The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Open Thread. Comment to your hearts’ content.
Aggressive bots be damned! Here goes.
Today begins the hike in gas prices. Jeremy Clarkson has the right idea:
“”I’ve turned climate change into a drinking game. Every time it crops up in a David Attenborough doc I have a beer””
Try doing that with BBC news and you’d be legless in 10 minutes
I don’t watch TV anymore. But often I hear household members watching BBC news and as I am passing through the room I ask if they have mentioned/blamed global warming yet. The answer is usually yes.
I had a representative of BARB (Broadcaster’s Audience Research Board) at the door yesterday. He got the full unload. I haven’t enjoyed myself so much for ages. When I had finished, he asked for my contact details so the company could check that he was out collecting data and not sitting at home making things up.
I said to him that he could not make up what I had just told him.
My favourite question he asked was “What would I do to improve TV programmes?”
I replied, “Close Television down”.
Aw, Jon, how sweet. Thanks for sharing. Yes, the “golden age” of television… . Some of it was unbearably corny, but, today’s shows would do well to take a cue from the likes of “The Andy Griffith Show” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “The Cosby Show.”
The coolest thing about that “I Love Lucy” clip was that the proud, happy, affectionate, expressions on the cast were 100% genuine (that was Lucy and Desi’s little boy — for anyone not getting why I am so highly confident about that 100% figure).
Hey Janice – long time no see … don’t know why I posted this … someone on twitter wanted to know a good tune with a drum solo and I posted this first:
…so I saw someone was commenting on TV on open thread, so….
My fave is Gene Krupa in “Sing, Sing, Sing”
Ugh. TV hell – Attenborough on one channel, Clarkson on another and BBC ‘news’ on a 3rd!
Has anyone fully costed the total carbon footprint and $ value of building and installing a solar panel, a wind turbine, also the same for wood pellet burning in Drax power station?
A similar exercise for car and storage batteries would also be quite enlightening to Sir Richard Attenborough fans!
If they haven’t it’s because they’re afraid of the answer. My understanding is that watt for watt over their whole lives (mining raw materials to final decommissioning and disposal) wind/solar emits more CO2 and pollutants than gas or nuclear, even without including the ‘spinning reserve’ back-up.
(And it’s David Attenborough; Richard was an actor.)
This seems like a good time to remind D. Attenborough’s fans (who, by now, have been told so many lies that they will believe almost anything) that his brother Richard is not the real Santa. No, they will NEVER believe that there is no Santa at all. They know he exists. No one has seen him, yes, but that’s because he lives at the North Pole. Where CO2 makes ice melt. *cough*
We know he’s not the real santa, he’s the dude with the island and dinosaurs.
Who hired Newman to head up IT. 😆
Today, the most revered metric for the societal cost of automotive travel is the emission of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Let us put aside the question of whether making carbon our top priority might obscure other concerns, such as human rights, cancer risks, working conditions, biodiversity, water security, and roadway deaths. Let us merely consider the problem of measuring carbon. The conventional method is a carbon tabulation, which attempts to account for every bit of carbon dioxide that accrues during the use and sometimes also the construction and disposal of a product. ***
A lot of carbon must be poured into the atmosphere to make and charge an electric car. ***
(Source: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ozzie-zehner-responds-to-his-critics#toggle-gdpr )
Electric-car makers like to [assert] that their vehicles can be charged from renewable sources, such as solar energy. Even if that were possible to do on a large scale, …
[s]olar cells contain heavy metals, and their manufacturing releases greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has 23,000 times as much global warming potential as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
What’s more, fossil fuels are burned in the extraction of the raw materials needed to make solar cells and wind turbines—and for their fabrication, assembly, and maintenance. The same is true for the redundant backup power plants they require. …
Finally, most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle … .
… don’t expect batteries, solar cells, and other cleanenergy technologies to ride a Moore’s Law–like curve of exponential development. Rather, they’ll experience asymptotic growth toward some ultimate efficiency ceiling.
(Source: https://www.academia.edu/3828490/Unclean_at_Any_Speed )
Electric vehicles in Australia’s eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report …
Re: Wind Power
Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions
At first glance it could be assumed that wind-power could play a major part in cutting CO2 emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energy-intensive business in itself) …
wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines. This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity.
(Source: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/electricitycosts2012.pdf )
The situation is similar for solar cells. The CO2 emissions in their manufacture, installation, maintenance, and disposal along with the need for storage (in itself causing CO2 emissions) and for conventional power to make them viable (i.e., without reliable power, solar is D.O.A. except in situations too sparse to make them a significant energy source — NOT TO MENTION that most solar is negative ROI/EROI without its costs being paid by OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY).
I am not taking the time to research all your requests, Colin. I have a feeling that you may be another “Mike” who asks questions and *poof* disappears, never even acknowledging what I took a lot of time to compile, much less giving it thoughtful consideration.
So! As many say, Google Duckduckgo is your friend (but, you will have to work hard to get past all the scammers’ propaganda — they hire people to drive traffic to their slimy articles pushing solar or wind or EV or the like; pretty disgusting, actually — also, I think, perhaps, that duckduckgo, with $$ interests in “renewables,” has started to become “Big Brother” like the rest of the Keep the OPM (Other People’s Money) Coming! Gang.
Thank you Janice Moore. I always appreciate your cost/benefit analysis commentary on industrial wind.
Here’s information on why these turbines need to be turned off now and removed from rural regions where people are being harmed. We need our rural communities now more than ever and they need to be safe.
The system of reporting harm to health to environmental and health agencies within governments is wrought with corruption. The same tactics have been used to deny harm to health from covid injections.
Please take time to read and listen to the following:
Infrasound: Mariana Alves-Pereira
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira explains vibroacoustic diseasehttps://livestream.com/itmsstudio/events/8781285
Watch University of Waterloo’s Invited Talk arranged by Professor Richard Mann: Mariana Alves–Pereira on Livestream.com. Title of the Lecture: “Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise: Physics, …
Thanks for sharing, Sommer. Indeed. STOP THESE THINGS!!
I believe that the CO2 associated with charging electric cars is very much under estimated.
I see that studies link the percentage of renewables against fossil fuels in the grid mix.
This is at best a large distortion of the effect of charging electric cars (and similarly the adoption of heat pumps).
Renewables and nuclear generated at the maximum available capacity at all times, and therefore cannot react to additional load on the grid, they have no more to give.
This extra load (demand) can only be met by increasing, in most countries, fossil fuel generation.This means that evs are actually emitting a lot more CO2 in their charging than is generally believed?
Incidentally Apple make the same error in their new phone with an app that is supposed to tell you when the grid is ‘greenest’ i.e. emitting low CO2, usually late at night, early morning. This is completely wrong and it actually makes no difference when you use the grid to the total daily CO2 emissions. The error is to ignore the grid dynamics.
I think you are right, Mr. Reid. I didn’t do much research for that comment. MUCH more could be cited to prove that EV’s have a much larger “carbon” footprint than their promoters claim.
Of course, the data-driven science bumper sticker (on a wonderful ICE vehicle! 🙂 ) would be:
“CO2 POLLUTION. YOU SAY THAT LIKE IT’S A BAD THING.”
On first approx. I believe that carbon cost is averaged price!
MRNA vaccine traces found in mother’s milk up to a week after injection.
But that’s no reason not to be immunised, it will stomached without danger for the suckling.
Not known is, if the mRNA was/is still active.
Weren’t we told, the vaccine will remain in the muscle where it was injected ?
One of the uncountable lies about COV-19 vaccines.
The recommendation to use these new, largely untested, drugs on pregnant women defies established medical protocol.
Further, one should posit that data was not asked to be sealed for decades because it is so highly favorable. The whole thing smells.
Dr. Philip Altman expresses his alarm and summary of this entire situation. His presentation starts at ~3:20.
Here is a good read. https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation-epidemic?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=645524&post_id=75820051&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
The level of corruption surrounding everything covid – and frankly pretty much everything anymore – is virtually impossible to overstate. Pierre Kory has written a fair amount on the criminal suppression of the use of Ivermectin and the danger of these vaccines.
My daughter was injected while breastfeeding twins. The whole family was sick most of the succeeding months. Coincidence?
It’s not just Europeans that are panicking regarding the current energy crisis and the coming winter.
Chainsaw sales soar as Brits buy 35,000 woodburners in three months to keep themselves warm during the energy crisis.
and because I recently became the owner of a substantial solar ‘kit’ on the roof of my new home AND am giving away 10 units of leccy for every one I use, I thought I’d get myself a storage heater, to keep me warm at night.
Watching eBay UK, the prices those things are now making is insane, dented and mangled old ones are well north of 50% the price of brand new
Not that very long ago and if you had an old one, you had pay people to take them away
Can the storage heater store electricity from summr for winter use?
EDF says this
Working out your storage heater’s running cost is trickier, as it depends on how much heating your room needs. To give you an indication, a medium-sized storage heater that consumes 2kW, and charges at full power for seven off-peak hours will use 14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity.
That would be for one room. I know that that by selling surplus from the day in summer will make you Loadsamoney possibly even enough to pay for what you need in winter.
Can’t see in being much use in a Lincolnshire winter (Newark UK I’m assuming?). Domestic solar panel systems typically have a capacity of between 1 kW and 4 kW. Going at the Maximum end and looking at gridwatch yesterday would have given you very low supply from your panels I’d guess 4kWh. I would say yesterday was a typical winter’s day – dull, rainy, windy and cold, most days from the end of November until start of March
I did the calculations once. A swimming pool sized load of very hot water under a house with abouy a foot of foam insulation all round, would in fact be capable of storing summer heat, for winter.
This is how some heat pumps wotk that e.g. heat up under the car park in sumer and pull the heat back via heat pumps in winter.
Currently heating oil at 65p a litre compares favourably with electricity at £3 litre equivalent.
Electricity is still more expensive than gas too.
Errr… I think Newark is in Nottighamshire (just)…
Living in Derby that place is not mentioned in polire conversations.
I got an Immersum that automatically diverts electricity to the immersion heater rather than give it to the grid. We get hot water for probably 10 months.
Usually divert 1000 kWh a year.
A weakening magnetic field over North America, with low solar cycles (strong increase in galactic radiation) promises harsh winters in North America in future years (regardless of La Nina).
The pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex in the upper stratosphere also foreshadows the influx of Arctic air into Canada directly from eastern Siberia.
How to kill whales with offshore wind –> push them into traffic
This goes with the lawsuit threat:
In England and Wales, there was a huge jump in Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) in Winter 2020-2021 to 63,000 that was falsely attributed to Covid-19. That jump in EWD was primarily due to the toxic Covid-19 vaccines deployed in early 2021, not the virus.
England and Wales Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) data is here:
Excess winter mortality in England and Wales Statistical bulletins – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)
Look at Winter 2019-2020 in Figure 1 – 10,320 EWD – this was the first Covid-19 Winter, with very low EWD before the vaccines were deployed.
Excess winter mortality in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) 2020 to 2021
10,320 EWD pre-Vaxx; 63,000 post-Vaxx. Not too difficult to analyze, is it?
Told you so, 21Mar2020.
THE CLINICAL TRIALS WERE FRAUDULENT THE SPIKED PROTEIN IS KILLING MILLIONS
Dr. Mike Yeadon – former VP Research at Pfizer – 2 minute very strong message – vaxxed are at highest risk.
Bottom Line – Millions more will die or be vaxx-injured – I warned you on 21Mar2020. Almost nobody believed me then. How about now?
I am still unvaxxed and am in the high-risk age-health group. Never caught Covid. Quelle surprise!
THE MORE COVID SHOTS YOU GET, THE MORE LIKELY YOU’LL GET COVID. HERE’S WHY. • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Story at a glance:
Scientists warn that repeated COVID-19 boosters may result in lowered immunity through a process known as “original antigenic sin” (OAS) or “immune imprinting.”
Original antigenic sin describes how your first exposure to a virus shapes the outcome of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. The end result is that you become increasingly prone to symptomatic infections.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirm that people who got two or three COVID-19 jabs are MORE likely to get ill with COVID-19 six to eight months after the last dose than had they gotten none.
Health authorities are potentially worsening matters further by pushing people to simultaneously get the updated bivalent COVID-19 booster and a quadrivalent flu vaccine this fall.
The COVID-19 jab and the flu vaccine are the No. 1 and No. 2 most dangerous injections respectively, based on adverse event reports and payouts from the U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Both are also capable of shedding, and both can make you more prone to infection as their protection wears off.
Of all the ways the Covid-19 vaxxes can harm you, I say that greatly-reduced immunity is the big one. Increased illnesses of all kinds result from lowered immunity – from bacteria, viruses and cancers.
Read up on how to rebuild your damaged immunity – that is your best hope, imo. Not my expertise – maybe Quercetin, Ivermectin, Vitamin D3 – but find experts – they do exist.
Never was an anti-vaxxer – but have not taken a flu shot since 2019 – all trust is gone.
Democrats’ 2016 “Stolen” Election Claims You Tube
Yes, I like that one! The Big Lie is OK if you’re a Democrat but not OK if you’re on the other side. Then you might be accused of being part of an INSURRECTION and spend a significant time in jail.
Pre-trial. Without bail. Or exceedingly onerous bail conditions for trespass.
It’s as if nobody signed anything at Runnymede in 1215.
The cull of the elderly and poor in Britain, Germany and the rest of Europe has been growing for years due to rising energy costs caused by the Green Energy debacle. Remember “Heat or Eat”? This winter the death toll caused by the Global Warming (aka Climate) fraud will accelerate.
I published the following on 28July2022:
The big cull of the elderly of Europe will happen this winter – we predicted it in 2002 and 2013 – it was all terribly costly – in dollars and lives – and all entirely avoidable – a willful squandering of the lives of innocents. Crimes against humanity.
Joe D’Aleo and I co-authored a report in 2015 on Excess Winter Deaths that incorporated Gasparrini et al (2015). This update is better:
SMALL-AREA ASSESSMENT OF TEMPERATURE-RELATED MORTALITY RISKS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: A CASE TIME SERIES ANALYSIS
A new Lancet study by Gasparrini et al (July 2022) ominously reports that from 2000 to 2019 in England and Wales there were an average of 791 heat-related excess deaths and 60,753 cold-related excess deaths each year. That’s an excess death ratio of about 85 to 1 for cold temperatures.
Allan MacRae, I’d appreciate your comments on this:
United Nations, Melissa Fleming says “They *own* the science on climate change”, and they have worked with Google to make sure the algorithms shows only UN information. https://twitter.com/resist_05/status/1576051650963247104?s=51&t=N2AOpx9prVB_ReEoYOvV7A
Hi Sommer. In response to your request:
United Nations, Melissa Fleming says “They *own* the science on climate change”.
The only thing Ms Fleming et al “own” is the falsehoods. Proof below.
THE ABYSMAL FAILURE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS’ PREDICTIVE TRACK RECORD. ”THE LEFT LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING!”
“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.”
For 60:40 predictions, the odds of being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; for 70:30 predictions, the odds are 1 in 13 septillion. It’s not just climate scientists being randomly mistaken – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
Thank you. I always trust and appreciate your commentary.
How would you suggest that we respond to Ms Fleming?
Feel free to send Ms Fleming the above note.
I doubt she has any scientific credentials. Nobody “owns the science”. That’s not how the scientific method works.
I’m not able to access Ms Fleming’s contact information. Can anyone help me with this?
Vitamin C works to remove Lead from inside of you, should you have ever, or currently, exposed to the stuff.
Just Lead it seems, doesn’t work on any of the other heavy metals
Also, Vitamin K2 (the MK7 version) is quite effective at reducing your blood pressure, should you be hypertensive. circa 200mcg daily
(Go gently with it tho, it a coagulent so if you’re an blood thinners, keep monitoring that.
Doncha love it, you’re probably on thinners because of hypertension.
Find Vitamin K in most (dark) green leafy veggies, also avocado.
Not Devil’s Avocados tho
Once we had lead pipes and leaded petrol
Strangely, since they’ve been gone it’s worse now than its ever been
The so-called danger level for the lead blood level has been significantly lowered over many decades.
K2MK7 is not a coagulant, K1 is. K2 MK7 is sorced from Japanese fermented soybean curd, Natto and increases bone density while reducing calcified plaques in the blood stream
Who blew up the pipelines? Act of war?
I go along with orthodix US line. The Russians did it.
Why? Because it wasn’t in use, and it looks stupid enough that it is plasuibly deniable, but it’s propaganda value is immense, in that it is represented as the USA interfering militarily in the European theatre.
Consider: if the West presents a united front in terms of sanctions and direct support for Ukraine, Putin is cattled*
Corollary: Putin’s most effective strategy is to break the unity of the west by using his extensive troll and useful idiot army to split the USA from support (Not our war, regional spat, cost far too much and gets us nothing, could start nuclear war) and create distrust in Europe (“USA blew our pipeline: we could have got gas through, this whole thing is too expensive, tell Ukraine to do a deal and leave Russa with the regions he has claimed).
These are the narratives being exported by RussianBots on all the forums and on Youtube.
Blowing the pipeline feeds the narrative of direct USA interference in European matters. And costs nothing because the pipeline wasnt being used anyway.
*(Cattle trucked. Rhyming slang)
I don’t know. A lot doesn’t make sense, like spending $15 billion or so on pipelines only to destroy them.
There is another option. Russia is finding new markets for its gas e.g. China and most of Eurasia.
If that transition is going well it renders the European pipeline obsolete anyway, and Russia and Germany are not the best neighbours. So blowing up the pipeline themselves knowing there were a number of US ships in a NATO controlled area makes blaming the Americans credible.
Trouble is, it’s one of the most surveilled areas in the world and difficult to get any type of explosive charge planted without Russian ships being in evidence. I don’t buy the submarine nonsense. James Bond fantasy.
It might be the most surveilled area in the world but there were two incidents in Swedish waters and one in nearby Danish waters associated with the pipelines. I mention this because of the well-known incident a few years ago when the Swedish military spent months hunting for a Russian stealthy submarine that they had sonar evidence of sneaking along in Swedish waters. After months of fruitless sub-hunting they discovered it was a Swedish farmer using a motor dinghy to go from one of the islands and the mainland. An explosive device thrown overboard from a motor dinghy by, say, pipeline activists of one stripe or another would probably not be spotted.
I don’t know who did it, we might never know for sure who did it, but the ‘submarine’ theory is ridiculous.
Good story, appreciate it.
However, chucking an explosive device overboard from a surface vessel is more likely than not to entirely miss the pipeline, not only because it can’t be seen from the surface but because currents are unpredictable.
An explosive device would have to be immense to affect something like a pipeline on the seabed, likely partially buried in sediment, if it wasn’t very close to the pipeline. Like most things, an underwater explosion seeks the path of least resistance, which is naturally upward.
It seems to me those explosive devices would have to be very close, if not attached (far more likely) to the pipes themselves. The charge would presumably be ‘shaped’, in much the same way as a Claymore device is shaped (except in reverse) to direct the charge in a particular direction. Then it could be relatively small, easily handled and largely guaranteed of success.
That would have to be placed there by someone.
I do know someone very well who is a highly decorated expert in these matters. And I mean a real, hands on expert in a certain occupation that would be in pole position to undertake something like this ~wink, wink~. Sadly, because of family issues (he’s a shit) I’m no longer in touch with him. Whilst he could never say who he thought did it, I’m pretty certain he would say Russia didn’t do it.
There remains, however, the possibility that charges were set when the pipeline was first built. Just in case. These are NATO controlled waters, I can’t really see another way Russia would be able to sabotage them.
As Russia owned the pipelines they were responsible for maintenance, a process which involved sending robotic scrappers etc down the pipe called pigs. All that would be needed is to load one with explosives, it would not be detectable and could be made to explode exactly right. These pipelines were not being used, its standard for them to be filled with gas. They currently serve no purpose for Russia, despite the expense and a long period of disuse would cause substantial damage.
The explosions occurred soon after the new pipeline between Norway and Poland opened, it represents a threat to all the undersea infrastructure of Europe.
Russia cant replace Europe as a customer, they would need to build thousands of miles of new pipelines to China and they don’t have the LPG capacity to make a difference.
Of course, I’d forgotten the Norway-Poland pipeline. The Norwegians did it to scupper the competition!
A shaped charge is very, very different from something like a claymore (which is shaped, has a charge but isn’t a shaped charge) and takes real skill to assemble so that every part detonates at the right time to create the ‘shaped charge effect’. As to the detonation itself, apparently 3 distinct explosions were registered – why would you need to do it 3 times if you had the precision to place it precisely; just once would do.
At the time of the damage, the Poles were working at the same site hooking up the new line to Poland from Norway where it passes over N1 and 2. Coincidence dya think? Poland has become a gas broker for the EU, channeling Russian Gas from Ukraine and now from Norway. The Norwegian line was unharmed.
There has been worry by EU and US that growing German demands (citizens and major companies) that they want the gas turned on. The ‘accident’ takes that off the table.
Motor dinghy plus 200m line, plus big magnet would work. Just cross pipeline under angle, check if magnet catches pipeline, then send payload over line.
I think fishing line would work too.
…and they could just turn the valves off instead…I think you have to look at gas supply competitors….or an attempt to reduce Russian foreign income….
Hey Leo, a bit early to get high, no?
Why would Putin want to blow up pipelines that were not in use (Nordstream 2) or that he could have “shut down” by merely ordering Gazprom to stop exporting gas through that pipeline
(Nordstream 1) ?
We need a logical motive.
You have not provided one
Best explanation I have found:
Never ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.
The USA would never do anything evil/wrong, dare I say, untoward? They don’t have any interest in the region since Hunter Biden left! Hahahaha!
Possibly NATO did, without the knowledge of Germany. It makes little sense to say that Russia would bomb their own pipelines, if, when things settle down regarding Ukraine, these would come in very handy. Who doesn’t want Germany and the EU dependent on Russian gas? How about the neocons in the US?
One would suppose that whoever did this decided that it was in their best interest to do so. The only thing I know for sure is that Colin Powell will not be presenting any evidence to ascribe blame.
Who loses? In the end, global population loses because at the very least it increases energy costs for everyone.
There is a war being waged against the global population in my view. There are factions in conflict certainly but population be damned by most sides.
The CAGW false front is by any definition a crime against humanity.
“How about the neocons in the US?”
I keep hearing about these neocons. Got any names? You think they are running the show?
PayPal’s decision this week to cancel the account of the United Kingdom’s Free Speech Union, effectively demonetizing an organization which fights for freedom of speech in the UK, shows how dire the state of free expression is today.
PayPal should understand that it is a service provider and not a service controller.
I have cancelled and closed my account.
PayPal lost this one. Toby Young is no fool.
Nobody should do business with Paypal. They are a partisan leftwing organization. Giving them money takes away your personal freedoms.
Has anyone noticed that we are now talking about just “Climate Change” and NOT an “Existential Threat Climate Change”. We all believe in climate change, it was the “Existential” portion that we disagreed with.
Well, now, when you say we all believe in climate change, what are you talking about? There’s natural climate change and there’s the alledged human-caused climate change. Most of the time when someone says climate change what they really mean is human-caused climate change.
So, if it is natual climate change you are referring to, I would say I agree with you, but if it’s alledged human-caused climate change, then I do not.
I am in a non- clim as te, non-physics area of science but still follow the debate. I see the absorption spectrum of CO2 but not the emission spectrum. Could someone post a link for my own personal information
They are identical.
Yes, it’s something often not explained by the media to “the lay man”, aka man on the street.
They both happen at the same time. If something absorbs radiation it warms up a bit. Warm something up a bit and it emits more radiation.
Ian was a monster – a nasty, destructive storm. Yet, the ACE so far for this year in the Atlantic basin is still under 80 as of this morning. That’s less than half what was predicted for the season. If Climastrologists were calling this hurricane season to the stand it would be as a hostile witness to their contentions.
Yet, Ian shows that a single event can be completely out of character for a season. Just as the sun can belch out a massive flare in the midst of a time of no-to-low dark spot counts, so an otherwise quiet hurricane season can drop a bomb like Ian onto us proud Lilliputians strutting about on land.
A big, deadly storm just crashed our party where we were congratulating ourselves for smacking a passing asteroid. The idea that we are the masters of our domain is just silly. Yet it’s a foundation stone laid at the base of globaloney warmunism.
I watched a News report last night from one of the settlements severely hit by Ian. Both my wife and I were struck by the number of trees, some pretty tall ones at that, which were still standing and looking in pretty good shaoe
I just looked closely at dozens of pics of the aftermath of Ian (mostly drone i believe) most of the damage was from flooding of a few feet (5′ +/-). Actual serious wind damage appeared light and included awnings, and porch type additions. Mobile home parks mostly intact except for awning type covers. Roof coverings like shingles and sheet metal that will peel away if a couple of screws fail at the edge is common everywhere but makes a great photo op for disaster. Wind blowing a boat with a few feet of storm surge is a no brainer as the boat only needs 2 feet or so and it will move itself in even a light wind. Hell, they are designed to float on top of the water to begin with!
If you’ve ever been smacked by a breaking 4-5 ft wave at the beach then its not hard to imagine the force of some bigger waves in a couple of feet of surge for an extended time on oceanfront structures.
Look at RV buses parked on the shoreline at a marina. Marina likely built up 5 ft or so and the RVs show little or no damage. So surge was likely no more than that because if it was the damn things would float like a boat and have been destroyed.
Just look closely at the photos!
Don’t. You get attacked if you mention that. Best to leave it alone.
I sometimes post comments on Facebook.
Yesterday, the Climate Power page (activist site) posted this, a day after Hurricane Ian passed through Florida:
We’re in a climate emergency.
My comment was:
The climate emergency is in your head. Change your mind about attribution. Nothing new. Stop the blaming. Thank you for listening.
A reply to my comment:
Susan Hursted Callery
David Dibbell That is false. All warming since the middle of the last century is due to human activities.
Who is this Susan Callery person?
Scroll down at this link.
There you go. NASA climate communications person, claiming “all warming” attribution to human causes since 1950.
IPCC AR6 WGI SPM at A.1.3 says “It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…”
“ Throughout this SPM, ‘main driver’ means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”
Susan came into this role from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Think Peter Kalmus.
So my mild expression of an alternative opinion on a Facebook post from a supposedly non-governmental activist page attracted a response from the U.S. Federal Government, which itself was not even consistent with the consensus science view reported by the IPCC.
This is where we are.
Those having reservations concerning the role of gravity and the adiabatic lapse rate in climate models may find these historical references of interest. I’ve yet to find their citation by the current generation of academics.
W. Thomson, On the Convective Equilibrium of Temperature in the Atmosphere, Proc. Lit. & Phil. Soc. Manchester, Vol. I, p. 171 (1862)
“When all the parts of a fluid are freely interchanged and not subject to the influence of radiation and conduction, the temperature of the fluid is said by the Author to be in a state of convective equilibrium.”
J. Clerk Maxwell, IV. On the Dynamical Theory of Gases, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Vol. 157, p. 86 (1867)
“….. Equation (147), as now corrected, shows that the flow of heat depends on the variation of temperature only, and not on the direction of the variation of pressure. A vertical column would therefore, when in thermal equilibrium, have the same temperature throughout.”
L. Boltzmann, Über das Wärmegleichgewicht von Gasen, auf welche äussere Kräfte wirken, Wiener Berichte, Vol. 72, p. 427 (1875)
“From this formula, it follows that in spite of the effectiveness of the external forces for the direction of the velocity of any of the molecules, each direction in space is equally probable, furthermore that in each space element of the gas the velocity distribution of the gas is exactly the same as in a gas of same temperature, on which no external forces act. The effect of the external forces consists merely in the fact that the density in the gas changes from place to place in a manner which is already known from hydrostatics.” (trans. Google)
Seems her reply was a deflection anyway.
You: “The climate emergency is in your head. Change your mind about attribution. Nothing new. Stop the blaming. Thank you for listening.”
Her: “That is false. All warming since the middle of the last century is due to human activities.
It may well be, but the mild warming on record is not a climate emergency. What about the warming from the late 1800s to the 1950s. That’s a hundred years of warming with no serious CO2 output to speak of
Try replying to her with this:
Using only internationally recognised, factual data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off.
Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:
Atmospheric CO2 level in 1850: ~280ppm (Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.
Have you all seen this?
United Nations, Melissa Fleming says “They *own* the science on climate change”, and they have worked with Google to make sure the algorithms shows only UN information. https://twitter.com/resist_05/status/1576051650963247104?s=51&t=N2AOpx9prVB_ReEoYOvV7A
Shocking that these people don’t have the slightest insight into their own behaviour.
Under the first amendment that woman, presumably an American judging by her accent, and Google, being a US company, should be investigated on that comment alone.
I agree..but who will investigate?
Let’s stick to real science, not Ed Berry nonsense:
280ppm CO2 in 1850
415 ppm Co2 in 2022
+135ppm CO2 increase since 1850
135 / 415 = 32.5% increase from 1850 t 2022
100% of the increase is manmade CO2
Because nature has always been a net CO2 absorber
It’s long past time to drop your
“3%” manmade CO2 nonsense.
The correct number is 32.5%
Yes, that frustrates me too. We release about 3% of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 every year. What actually happens to it is still up for debate as far as I am concerned, but to say that we are only responsible for 3% of the total historical increase is not supportable.
Is that 3% every year since when or just in the last few years? That doesn’t seem right
1900 CO2 ~296PPM emissions 1.95 Billion tonnes
1940 CO2 ~310PPM emissions 4.85 billion tonnes
2010 CO2 ~389PPM emissions 33.34 billion tonnes
That would appear to me to indicate that if it’s 3% now it certainly wasn’t in 1940 or 1900 and probably wasn’t in 2010, it’s been increasing ever since we started using fossil fuels
1900 CO2 = 1.5×10^12 tonnes
Currently CO2 = 2×10^12 tonnes
OK, let’s say 25,000 years is a tad ambitious.
Let’s instead say mankind contributes 50% of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually.
In that case it would only take 1,400 years to double the atmospheric CO2 content from the 280ppm in 1850.
3% per annum is an annual increase which quite naturally extends to whatever time period you care to discuss.
This is even accepted by the climate fanatics.
All right, I’ll bite; if we’re releasing 32.5% more CO2, then why is this not reflected as a constant 32.5% increase in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations year on year?
No idea where you get this idea mankind is responsible for all the atmospheric CO2 increase.
Even the climate nutters are laughing at you.
If “nature has always been a net CO2 absorber” why was there any atmospheric CO2 in [pick any year from 1850 back to when the Sumerians were milling about]?
Peer review is rubbish as Journals are overwhelmed by paper mills-
Journals run fake Chinese science papers | News | The Times
I wonder if you guys looked at this…
Sorry I meant this.
My own theory is that there never was an ozonehole. When there are more OH radicals, peroxides are formed preferentially.
If you look at the IR spectra of peroxide and ozone, you will make an important discovery….
Please don’t leave us in suspense! Why not just provide data instead of hints?
OK. I am travelling. I will show you later.
I am afraid we are moving at the edge of what is known of atmospheric science.
In the report below the conclusion is that:
] We have demonstrated the feasibility of profile retrievals in the range 6 –35 km from ENVISAT-MIPAS based on single scans, with about 5 degrees of freedom for each profile. Our data show a peak in H2O2 in the equatorial stratosphere and large values in the Antarctic ozone hole region.
gl022870 1..4 (ox.ac.uk)
Which proves the point I was making, namely that with the presence of OH-radicals (which appeared due to vacuum action), peroxides are most probably formed preferentially to ozone. But if you look at the IR spectra of ozone and peroxide, you will make a remarkable discovery….
There have never been any ozone ‘holes’ – there have been areas where the ozone got a bit thinner than usual, but no holes as such.
Yes, that’s my thoughts, phrased differently.
There always was an ozone “hole” at certain times of the year. We just never measured it before the theory was advanced or before we produced CFCs.
Finding a seasonal “hole” proved nothing at all. It is the change over time that matters. I regret that I was also fooled by this at the time. Unfortunately the sudden success of finding the alleged ozone hole directly paved the way for widespread belief in the CO2 malarkey in the eyes of scientists, politicians, and the public.
“UN official at WEF: ‘We own the science & we think that the world should know it’ so ‘we partnered with Google’ to ensure only UN climate results appear.”
Listening to U.N. Undersecretary Fleming say what she is saying in the video is disgusting. Orwellian Big Brother is alive and well at the U.N. and Google. Only one party-line is permitted.
Yes, CD in Wisconsin, this seems like the next serious issue to address…the role of the U.N.
They own the climate change pseudo science and the propaganda organs.
If they really owned the science, they wouldn’t have to try to control the narrative. Trying to shut skeptics up just means they don’t really own the science, and shutting people up is the way to hide this fact.
Well, I would like to push once more for R. McKitirck´s article last year, putting ANY attribution from climate models in question.
Is there any critical literature on it out yet?
If not, basically any climate study should have a disclaimer, saying if McKitrick´s work can be dis-proven, we claim.. blabla
I am simply astonished how climate science and also skeptical blogs seem to ignore this work!
Why was it not cited in those recent high profile discussions?
It clearly not only weakens the alarmists position, but destroys any potential argument for the assumed high feedback amplification to CO2 (which is not shown in the real world yet).
The good news is that ESG is working.
The bad news is that ESG is working!
Crude oil is useless unless it can be manufactured into something usable.
Renewable energy is only intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine and NEITHER wind turbines, nor solar panels, can manufacture products or fuels for society.
Bank boardroom decisions that are allowing the investment community to collude to reshape economies and lifestyles, so that they are in line with the preferences of banks and other financial institutions, is an extremely dangerous precedent. Consumers never voted to give banks this sort of control over our world.
· The good news is that the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategy to divest in all fossil fuels is working.
· The bad news for society is that the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategy to divest in all fossil fuels is working!!
Refinery closures over the next five years are projected to be 20 percent of the almost seven hundred refineries worldwide. That is a whopping 140 closures on the horizon, just as demand for the products made from manufactured oil derivatives continues to rise.
Until we can clone the properties of crude oil, the resultant impact of manufacturers closing will result in shortages and inflation in perpetuity as the new norm as society’s demands for the more than 6,000 products and fuels manufactured from crude oil are exceeding the supply from the diminishing number of manufacturers.
Over the past 30 years or so, the U.S. has lost two thirds of its refineries, but the remaining ones tended to be bigger and even expanded their capacities by adding units, etc.
In any case, with enough energy, one could draw CO2 from air, convert it to synthesis gas and make virtually any product that could be made from petroleum. I wouldn’t argue that it would make sense to do so. Heavy petroleum will probably always be the best source of bitumen for roads, roofing, etc.
To manufacture products, it is probably much more reasonable to ‘draw CO2’ from ocean water where it is much more plentiful.
Separate the state and the Church of Climastrology
Meanwhile, the ozone hole has been growing at the end of winter in the Southern Hemisphere for the past three years.
Presumably we can assume that the 2020 or 2021 lines overlay the 12-21 max line during Nov and Dec but which? One might indicate a steady increase, the other a fluctuation over the last few years.
There is no end in sight for La Niña.
It seems to me the natural cause of climate change (on the order of decades) is apparent … do not look to the sun. Lunar cycles and associated changes in the tides and therefore ocean currents may be responsible for a far greater effect. Large El Ninos occurred in 1982, 1998 and 2016. 18 years apart. Which happens to be the lunar “nodal precession” cycle. Cursory examination of the UAH data reveals that there is a strong cycle evident with amplitude of +-0.3 deg C and period of 3 to 4 years. This is the ENSO cycle (?). There is also a lunar cycle of 33 years, too long a cycle to be evident with UAH data.
You can do a linear regression analysis of the data and get satisfactory results, but the R2 is low. A step function is a better fit, with step change of 0.25 deg C in 1998 and 2016. Hence “the Great Pause”. Why? CO2 must play a role in recent climate but I suspect a better answer can be had in the study of moon periodicity and its influence on the tides and hence ocean circulation. Once detrending method is selected, one can analyze the UAH data with Fourier analysis. But the mystery is not the 3 year and 18-year ENSO cycles but the step changes. This may be the 33-year lunar cycle. Just a thought. If we aren’t accounting for tidal effect on short-term small scale climate change, I think we’re missing somesthing.
NO CO2 Was Emitted in the production of this pavement.
The Biden Administration’s unprecedented battle to fight climate change begins with … asphalt. “We’re from the government and we’re here to pave.”
Majority of new federal climate funds in Pennsylvania going to repave parking lots | Just The News
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot…”
I would bet my house that Ian was no longer a cat. 4 hurricane with 150 mph winds at landfall and within an hour, was a cat. 1 or less hurricane.
All the surface observations scream that out loud and clear. Granted, there are reasons for Irma to stay stronger, longer but the NHC was keeping Ian much stronger, much longer than the surface observations supported.
With Irma, the disparity between NHC reports and land based instrumentation was consistent with all the other hurricanes that I’ve followed.
With Ian, there was a complete detachment from previous relationships of NHC reported winds and winds measured by many dozens of anemometers on the ground at that time.
I followed this closely and in amazement, hour by hour thru 6 hours after landfall.
I welcome comments. I have a good idea why this happened but will not state it until others comment and every possibility has been exhausted.
Please focus, not just on the reasons why the NHC will always have higher winds than land instruments………I totally get that and most of the reasons.
I’ve followed hurricanes for 4 decades.
But especially, why THIS TIME more than any other by an extremely wide margin, that difference was double any other time that I recall.
Comparison of Ian-2022 to Irma-2017
I noticed the disparity between the land based instruments and the NHC reporting a long time ago and so began to watch closely and kept a notebook handy for notes and lots of open tabs on mu computer. After Irene and Sandy I was certain not to believe anything put out by NOAA or NHC. They are a shame and disgrace. It goes without saying for the mainstream media. We have had over 30 years of false reporting. Fake news has turned old and grey but now it has been revealed for what it is and has its very own meme.
This time was different than other
Winds speeds from the get go were 30-50 mph and it stayed that way all evening..
Ian’s death toll up to 79/Extreme Storm Surge
Good link Mike.
Can anyone explain the molecular mechanism behind the lapse rate, or refer to a not-completely-math-filled explanation that might involve the equipartition theorem? That is, it’s said that molecules do ‘work’ against gravity when air rises and in this way kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as parcels become less dense (i.e., rise.) However, I’d like to know exactly what happens on a molecular level if anyone knows.
Thanks in advance.
According to independent calculations by Maxwell and Boltzmann, gravity does not alter the molecular velocity distribution function (vide infra). At equilibrium, temperature remains uniform and entropy a maximum. According to current climate science models, entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude. In the former case, non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes. Your choice is between the math or the intuition.
“… non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes.”
So I suppose the question would be, where do those energy flux magnitudes come from?
Let’s put this another way. ” …. non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes.” OK, so when air warms up with decrease in altitude, where is this energy flux coming from, exactly? From the radiation of CO2 and water vapor, to the tune of 6.5C/km?
So then CO2 and water vapor have enough energy to warm the atmosphere 6.5C/km as the air descends, is that it? Or in (mostly) dry air, as in deserts: is it just CO2 that has the energy to increase heating of the air beyond the environmental lapse rate, to the dry lapse rate? So that without the help of water vapor CO2’s energy increases?
I’d really like to hear this explained. I’d like to know where this energy flux is coming from.
When air cools with altitude, where is this energy flux going? ” … entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude.” I don’t think that sentence says anything but what’s already obvious. By what molecular mechanism does temperature decrease with altitude? Is translational energy lost and converted to gravitational potential energy? And yet gravity is doing nothing, it’s a non-actor, it’s already done and nothing is acting now? If I jump off a roof I’ll float?
Trenberth’s classic cartoon depicts the sources and sinks of energy fluxes. The atmosphere’s temperature drops with altitude because that’s the direction energy flows. Were there no greenhouse gases, surface radiation passes to outer space unimpeded. With such gases, radiation is absorbed, warming the atmosphere, preferentially in regions of highest density (shortest path length), until escaping the troposphere with a thermal gradient. When this gradient exceeds a critical value (the adiabatic lapse rate), stable convective cells may form, enhancing an energy flux.
A key question, what would the thermal gradient be were the atmosphere pure nitrogen? If equilibrium is an isentropic state, 9.4K/km (g/Cp). If an isothermal state, 0.0 K/km. The former implies a uniform entropy density (dS/dz=0). The latter, a maximum of the total entropy given by integration of dS over z. Maxwell and Boltzmann assert the latter, climate science chooses the former. For the isentropic state, the internal energy of a differential volume element is independent of its position. This doesn’t imply transitions between positions at finite rates are free from a viscous dissipation of energy.
Climate science illustrates a classic case of the perils of intuitive reasoning. Boltzmann: “The effect of the external forces consists merely in the fact that the density in the gas changes from place to place in a manner which is already known from hydrostatics.” Ergo, if temperature changes from place to place, density must determine temperature. But, molecular velocities for a kilogram of an ideal gas are independent of density and temperature is a function of these velocities. To escape this paradox, one needs abandon notions of equilibria and consider the dissipation of free energy.
There are several problems with ESGs: First and foremost are the fiduciary responsibility to investors and the inability to measure and verify emission reductions in real time. In short, no accounting protocol, no international standards, and greenwashing/fraud.
Sergueï Jirnov (Сергей Олегович Жирнов) is cancelled on French news channel LCI, not because he is a clueless buffoon (who even promoted the Chernobyl dirt Russian soldiers irradiation hoax) but for anti-Putin homophobic speech:
Radiation Sickness Affecting Russian Soldiers at Chernobyl
Sorry about the confusion with Richard & David. Richard a great actor, David latterly a mere narrator.
Please WATTSUPWTAT try to answer my question. I feel it could be a game changer,
with REAL science!
Peter Gleick is blaming cholera on “climate”:
“Cholera Surging Globally as #Climate Change Intensifies”
He’s quick, they haven’t finished with the covid and monkeypox fear yet and he’s starting on cholera fear.
I drove close to 500 kilometres yesterday mostly on a major motorway and towing a caravan, I overtook three EVs that were being driven at about 80 kilometres an hour in the 110 speed limited areas.
I was thinking about the travelling time for the EVs and then a long wait for recharging, and with no trailer to further reduce to about one-third of theoretical range for the average towing range.
No doubt about it, if EV was affordable for most drivers they really are town and city vehicles.
I’m curious about how any windmill farms and solar power plants held up that were in the direct path of Hurricane Ian. Haven’t seen a single word about this in the media as yet. Does anyone have the data?
Any thoughts here on who sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipeline?
A few but they occur somewhat earlier in the posts than here.
Is there any way to quantify this change: https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-finally-know-why-oceans-in-the-southern-hemisphere-are-getting-so-warmThe whole basis for the article seems to be all change is bad and we’re just making it worse.
Chevron is selling its global headquarters in California as it continues to move its operations and employees to Texas, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The oil giant sold 92 acres of offices in San Ramon as its workers continue to relocate to its Houston campus, where it has three times the number of employees that California has, according to the WSJ