The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Happy July 4th everyone.
Near Chicago, a shooting during a July 4th parade leaves at least six dead.
Why did you link to Le Monde rather than the Trib, which is actually covering the story?
Really Binturd? You’re calling attention to the incompetent communist who runs Chicago? Don’t you know she’s a double-protected class?
It’s not Chicago.
Yeah, in Chicago six dead on a holiday weekend would not be noteworthy.
So far this weekend, nine have been killed in Chicago and 57 wounded.
The chief suspect drives a Honda Fit, looks like Antifa, most likely is very leftist.
according to UK papers suspect was someone who attended the Trump rally dressed as ‘Waldo’
Chicago shooting suspect Robert E Crimo III is rapper called ‘Awake’ with 16000 listeners on Spotify | Daily Mail Online
For some reason my comment went into moderation and has disappeared. I wonder what caused that? Maybe calling the little twerp a w@nker?
This lightweight shows up at a Trump rally dressed as Waldo. The benighted left-wing press doesn’t get the joke.
TDS is a serious disability.
Why the excitement? Over Memorial Day there were 48 people shot.
People use mass murders as evidence to support gun control. Well, historically before guns, there were mass murderers who make the modern shooters look like pikers. link
As far as I can tell, the fact modern democracy started in England was that the people were armed and had, therefore, to be treated with respect. At various times, every Englishman had to train in archery. It gave English armies a strong advantage on Medieval battlefields. Of course, it made it harder for the lords to subjugate the masses.
There’s a lot to be said for a well ordered militia. 🙂
Truth in Gun Violence:
Nice link, thank you.
Notably missing from your link are numerous instances of arson that resulted in something like 100 deaths for each instance. I didn’t see Timothy McVeigh’s name in the list.
Le Monde is a French Graun, without the (traces of) integrity
One mass shooting every week this year in the USA…
Sadly a shooting in Denmark too – this being the first there since 2007.
And this one appears to be of your ideological bent, a leftist.
Most of those shootings are gang-related in cities with drug trafficking.
This 4th would have been a lot happier without the shooting up of a 4th July parade in Highland Park, a fairly wealthy and very liberal and heavily Jewish northern suburb of Chicago. 6 dead and 24 wounded. Probably domestic terrorism.
They have not yet caught the perp, but have his description and the rifle he left on the rooftop from which his assault took place. Highland Park has an ordinance prohibiting assult rifles and magazines larger than 10 rounds. This one was 30 rounds. Fat lot of good such local abridgements of the second amendment do.
Like when it has become patently obvious that wind & solar will never suffice to provide utility scale electricity needs, but the proponents illogically want more of it, it’s equally patently obvious that more guns laws will never suffice to curb criminals using illegally-obtained guns to kill people with.
I’ve heard that advanced arms like the Lockeed-Raytheon javelins that were sent to Ukraine are now available for sale on the “dark web.” It seems that Ukraine is a great place not only for money laundering.
I’m trying to decide if it would be cost effective for the U.S. government to purchase these as they’re about 1/10th their original cost.
There’s footage of alleged Russian soldiers with supposedly captured Javelins.
The Trump Administration was reluctant to let Ukraine have them for fear of their sale to or capture by Russia.
Ukraine makes decent ATGMs but not enough of them.
I am not so concerned. Russia cannot reverse engineer them (insufficient microelectronics capacity) and even if they have captured a few, a few cannot win a war against NATO. From what I read, Ukraine has been using them quite effectively against even the most modern Russian tanks and APCs.
Russian tanks have a serious design flaw. They store ammo in the turret rather than in a bustle outside it. Also below the turret in a carousel for the auto-loaded 125mm cannon.
Thus the turrets often lollipop when blown off, landing barrel down and sticking up out of the ground.
Russia is getting Taiwanese microchips from China.
Javelin and NLAW are overkill on APCs and IFVs, but they do use them when cheap, unguided rockets or recoilless rifles aren’t available or lack range. Even an RPG can knock out an APC.
The USSR and Russia have a long history of copying Western missiles, to include ATGMs.
Russian tanks have a serious design flaw.
It’s a trade-off. Having the ammunition close to the gun gives a much greater rate of fire.
In WW2, Sherman tanks were called Ronsons because they were notorious for catching fire. The infantry generals loved them though, because they were very effective for their intended role, which wasn’t taking on other tanks.
Our bustle design gives rapid access as well. The blast doors shut as soon as a round is extracted from stowage.
The history of underestimating Russia is a long one by those otherwise able to conquer the mightiest. It’s easy to send loads of weapons to a country that’s not much of a match for the invaders, but I don’t see any apetite by the arms suppliers to join the fight. They may have been able help with furious resolve at the outset but they tipped their hands early that they weren’t going to go into the actual battle.
Trump reversed Obama’s ban in 2018 and started selling Javelins to Ukraine, with promises of strict oversight. But some were sure to end up on the black market.
Ukraine is less corrupt than Russia, and improving, but still not as trustworthy as NATO allies and Israel, which have illegally transferred technology. But so too then did the Clintons.
What was Obama doing in Ukraine 😉
Ukraine is only less corrupt than Russia because they have less money. Frankly they learned the worst possible lessons from Soviet occupation and are still practicing them.
Ukraine cracked down on military corruption after 2014, out of necessity. Before that, money appropriated for tanks was simply stolen, for instance.
I have missed the Javelins play with by Russians, but I have seen the (French) MILAN tested by Russians in Ukraine (impossible to verify when and where that was filmed).
Of course MILAN isn’t exactly the state of the art latest anti tank fad. Russians probably had play with those already.
The French were very generous with the MILAN and it was even sold to regimes that weren’t exactly allied with the West, including Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
It’s a well known fact (should be known by all US debaters of gun control or gun rights) that the fall of Yugoslavia made available the firearms all over continental Europe.
If the US liberals really were European fans and even Europe interested, they would have known that undebated fact.
But they know nothing about Europe.
A number of 1990’s Chicago Bulls lived there, including Michael and Scottie. Dunno if they still do.
Also some Bears.
Since I lived in central Winnetka (two towns south of Highland Park) for many years, know the place well.Had Mot business colleagues who lived there. Michael’s 18? acre estate was technically, but not really, in Highland Park. He was out west near I95 in the ‘rural’ western unincorporated part of the township that mostly lies along Lake Michigan south of the Navy base. That is why it did not sell for many years after his divorce. Too remote to the Highland Park town center amenities. People with that kind of money buy mansions on or close to the lake in Glencoe and Winnetka, both closer to Chicago.
I assume MJ spends most of his time in NC and FL now, even if he still maintains a residence in the Chicago area.
His second wife is Cuban-American, so Jupiter Island is probably his primary residence.
Many years ago I was working for a national alarm monitoring company in the Sarasota Fl office. I was in the UL section, a special section that had two experienced monitors and we only answered special hazmat alarms. The companies that paid for that special coverage conformed to UL standards and got a discount on their insurance. We also had the MJ account phone that went directly to his estate (it was actually a red phone). Everything there was wired; doors, windows, even the trophy cases. As such, there were quite a few times when the alarm was set off. I spoke with Jaunita on many occasions. She had two pass words, one for “All OK” and one for “under duress”. It was an interesting job.
Highland Park gets a lot of attention because it is a wealthy white suburb. Probably the smallest home sells for $300,000+. The area is also about 30% Jewish which might be connected to the shootings.
My next door neighbor had ad news at a July 3 pool party at the nearby wife’s brother’s home. He (71 years old and apparently healthy) dove into his pool and had a fatal heart attack in front of all the guests including lots of children. That was the first clue he had heart problems. It turned out he was the type of guy who avoided doctors.
A decade ago, a friend in his 50’s discovered his heart disease with a fatal heart attack. Had no clue his arteries were in such bad shape. Also a doctor avoider. I guess there is a lesson to be learned here.
Sorry for the depressing comment.
My neighbor got us depressed too.
Many times you do not know about heart disease until it is too late. I am a lucky one. Having had a positive TB test, I was getting chest x-rays annually. Two years ago a small spot was noticed so they did a CT scan. That small spot was nothing but the CT did show an ascending aortic aneurysm at 4.5 cm. I have no idea how long I have had that or if it was something recent. I have had three 6 month follow ups and it appears to be stable. However, I do have some restrictions on activities. Had that not happened, I may have done something to make it burst (called dissection) and would have died immediately. Sometimes one test discovers another problem. Certainly a lesson learned.
246 years of independence are more than enough. Prince Harry, duke of California, has already taken strategic position..
He and Meghan are not aging well here despite all their efforts.
You can shit on the sidewalk in LA and SF.
They have a turd finder app…what does that tell us?
I would rather avoid them, not find them. 🙂
“They have a turd finder app…”
Handy if you want to polish one !!!
Easy enough to find, there are a bunch in the WH and on the J6 committee.
For those (at least in the US) who have not yet done so, please go reread the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson, which signing this day celebrates. Puts things into perspective.
At my Wisconsin dairy farm, we used to celebrate it when the kids were young by firing off my 4 muzzle loaded rifles (without balls, of course, just greased wads over some extra tamped powder). That’s how it was done originally in the US.
18th century America had public fireworks displays, as well.
True, but my dairy farm is still very rural, like most of settled America was then. (By contemporary metrics, the nearest Walmart is still 20 road miles away in the county seat of Dodgeville.) So we celebrated like most early Americans, not those then few in Philly, NYC, and Boston. And both my kids learned the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg address before they left elementary school.
I celebrated with a shotgun in rural Oregon.
I had no idea that you, Rud, are a Sconnie. I live, have lived on Washington Island for some time. My neighbors are letting me know that ammunition is less expensive than fireworks from Chyna. Back during the first shortage we pretty much cornered the market in 5.56, and not for deer hunting in this shotgun only locale.
Our Independence Day Parade and display were postponed from yesterday for rain. I may go armed this evening. Our tourist population is 5X 700 residents and some tourists are as ugly as Cimo.
Done. My wife printed it out a few days ago and it is right here at the table.
I wonder what Jefferson would say about abortion in light of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
In the British colonies, abortion was legal before quickening. In French colonies, it was technically illegal but the law was often ignored. In Spanish and Portuguese America, it was illegal and attempts were made to enforce the law.
In the US from 1776 until the mid-19th century, it was legal in most states, but socially unacceptable.
I don’t think TJ had the unborn in mind when he wrote of the right to life, but I could be wrong.
In his “Notes on the State of Virginia”, he observes matter of factly that Indian women know how to induce abortions by means of vegetation. He doesn’t condemn the practice as barbaric, but rather as driven by necessity.
Given his political philosophy, I suspect that he would want to leave what constitutes murder and marriage up to the states, as before Roe, and now once again.
Roe was execrable jurisprudence. There is clearly no right to abortion up to nine months in the Constitution. Five justices imagined it in “emanations from the penumbra” of the Bill of Rights.
Even Ginsburg late in life admitted that there was no basis in federal law to nationalize abortion. Yet she then went on to nationalize same sex marriage,
Same sex marriage is between two consenting participants, while abortion is not.
Agreed however why are plural marriages illegal?
They soon might not be in some states.
Plural mariage means soon you have shares and then you end up with the equivalent of a NASDAQ entity as a family
Single mariage generates endless issues when it’s dissolved, what about plural dissolution?
Plural has undefined numbers, what about adding or removing members?
It’s exponentially more complicated.
The real perspective comes form the final words before the signatures:
“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”
When you grasp the danger these men put themselves in to embark on such a journey, it is truly moving. I am in awe of such courage and these words evoke strong emotion in me every time I read them.
Don’t know if open thread is only about Jul-4?
But here goes
Why is ground source heat (energy) renewable while fossil fuel energy is not.
Isn’t the ground heat built up over a long period and process (which we don’t clearly understand). And who knows what the long term second, third, fourth order effects of extracting this heat are? That heat does some things underground and losing that heat means that process is disrupted.
While the latent heat of the internal planet is slowly cooling off, geothermal could be considered renewable since it’s generated by radioactive decay.
If used for both heat and A/C the ground source heat pump cools the earth in winter to move the absobed heat into your house, and reversing this in summer will cool the house and move the excess heat back to earth. It uses some amount of electrical enegy to accomplish this. Over many years the earth in which the coils are buried will reach a steady cycling of temperature. How large that steady cycle is depends on many factors.
It’s an Open Thread.
The Holiday, July 4th, is the reason, not the “Topic”.
Happy Fourth of July to all the WUWT family. Have a safe and sane celebration.
Happy Birthday, America.
Her is something to think about
I haven’t read the article, yet feel compelled to comment.
How dare you assume gender? How will you dinosaurs ever be trained when you can’t even get your subject/object pronouns s̶t̶r̶a̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ , umm, correct.
Anyway, why is Ms. Pearlman relevant to the holiday? ( Ms.Long looks like an old Karen, and Ms. Alley has long been protected by Greenpeace, so this wouldn’t be about them … )
That’s all I’ve got for fireworks this year.
I would like to revisit this recent post at WUWT. Andrew Dessler thought something didn’t look right to him about the EPA graph of heat wave intensity in the U.S.
A while back I posted a link to plots I generated for the 5-year mean of the daily mean for USHCN Tmax, from 1895 to 2021. I post it again here. Step through day-by-day from June through September. Notice the number of dates especially in July and August that were apparently influenced by timed effects resulting in persistent hot summer weather in those years.
This data confirms that the EPA graph makes perfect sense, showing high heat wave intensity in the 1930’s. Obviously, fossil fuels and the resulting emissions of carbon dioxide did not do that.
To all my American cousins, God bless you and keep you! Also remember that the constitution does not give you rights but restricts government from encroaching on them…a not so subtle difference.
The Declaration of Independpence declared what "Government" should be.
The first Governnenbt they formed was under The Articales of Conferation. Puposely to weak to usurp those rights but also to weak to protect them.
Enter The Constitution. A Government strong enough to protect them but also strong enough to usurp them.
It would not have been ratified as is (or as "was" then) UNTIL The Bill of Rights was added, the limits on that new Government.
They were ratified together.
Side note to that comment unrelated to the context.
It look to me like on my screen like I accidently "enabled", "activated" the old "pre" "/pre" format after the word "True". Now I see a scroll bar at the bottom of the comment.
(Looks like I just did it again!)
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, coming into being when the 9th state ratified it. The Bill of Rights WAS NOT a part of the Constitution upon ratification. However, many of the states based their ratification upon such a listing of basic rights that the new Federal Government could not “infringe”, unduly restrict or deny.
The first elections under the new government were held in 1788, and the new President Washington and the FIRST CONGRESS took office in 1789. It was in keeping with that desire by many states for something written that the FIRST CONGRESS set out 12 Amendments to the states in September, 1789. ONLY 10 were ratified, i.e., the ten in the Bill of Rights, in 1791.
Thanks. I may have misremembered something from years ago.
Makes sense. Thy wouldn’t be “Amendments” if they were part of the original.
(But I will check out the dates. And see what I misunderstood. Skeptic and all that. 😎
PS If I’m I not mistaken, one of the two not ratified had to do with Congress voting itself a raise. The raise wouldn’t go into effect until after the current term.
That’s correct. The Amendment about pay raises for Congress was one of those first 12 submitted to the states, but was not ratified. It was taken up by a college student 200 years later and ratified in 1992, having had no date of expiration included in it, as some do.
Still haven’t found that bit of history where I got the mistaken impression that the Constitution would not have been ratified without The Bill of Rights. Guess I have to adjust my impression of history rather history itself!
But I did find out Madison, who pushed for The Bill of Rights, originally proposed 17 amendments. The House only approved 12 and the Senate trimmed it to the 10 limits on their new Government’s power.
I don’t know what all of the other 7 were about.
Actually, the House proposed 17 (18 in some accounts) and sent them to the Senate. The Senate trimmed that to 12, which the House agreed to and the Joint Resolution sent those 12 to the states for ratification. Of those 12, only 10 were ratified, becoming those known as the Bill of Rights.
As it turns out, the first two PROPOSED Amendments were the two not ratified (the first one having to do with Congressional pay, and the second one apportionment of Representatives based upon US population).
Thus, it was the THIRD Proposed Amendment which became the FIRST AMENDMENT to the Constitution, and the Fourth proposed became the SECOND Amendment, etc.
But…but…I found that info on the Internet! 😎
One thing I found interesting is that one of Madison’s 17 would have added wording from The Declaration of Independence before the current preamble.
Unfortunate that input from the conception of the US wasn’t included in its “birth certificate”.
BobM, could you please point me to the Congressional pay amendment? I can only find the apportionment one.
thanks bobm for that, did not know amendments were 12 originally. any idea what the two that were not ratified said?
Yes, the SECOND PROPOSED Amendment had to do with Congressional pay (had it backwards above). There was no time limit put on it for ratification, and it was eventually ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment:
Amendment XXVIIOriginally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
The FIRST PROPOSED Amendment (The Congressional Apportionment Amendment) had to do with setting the number of Representatives based upon the US population after each census. It remains unratified, and the current number of Representatives has been set by Congress at 435. If the original Amendment had been ratified the number of Representatives could be more than ten times the current number, unworkable for a country of over 300 million, vs. closer to 3 million when it was proposed.
Nevermind my previous request, BobM, I did not see this response, thank you.
Excellent point, Robert! …endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…
i am Canadian but half my relatives are American, my constitution defines my rights but theirs restricts the government…far too often the difference escapes people.
Yes, our Constitution is one of LIMITED government. Even the Preamble to the first Amendments submitted to the states by the First Congress mentions “further declaratory and restrictive clauses”.
“Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.”
The Constitution was written such that if a power was not granted to the new government, it was left to the states, “or to the people”. The first two amendments had clauses specific to the state’s rights.
First Amendment: the Federal government could “make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Most people don’t realize this was because MOST (8 of the 13) states had State-supported religions, and this prohibited the Federal Government from interfering. Over time, all eventually ended sending tax money to their preferred church, but each state retained the right to do so. Over the years the SCOTUS has turned this around to make the government act negatively toward religion, when it was merely supposed to NOT interfere.
Second Amendment: has two clauses. First discusses “well regulated militia”, as the states wanted to make sure the chief military power remained with state militias and the new government didn’t establish a large standing army. The first federal law on those militias endorsed that, and the US Army was never very large, even during the Civil War. Those militias became today’s National Guard units under control of each state’s Governor. Second clause is direct, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
You would THINK that the National Guard is under the “control” of the governors, BUT federal judges have ruled that the Pentagon can demand the so-called state militia members to get a China virus vaccine.
As to religion, it only discusses “establishment” of religion as you have mentioned. We have 100 yeas of the federal judges and the SCOTUS using that clause to STOP states from, for example, the 10 Commandments in their state Supreme Courthouse.
I hope the 6 continue, for the next 10 years, to reverse the travesties that activist judges have wrought upon this country.
One of the earliest, I hope, would be overturning the 1963 ruling that a slandered person, if a “public” person must prove actual malice AND monetary loss, not just negligence or incompetence. Imogene what TRUMP! could get from ALL the MSM and politicians, (Adam Schiff anyone?) for over 4years of Russia lies. I would think a ruling that the entire monies spent by TRUMP! and his second presidential campaign would be required to be reimbursed by the MSM and al others who conspired to slander/libel TRUMP!, thus costing him the election. Also, times 3 in addition, for punitive punishment.
SCOTUS, in the stolen valor case, also found a right to lie in the First Amendment. Those who wrote the Constitution were men of honor, and would NEVER have interpreted freedom of speech to be freedom to lie.
Regarding the ability of the Pentagon to mandate that National Guard members get vaccinated, there is ample precedent for that.
George Washington mandated that everyone in the Continental Army be vaccinated against smallpox during the winter encampment outside Morristown, NJ., in 1777. New recruits were also vaccinated (called variolation back then).
Smallpox was more deadly than bullets, and Washington gambled on the British not campaigning mid-winter (a very cold one, too), and had the entire Army vaccinated in a couple of week’s time. Recovery was another couple of weeks, so the Army was not fit to fight for several weeks to a month, a huge gamble that paid off.
Who made up the militia back then?
Citizens with their own arms.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
I’d like to pick up on the topic of gravity, pressure, and the surface temperature of the earth, regarding the pressure theory of Nikolov and Zeller.
Last time I was here for any extended period of time, I was stumped by the puzzle of the two bottles: if you have two bottles, one with normal atmosphere and one with, say, near vacuum and you put these out in the cold, then will the temperature within the two bottles be the same? If we say ‘yes,’ then that means that pressure doesn’t affect temperature at all. Common sense says, ‘yes.’
However (and no one arguing on my side came to my rescue– probably because they got tired of following along) the correct answer is ‘no, the two bottles would not have the same temperature.’ At the time, I went with the common-sense answer and admitted I was wrong.
I trust everyone at WUWT knows why the two bottles would not have the same temperature, even if the molecules within them are moving at the same exact speed. If not, stick your hand in the thermosphere and tell us how hot your hand is.
So, pressure (the number of molecules within a volume) matters.
Another thing that’s been bugging the heck out of me is the idea that if the atmosphere were of a non-IR-radiating gas (say, nitrogen) then the atmosphere would be isothermal. No, that would be impossible. It makes no sense. It’d be impossible for the air parcels at all levels of the atmosphere to have the same temperature. Convection would occur.
I think Nikolov and Zeller are correct. I doubt very much that the earth’s surface is warmed by back-radiation or any such fiction. In fact, I think the entire theory of a radiative greenhouse is just epicycles to support a theory that can be expained much more easily and elegantly by the gravitational model.
And with that, Happy 4th!
Temperature… are you referring to sensible heat? which is not the same as total enthalpy? Guessing the answer is Yes and also No depending on very fussy definitions of terms.
Fussy definition of terms is exactly the point. And yes, I believe enthalpy is the term I’m looking for to describe total heat content.
The molecules within both bottles are moving at the same speed. The total energy in each bottle isn’t the same.
Interesting mini-conversation. I don’t profess to know the answer. However, there’s the definition “A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.” in https://www.wordnik.com/words/temperature and “The temperature of two systems is the same when the systems are in thermal equilibrium.” in https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature
These ideas coincide with mine and are supported in Wikipedia, but I thought July 4 was a bad day for quoting Wikipedia.
So basically your two bottles are at the same temperature but have different heat content. Would a thermometer say they were at the same temperature? Seems unlikely, but most thermometers are analogue devices, presumably with significant limits to their application.
Happy Birthday USA, or in the current circumstances should I say Many Happy Returns.
We have two different concepts of temperature going on here. One is temperature as average speed of molecules only, and the other is speed of molecules plus density of the air parcel: total heat content, which seems to be enthalpy.
“Average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter” seems like a good definition for solids but not for gases because in gases density varies.
If a parcel of air is raised adiabatically, it cools. No heat is taken away: the air is simply less dense, and a thermometer will register this as temperature.
Venus is hot not because of pressure but because it turns so slowly. The dense atmosphere is important however, since it keeps the planet from cooling off during its months-long night.
I think the whole question is, is Venus hot because of pressure or some other reason?
Regarding earth, it seems that pressure can account for the warmth of the surface: the is exactly what the lapse rate tells us. If this is the case, radiative effects are unnecessary. They exist of course but only within the context of a pressure gradient.
There are no terms in the lapse rate for radiative effects. Why not? Because they don’t matter.
The lapse rate exists because of pressure, not radiation. Does the amount of water vapor affect the lapse rate? It appears it does not: there are no terms for radiative effects of water vapor in the dry lapse rate. The dry lapse rate is exactly the same whether an atmosphere is very dry or nearly saturated: water vapor content doesn’t matter. The dry lapse rate only changes to the wet lapse rate when the air is saturated: the wet lapse rate only slows down due to the latent heat of condensation, not due to any radiative effects.
The structure of the atmosphere (changing density) leads to the lapse rate. This also directs radiation flow from the lowest layer upward. There is no downward flux.
Each layer absorbs and emits IR using IR gases which is determined by gravity (except for water vapor). This helps restore the lapse rate when it is thrown out of balance by convection/fronts/storms. So radiation does play a role.
It’s not really pressure related. The pressure is also a determined by the density.
Might disagree about pressure versus density. Density is a derivative of pressure: atmospheric pressure determines density, not the other way around.
They are both the result of having mass in a gravitational field. The real driver is the gravitational field itself. The result is a layered atmosphere with an ever changing number of molecules based on altitude.
Since most radiative gases are well mixed, they also end up in this layered format. As a result most energy is absorbed low in the atmosphere and shared with other molecules via upward reradiation.
Water vapor comes from evaporation which also occurs primarily low in the atmosphere.
Conduction with the surface is yet another way the low atmosphere warms.
Essentially, almost all the energy that comes from the solar warmed surface makes its first stop very low in the atmosphere.
With radiation, the highest density of CO2/CH4 etc. is right at the surface. They continually get excited via collisions with other molecules and radiate energy. The upward half will get absorbed higher in the atmosphere but since there is less of these gases, less energy is provided as you get higher.
This continues upward and is what stabilizes the lapse rate. The lapse rate then leads to the existence of the water cycle.
This **structure** is what leads to the way energy flows through the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms from the bottom up by radiation. The “greenhouse effect” only exists within a few meters of the surface and is just part of the constant energy flow within the boundary layer. It is not responsible for the energy structure of the atmosphere nor the 33 C of added warmth at the surface. The warmth is just an aftereffect of the gravitational field.
Agree that the significance of the gravitational field is wholly under-estimated by those who stick to the radiative GHE.
The weight of the atmosphere is like having two grand pianos on one person standing up. If the person were lying down, the weight would be something like nine grand pianos. Grand pianos are heavy. We don’t sense this pressure for the same reason that deep sea fish don’t sense the pressure of the deep ocean: the pressure is equalized inside and out.
If we were to lie down with even one grand piano on us, eventually we’d have a hard time breathing. However, if we were in a large space shuttle and used a grand piano for a blanket, we might be uncomfortable but the piano would be weightless: gravitational acceleration has no effect. Gravitational acceleration causes weight causes the weight of the atmosphere causes atmospheric compression causes the lapse rate. Back-radiation or radiative atmospheric murkiness does not cause surface heating: the weight of air molecules against the surface does. Radiative effects exists within the much more powerful gravitational force.
If we take a baseball and throw it up in the air it’ll come back to us with probably the same force as we threw it with. If we throw it parallel to the surface, however, the baseball won’t come back to us. If we stand at a cliff, we have to exert no effort whatsoever and if we let go of the ball, it heads down with increasing velocity. Amazing, trivial, but highly significant. Just because it’s all around us doesn’t mean it means nothing except to hold the atmosphere in and prop up the radiative theory, which absolutely cannot survive without it.
This is the force of gravity, which those who adhere to the radiative GHE pooh-pooh. They are wrong.
I had a comment on the pause thread related to this topic …..
The Earth’s atmosphere is not warmed from the top down, it is warmed from the bottom up. Until skeptics understand this basic physical difference between climate pseudo-science’s view and reality, they will continue to make no progress.
The first step is to understand the lowest layer of the thermodynamic system is the coupled surface – boundary layer and NOT the physical surface. Since the physical surface is very thin, it is better to just leave it out and analyze the overall energy flow using just the boundary layer.
From there, energy is radiated upward and shared proportionally by each ensuing layer of the atmosphere based primarily on the density of that layer. This is necessary due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
This process helps form the lapse rate which then determines the overall temperature structure.
The result is a planet’s surface temperature ends up as Nikolov-Zeller observed. It is directly based on the mass of the atmosphere, gravity and the energy available.
Skeptics need to start focusing on the right physics. Only then will we be able to bring down climate pseudo-science.
Richard M, those are my thoughts exactly. Maintaining the radiative GHE is maintaining the CO2 catastrophe theory. So long as we rely on radiative epicycles, skeptic arguments can be waved away with tall tales of radiation.
In my view, the radiative GHE is a self-consistent but deeply wrong paradigm. Believers adhere to it because it’s self-consistent (sort of.)
Once we turn to the gravitational paradigm, things are much clearer and make more sense, and we can dispense with the radiative epicycles used to prop up the GHE.
If a cooler atmosphere could warm a warmer surface then we’d install 32-degree heaters to warm a 35-degree room. The energy flow starts, as you say, at the boundary layer.
Unfortunately, we have many of the top skeptics supporting the GHE myth. They need to understand the energy flow as I described above and that DWIR is just part of the constant energy flow within the boundary layer and as a result will never cause any warming.
The challenge is that the everyday climater change believers don’t know the science either. And they will reject a discussion about because it doesn’t conform to their ideology. It will be much easier to simply convince them that warmer is better.
But the true believers can’t be convinced that warmer is better; they believe in catastrophic tipping points. After all, Pierrehumbert said that we only have to add about 300 more feet of emissions height (through CO2 murkiness) to raise the surface temperature 2 degrees F.
Those who uphold the radiative GHE have it backwards. They believe that radiative effects determine surface temperature and that gravitational acceleration is just there to keep the atmosphere together and provide the lapse rate. In reality, gravitational acceleration is the powerhouse for surface temperature and radiative effects exist within that context.
When shown an atmospheric pressure gradient– where the pressure increases logarithmically closer to the surface– some claim they don’t see any temperature differential in that. But then this would mean that they don’t understand the gas laws.
An atmosphere with just nitrogen would necessarily have a pressure and a temperature gradient. It’d be impossible for this not to be the case, and only a confusion about what ‘temperature’ is would allow for anyone to say that such an atmosphere would be isothermal. This confusion over temperature is reflected in the fact that the thermosphere is ‘hot’ and yet there aren’t enough molecules close enough together to register as ‘heat.’
The temperature of a gas, where parcels can become more-or-less dense in an instant, shouldn’t be confused with the temperature of solids, where density is more-or-less fixed. We can point to solids and say that the average speed of the molecules within determines the temperature. With gases, it doesn’t work like this; density matters, and density varies.
More wind failures, this time, structural in nature:
Maybe they were tired.
Looks like the same mode of failure. FJB brand?
Could you give a brief rundown, I’m not allowed to see it for myself, apparently!
As an interesting aside I noticed a recent report that, again, underscored the fact that the wind industry is under-reporting accidents by a large margin and that there have been 163 fatal accidents involving wind turbines between 2000 and 2022. How many fatal accidents in the nuclear industry again?
Richard, do you have a link?
I’m afraid I don’t but it’s from a regular series of compilation reports from Caithness windfarm forum that analyse wind turbine accidents reported in media sources.
In short, two separate towers collapsed. This seems to have changed the bird choppers in to short term and quite temporary lawn mowers.
GE turbines or others? I only ask because I noticed a rash of GE turbine incidents on a quick search.
This being an Open Thread, I would like to put this on the Table for discussion:
I believe that I have found a simple way to REFUTE the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis, and I would like others to weigh in on it, since I may have some basic mistakes..
As I understand it, the main tenet of the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis is that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas that traps heat, through a process called back-radiation; and warms the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor is also considered to be a greenhouse gas, and it is the major heat-trapping gas in our atmosphere.
Now, consider the atmospheres over our major deserts.They are very hot and dry during the summers, and contain very little moisture. As a result, temperatures plunge during the night. since they contain insufficient water vapor to maintain the warmth.
.CO2 is a well-mixed gas in our atmosphere, and it is present at the same levels at night as well as at noon. IF it had ANY heat-retentive ability, it would be expected that it would prevent desert temperatures from plunging at night. Since it doesn’t, it cannot be a robust heat-trapping gas.
This should be testable, for example, by cycling a thin copper container containing just CO2, and another containing just the desert air, in a desert, and comparing their inside temperatures with that of the adjacent still, outside desert air. I would expect little, or no, difference. This experiment could probably be replicated in a lab.
(A similar post was posted on an earlier thread, but I was late to the party, and no one responded).
The key point about deserts is that they are dry, not necessarily hot – it’s the lack of water/water vapour that makes them.
I lived in a desert. They’re hot.
Antarctica is a desert.
But a hot one is needed to conduct the test.
The desert you lived in may have been hot, but that doesn’t mean that all deserts are hot.
Deserts are hot. There’s nothing– trees, etc.– to intercept the sun’s rays, and since there’s so little water on the surface, there’s no evaporation to cool the surface.
Regarding CO2, water vapor is by far the biggest interceptor of IR radiation, so one wouldn’t expect to see much effect from CO2 in a desert. Water vapor has a high heat capacity so that in itself would inhibit cooling of the atmosphere, regardless of radiative effects. If there’s little water vapor in the atmosphere, then by that fact there’s little heat capacity to the atmosphere. Water vapor is slow to release its heat so this helps to account for how an atmosphere with water vapor is slower to cool than one without.
Your experiment isn’t a good one because of conduction of heat from the containers.
But you’re basically correct: CO2 isn’t a robust heat-trapping gas. Those who say that CO2 is a problem assert that it’s enough of a cooling inhibitor of the atmosphere such that more CO2 means a higher emissions height means we count down from that higher average emissions height using the lapse rate to get a new warmer surface temperature. But, this is pure fiction. It’s asserting that the lapse rate, derived from gravitational acceleration and dependent upon same, has zero effect on heating the near-surface atmosphere, but only on cooling the atmosphere, because the all-powerful radiative effects miraculously heat a warmer surface by radiating from a cooler level– or these effects supposedly inhibit atmospheric cooling, although there’s zero real-world (as opposed to theoretical) proof of that. However when they talk about emissions height, then they invoke the lapse rate to ‘prove’ that the surface will warm with a higher emissions height, even though they failed to demonstrate that CO2 inhibits atmospheric cooling in the first place, and from my (ongoing) research (and other’s) there’s zero indication in radiosonde data to indicate that it does. It’s simply an assumption built into models.
It’s just epicycles. It’s high time to stop believing in epicycles when Occam tells us there’s a much simpler explanation for why the earth’s surface is warm: the density of molecules is highest at the surface due to gravitational acceleration which gives weight to the atmosphere which compresses these very molecules. Gas temperature is co-dependent upon density (pressure); this is what the lapse rate is about.
Unfortunately people who believe in the radiative paradigm have a hard time giving up allegiance to that paradigm. Hence the fiction of a radiative GHE continues, and hence the fiction of CO2 catastrophic warming continues, since once we invoke the radiative paradigm it’s a matter of ‘he said she said’ regarding which epicycles are the correct epicycles.
Antarctica is the driest continent on Earth. Only the driest areas, like the Atacama and Namib Deserts, receive less precipitation. The Atacama and Namib aren’t particularly hot, compared to the Sahara.
I think you are missing my point.
In a hot desert, temperatures plunge at night because of the lack of water vapor to maintain the warmth.
However, the CO2 molecule is supposed to retain warmth, the “greenhouse effect”, but temperatures plunge even with it present (at about .04% of the atmosphere)
The .experiment was INTENDED to allow heat to escape. A “control” with 100% CO2, another filled with desert air, both compared to the quiet outside air.. My prediction would be no difference.
This would show that the radiative paradigm doesn’t exist.
On your point that the earth’s surface is warm because of gravitational heating, I think not. It is warm because of the water vapor in the air. Compressive heating requires motion. When the motion stops, so does the heating..
You say, ‘compressive heating requires motion.’ I’d say it requires force.
If you think there’s no force of gravity, then throw a ball up; according to you and so many others, there’s no force of gravitational acceleration and therefore the ball will travel to infinity. Of course, you don’t really believe that, but that’s what your theory of ‘no compressive force’ implies.
The force of gravitational acceleration is constant. It compresses the atmosphere: if you don’t believe that, look at graphs of atmospheric pressure versus height.
Gravitational acceleration makes masses heavy. If you don’t believe that, then try throwing a grand piano. However, in a large enough space shuttle orbiting the earth, you could easily throw a grand piano across the shuttle because there’s no gravitational acceleration making that piano heavy. It’s weightless.
Air has mass. Not much, but enough for gravitational acceleration to act upon it so that it has weight. The force of gravitational acceleration causes the surface atmosphere to exert a force equal to the weight of about three grand pianos on us as we stand (approximate area of person standing up is two square feet. Square foot = 144 square inches x 14.7 psi [atmos. pressure at surface] x 2= a great deal of weight caused by mass and gravitational acceleration.) This is a great deal of force. If you don’t believe this, try lifting three grand pianos stacked on top of each other. We don’t feel this force because it’s equalized and because every single thing on the planet’s surface has come into being existing and growing within this force. This weight is established science; I didn’t make it up. It’s an awesome force.
Stop and think about what’s really happening and suspend belief in your favorite paradigm and I believe you’ll eventually understand that everything I said above is true and is standard and elementary physics.
People don’t see this for several reasons:
1) They refuse to give up their radiative paradigm. A paradigm can be completely self-consistent, but if it doesn’t accord with reality, it’s wrong. Radiative effects exists within a gravitational paradigm, not the other way around.
2) Gravitational acceleration is all around us and we swim in it like a deep sea fish swims within the pressure of the deep ocean, so we tend not to recognize its significance.
3) It’s too simple and elegant an explanation for surface warmth.
4) It completely demolishes the idea of catastrophic CO2 warming, and many people have a lot of energy invested in that idea. Plus, catastrophic CO2 warming is virtually the entire justification for The Great Reset, and many people have a great deal of emotional energy invested in Reset ideology.
5) People like to worry and fidget about things, and we if accept this simple paradigm for surface warmth, then we have a great deal less to worry and fidget about.
The earth’s surface is warm because gravitational acceleration is constantly compressing the near-surface atmosphere, and as it does this the molecules are pushed closer together: the atmosphere becomes more dense the closer to the surface it gets. Just by that fact alone and according to the gas laws, the surface atmosphere would be warmer than the mid-atmosphere, and it is. It doesn’t matter if there are radiative gases in the atmosphere or not; gravitational acceleration doesn’t depend on radiative gases, and there are no terms for radiation in the lapse rate. There is a term, however, for gravitational acceleration.
I don’t have access to my files at this time, but I saved a WUWT post that pointed out that in thermodynamics, motion was required for compressive heating to occur (if I remember correctly).
Be that as it may be, the REAL cause of our warming climate is simply the removal of reflective (dimming) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosols from our atmosphere due ti Clean Air and Net Zero efforts.(the abandonment of the burning of fossil fuels and their SO2 aerosol emissions).
Their removal increases the intensity of the Sun’s rays striking the Earth’s surface, resulting in increased warming.
We are literally shooting ourselves in the foot, and CAUSING the warming that is occurring.
Currently, however, SO2 aerosol pollution from China, India, and developing countries is limiting the amount of warming being seen. and if there is a large volcanic eruption, it will keep us cool for 2-3 years.
1) I have tried to figure out the exact value of Earth average temperature for the time being.
Earlier I found that the greenhouse theory was based on a temperature of 15C or 288K.
However I read that this has been redefined (By James Hansen) to be 1951-1980 average of 14C. However in later annual reports from NOAA, this has been further redefined to be 20’th century average of 13.9C. However in the latest report I found that this average temperature now was 13.1C. Is this a fault or what?
2) When you always refer to new average intervals, it is very hard to find the actual temperature. My observation is, when I add the current anormaly to the avarage interval temperature I get a present absolute Earth temperature in the ball park of 14.5C. This is so close to the “normal” Earth temperature that I can find any reason to talk about emergecy.
The use of anomalies has pushed scientists away from actual temperatures, probably quite intentionally. From looking at average temperatures in the past, it becomes obvious that differences, over time, of +/- 3-4C were not uncommon, with a difference between 1816 (the year without a summer – LIA plus Pinatubo eruption) and now of around 6C. Given that past natural variation in temperature difference would completely swamp the current modern +/- 1.5C differences, I think that some groups are trying very hard to hide the past – the idea that current temperature differences are ‘huge and unprecedented’ is utterly laughable in the face of past records.
I find several wishes here of “Happy 4th” or “happy July 4th” but no wishes of “Happy Independence Day”. IMO this is falling prey to a trend where we remember the day but forget its meaning.
Thus I request that we all try to remember, and to start saying “Happy Independence Day” instead.
Lest we forget.
Like the idea, but it is actually Happy Declaration of Independence Day. We were not “independent” until AFTER the Battle of Yorktown was won and an treaty was signed.
The war of 1812 was a hissy fit by the British to show the US who was the strongest nation still.
He said the quiet part out loud. (A little insight into the minds of progressives, and not insignificant that it was published under the banner of the UN.)
404 on that link, roaddog.
Can anyone explain why the oceans never get much above 30C in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation?
In my view the current Consensus theory relating to CO2 and radiation is just not capable of providing this explanation and results in merely conjectures in any attempts made and; as the oceans comprise some 72% of the Earth’s surface , not to mention the plant/animal water/atmosphere interface this rough 30C figure is of very considerable influence where global temperature is concerned.
I have had a go at it and concluded that in the presence of adequate amounts of water the rate of evaporation from the surface is determined by the difference in pressure between the Partial Pressure of water in the atmosphere and the water vapor pressure prevailing at the time. The former gets FIXED once the absolute humidity reaches around currently 4.2%; whereas the latter, Vapor Pressure, rapidly increases around 25 to 30 deg C, thus accelerating the evaporation rate to the point where no further temperature increase can take place; as the evaporation rate balances with any incoming radiation.
Also the incoming radiation is absorbed by the phase change from liquid to vapor at CONSTANT TEMPERATURE resulting in the enthalpy involved being expressed in terms of an increase in volume rather than an increase in temperature. ( Note: From the gas laws volume is the inverse of temperature). The enthalpy is given the term Latent Heat ( a bit of a misnomer) which eventually gets dissipated in the clouds and space.(Another thread?).
I would be fascinated by any constructive comments anybody would wish to make; particularly as I am struggling to find a way to establish some form of sensible proof.