything but the important issue:
Our current climate is wonderful, so why are
we trying to change it? In my opinion, the current
climate is the best climate for humans, animals,
and especially plants, since the Holocene Climate
Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago.
We should be celebrating the current climate,
not living in fear of some imaginary future climate.
AGW is accepted by at least 99.9% of scientists.
What kind of scientists? Sociologists and History of Science professors don’t count.
There is no demonstrable correlation between CO2 and temperature on a scale of 100’s of millions of years, and similarly, no correlation between anthro’ CO2 flux and total atmospheric CO2 flux on a scale of months. Ice core data show that CO2 lags temperatures by several hundred years during the Holocene.
What kind of scientists would accept AGW based on that data?
There was no AGW until about 100 years ago and CO2 emissions were small before 1950.
Natural climate changes and man made climate changes are different and exist at the same time. No man made climate changes are reflected in ice core data until the 20th century.
There is plenty of evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases affect Earth’s ability to cool itself.
The exact effect is impossible to measure but lab spectroscopy suggests it is small.
What creates the CAGW prediction is the claimed water vapor positive feedback that allegedly amplifies the effect of CO2 by 2x to 4x. There is evidence that effect is MUCH milder than claimed. Therefore, CAGW is a fantasy.
Richard Greene – Don’t bother with your angry diatribes – I don’t read them.
“It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.” – Vladimir Lenin
“Everyone’s got a plan, until you punch them in the face.” – Mike Tyson 🙂
F1 driver says ‘what happens in Alberta is a crime,’ feels responsibility to speak about climate change
Sebastian Vettel takes aim at Alberta’s oilsands operations, as province’s energy minister charges ‘hypocrisy’
His pipeline shirt created a buzz on social media, with many calling Vettel a hypocrite for competing in a gas-guzzling sport like Formula One. His team Aston Martin is sponsored by Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil giant Aramco.
FORMULA 1 CARS ARRIVING! 747-8F and 777F Arriving in Montreal-Mirabel
Shutting down Alberta is good for the Saudis. Gotta help your sponsor out.
Hilarious to see F1 drivers virtue signaling about climate change. Zero self-awareness.
Same with Hamilton and his pathetic BLM kneeling ‘cos I is black’ when, in fact, the creep is half white. I wonder how he feels about the BLM leadership nicking millions of dollars for mansions which he undoubtedly partly handsomely funded?
I see the smug little bar steward is no longer kneeling, and the FIA made an example of him by bringing him to heel over his jewellery excesses whilst driving, which was always banned.
What do you mean? Hasn’t BLM always stood for Buy Large Mansions?
Germany announces a return to coal use for electricity generation as it attempts to free itself of dependence on Russian gas:
Germany to fire up coal plants as Russia turns down the gas | News | DW | 19.06.2022
“To reduce gas consumption, less gas must be used to generate electricity. Coal-fired power plants will have to be used more instead,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement.
Nothing like a war to throw a wrench into your plans for a green energy transition.
The war is not the source of the gas supply disruptions.
The sanctions associated with the war, is the source of the gas supply disruptions.
Not sure your point, Waza.
If there was no war then the topics of sanctions would never have been discussed. The topics are related regardless of your ethical stance on the issue.
Anti Russia sanctions were pushed by the US before the 2022 Ukraine attack.
Russian attack is not defensible but Ukraine politics aren’t either.
Also, Ukraine did sleep in it and in a way deserved to be attacked:
Note: Other countries did interfere in US elections and could also be considered to have declared war against the US.
“Ukraine did interfere in US elections”
Honestly, I had to look up that old story.
I came up with that:
In response to numerous requests from mass media regarding appearance of the name of Paul Manafort on the Party of Regions ‘black ledger’ (documents passed to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau by the Ex-first-deputy of the State Security Service of Ukraine Victor Trepak), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau informs on the following.Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of the so-called “black ledger” of the Party of Regions, which is investigated by the detectives of National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. According to the lists, a total sum of over 12.7 million US dollars was allocated on the costs associated with this person since 20.11.2007. The last entry on the lists about P. Manafort is dated on October 5, 2012.
In response to numerous requests from mass media regarding appearance of the name of Paul Manafort on the Party of Regions ‘black ledger’ (documents passed to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau by the Ex-first-deputy of the State Security Service of Ukraine Victor Trepak), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau informs on the following.
Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of the so-called “black ledger” of the Party of Regions, which is investigated by the detectives of National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. According to the lists, a total sum of over 12.7 million US dollars was allocated on the costs associated with this person since 20.11.2007. The last entry on the lists about P. Manafort is dated on October 5, 2012.
And I found this:
MP Andriy Derkach, the initiator of a criminal case on interference in US elections, has disclosed documents proving that Gizo Uhlava, First Deputy Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, for several years provided the US Embassy in Kyiv with information that adversely affected the course of events in Ukraine and the US.“We will disclose the correspondence of NABU staff and US Embassy staff over several years, which is contained in the case file under Article 111 of the Criminal Code on state treason, as well as documents within 6 criminal proceedings against Burisma, featuring former US Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter …
MP Andriy Derkach, the initiator of a criminal case on interference in US elections, has disclosed documents proving that Gizo Uhlava, First Deputy Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, for several years provided the US Embassy in Kyiv with information that adversely affected the course of events in Ukraine and the US.
“We will disclose the correspondence of NABU staff and US Embassy staff over several years, which is contained in the case file under Article 111 of the Criminal Code on state treason, as well as documents within 6 criminal proceedings against Burisma, featuring former US Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter …
The Kyiv court said that the documents published by Leshchenko and Sytnyk were part of an ongoing pretrial investigation in Ukraine into the operations of the pro-Russian Party of Regions. The party’s head had been President Viktor Yanukovych until he fled the country amid mass protests two years earlier.The court said the publication of the so-called “black ledger” documents “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”
The Kyiv court said that the documents published by Leshchenko and Sytnyk were part of an ongoing pretrial investigation in Ukraine into the operations of the pro-Russian Party of Regions. The party’s head had been President Viktor Yanukovych until he fled the country amid mass protests two years earlier.
The court said the publication of the so-called “black ledger” documents “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”
Even after the absolutely crazy last 6 years of US politics, breaking news after breaking news, provocation after provocation, false criminal case after false criminal case (Alfa Bank secret link, anyone?), that left all of us tired, shocked and numb, it’s strange, bizarre, abnormal and shocking that anyone who isn’t an avid MSNBC watcher would not have heard of, or not remember that story.
(And yet I barely could remember enough of it to search it on Google…)
We know the FBI set up shop in the U.S. embassy in Kiev to assist its Ukraine–Manafort inquiry — a common practice on foreign-based probes — while using Steele as an informant at the start of its Russia probe. And we know Clinton’s campaign was using a law firm to pay an opposition research firm for Steele’s work in an effort to stop Trump from winning the presidency, at the same time Steele was aiding the FBI.
Now that what I would want to see an investigation about, not a stealth Durham type probe, but a spectacular, TV produced congressional committee probe requesting all the (probably irrelevant for that probe) private emails and strategic data of the DNC, because, why not?
Now a counterpoint, in https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/sergii-leshchenko-the-true-story-of-yanukovychs-black-ledger.html
Sergii Leshchenko: The true story of Yanukovych’s black ledgerI want Ukrainian citizens, American politicians, and international journalists to operate with the first-hand information and not be victims of random claims or deliberate misinformation.(…)This book is called the black ledger and Trump people believe that it is fake.One of the key proponents of this theory is Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, who attacked me personally more than once. In an interview with Fox in May, he claimed that I was convicted in Ukraine for interfering in the U.S. election, and that black ledger itself was fake.It wasn’t just a set of lies, but it also cost me a potential post in the administration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom I had been helping with his presidential election campaign. After Giuliani branded me “an enemy of the United States,” I became too toxic to hold an official post.
Sergii Leshchenko: The true story of Yanukovych’s black ledger
I want Ukrainian citizens, American politicians, and international journalists to operate with the first-hand information and not be victims of random claims or deliberate misinformation.
This book is called the black ledger and Trump people believe that it is fake.
One of the key proponents of this theory is Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, who attacked me personally more than once. In an interview with Fox in May, he claimed that I was convicted in Ukraine for interfering in the U.S. election, and that black ledger itself was fake.
It wasn’t just a set of lies, but it also cost me a potential post in the administration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom I had been helping with his presidential election campaign. After Giuliani branded me “an enemy of the United States,” I became too toxic to hold an official post.
Comment: the guy is angry at Trump and probably revengeful
Moreover, as we know from Bob Woodward’s book “Fear,” Manafort’s resignation was almost a settled matter even before the black ledger was published.
Even more telling: the guy is (or pretends to be) under the impression that Bob Woodward does journalism and is not just a political hack!
That’s the more significant tell.
Sergii Leshchenko can’t (and doesn’t want to) distinguish facts from fiction, or political p*rn.
Obviously, Ukraine needs bipartisan support of the U.S.
And bipartisan US$
Sergii Leshchenko, a Kyiv Post columnist, is an investigative journalist and former member of Ukraine’s parliament.
In addition to gathering information and intelligence about people involved in the Trump campaign, Fusion GPS also distributed its investigation findings in the press.In addition, Nelli Or stated that Leshchenko also provided Fusion GPS with information about Manaforte.[sic]“This is another point that indicates that the Democrats relied on Ukraine to collect information against Trump,” the journalist said.
In addition to gathering information and intelligence about people involved in the Trump campaign, Fusion GPS also distributed its investigation findings in the press.
In addition, Nelli Or stated that Leshchenko also provided Fusion GPS with information about Manaforte.[sic]
“This is another point that indicates that the Democrats relied on Ukraine to collect information against Trump,” the journalist said.
How about Yahoo US news being dominated by British ‘tabloids’ criticizing Trump before the last election? Isn’t that interference?
A distinction without a difference.
In Europe, your nuke industry is controlled by a union that has exact same system of rolling presidency as the EU, and the same members as the EU, so your nuke industry can be supervised by a group presided by Italy or Germany, countries which decided to close all of their electronuclear reactors, or even Austria, which has constitutionally banned nuclear.
And alleged “artisan of the Brexit vote”, according to French media, – some even say he is “Brexit mastermind” – “Vote Leave” leader Dominic Cummings said that people who wanted to exit that insane nuclear regulation union (Euratom) were “morons”.
For what? Money for ITER/tokamak nonsense?
Who would protect tokamak engineering over the actually productive nuke industry?
Just now in France:
French RN, the most populist party (still mostly RINO like, but not as much as the others) beats the predictions and replaces Les Républicains as the right wing “opposition”.
Macron’s party, Ensemble! is on track to lose over a hundred seats and his majority – he’s going to have to create some form of coalition or deal with another party to get legislation passed.
Dry run for the US Mid Terms?
How the hell is France in any way even remotely comparable to America?
Both countries boil water.
He is talking about the overall pattern – a shift away from the left and centre-left towards the right. It’s happened elsewhere in Europe as a backlash against the leftist policies that have brought us to this point so, conceivably, we could see a similar pattern emerging in US voting.
The Biden Administration is going to try energy rebate/credits for the poor in the face of rising energy prices…why not go full fascist and institute price controls?
By the votes with taxpayer money so they forget how energy got so expensive.
Paid for with tax dollars by those who are not poor. Because the poor will use as much or more power than before, it does nothing to control CO2. Biden and his handlers are not deep thinkers.
It’s all just teeing up Universal Basic Income and Digital Currency rather nicely.
You didn’t think any of this was ever about the climate did you?
I’m finding that when I go to comment on Yahoo about their gun control screeds, I’m logged out and asked to log in. I’m then presented with a page that asks for my mobile phone (capable of receiving text) number, which I don’t currently have since 3G was deactivated. So, I’m presented with a Catch 22 situation of not being able to comply with their request, which was not a requirement when I started using AT&T.
It also appears that they are throttling my bandwidth because it is only the comments section of gun control articles that is sluggish. All other comment pages are snappy.
I have frequently had comments not show up with the comment “Comment not published — try again.) I’ve also had published comments disappear after being published.
It appears to me that the water temperature in the pot is getting too high, and this frog notices it.
Price control is what 90% of French citizens want, according to polls (but important political polls are sometimes provably fake and made up in France, as anyone remotely paying attention would have noticed – only I noticed, apparently).
From the “far right” to the “far left”… many politicians push administrative pricing of energy.
Anybody else noticed that Greenland is still accumulating ice when it should be losing it?
Yes, not only is there summer snow in southern Greenland, there is also rain Mauritania in the western Sahara. The current size of the Azores High is having an impact on the weather in both of these locations.
Here is the climate consequence of the current convective storms in Mauritania:
A dust veil over the Cape Verde Islands <a href=”https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-49.68323138404592,0.5334061715361127,15.10336289575502,31.366088735686162&t=2022-06-18-T09%3A46%3A41ZZ”>EOSDIS Worldview 18Jun22</a>
This will have an impact on the locus of Atlantic hurricane formation going forward.
A cirrus cloud veil develops over Mauritania <a href=”https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-49.68323138404592,0.5334061715361127,15.10336289575502,31.366088735686162&t=2022-06-20-T09%3A46%3A41Z”>EOSDIS Worldview 20Jun22</a>
This will have an impact on the local albedo.
I am interested to see if a monsoon penetration northward across the western Sahara to the Maghreb develops this year <a href=”https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307956420_West_African_Monsoon_Crosses_the_Sahara_Desert_in_Eumetsat_Monitoring_Weather_and_Climate_from_Space_Date_Time_08_August_2007_0000_UTC_Satellites_Meteosat-9″>as it did in 2007.</a>
Apologies here is the Corrected Version
Here is the climate consequence of the current convective storms in Mauritania:
A dust veil over the Cape Verde Islands EOSDIS Worldview 18Jun22
This will have an impact on the locus of Atlantic hurricane formation going forward.
A cirrus cloud veil develops over Mauritania EOSDIS Worldview 20Jun22
This will have an impact on the local albedo.
I am interested to see if a monsoon penetration northward across the western Sahara to the Maghreb develops this year as it did in 2007.
Can anyone recommend a book for a 10-12 year old that gives a debunking of the Climate Crisis-Emergency? If it’s available in Spanish, that would be fantastic.
At the head of this page there is a link to “Climate at a Glance” by our very own Anthony Watts and the Heartland Institute.
I am in a bit of a hurry, but, here is one good choice:
Fred Singer is a first class bona fide scientist.
I’m back. 🙂
The book by John Christy, Is It Getting Hotter in Fresno? recently reviewed by Jim Steele on WUWT is another good one.
Ah. I think I figured it out. The late Fred Singer WAS … .
I realized that Fred Singer was no longer with us and was (albeit, not making this clear) using the “is” in the same sense I would use it in writing:
“Beethoven is one of my favorite composers.”
“Galileo is one of the Great Thinkers.”
The kids have been living with global warming for their entire lives
and you have been living with warming for up to 47 years.
Why not discuss what ACTUALLY happened, how no one
was hurt and how the predictions of doom have been wrong
during every one of those 47 years?
The best discussion would be on the subject of predictions,
in general, and how they are almost always wrong. That is the
most important lesson my parents ever taught me.
The planet is seen from space as a highly variable emitter of infrared energy. It is amazing to watch the effect of the formation and dissipation of clouds in this respect.
This file is a gif animation of the GOES-EAST band 16 visualization for 8 hours today, for the CONUS region. Band 16 is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, so it is called the “CO2” band. I have been posting comments at WUWT about these visualizations for a few months now.
This time, I would like to emphasize what happens in a particular location when convective weather emerges. Watch Florida. In respect to this band of wavelengths, the emitter is effectively shut down to a low output while the storms are actively performing their cooling duty between the surface and the cloud tops. So I think of this phenomenon as a semiconductor-controlled emergent event. The totalized result over the surface and over time, especially in and near the tropics, is the composite of a huge number of amazingly powerful switched (nearly on-off) events. Strong outgoing longwave emission earlier in the day is deactivated while water is removed at very high rates and the dry air carrier fluid is flipped bottom to top.
The visualization color scale is such that a radiance value at 50C (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white).
I invite comments.
(to view, you might need to download and open it with your default photo and image viewer. However, I just clicked on it and it eventually loaded and played in the browser.)
And of course, the entire image shows that describing the atmosphere as a passive radiative “trap” between the surface and space is an incomplete and misleading concept.
When combined with weather radar, you can see the match between the two, not only in FL, but
also over Lake Superior down into Michigan. At the end, the small area S of New Orleans that pops
up corresponds to returns. Neat!
Exactly. I also like this particular radar summary linked below because it shows precipitation top altitudes and the locations where hail is likely. This is to make the point that the atmosphere operates as a solar-powered localized refrigerator to drive updrafts and make ice.
Thanks again. It hit 93°F today & unfortunately, I didn’t have a plane to take me up to
the top of the ice makers @ FL550! 😉
David says:”Band 16 is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, so it is called the “CO2” band.”
Any reason 13.3 microns rather than 15 microns? We have all seen the graphs, charts, tables showing CO2 having three absorption lines with 15 being the main one. 13.3 would only show if there was broadening effect so would be a minor player.
Please see the NOAA description at this link. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band16.pdf
Also please see the image attached here. This is simply the difference in transmittance by wavelength, between two cases using the online Modtran model by the University of Chicago. U.S. 1976 standard atmosphere, 280 ppm CO2 vs. 560 ppm, no clouds or rain, 288K, no altitude offset. The only difference between the two cases is CO2 – higher transmittance at lower concentration. So this is the static effect in the modeled standard atmosphere, in which water vapor is present. The end result is no difference in transmittance at 15 microns; the greatest differences are between about 13 and 13.5 microns. Is it a coincidence that band 16 is also centered at 13.3 microns for its usefulness by NOAA for weather and cloud top imaging? I don’t know.
I remember a comment from Carl Sagan, he was talking about a small asteroid impact triggering a nuclear war.
Watching the climate alarmist politicians and activist’s and what they want to do to combat climate change, his comment still rings true: A perfectly natural event and humanity’s response, suicide.
For old times sake (I remember when his was helping refute the climate scare) I check with Lubos Motl over at The Reference Frame to see what he has going on. Lately his blog redirects to somewhere else but does not appear. Does anyone know if he is doing okay?
I did a search for Lubos Motl and found this on Wikipedia so there is a bias in what they say but the your answer is likely the last sentence.
“Motl writes a science and politics blog called “The Reference Frame: Supersymmetric world from a conservative viewpoint”, in which he expresses his scientific and right-wing political opinions, including invective as well as personal insults. The blog has been described by George Musser as an “over-the-top” defense of string theory, defining one of the extremes of scientific opinions on that topic, with the other extreme being represented by Peter Woit. Following the example of Oriana Fallaci, Motl characterizes himself as a Christian atheist. He also describes himself as a “champion of the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics“, and has strongly criticised Erik Verlinde‘s entropic gravity theory. As of April 2022, Motl abolished the blog citing censorship pressures and general dissatisfaction.“
I was a bit worried about his health. I guess the abuse would eventually wear anyone down. I’m sometimes surprised that Anthony has been able to keep at it.
Finally, a sound way to assess the storage needed to make solar and wind reliable.
Breakthrough in U.S. grid storage estimating
By David Wojick
The beginning: “Regular readers know I have been writing about the astronomical cost of energy storage required to make solar and wind (SAW) power reliable. I have published some simple engineering analyses showing that short term intermittency, a few cloudy or low wind days, requires a huge amount of storage.
Now we have a wonderful analysis of the long term storage requirements for making solar and wind reliable. As expected the numbers are enormous. They are also precise.
The study is “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.” by engineer Ken Gregory. See https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2021/12/21/the-cost-of-net-zero-electrification-of-the-u-s-a/amp/.
As the title says, Gregory’s study focuses on net zero electrification, which is not my focus here. His very first step is to analyze what storage would be required to simply meet today’s electric power needs using SAW instead of fossil fuels. This simple analysis is the big breakthru.”
Lots more explanation in the article. His baseline figure for US storage is around 250,000,000 MWh. Truly astronomical!
Thanks for sharing the update!
1) From the CFACT 6/16 article- “this is just an eighth or 12.5% of the total amount of electricity needed from SAW”
Correct me if I’m wrong- When dividing the 3B MWh by 250M MWh, I get a factor of 12 or 8.33%.
In this article, you roughly estimated it would take 200 GWh storage per 1GW constant usage to get
reliable solar through a continuous 5-dark-day period. This cost $50B for storage alone. If I
calculated it correctly, Gregory says we need 730 GWh storage for 1 GW constant usage, about 3.5
times your estimate for solar alone- ~$180B for 1GW reliable RE. That’s ~$60T to back up the 342.5
GW continuous usage needed to use 3B MWh/yr. More than astronomical!
(250M MWh)/[(3B MWh/yr)/(8760 hrs/yr)] = 730 GWh storage for 1 GW constant usage.
3) Since electric power company boards & officers are fiduciarily responsible for managing risk, I
would think this would be of high interest to them either as providers of RE or competing with those
who do supply RE.
So the only way to have a reliable so-called renewable green energy grid is to use nuclear greenies have to embrace nuclear or they are hypocrites and liars about caring for the environment.
Delicious! Greenies have to hid reactors as well as trees. Karma!
Greenies have to hug reactors as well as trees.
It’s a good article on an important subject but …
The study is not based on detailed project assumptions
for each electric utility involved. There is only a Nut Zero
vision and arbitrary completion dates (2030 and 2050).
There is no successful pilot project to prove feasibility.
Worst case weather conditions are needed
over a long period of time — not a year or two
— perhaps 50 years, plus some safety margin.
And then you have unknown increased electricity demand
for electric vehicles, electric appliances and more electric heating.
The result could be a Nut Zero cost estimate
with a +/- 50% margin of error,
like the ECS estimate.
Another variable is the cost of lithium
which will have demand exceeding supply
in the future for those already expensive batteries.
The cost of Nut Zero is impossible to know.
But we do know early estimates of battery needs
are unreasonably low (to keep costs down).
I would like everyone to consider that Nut Zero was designed to fail.
Nur Zero falling behind schedule will soon be spun as a new “crisis”.
And leftists love crises — the more crises, the happier they are!
And while leftists have us arguing about Nut Zero costs, battery needs,
and timing, we may forget the primary concern: There is no climate
crisis that requires a Nut Zero project.
China, India, Russia, and every undeveloped nation
could not care less about Nut Zero.
That guarantees failure of the Nut Zero project
… which was not needed in the first place.
The IEA recently said the cost of lithium has increased by almost 750% since January 2021.
Correct on all points – you’re preaching to the choir here. But even with these rough initial estimates that the government either never bothered to do itself or is hiding, anyone logical and reasonable would be having a lightbulb moment when they realize that anything like the energy transition just can’t be done.
Certainly it is also criminally negligent to force closures of fuelled power when it’s obvious there isn’t enough back-up energy storage.
The green transition is obviously a plan concocted by the warmunists not by capable engineers, though really not a plan, just a daydream – but it is sold to supporters as something real and certainly the turbine and panel producers won’t point out the issue. In a way, the producers are selling power not energy – they deal in nameplate full output power, whereas the total energy received is up to the customer, where it is placed and how it’s maintained, and storage of off-peak energy is the customer responsibility.
All the contracts negotiated with green energy farms should have required storage or some other mechanisms to make up for the erratic energy production and it’s disastrous effect on wholesale power rates that drive out reliable power plants.
There are leftist engineers and scientists.
They have to know Nut Zero is a project so complex, with so little planning. that it will fail. But they keep quiet — that is the leftist way.
Since Nut Zero failure is obvious, there must be a reason to continue Nut Zero that does not require success. In my opinion, leftists love to tell everyone what to do, spurred on by a fake climate crisis, and they don’t care if Nut Zero succeeds … because falling behind “schedule” will be spun as a new crisis.
And eventually the next big project will be
the “Repair the Electric Grid Project”.
And leftists will want to be in charge of that too.
Leftists ruin everything they touch.
The electric grid will not be an exception.
To think like a leftist, I delete reason and
accountability, and then fall down and
bang my head on the floor. While still dizzy,
I can think like a leftist.
Happy Father’s Day!
Since this an Open Thread, I would like to introduce the cause of La Ninas and El Ninos as a topic for discussion, since they have such a profound effect upon Earth’s temperatures.
For my take as to their cause, I am attaching a graph which, I believe, proves that they are primarily caused by the volcanic injection of SO2 aerosols into the Stratosphere, from VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions. An eruption initially causes a temperature decrease, with the maximum cooling occurring, on average, 16 months after the date of the eruption, often resulting in a La Nina,
These aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, and temperatures return to normal, or a bit higher, because of the less polluted air, usually causing an El Nino.
The graph spans the years 1950-2020, and identifies each volcanic eruption that occurred during that time period, and its close association with the onset of La Ninas and El Ninos.
In two instances, an El Nino occurred when there were 5 years, or more, between eruptions (as also occurred several times between 1850 and 1950). This could only have occurred due to a thorough removal of SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere, and is an example of what will happen if the burning of fossil fuels is eliminated, except for higher ensuing temperatures…
One shouldn’t expect that hydrocarbon energy will be abandoned anytime soon. In any case, your graphic could use some improvement to make it more legible.
“HadCrut4”. What more do you need to know? It doesn’t represent reality.
Such an important topic. I had hoped for more of a critique!
Your data correlates with a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick “temperature” chart.
What does that say about your data?
Correlate your data with this chart:
My graph is simply a plot of volcanic eruptions and their correlations with La Ninas and El Ninos. No temperatures involved, just a plot of when the temperature changes occurred…
Open thread? Well here is a wild one for all of you thinkers. I have thought about describing this incident before, but I always hestitated in presenting such an idea here on this site. I know that there are many good minds who comment here. Here is a puzzle for you to contemplate.
In the spring of 1966 my brother and I sat down across from each other in our bedroom and started another session of attempting to communicate between our minds. We had been involved in such mental/mystical exercises for the previous 3 years, and we had had success along the way which drove us to continue on with this endeavour.
The setup was as such. We sat crosslegged on the floor with our backs to our beds (about 7 feet apart), and we had a small vase with a small red light sitting on the floor between us as a focal point to concentrate and direct our minds/thoughts on. My brother had taken a 250 mcg dose of Sandoz Lsd 25, a quarter of the pill. That dose was only enough for him, but I talked him into giving me a tiny piece. So I only took about 15 to 25 mcg of the drug. And away we went on our inner experiment.
We started out by conversing about what our goals were to be, and through this conversation we started building connections between ourselves. The process was that we would connect through verbal communication for a time, and then we would go silent while focusing on the red light emanating from the vase which sat between us, basically an intense concentrated meditation.
As time passed we went in and out of this verbal/silent exercise a number of times with increasing success. We were making connections, and we knew that without the shadow of a doubt. It was getting exciting for both of us. As time passed our period of focusing on the light started producing dramatic results. Our conversations in between the focused periods saw us starting to connect in conversation as if we were of one single mind. Around then this pattern of conversation changed to where words were not always needed, and we eventually reached a point where we could share entire ideas in a single moment. No spoken words necessary.
Around this time we had reached a point where when we ended our direct communication and went to focus the entire room would instantly disappear into blackness with the only light being 4 red beams emanating from the shaped vase. When we broke the focus our softly lit room reappeared, and we would share our growing understandings. Our younger brother was asleep in the far corner of the room. At this time the higher energy levels started affecting him. I could see him from where I sat. At one point he started tossing and turning, and in his sleep he cried out “What are you guys doing”. Then he stopped moving after that, and he never moved again for the rest of the evening.
Also at this same time a young cat which I had taken in started being obviuosly affected by our mental exercise. When we entered our focus state the cat would lay over on his side wherever he was at in the large rumpus room. The cat would get up after we left the focus state. By now our level of communication between us was extraordinary, and the air in the room could have been cut with a knife. And that is when the great catastrophe occurred.
We had come out of the focus state and into the light of our room. Both of us were in a state approaching ectasy from the exercise. We both simultaneously communicated that “This was it” in perfect synchronicity with each other. We stood at the doorway of the unimaginable, and when we entered into the next focus state we knew that we would enter into the miraculous.
So we entered into what would soon become the end of this experiment. We wnet into focus. The room immediately faded to pitch black and red beams. The beams of red light then formed into tunnels for each of us. Each of us had a red tunnel that connected from our foreheads down to the center where the light emanated from. Then the miraculous/impossible took place. I remember stepping into my tunnel. As I did so I could see the other tunnel going up to where my brother was, and then my brother stepped into his tunnel. And for the first time in my life at the age of 16 years I was seeing my real brother for the first time. There are no words for that. We started walking down the tunnel to reach the center, and so meet one another for the first time as aware beings. Then there was a sound.
My young cat had gotten up on my dresser during our last communicative state, and was nosing around the remains of a strawberry milkshake which I had brought home after closing our store in North Beach. I had made a chocolate milkshake for my brother and burgers for both of us before coming home that night. The cat was after the milkshake on top of the dresser as we entered into this last focus state. The intensity of this final focus state caused the cat to black out. He knocked over the milkshake and fell off of the dresser upside down, and onto the bed behind where I was sitting. That noise shattered our red tunnels. Here is exactly what happened next.
The tunnels shattered. I was then looking at my brother slamming backwards into his bed with a frightened look on his face as he then flew across the floor space towards me. He had been sitting slightly hunched forward. I had been sitting with my back against my bed. So I shot up from my crosslegged position like a cork, and flew over my bed to land on the floor on the other side of the bed with my legs dangling on the bed. Somehow I saw the cat falling down to the bed. This was either by looking through my brother’s eyes, or I could see the cat as I was being slammed back into my body.
We were both passed out for some time. We came to and immediately started organizing the room. The cat got up and ran off into the garage. Then we looked at each other, undressed, got into our beds with out saying one word, and turned off the lights.
The 64,000 dollar question times 1,000,000 is where did that energy come from that threw our bodies around the room from a crosslegged seated position????????????
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I would take a polygraph test on the above comment that that was exactly what took place that night. The tiny amount of Sandoz that I took that night was not enough to get high on. I was 100% there and aware of everything that happened on that night. I suppose that I was a bit extra aware because of that tiny fraction of the drug in my system, but there was nothing psychedilec about the experience for me that night.
How about a drug test?
I still smoke a bit of weed in the evening. It helps me maintain my blood pressure.
1. The events you report actually happened.
2. Those events violated laws (or yet-to-be-disproved theorems) of physics.
The cause is not a natural one.
The only 2 supernatural causes are:
1. God (or an agent of God, i.e., an angel)
2. Satan (or an agent of Satan, i.e., a demon)
Therefore, it was cause 1 or cause 2.
Which was it? I don’t know.
Because your experiment involved drugs, my guess is it was the latter.
Praying for you…..
in Jesus’ name.
The events occurred as stated. Keep in mind though that the tiny dose which I took did not impair me in any way. They actually work as I described above to slightly enhance the brain. Here is a good read on that subject. … https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-microdoses-of-lsd-change-your-mind/
Also, I understand why you would think that it was either 1 or 2. Imo, it was a completely natural mystical experience, natural especially to me. Everything that happened in our metaphysical experimenation was due to that which is hidden in me. I was the key to opening such a door. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt That there is much more to us than just flesh and blood. At the end of 1966 the Holy Spirit came into my room one night in answer to my many prayers requesting wisdom and faith. That incredible experience forever changed me. Although instead of receiving faith I received the gift of not needing faith to know that God was real.
How would you know that you were impaired if you were impaired? It would take an objective outside observer to evaluate your state of mind.
I was always a very objective minded person. I still am to this day. I had taken Lsd one time prior to the experience I described above. That was a powerful dose of 250mcg.The Sandoz pills were 1000mcg.
That was a real trip with strong visual hallucinations. Yet I was still able to remember where I was and who I was. The micro dose experience had none of the effects which would have come from taking a full dose. That is why I remember the entire experience so clearly. Although I also remember most of what took place when I took the full dose in 1965. My brother, for example, can not recall the incident due to the strong dose, and the differences in our mental makeup.
That is why I remember the entire experience so clearly.
Have you heard about people who ‘remember’ things that never happened? You think you remember what happened, but you have no corroborating evidence such as a video or a third-person observation. So, I ask you again, “How would you know that you were impaired or not if you were impaired?” I think that you are fooling yourself. If you were asked to testify under oath about what happened, even if the judge were to allow your testimony as admissible, I doubt than any jury would find your testimony to be compelling.
Remember Carl Sagan’s warning: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Uncorroborated personal recollections, while you may have been impaired, don’t count as being “extraordinary evidence.”
I understand your position. Obviously I have no evidence for such a claim. I do have some unusual attributes. A number of people have noticed that they can sense me, for example, when I enter a room.
I fully understand how ridiculous my claim would be to those who read here. I stand by every word though. I am going to dedicate time to exploring the answer to the question which I posed at the end. What force threw our bodies across the room. That happened beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Well, as both are inventions of Man (not Woman), take your pick.
Janice takes this in another direction from what I intended. The experience described by me was not a religious experience in any respect. I was built to do such things.
The unfortunate ending of that experiment was quadrupled when shortly after it occurred my brother fled to Spain to avoid Vietnam. That upended my world. My brother and I were called “the other set of twins”. If my brother had not left, then I may have been able to “awaken” in the late 1960s. My grades went downhill as a result. Yet I still scored in the top 5% of the nation on my SAT in 1968, and I scored 155 on my IQ test in the same year.
“ I scored 155 on my IQ test in the same year.”
What happened since then?
Your experience shows that there are unknowns associated with reality. I wonder if there are others with outre experiences.
A few of mine:
Our washing machine is in our basement, and my wife was taking a basket of clothes across the floor when she yelled “I can’t move” She had run into a soft, invisible barrier that stopped her.. I ran down the stairs, but the barrier was gone by the time that I arrived. The only thing amiss that we could find was a single loud “click” in mid-air.
On another occasion, on a clear night, we had just gone to bed when a flash of bright light filled our room. We had no idea where it came from, but that nigh, for the first time, a touch lamp (capacitance activated) in an adjacent room turned itself on. This happened the next night, the night before we left on vacation, and when we returned it was on again, at its highest level, having been activated 3 more times. From time to time, over the years,other periods of activation have occurred, as if we were being visited.
I have a stamp collection, and I was .trying to complete a mounted set of Canadian postage due stamps, I finally found the elusive stamp that I was seeking, but when I went to the album to mount it, all of the spaces for the set were empty, with no traces of any mounting adhesive. Where did they go? .
My home was built in 1955, with a 5 inch poured concrete floor, painted, and later, floored with vinyl tiles. About 15 years ago, I discovered an area where a clear liquid was oozing up through the cement and vinyl tile that I could not evaporate with a heat gun, I have since put down ceramic tiles, and the grout in that area is now discolored by something oozing into it, also unaffected by a heat gun.. Other similar areas are now appearing, and grout from the most recent area has been submitted to a college chemistry lab for analysis. Weird stuff
I could go on and on. One night I was awakened by the sound of people talking in rapid, high-pitched voices that I could not understand. And another night, by the sound of an electrical generator winding down.
Anyone else with unexplainable happenings?
Mr. minor: Obviously, the energy came from the sun. A guy named Svaalgard will tell you I’m wrong.
Mr. Henry: I’ve got a happening that defies explanation for you. I live in the most free, prosperous and developed nation in the history of earth. Something has brought on madness across large swaths of people, causing them to toss aside the prosperity on the basis of a theory advanced by enviro “scientists”. Could it be the sun??!! MR. Svaalgard will tell you I’m wrong again, but SOMETHING has brought on group madness in the west.
Use of LSD makes analysis a little problematic.
I think there is something to people communicating with each other “under the verbal radar”, but not like the experience you describe. I’m thinking of an example where one twin hurts themselves and the other twin knows immediately something is wrong with the other without being told. I think this twin experience is a common occurrence, at least among twins I’ve talked to.
But you are describing an elaborate “mind meld” for which I have no explanation.
Adrenaline can cause the body to be able to do extraordinary things under stress.
I had thought about leaving out the lsd part when I wrote that comment because I knew how that would color the comment, but I am too honest a person, and I wanted to share the main thought “Where did the energy come from”. That question only popped into my head just last year, 55 years after the incident. I had never considered the concept before. I did not make the comment to highlight the mysteries of the mind.
Super Carrington Events, about 100 x Carrington; 3 in last 10,000 years according to multiple authors using tree ring proxies. No idea how good the science is. Skip about the first 7 minutes, unless you want a review of standard flares: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXstRq3vius
I ocassionally watch TVL channel about hunting for Bigfoot. It kind of takes my mind of serious stuff. But there was a recent episode that claimed Bigfoot can cloak themselves, which is why there are never any good pictures. Sanity has surely left the building.
Apparently, Sandoz LSD works wonders.
Is it the third ‘supernatural’?
Tom, if Bigfoot can cloak themselves, wouldn’t it make sense to search for Bigfoot in the cloakroom?
Perhaps clues will be found in the clues closet?
I believe that Joe Biden will go down as one of the most successful American presidents. I believe the New Green Deal is not about the weather but is about destroying the western economy. The open borders, windmills and solar panels, the energy regulations, no bail, turn criminal loose, etc. are all intended to bankrupt us, cripple and destroy the U.S way of life.
I also believe that China is involved. The pouring in of fentanyl is part of the plan. Create a large number of drug dependent citizens which will be a perpetual burden. China could stop it if they wanted to.
From my point of view Joe Biden has been unbelievably successful. I am not being sarcastic.
Yes, if one measures success by the Chinese metric of U.S.A. destruction.
America is China’s biggest customer. How would destroying its economy benefit China?
Are you implying that there is logic being exercised by either one?
Like Obama, Joe is destroying the Dem party.
And Dem party had been an important political party of the US for over two centuries.
Obama, Joe and both Clintons didn’t get there without the support of whoever/whatever ideology is now running the Democratic party.
Most Dem voters have been duped.
I wonder how many Australian advocates of wind and solar energy systems to supply the electricity grid are aware of all of the costs involved?
* Original installation of wind and/or solar plus firming back up equipment and transmission line.
* Removal and replacement of wind or solar equipment at around every twenty years of operation.
*Incentive subsidies to wind and solar installation private sector owners for profit.
*Losses on State owned public assets, power stations and transmission lines privatised.
They don’t care about all the details and costs, the physics of it all or if it will even work – that’s to much detail.
All the activists know is that their leaders said fossil fuel has the cooties and that’s good enough for them to go on their jihad.
Engineering departments /community councils.
My question is, if all housing blocks are raised by 1 mtr to evade future flooding in current flood effected areas with no alteration to drainage or escape routes,what happens to water levels on my unfilled block?
Would I have a legal claim against Council if water levels increased on my block.
If they didn’t consult engineers to do it properly then probably, yes. However they are probably not quite that stupid.
There is a fundamental question to be asked and answered before any further commitment is made to act on Climate Alarmism.
Are Man-made CO2 emissions a future problem for the Climate at all ??
Compared to water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere, CO2 is a minor Greenhouse gas, only contributing ~5-10% of the warming of the Greenhouse Effect. And as CO2 concentration increases its warming effect diminishes. There are cogent technical reasons why the warming effectiveness of CO2 has diminished radically as its concentration has increased. At the current concentration of CO2 of ~410parts / million in the atmosphere the warming effectiveness of CO2’s is almost saturated. Whatever the scale of any future Man-made CO2 emissions, those CO2 emissions can have very little warming effect.
On the other hand, higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are already having massive positive effects on plant growth Worldwide.
Beyond the “developed” Western world, all other Nations fully understand this and dismiss the fallacy of CO2 pollution. They have no interest in holding back their advancing well-being trying to control what they recognise as a non-problem. So, they will continue to develop based on the use of their indigenous fossil fuels and emit whatever CO2 results.
In the expectation that Weather Dependent power generation technologies would reduce emissions of Man-made CO2, the Western policy to combat “Climate Change / Global Warming / Net Zero / ESG (Environment Social and Governance)” is still to install, heavily subsidise and give massive preferential legal support to Weather-Dependent “Renewable” Wind and Solar power for power generation. But the UK only produces ~1% and EU ~7.6% of World CO2 emissions.
The Productivity of Weather-Dependent power generation is crucial when comparing the cost of providing the equivalent level of power to the Grid, as provided by conventional power generation technologies.
Measured productivity over the past 10 years has in Europe has been:
· Onshore wind power 22.5%
· Offshore wind power 32.7%
· Solar PV on grid 11.6%
· Weather-Dependent generation in Europe overall 18.7%.
Whereas, conventional power generation working 24/7 performs at ~90% productivity, just accounting for normal maintenance.
Solar and Wind power technologies are mature, very little further performance improvement can be expected from them: their productivity is now primarily limited by immutable laws of physics.
Conventional power generation operates 24/7 or at ~90% productivity, accounting just for normal maintenance.
When these productivity values are combined with the capital and long-term costs as assessed by the US EIA in 2022, their comparative results are:
· Onshore Wind power provision is ~8-9 times the cost of Gas-firing
· Offshore Wind power is ~16-25 times the cost of Gas-firing.
· Solar power provision is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing
Would anyone sane buy a car costing 8 – 25 times the normal price that only works one day in five, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is used to power the whole economy.
The resulting excess expenditures across Europe compared to using Gas-firing for power generation and thus the direct fiscal damage that has already been caused particularly by the obstruction of Fracking in Europe at the current level of mandated of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” can be estimated at:
· in capital costs ~630 € billion
· in long-term costs over a 40-year service life ~2,040 € billion.
It is fruitless to continue with more massive excess expenditures to avert minor warming in the distant future. There will always be occasions, whatever the escalated growth of future Weather-Dependent installations, their power output will be virtually nil for Wind power in still Weather and nil for Solar power at night and on cloudy days in winter.
I have to agree with you edmh.
We are in for a rough ride untill the populations of the free world wake up and demand their governments to supply cheap reliable energy .
Our modern civilization depends on plentiful energy to feed ,house ,educate and clothe our populations .
I was brought up on a mountain farm without electricity .
I challenge any green leaning person to go and live without electric power and bring up a family .
No refrigerator .No washing machine .Wood burning fires for cooking, heating and hot water .
The cooking stove had a wetback to heat the water and was kept burning for months on end .
All fire wood was cut by hand .We were luckier than most as we had lighting powered by a 12 volt battery charged by a tiny windmill.
No insulation or double glazing and we got regular snow storms during the winter but the snow did not stay around for long .
We are heading for high inflation and basic food shortages around the world .
What I see is that many governments are incompetent in the way they are running their countries.
They are sleep walking towards disaster and will blame every one else but themselves .
They are elected to look after their population and ensure that they have adequate electricity and fuel at reasonable cost .
.They are there to make sure there is adequate food at a reasonable cost for every one
They have to make sure that they are encouraging employment and there are jobs for every one that is willing and able to work .
It goes without saying that governments provide health care and education .
They have to maintain and renew infrastructure , roads, railways power lines and many other tasks such as maintaining a police and defense force .
What are many governments doing?
NOT MUCH AT ALL.
Trying to go carbon neutral ,destroying their industry ,trying to look good to the UN .
Closing down power stations and generally doing very little for their people .
As I have said many times.
IF THERE REALLY WAS A PROBLEM WITH COAL AND GAS FIRED POWER GENERATORS WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT ADVOCATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS .
The answer is obvious .They believe that the world should use a lot less energy and every one ( except those at the top ) should live much simpler lives
Bishop Hill, I have seen your hill. Alas after East Lomond and West Lomond from Falkland, it was a hill too far.
According to the internet there are roughly 276 million cars and if the commiecrats are successful in making all of us convert to electric vehicles, and Joe has stated he will build 500,000 charging stations that would be 55 vehicles per station requiring at least 30 minutes to recharge to minimum 100 miles, I can only imagine the waiting lines to charge, and then as was stated here on WUWT imagine what happens during blocked traffic such as a snow storm or large vehicle accident on the freeway.
Slo Joe doesn’t care – after suggesting people JUST run out and buy a new expensive EV because of high gasoline prices, he and his administration will JUST suggest that people JUST install home chargers. And if they want higher capacity/quicker charging, then they JUST upgrade their feed from the utility, or JUST install solar panels, or JUST install their own battery backup.
And hence we get the JUST energy transition.
Things NASA climate scientists say: This post was a gem. Only a “scientist” would feel they have the ‘authority’, (or righteous enough) to be transparent about their radical beliefs and motivations. Exposing the beliefs and motivations of radical environmentalists and their vision for humanity and civilization as a whole is an important pubic service. We need to know just how serious they are and the cacotopia they are aiming at. A deep dive into their system of thought and psychology would also be helpful. Shared delusion seems to be one of the more prominent advancing psychopathologies of our day..
This transcript of a video is a door to a perspective on our age that I think is helpful.
It starts with fear…Even fear mongering itself induces fear by it’s shear organized force….like a Balrog rising from the deep.
Is there massive happiness drugging going on in the US?
Look at this fool (was he recently promoted to the small list of heavily retweeted and promoted liberal twitter acounts?)
He isn’t well, but he seems happy. Too happy.
And many pundits are too happy when they appear on TV and give terrible (fake) news. If they aren’t taking happiness drugs, then what?
It’s obvious, in your face (it’s literally in their face) obvious; I rarely see that in other countries.
You don’t see that with the populists like Alex Jones. He doesn’t look like he just won the lottery. in each and every video (actually, he looks like that in zero video I know about).
Nearly all liberals and many establishment conservative do look like that.
If happiness pills are widely used in the US, it could explain stuff.