The beginning: “The extreme rhetoric of “loss and damage reparations” could backfire, causing developed countries to question the developing country claims of human caused damage. The best defense against a ruinous liability claim is innocence.
Until now the alarmist governments of America and the other developed countries have gleefully touted the emergency threat of human caused climate change, because it gave them immense power. They happily boasted of transforming our society and transitioning our energy system, all to save us from the ever increasing greenhouse gasses.
Central to this alarmist narrative is the theme that the world is already suffering heavily from human caused climate change. Every weather disaster is now called a “climate event” or some silly such.
Well as we say in the mountains: “What goes around, comes around”.
The climate damage narrative has now come to bite the developed countries, and bite them really hard. In principle ruinously hard.”
COP 27 has dissolved into a finger pointing blame fest and no one is prepared to take responsibility. The insurance world understands this very well. Never admit responsibility, negotiate on the details. The compromise will never be satisfactory to anyone but it does equal a resolution, until the next confrontation when the goalposts shift again.
French authorities suggest you watch Internet videos in low definition to avoid carbon emissions.
And they certainly made a video on that, as they always do. High def, of course.
(Why do people make videos instead of searchable texts?)
Did Nicole make landfall as a hurricane? This NHC cartoon says it did… https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/145629.shtml?swath But, where are the supporting sustained surface wind reports? It’s also interesting to note that the Euro model never forecast Nicole to reach hurricane strength.
The mainstream media is strrrrraining to make something of it. It was not a strong hurricane, so, it doesn’t change the trend for “no change” in landfall of MAJOR hurricanes in the U.S.. Thus, they are emphasizing that it is the first hurricane to come ashore in the month of November since 1982. 🙄
Yes, Bastardi works for WeatherBell, but the link you provided is from Accuweather — they are different companies. Let me know if you find a Bastardi comment about Nicole. In the meantime, good luck finding wind reports validating that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane. Please let me know if you do. (By the way, that Accuweather report is only a forecast — not verified data. Anyone can make a forecast, just like Al Gore.)
Thanks for the updated link. Yes, Joe said the winds were strong, but he never did confirm any reported wind speed data — he only commented about pictures he saw — not actual valid wind data. As we all know the max winds are within the eyewall of a storm. And, we also know that Nicole’s center nearly went over Vero Beach — which would have experienced Nicole’s max wrath. Here is Vero Beach wind data. Notice the non-hurricane winds around 3 AM — or eyewall passage … https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/vero-beach/KVRB/date/2022-11-10 Also knote which line is “sustained” versus “gust” wind. Nicole did not hit Florida as a Cat 1 — unless you can identify other eyewall data.
JS said: “ As we all know the max winds are within the eyewall of a storm”
…and only over the open ocean and only a very small part of the eyewall at that.
JS said: “And, we also know that Nicole’s center nearly went over Vero Beach — which would have experienced Nicole’s max wrath”
Vero Beach was a bit south of Vmax. Vmax was occurring on the right flank of the cyclone. Nevermind that land stations even coastal stations are rarely capable of measuring Vmax mainly due to the slowing effect caused by the friction of the land.
The only buoy I found in the path of Nicole was NDBC’s SPGF1. But, unfortunately it was south of Vmax. At 03:10Z it measured 41 kts sustained at 26.7N, 79W while simultaneously AF306 found Vmax at 27.4, 78.8W which was 80 km away. Florida Institute of Technology coastal buoy SIPF1 was near Vmax, but unfortunately it does not report wind speed.
Again…SFMR 95 kts unflagged (rain rate reported 0 mm/hr) at 26.617N, 78.267W at 23:22Z via NOAA3 #14 OB #15. I’ll repeat that is an SFMR measurement…and as know you that means the elevation is sea level.
It is sustained…10s average. It may be a bit different than a 60s average, but not by much. It is standard practice to take the SFMR measurement as the sustained Vmax. It is unclear why the NHC went with a 65 kt assignment here. I suspect they did so due to the flight level winds. We won’t know until the official report comes out next year. There is also the 982mb dropsonde measurement that didn’t even hit the center and the 976 mb extrapolation that confirms the category 1 assignment. Given the multiple 65+ kts surface observations and the multiple corroborating pressure measurements we can definitively say Nicole was a hurricane. We’ll have to wait and see if it gets upgraded to a category 2 for the best track product available next year. Even despite the 95 kts measurement I lean more toward them sticking with category 1 here.
The standard definition for a “sustained” wind is a one-minute average. SFMR 10-sec data is something non-standard. Plus at flight level, they use a 30-second wind — a little closer to the standard. Maybe someday SFMR will be reprogrammed to follow standards. Until then, I’m still looking for sustained surface wind data.
The SFMR is designed to report a wind speed value that is consistent with a 1 minute average from traditional measurements already. Any changes to the sampling plan (like extending the averaging period) and associated model changes would need to continue to produce results consistent with the results from traditional measurements. Keep in mind that unlike traditional measurements the SFMR is measuring an effect that is itself modulated by the sustained component of the wind. And unlike traditional measurements it has a spatial component to it as well that depends on the angular width of the beam and how far the beam travels that also acts to smooth the measurement. And according to the literature the 10s averaging period is meant more as a means of reducing the uncertainty of the measurement than in differentiating the sustained and ebb/flow components of the wind speed anyway. I’m not sure much improvement on the uncertainty can be had by moving to a 60s averaging period (which would expands the spatial domain as well). The point is the SFMR is designed specifically for estimating sustained winds and assigning tropical cyclone intensities already. And it is reported as being able to do so within ±5 m/s (10 kts) of dropsonde measurements. So conservatively we can say that 95 kts measurement is consistent with a dropsonde measurement being at least 85 kts assuming there are no other quality issues with the measurement.
Great, and thanks for the link and data details. I am now even more inclined to believe that Nicole never attained hurricane status. The accompanying SFMR, very light, flight-level winds expose a big problem. I’m frankly surprised that the 95 and 88 kt reports were printed — they should have been 9.5 and 8.8 kts. Plus, temperatures do not reflect warm core status — and rainfall totals do not reflect a typical tropical storm (no less a hurricane). Area wind field maps only show max winds on the north side, a reflection of pressure-gradient induced winds — a joint effort between Nicole and the strong anticyclone over the states. Max winds never encircled the storm.
So let me get this straight. The multiple 65+ kts surface measurements make you even more convinced that Nicole was never a hurricane and you question whether it was even a tropical storm because of the rainfall totals?
http://tropicalatlantic.com/ is usually what I use for the aircraft recon data. The 95 kts measurement was in the stronger right flank at 26.6N, 78.3W at 23:23Z. The 68 kts measurement was in the weaker left flank at 25.7N,77.8W at 00:24Z. AF306 mission #13 measured 78 kts (90 mph) in the stronger right flank at 27.4N, 78.8W at 03:08Z. That recon flight also measure a pressured of 982mb with a 17 kt wind at 03:16Z.
Landfall was at 27.6N, 80.4W. KFPR is located at 27.5N, 80.4W. AF306 observed Vmax about +0.4N of the center. At landfall this would have put Vmax at 28.0N. That is 44 km north of the landfall and 56 km north of KFPR. KFPR would not have been positioned for a Vmax measurement anyway since it is a land station even if were at 28.0N.
The station best positioned for measuring Vmax was the FIT coastal buoy SIPF1, but unfortunately it is not equipped with an anemometer. SIPF1 would have been better position for a Vmax measurement since it was offshore around the barrier islands mitigating the land friction effect. You need to be a couple of clicks away from the mainland otherwise the winds bunch up and slow down. This is true even for mainland coastal buoys.
There are no surface sustained wind reports indicating Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane — not even where most damage occurred around Daytona Beach. This is why the Weather Channel stopped reporting winds when Nicole hit, and only focused on water and waves — because that’s all they had. It was obvious — they knew it was a nothingcane before it even hit Florida.
JS said: “There are no surface sustained wind reports indicating Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane”
NOAA3 and AF306 clearly show that Nicole was a hurricane. In fact, we cannot eliminate the possibility that is was a category 2. We’ll have to wait for the official report next year to see if that 95 kts measurement qualifies.
I did. And to be honest I think you’re feign ignorance of aircraft recon data here. Every meteorologist knows this data exists and where to find it. It is discussed ad-nauseum by the NHC and forums like AmericanWx, storm2k, etc so I know you know about this data. I just don’t know what you’re angle is here in pretending like it doesn’t exist.
I saw flight level winds, but not sustained surface winds. While discussions are nice, I like to look at actual data reports. Please identify just one sustained surface wind report: date/time, location, and source.
You also saw surface winds like the 95 kts measurement. I know you did because I posted them. You also know how and where to look them up. I know because 1) you’re a meteorologist, 2) the RAOB Program may already have a parser at least for the UZNT13 files and 3) the link to where you can find the observations was posted above.
Donald Trump should refrain from trashing his fellow Republicans.
I’m talking specifically about Florida Governor, Ron Desantis and Virginia Governor, Glenn Youngkin.
Governor Desantis and Governor Youngkin are rising stars in the Republican Party. They are doing things that are favored by a majority of Republicans.
Attacking them now, when they have not even said they were thinking about running for president, will only backfire on you, Donald. It will make you look like a petty, vindictive person. And Republicans will not buy your attempts to trash these people. They already have a high opinon of them, and your trying to trash that opinion will be seen for what it is and not favorably.
Declare you are running for president in 2024, and then attack Joe Biden and the Democrats, not Republicans.
Taking shots at Desantis and Youngkin is different from taking shots at Jeb Bush or some of the others you denigrated in the election of 2016. Desantis and Youngkin have established records.
Giving Desantis and Youngkin nasty, denigrating nicknames will only backfire on you, Donald.
Do the smart thing and concentrate on the real enemies, the radical Democrats. Call them all the names you want.
Don’t take shots at Republicans who may not even run against you.
I see Desantis as your successor, and that’s the way you should see it, too.
Otherwise, you may not get elected next time around.
Watch your mouth. It can make or break you now. Be nice. Except to radical Democrats.
Donald Trump will never be president again
DeSantis might be president in 2024
His policies are not that much different than Trump but he is more intelligent and much more polite.
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment:
“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
DeSantis has shown himself to be a much more competent executive than Biden could ever hope to be. An example, during the great Texas freeze of early 2021, Biden waited until the freeze was almost over before offering to send generators to Texas even though the freeze was forecast several days in advance. Before the latest hurricane struck Florida, DeSantis had several thousand linemen and utility trucks positioned to restore power.
“Before the latest hurricane struck Florida, DeSantis had several thousand linemen and utility trucks positioned to restore power.”
While I support Gov DeSantis, the prepositioning of this kind is a cooperative among the southern states and is done anytime a weather disaster is coming.
We had cleanup crews from Louisiana clearing debris on my street. Likewise, Florida crews go out to other states under similar circumstances.
Trump has great instincts and is a great salesman. On most subjects his intelligence seems below average for a major politician. Such as climate science. He was especially inept on the subject of Covid (promoting fakers Fauci and Birx) and Covid vaccinations. Trump took a risky Covid vaccination after his immune system defeated Covid and he already had natural antibodies to ward off future Covid infections. He continues to promote “his” vaccines in spite of the worst side effects of any vaccine in history. That’s just plain stupid.
Trump made several extremely dumb and immoral choices in baking up the wrong party in lawsuits, like Oracle vs. Google Android: Trump defended the “intellectual property” of Java side.
Very sick!
2. Many people thought Trump would never be president (that’s most likely why the vote-riggers didn’t have their ducks in a row in 2016 — they were sure Crooked Hillary would win).
Flusterman has a machine that will translate Biden’s incoherent statements, while we have to rely on our Biden Gibberish Magic Decoder Rings, which don’t work as well.
Today “The Hill” proposed this idea which I think has a lot of merit!
Biden confirms to run in 2024.
Biden drops Harris for the 2024 run.
Biden puts Gavin Newsom onboard as his 2024 VP.
After getting re-elected, Biden resigns and elevates Newsom to POTUS.
Newsom is the 2028 Democratic candidate….
Good strategy to hold the WH for another 10 years. Makes me gag.
Judging by the now parlous condition of the electoral system in the US, anyone who drools and stumbles enough could get elected.
The men in grey suits are running the US, not the elected houses, and they are using Europe as a sacrificial pawn in a battle for economic dominance over the emerging BRIC’s nations.
‘Climate Change’ is merely a battleground for these people and it’s falling apart. But fear not, another will be along soon.
“But fear not, another will be along soon.” Actually, it’s here! Climate-and-Green-Energy is the 50-year-old scam. Covid-19 Lockdowns-and-“Vaccines” is the new scam.
Be very afraid – wolves have stampeded the sheep – again!
Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimates 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and 2 billion adverse reactions to date, and it’s not over. This Winter will be worse in Europe – caused by the toxic “vaccines” and the energy shortage – that we predicted in 2002. [insert strong expletive] Why don’t we hear about this in our mainstream media (our “bought” mainstream media)? Another holocaust, ~50 million total current and future “vaccine” deaths worldwide, similar to WW2.
Here is what our hospitals were like in March 2020 – EMPTY!!! Dancing health care workers. https://twitter.com/i/status/1592020596376088576 I had determined in Feb2020 from hard-to-find quality data that Covid-19 was really only dangerous to the very elderly and infirm – the Great Barrington Declaration made identical conclusions six months later. Still, I was reluctant to publish because of the overwhelming propaganda that we had a very serious problem. What was I missing?
We locked down in mid-March 2020 for two weeks (must have been a typo – it was actually two YEARS!) to “flatten the curve”. Hospitals in Alberta were emptied for eight weeks starting ~mid-March 2020 to make room for a “tsunami of Covid-19 patients”. About 21Mar2020 I learned that our hospitals were empty of Covid-19 patients – “the Covid Tsunami that NEVER ARRIVED!” That is when I called the Covid-19 lockdown a scam.
The evidence used to support the Scamdemic was highly inflated (~45-cycle) Covid-19 PCR tests that were deliberately corrupted to yield huge numbers of false positives – a “Casedemic”. Our corrupt health authorities kept selling that charade for many months. It was all false – Kabuki theatre!
There was NO increase in total death trends in Alberta or Canada to 1July2020 – no total death increase means NO DANGEROUS PANDEMIC. The average age of Covid-19 deaths in Alberta to ~end-2020 was 82, vs an average lifespan of Albertans of ~79. These were very elderly, unwell people who were already at the end of their lives. USA Covid-19 stats were completely corrupted and unreliable – you cannot use them. USA Covid-19-deaths were deliberately exaggerated ~16 times.
The level of overblown rhetoric used by wolves to panic the sheep was unequalled in our history. It was pure false propaganda. The lockdowns, masking etc were ineffective, unjustified and economically destructive and probably deliberately so. The Covid-19 “vaccines” were highly toxic and increasingly ineffective and probably deliberately so. I called that correctly on 8Jan2021. I was never an anti-vaxxer before this time. It is impossible to believe that any of this was an accident. No rational person or group could be this obtuse, this utterly wrong for this long.
The Covid and Covid vaccine scam can’t continue because the Covid epidemic ended last Summer. The common Omicron infection is just a common cold, not dangerous Covid. Covid 19 is rare now.
“50 million total current and future “vaccine” deaths worldwide, similar to WW2” is tin hat conspiracy theory nonsense not supported by data
Covid-19 was never dangerous except for the very elderly and infirm. In Canada AND in Alberta here was no increase in total deaths to 1July2020. See my tables and plots in CorrectPredictions.ca. I called that correctly on 21Mar2020, six months before the Great Barrington Declaration. In the USA the flawed treatments caused most of the excess deaths to 1July2020. Delay treatment, remdesivir and ventilators. The deaths in Canada started with the toxic “vaccines”. Re vaxx deaths, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimates 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and >1 billion adverse reactions to date, and I say it’s not over. Hope he and I are wrong – but doubt it.
Just for a second consider how the world would be if what you are saying had even a slither of truth. Every person on the planet would know people personally who have died or been affected. Well, I know of no one. I know of no one who knows anyone. Doesn’t stack up does it. We had a guy die here in NZ and it was all over the news. In fact it was big news.
How are they going to hide 20 million world wide when one can’t sneak by without making billboards? Sorry but what you are saying is just plain silly.
The 50 million is not supported by data.
VAERS data could be extrapolated / adjusted to represent about 100,000 deaths (mainly in the US, but WAERS gets overseas reports too).
The world is big place – bigger than the USA – many people don’t know that. Read what I wrote: 20 million to date, more to follow.
The only reliable way to tell is by excess total deaths.
“It will make you look like a petty, vindictive person. ”
Tom, what do you mean “make you look?” Trump has been a petty, vindictive person all his life. And you can add narcissistic to the list. He has no loyalty to anyone but Donald. Anyone and I mean anyone who crosses him, will be derided. It makes no difference whether they are D or R. Desantis is now the enemy so watch this space. If I was Desantis I would say nothing. Let Donald shoot himself.
It’s power he needs and he cares not who he cuts on his way to getting it. Let’s not forget Donald was a Democrat no so long ago. He was also pro choice.
As an aside I don’t think there is any doubt that the poor showing by the Republicans in this election (relative to what was expected)is largely due to the Don. Watch… he will announce his run for the presidency even though the timing will hurt the R party. He just doesn’t care. And as his star fades, he will do as much damage as he can to those he perceives have been disloyal.
Trump has been a petty, vindictive person all his life.
What you know of Trump’s character is from popular media. Judge him on his success’s and failures rather than his supposed character. By other media characterisations he’s a decent and generous man.
The fact is, you don’t wind up an enduring billionaire without lots of friends.
And you can add narcissistic to the list. He has no loyalty to anyone but Donald.
Ultimately, that’s true of all of us.
It’s power he needs and he cares not who he cuts on his way to getting it.
He’s had power. POTUS is arguably the ultimate global power. And you say it as though it’s a bad thing but he didn’t go mad and provoke a war in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world, indeed he’s the first POTUS in living memory not to begin a new war in a theatre remote from the US. So explain to me your perception of power please.
Let’s not forget Donald was a Democrat no so long ago. He was also pro choice.
So, no one is allowed to change their mind? Apparently Joe Biden is a reformed racist, on which basis, the entire Democrat party are reformed racist’s. Accept that Trump can change his mind or accept that Democrats are still racist’s.
“The fact is, you don’t wind up an enduring billionaire without lots of friends.” Oh so you think the more money you make the nicer you are? Interesting. But… there are numerous people who have worked with him who say he is all of what I have said. What did Rex Tillerson call him? Oh and General Kelly? Then there is his niece. She wasn’t very nice about him. Your turn. Who has said he was a “decent and generous man?”
“Ultimately, that’s true of all of us.” Ummm no, Trumps single minded devotion to himself is unique.
“So explain to me your perception of power please.” He expectation is that people worship him. When they don’t he belittles them. DeSantis thing is a classic. Not only is Ron DS not grateful, he is going to run against him. This is the ultimate betrayal in Donalds eyes. Watch this space.
“So, no one is allowed to change their mind? Trump is so transparent with his flip flopping it is embarrassing. He goes where the votes are in a way that is cringeworthy. No better example that his courting the evangelicals. Here we have a philandering, conman, crock, who suddenly finds God (when it wins votes). Yuck!!!!
Simon,
Please refrain from trying to turn WUWT into a politicial opinion blog.
What individuals think and write about politics goes nowhere towards improving Life, so don’t clutter the airways, huh?
Geoff S
Ok so I didn’t bring it up, Tom did. I was merely agreeing with him. I was happy to leave it there. If people comment I comment back. It’s what you do on a blog like this. I’m sorry if my words hurt your feelings, but if you don’t like what I write, then I suggest you don’t read it.
Nevertheless, it isn’t a personality contest, it’s a search for the best executive to run this country.
Bottom line:
What Donald Trump says isn’t what Americans care about. They care about what he does. What Trump does is good for America (and all freedom-loving people everywhere).
Janice…. shouldn’t we care about both… I mean what he says and does? I mean, what he has said lately probably/possibly cost the Republicans the senate. Words do matter
“What Donald Trump says isn’t what Americans care about.”
Completely wrong. There are many independent and conservative women who do not like listening to Trump. especially in the first debate with Biden. That debate turned off my wife and her only conservative female friend. They still voted for Trump over Biden but really want someone else running in 2024. Trump’s political career is finished. He just doesn’t know it yet.
French TV news channels have been on 100% Trump bashing mode; even the night on US election (which I watched almost entirely – I’m courageous lol) had one Dem vs. NYer – very afraid of guns – “conservative”.
But in France I still see a lot of support for Trump on social media.
Fake meat has been sold for 25+ years now in the UK, confined to a single section of a small freezer in supermarkets. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if people buy it, I have bought and consumed it myself and it was ‘acceptable’ as fake mince (ground beef) in a bolognese. But when it’s compared to one of the ultimate test’s of UK cuisine, mince and doughballs, it can’t compete.
Traditional British fare is simple, the ingredients are the victors of the dish, not the embellishments.
For example, Cod straight from the depths of the cold North Sea, skinned, filleted, coated in batter and deep fried in animal fat (not vegetable oil) is a success of the fish, not the batter or the simple cooking method. The batter protects the delicate fish from the fierce heat of the scalding oil. Properly done, you consume a moist but firm piece of tasty fresh fish, healthy and nutritious with a balance of protein and carbs. The batter happens to be delicious as well.
A mince and dougballs recipe for you. Any root vegetable and many greens, like peas, can be added for a one pot wonder.
“Genetically male central bearded dragons – a species of lizard found in Australia – will actually change from male to female when they are incubated over a certain temperature. ”
Oh no… they’ve gone full Alex Jones, turning the frogs gay.
I’ve seen bearded drag queens as well as bearded drag-ons.
Don132
November 13, 2022 6:53 am
The theory of CO2 catastrophe, as expressed by Dr. Pierrehumbert:
As more CO2 is added the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR and the emissions height is raised. Then, at a higher emissions height but from the same temperature, we count down using the environmental lapse rate (6.5C/km) to get a warmer surface. Thus a mere rise in the emissions height of 300 meters would lead to a 1.95C surface warming.
Disaster looming?
Wait a minute. In the tropopause temperature decreases with height so a higher emissions height would have to be at a colder temperature, not at a warmer temperature. If we say that the atmosphere would be warmer then we’re assuming the conclusion: we’re assuming that the atmosphere has warmed already (from heat brought up from the surface) such that a higher emissions height is the same temperature.
If emissions are in the tropopause where the temperature does indeed stay the same with height, then we can’t use the “count down” gambit because the lapse rate stops just before the tropopause begins.
It’s just hand waving.
At any location, pressure as expressed in the dry and moist lapse rates largely governs atmospheric cooling despite excursions obviously caused by weather events. This is what skew-T diagrams tell us. An understanding of skew-T diagrams also leads us to understand that the “count down from higher emissions” is nonsense.
That aught to be a requirement to put wind or solar on the grid. Wind and Solar should both provide at least one day of battery power for each turbine or panel and require that before the turbine or panel reattaches to the grid the battery is recharged to a minimum of 80% to 90%. That way, when they come on the grid you can count on at least one day of uninterrupted power from each. Sure would make scheduling easier.
The real world OLR must be the weighted sum of clear sky and cloudy sky OLRs.
Observed from space, the active planetary surface is the cloud top and clear-sky terrestrial land/ocean surface.
It is a two level radiating system, surface and cloud top. The weighted value of these radiators is the Earth’s effective skin temperature.
At any given time the planet is about 2/3ds covered by cloud.
In the regions below the cloud cover, the IR radiation cannot escape to space and cannot contribute directly to planetary radiative balance. It is the cloud surface acting as the radiative skin.
In reality, limitless transfers of energy to-and-from latent heat reservoirs from the land/ocean surface and cloud maintains the bulk of active skin temperature observed from space. It is only the clear sky surface and cloud top participating in LW dissipation.
Modelers impose a deliberate constraint on the atmospheric response to increasing trace gas concentration. In reality, the non-radiative dissipative effects of latent heat transfers to cloud top are free to vary. This maintains the effective skin temperature.
The correct treatment of surface effective skin temperature is as follows:
Te = (L / (16πσD2))1/4
Where:
L = Solar luminosity = 3.846*1026 W m-2 K-4
D = distance from Sun
σ = the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.6704 * 10-8 W
279K is Earth’s effective radiating temperature. With no atmosphere this would all originate from the rocky frozen surface. With the atmosphere this represents the weighted average clear sky and cloudy sky effective skin temperature.
The LW radiative greenhouse effect is merely global average near surface temperature minus effective skin temperature established from well known astrophysics. 288K – 279K = 9K.
The weighted average effective skin is lifted about 1.4km in total. Using environmental lapse rate 6.5K/km results in 9K/6.5K/km = 1.4km.
With about 2/3rds the planet in cloud cover, the global average cloud radiating height is hypothetically (0.66) x 1.4km = 2.12km.
My point in my top comment was that using the lapse rate (6.5C/km) works only in the troposphere. In the troposphere the temperature decreases with height once we get anywhere near what the average emissions height is determined to be. The logic of “count down from a higher radiating height” is faulty.
What’s the average radiating height? Different people give different answers. The earth radiates from all levels of the atmosphere, including from the surface through the atmospheric window. But for reference, I used Clive Best’s calculations, figure 2 here: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4475
Earth TOA emission spectra peaks just below the 280K blue curve using US Standard Atmosphere illustrated below. It looks pretty close to the hypothetical curve of 279K, or a bulk average radiating height of 1.4km using an environmental lapse rate of 6.5K/km.
Question (and it may be silly) but in your formula (which I am NOT questioning) you have D = distance from the sun. Astronomically, there are two possible values for that number, one in kilometres, one in A.U. Are you able to specify which value is the correct one? I have a temptation to use your information in a presentation I am preparing.
Also, if I may suggest, if one wishes to write, as in your formula, D2, I think you mean the second power of D, which most WUWTer’s would write as D^2. Similarly, 3.846 * 10^26 is a more readable format for SciNot.
”Emissions height” is not a very enlightening concept. IR emissions of Earth viewed from satellites consist of the IR temperature of ground, ocean, cloud tops, ice, and to a lesser extent water vapor before it rises high enough to become cloud cover. Average them all together as if you had a very fuzzy lens, compare to atmospheric lapse rate, and you’ve got yourself the “emissions height”. But really it is the amount of convective cloud, ocean, and land area that is important.
Conceptually “emissions height” is similar to saying that the average traffic accident occurs at 15 mph above the posted speed limit. Possibly true, but not useful for determining what the speed limit should be on your new road….
Here’s a NASA satellite infrared view of South Florida. The “emissions height” concept would average the different pixels into one “temperature” number, and then tell you what altitude corresponds to that temperature. Obviously there is much more going on than emissions height.
Thanks for the comment. Theoretically, the use of emissions height and lapse rate are used to scare people into believing the imminence of CO2 catastrophe. My point was that the lapse rate and emissions height– whatever it actually is– aren’t related. The “environmental” lapse rate is the lapse rate is the lapse rate until just before the tropopause, and then it isn’t. They will tell us that “of course” the emissions height average is just theoretical but the theory of how raising the emissions height shifts the lapse rate to warmer temps is the scary part. But– my main comment– in the troposphere temp always decreases with height along the moist/dry adiabat trajectories(which are parallel above a certain temperature) in skew-T diagrams; we see this over and over in the data from numerous balloons launched twice each day (with consideration for clearly weather-related events that are the exception to the lapse rate profiles, not the rule.) Nevertheless we’re supposed to be very, very scared, and Greta Thunberg is right.
Just a reminder that the other side of the
argument is pretty much totally unhinged.
Keith Ball
November 13, 2022 7:38 am
Here’s the code I share:
Sorry, but CO2 is not a pollutant.
It’s plant food for life. If we cut it, we cut the potential for life.
We are not doomed and won’t be until another ice age hits, thousands of years from now. Then they’ll blame it on witches like they did in the 1600s.
Over the last 10,000 years, 6,100 years were warmer than it is now and there were no fossil fuels or SUVs.
Seas have been rising at a steady pace for 200 years, since the end of the little ice age.
Burning Fossil Fuels helped the planet avoid dangerously low C02 levels, not the other way around.
There you have it, the facts. Your motorcycle pipes are cool and so is the ol’ lady’s SUV. When it’s warming life is abundant. When it cools or another ice age approaches, we’re in trouble.
You are right except burning of fossil fuels has little to do with the greening of the planet. natural emissions are at least 20 times man-made emissions so only a 5% per year increase in natural emissions can account for the observed year-to-year increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The IPPC assumes there is no year-to-year natural increase in emissions so they can claim burning of fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere. There is no accumulation of either natural or man made emissions beyond a year. All the sinks (including the cold open polar waters) are acting on both.
“Times below from his lecture: “Control of Atmospheric CO2,” London, UK, 2015,
.)
— Growth of fossil fuel emission increased by 300%; growth of total CO2 did not change. Salby, 2015 at 4:10.
— Net global CO2 emission (all sources and sinks, natural and human) does NOT resemble IN THE SLIGHTEST the human CO2 emission rate. Human CO2 and net CO2 emission data are incoherent, i.e., net global CO2 evolves INDEPENDENTLY OF HUMAN EMISSION. Salby, 2015 at 7:20.
Salby is a science fraud and anyone who believes him is a science denier, or just not very bright. Sorry, but Murray Salby and Ed Berry are both frauds. Grow up and learn some basic climate science.
Leftists do make far too many exaggerations and tell lies about the future climate, but not 100% of what they say is wrong. If you listen to Salby and Berry, you are believing that almost every other scientist in the world is 100% wrong on the greenhouse effect and manmade CO2’s part in it.
I am annoyed by this fake science — it is making Climate Skeptics into laughingstocks. I have tried to refute climate scaremongering for 25 years with facts, data and logic. The Salby’s and Berry’s of the world, and their flock of brainwashed parrots, are not on our side.
natural emissions are at least 20 times man-made emissions
You are very confused science denier of the worst kind
Completely clueless on what caused the CO2 level to increase by +50% since 1850.
I am finding this disinformation far too common among people who are skeptical of climate change scaremongering.
This belief is essentially claiming that almost every scientist on this planet is wrong about the greenhouse effect and that manmade CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect.
The INCREASE of the CO2 level since 1850 is 100% from manmade CO2 emissions. because nature is a net CO2 absorber.
You are thinking about the carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle describes the process in which carbon atoms continually travel from the atmosphere to the Earth and then back into the atmosphere. Since our planet and its atmosphere form a closed environment, the amount of carbon in this system does not change. Where the carbon is located — in the atmosphere or on Earth — is constantly in flux.
To offset vehicular emissions, Honda has selectively bred algae that absorbs CO2 and is 32 times more fecund than normal Algae. Lets hope it doesn’t get released into the world’s oceans….
Over the last 10,000 years, 6,100 years were warmer than it is now
A nitpicking correction 9000 to 5000 years ago — Holocene Climate Optimum — is believed to have been one or two C. degrees warmer than today. That’s 4,000 years, not 6,100 years. Any other claims of warmer centuries in the past 5,000 years are well within a reasonable margin of error of averaged local climate reconstructions (opinions, not proven facts).
Wind Systems Paired with Grid-Scale Battery Systems
Wind output is different from other electricity generators, because it is unpredictable and highly variable; its intermittency is not the main problem.
Wind provides desultory energy, MWh, but not reliable capacity, MW.
Reliable capacity is absolutely necessary, sin qua non, for any modern grid system, to match supply to demand, with high precision, at all times.
Grid-scale battery systems are increasingly paired with wind systems to reduce the adverse effects on grid stability, due to the variability of wind output, MW. During gusty wind conditions, the output of a wind system has large variations, which could adversely impact the stability of frequency and voltage of the grid.
For example, a utility, or grid operator, may require a 30 MW wind system have an output variability not exceeding 2 MW/min, up or down, to maintain grid voltage and frequency variations within prescribed ranges. See URL.
The battery systems must be capable of charging and discharging to meet the utility-required ramp rates, while also not overheating the batteries.
Overheating would shorten the battery useful service life, and may cause fires, that burn at high temperatures and take a long time to extinguish.
Battery systems are rated for delivering a power level of, say 10 MW for 4 hours = 40 MWh, as AC at battery voltage, from 100% full to 0% full. The battery likely would be about 60 to 70% full, when a wind down ramp would occur.
A maximum 2 MW/minute downward wind ramp is allowed by the utility; if exceeded, wind output curtailment would be required, by feathering the blades. The battery discharge would be 2 MW x 3 minutes/60 = 0.6 MWh, if the down ramp lasts 3 minutes.
Roundtrip battery system losses, A-to-Z basis, are about 18% for new li-ion systems, 20% or more, for older systems
The MW and MWh of the battery system would be based on the capacity of the wind system, MW
On average, the battery should be charging and discharging to always maintain a certain charge level to be ready for any up and down wind ramp.
In Hawaii, several battery systems caught fire, because they were charging and discharging too rapidly, i.e., they were undersized and/or did not have adequate cooling systems.
NOTE: EV batteries, in case of 1) fast charging at a charging station, 2) fast discharging during accelerating and going uphill, 3) frequent “range driving”, such as make long trips every day (charging to 95%, discharging to 5%, instead of the recommended 80%/20%), all of which would reduce battery life, due to overheating and cell damage; hot summer days and cold winter days are stressful for batteries.
NOTE: This National Renewable Energy Lab, NREL, report mentions above issues. NREL is a government, pro-wind entity, which tends to see wind through rosier glasses than private enterprise. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/59003.pdf
Solar Systems Paired with Grid-Scale Battery Systems
Variable clouds are the main reason for rapid changes of solar output, in addition to the normal daily cycle. See image
Solar output may decrease by 60% within a few seconds, due to a cloud passing over solar systems.
The time taken for the cloud to pass is dependent upon cloud height, sun elevation and wind speed.
These factors need to be considered regarding solar power output forecasting and integrating the variable output into the grid.
The graph shows solar output profiles for ZIP codes in California. The further north, the less solar.
For example, ZIP code 920 shows a downward spike from about 115 MW to 65 MW, or 50 MW in 10 seconds, or 300 MW/minute, at 1 pm, which would significantly affect frequency and voltage stability on the grid.
For at least a decade, California has been mandating utilities to install grid-scale battery systems on their distribution systems.
Interesting. With respect to requiring wind or solar farms to have battery for smoothing output variations fro changes in wind and insolation: It’s about EFF’ing time!!! I do think the costs of battery ownership should be born by the wind and solar farms.
OTOH, I’d like to see a utility scale battery operate for at least a couple of years without a battery fire before going hog wild on utility scale battery installations.
A further incentive for getting the wind and solar farms on board is to require that they need to bid 24 hours in advance for the power they sell, with them eating the cost of replacement power if they don’t deliver and preference given to providers that can supply power during peak demand.
How crazy has this world become…
I ‘showed interest’ (because of the insane money) in a set of Li-Ion batteries that are presently in an eBay auction here in the UK.
A set of 3 of the so-called ‘Pylontech’ brand and 3 off 4.8kWh at 48Volt = 14.4KW.
Bidding is presently at £4,700 for the set.
These being Li-Ion are the sort that will burn your house down and, unless you only use 70% or less of that capacity, will get you maybe 500 cycles
Little do they know but a set of 16 LiFePO4 cells, rated at 320Ah, 3.2 Volts (16.4kWh) and 5,000+ cycles while not burning your house down, can be had for £350
It’s certainly a good job we’re all so rich and intelligent these days doncha think.
(Is there a ‘Cause & effect Error’ implicit in there somewhere?)
Useless unless you also have a correctly sized solar installation to charge them. You also need to buy new solar panels every 20 years and new batteries and inverters every ten years. Then there is the installation, maintenance and disposal costs, not to mention a new roof.
I can accept the IPCC definition of climate, and I know what weather is. I also know what it means to say the climate has changed. But what is someone talking about when they say “climate change” caused something? (Confusingly the term seems to often get abbreviated to just “climate”, so they will say “climate caused” something, but they can’t mean climate literally when they say that.) Can anyone tell me how to understand the term?
This may sound facetious but it really isn’t. “Climate/climate change” means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
It’s always caused by us (statistically and logically impossible) and the result is always bad (also statistically and logically impossible).
It’s best understood as a religious term, an intonation of the faith.
I have just read the Summary for Policymakers attached to the recent AR6 from the IPCC. Notable that ‘global warming’ has disappeared from the vocabulary – it’s all climate change. And the summary is frightening – the effects on health, crops, migration, extreme events, floods, droughts are awful! Are they lying or is all that true? Why aren’t we seeing more of all these horrors? Pakistani floods were nothing new – does that count as extreme? Who is actually suffering from sea level rise?
Climate change is a means to a political/financial end. Could it be a New World Order? Only if one is daft enough to imagine that Putin, Xi, or even Biden are prepared to take orders from the Teutonic megalomaniac fantasist Klaus Schwab.
The worlds population has always been terrified by a NWO going back to, and beyond, Alexander. The Romans swept before them a NWO but were ultimately defeated from within. Adolf Hitler threatened one only 80 years ago, and less than a generation before him the threat of a Kaiser.
Simplistic, I know, but the point is, humanity is no more threatened now by a NWO functioning under the guise of something else than we ever were before.
What it might force us to examine is the political and financial wellbeing of the west, and that would be a very good thing.
We don’t want to end up with a Chinese Communist system, but that’s where we are headed, whilst China has moved from a wholly communist system to a political/commercial hybrid.
Capitalism and Democracy is is a dreadful state right now. What we should be asking is, how do we take advantage of the current global political/financial chaos to improve it.
None of the scaremongering is true
Global warming in the past 47 years has been beneficial in many ways, especially for plants. Siberia has warmer winter nights too. No one was harmed. Extreme weather events have actually been in long term downtrends:
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s. MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s. US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s. THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
It is a term not supposed to be understood, only to confuse. I have even heard people earnestly discussing “climate emissions”. I, for one, have never emitted any “climate”, and don’t intend to start.
There is no one climate system across the earth, it’s made up of many systems within continents. The climate of the UK is not the climate of middle America which doesn’t have the Gulf Stream streaking by it.
The climate of the East coast of Australia is not equivalent to that of the Italian, French and Swiss Alps.
The term ‘climate’ was used to illustrate to school children the differing weather systems across numerous different land areas but it was hijacked by illeterates who misunderstood the basic concepts taught to 14 year old’s.
I accept that a ‘global temperature’ is a kind of rule of thumb, but how does that affect those myriad different climates and, on their boundaries, how do they affect one another?
Even were the earth warming significantly, how can anyone possibly predict it will be bad for “the world climate” rather than just different for each individual weather system?
“Climate Change” replaced “Global Warming” as the non-data-backed catastrophe used by the solar, wind, electric/hybrid vehicle, and other scammers to trick people into thinking human CO2 is a bad thing.
****************
Related: WUWT and other sites should always put the term “climate change” in quotes when using it in the above way. Otherwise, they do more to promote the lie than to expose it.
Climate change is now promoted as weather change, which is backwards because climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given area. The effect cannot be the cause. Words have definitions for a reason. When you change the definitions then there is no reason.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So, when someone invokes “climate change” as the reason something happened, what do they mean by “climate change”? They surely can’t mean the effect was the cause.
What is this thing that is capable of having effect?
ANSWER: “climate change” is a phrase, consisting of the words, “climate” and “change”. Each of these words has a common meaning. Combining the words and their common meanings has a proper common understanding. This common understanding properly has NOTHING to do with humans.
Of course, this is NOT how the phrase is used. Rather, the phrase, “climate change” is most often used in a way that perverts the proper common understanding. The phrase has been hijacked and weaponized to spread climate fear porn.
Climate change actually means a wild guess worst case prediction of global warming 400 years from now, using an unreasonably high rate of estimated CO2 emissions growth (ECS with RCP 8.5, or CAGW, in science terms). This worst case prediction is unrelated to actual mild, harmless warming experienced in the past 47 years of global warming. The prediction has also been wrong for the past 47 years
CD in Wisconsin
November 13, 2022 7:51 am
Say good-bye to the free market economy and fossil fuels folks. Climate Marxism?
“The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda seeks to replace capitalism with a new economic system, global leaders and corporate elites revealed during the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week.
“The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda seeks to replace capitalism with a new economic system, global leaders and corporate elites revealed during the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week.
“During the WEF’s panel discussion at COP27, Democrat President Joe Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry admitted that the climate change agenda was “modeled” on efforts to roll out vaccines during the Covid pandemic.
Kerry revealed that high-pressure, coercive government tactics, which have also been adopted by “woke” corporations, have been influenced by the WEF to push the green agenda.”
*************
If there was a more important time than now to push back against the CAGW narrative, I don’t know when/what it is. I recall reading somewhere that the head of the WEF has a bust of Lenin in his office. Now I know why.
I can see a situation in the not too distant future where the powerful Human Rights movement establishes through international binding treaties that dependable, non-polluting electricity is a basic human right, and that it is legally incumbent on all governments to assure that this is supplied.
This development is where all the “climate refugees” are going to come from.
“The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda seeks to replace capitalism with a new economic system, global leaders and corporate elites revealed during the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week.
With what?
I’m happy to accept than Capitalism and Democracy are crumbling but unless they can come up with a viable alternative, spelled out from beginning to end, the WEF remains as it seems, a bunch of wealthy fantasist’s with delusions of grandeur willing to stab each other in the back to be king of the world.
Does anyone really imagine Putin, Xi or Rocket man will agree to the west adopting the ‘new and improved’ western political system which will knock theirs into a cocked hat with it’s success?
It would surely mean a better financial system, a better defence system, a better social model, a better industrial model. You name it. The system would be so good the rest of the world would be forced to adopt it.
Except that, Putin, Xi and Rocket man don’t like taking orders from anyone, they have their own NWO ambitions and they don’t include taking orders from the carnival barker Klaus Schwab.
The New World Order only works if the whole world is happy to adopt it and, so far, the EU ‘New Continent Order’ isn’t working out too well.
HotScot, I’m sure the arrogant elitists at the U.N. and the WEF will leave those petty little details to national governments around the world. As long as their game plans are consistent with Marxist ideology and pander to the the CAGW narrative, I doubt if the U.N. and WEF elitists will have a problem with those plans.
Mikeyj
November 13, 2022 8:07 am
Wish them the best. Just kidding
Jimbo
November 13, 2022 8:46 am
Tony Heller claims that NOAA adjusted measured temperatures of the past downward giving the appearance of rising temperatures toward today. On the surface this seems crooked.
CO2 is relatively linear in a time series, but Temperatures are not. To make any climate model work relating CO2 to Temperatures, Temperatures need to be adjusted to closely resemble CO2, ie make them more linear. The problem that creates is that it defies the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. Temp isn’t a f(CO2), Temperature is a f(log(CO2)). Making Temperature more linear proves they know they are committing a fraud or are incompetent on an epic scale.
Jimbo!!! Is that YOU?? Oh, boy, if so, am I glad to see you are back! 😃
sunvox
November 13, 2022 9:04 am
Someone smarter than me please explain why the data and theory put forward in the paper linked below can not be used to refute the entire foundation upon which climate change rests, namely that human emissions are the cause of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and not nature. I start with the assumption that given the papers theory a model could be developed to predict actual carbon dioxide levels 5-7 months in advance and then such predictions could be compared to another model using human emissions as the basis. Would such an experiment be a) possible and b) have the desired impact?
Enquiring minds want to know?
Because the “Temperature at Alert inverted” would be different from temperatures anywhere else, so it sounds like a cherry-picked correlation. Alert is 82.5 degrees North and is continuously dark 5 months of the year, and continuously sunlit 5 months a year, and needless to say sits beside a usually frozen Arctic ocean. So it’s temperature correlation to CO2 is merely accidental. And one can easily come up with other possibilities such as the temperature at Alert depends on the time of year and CO2 absorption depends on the rate at which ocean currents change temperature as they move poleward (mostly).
Because he’s a curve fitter. Two years ago he was writing:
Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is indisputable, However, the irrefutable correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration for the past 800 thousand years is best explained by photosynthesis increases / decreases and not by the prevailing CO2 Green House Gas (GHG) theory. The prevailing GHG theory does not explain why CO2 increased or decreased or the carbon source prior to man, but photosynthesis does. Industrial farming, fishing, and ranching have reduced photosynthesis over the last 50 years causing global warming, not the prevailing CO2 emissions theory. For example, only 4.8% photosynthesis reduction equates to all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. CO2 GHG contributes to AGW, but is not the primary driver. “Greening” the earth is less expensive and substantially more effective than just reducing fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Prior to solving the current global warming problem, we should investigate and confirm the root cause(s). Then, solutions will become clear and cost effective.
The No Tricks Zone is an inferior website mainly from the contributions of a Kenneth Richard. Mr. Richard favors any “study” that denies that Co2 is an important climate change variable. These local climate reconstructions or exaggerations of minor climate change variables, appear almost every week. I try to post comments there refuting the false claims, but that is a continuous battle. It seems like every other week there is a new cause of the global warming in the past 47 years.
So I’ve been looking into this further and found more evidence to support the idea that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is coming from increasing temperature at the poles. Here is a paper that studied carbon dioxide in Barrow, AK from 1973 to 1979 taking hourly samples. Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere followed precisely the pattern seen at Mauna Loa with no chance that this is a result of terrestrial sequestration. The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are absolutely related to temperature. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1982.tb01804.x Then take a look at data from the antarctic. Carbon dioxide levels change 6 months out of phase with the arctic. Again the absolute implication is atmospheric carbon dioxide is coming from ice that is melting and refreezing. Nothing in these two data sets supports the idea that human emissions are being mixed in the air and sent to these locations. At a MINIMUM this should be something HONEST climatologists should investigate further. Show me a paper that investigated this, and I’ll consider you unbiased. Otherwise better take a LONG look in the bias mirror.
Then take a look at data from the antarctic. Carbon dioxide levels change 6 months out of phase with the arctic.
When plants are growing, photosynthesis outweighs respiration. As a result, plants take more CO2 out of the atmosphere during the warm months when they are growing the most. This can lead to noticeably lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Winter in the Southern Hemisphere is Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, so you’d expect mirror-image CO2 variations.
***Breaking News****
From Crap27:
The EU is refusing to fill Swiss bank accounts and to fund the buying of arms, Bentleys and solid gold bathrooms in ‘Developing Countries’
Quote from EU negotiator Jacob Werksman:”“We don’t think that this process is ready to agree in principle that a new fund or facility is the right or the only way forward,” he told a news conference.
From: Net Zero Watch (I’d give the link but my Firefox is being paranoid this arvo)
Not quite breaking news Peta. Having run from the conference centre of COP27, when he returned to the UK Sunak made a breathless announcement that he lied at the lectern, he’s not handing over reparations to the countries that demand it.
I wonder if it’s anything to do with the promises made at COP21 or so when the world was to hand over £100Bn a year to these same countries, but haven’t.
The back story is that having initially declined the invitation to attend COP27, Sunak sh*t his pants when Boris said he would be attending, and U turned. When Sunak promised to pay reparations to developing nations, Boris said it was a bad idea, and Sunak dutifully sh*t his pant’s and U turned again.
Ha ha. That’s a new one.
Sounds like you’re looking for new conspiracy theories due to a lot of the old ones have come true.
Sounds more like he’s backing what he believes is a winner. He’s smart enough to leave the socialist state of Ilinois and the vile gnome in charge of Chicago.
ResourceGuy
November 13, 2022 10:27 am
We have misplaced priorities in the U.S. thanks to advocacy channeling by the Sierra Club and Green Peace.
The beginning: “The extreme rhetoric of “loss and damage reparations” could backfire, causing developed countries to question the developing country claims of human caused damage. The best defense against a ruinous liability claim is innocence.
Until now the alarmist governments of America and the other developed countries have gleefully touted the emergency threat of human caused climate change, because it gave them immense power. They happily boasted of transforming our society and transitioning our energy system, all to save us from the ever increasing greenhouse gasses.
Central to this alarmist narrative is the theme that the world is already suffering heavily from human caused climate change. Every weather disaster is now called a “climate event” or some silly such.
Well as we say in the mountains: “What goes around, comes around”.
The climate damage narrative has now come to bite the developed countries, and bite them really hard. In principle ruinously hard.”
Lots more in the article. Please share it.
Alan
November 13, 2022 1:59 pm
Follow the science, they tell us. Well the US just went through its twice annual time change. I’m 64. All my life I have never read anything that said these time changes are good for peoples health. Every thing I’ve seen written by doctors says it’s bad for people’s health. There’s more heart attacks, strokes, not to mention more auto, and on the job accidents as people adjust to the time change.
It seems the science is pretty close to being settled. So if the PTB are as concerned about our health as they act, why not do something about it.
It would be simple. Just pass a law, no more time changes. Most people hate the time changes anyway and would be happy to leave the clocks alone.
But, I suppose there would be no need for a new government bureaucracy, lock downs, massive tax increases, end fossil fuels or hiring 87,000 clock police to enforce the law.
Is that why the government won’t follow the science?
Follow the science, yeah right.
Went to an Eco-Fest today in Devon
put a tick in a box in a large table top question sheet, first question was “how worried are you about CO2 in the atmosphere?” all the ticks from the general public before me were in the far right hand box as “highly concerned”, I ticked the far left hand box as “not concerned at all” . The guy on the stall looked at me and pointed out I had put the tick in the wrong box !!!!!
The guy learnt something in the ensuing 15 minute “brain opening” discussion.
Reminds me of a conversation with a student in some university program which is pretty much predicated on the idea that there at least will be catastrophic climate changes without significant changes being made and so forth.
So he was talking about things and I was making observations to the effect that not everyone quite agreed with all of this and a made some simple observations. After about 3 or 4 minutes, he comes to the shocking realization that I don’t believe that there is anything serious going on and says something like “Wait! How can an educated individual such as yourself think that this isn’t a big issue? How can you think that?” and then the conversation continues.
I think that I basically argued that habitat destruction rather than changes in the annual temperatures were the reason for the decline in certain bird species, noting that the decline wasn’t just in the southern part of their natural range and that temperature rise shouldn’t explain a corresponding decline in the northern part of it. Heuristic arguments along those lines.
The Port of Theodosius has been discovered in Istambul. Curiosity Stream has a documentary on it. They have a Big Dig going on and they have a large train station being built. Why is this relevant to climate change? It is far inland and well above sea level, meaning that it was much warmer in the 3rd to 6th Century. The Big DigIstanbul’s city planners have a problem: too much history. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig
Douglas
November 13, 2022 7:42 pm
Has any US Court decided that the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the detriments since pre- industrial times?
Judge William Alsup went close when he handed the parties “homework” on this matter in San Francisco and Oakland v Chevron,BP et al ( WUWT 29 May 2018).
However I am uncertain from the Court documents whether a final ruling was made by him.
The Court entered Judgement for the Defendants not long thereafter, ruling out the public nuisance claims.
The issue is now ‘hot button’ with Climate Reparations at COP 27.
Herrnwingert
November 14, 2022 12:42 am
I had a dream.
It is year 2073 and I have an invitation to attend COP-78. It was planned to be in Svalbad but the polar bear population is running out of control, the airport is threatened by an advancing glacier and the stubborn sea ice is not melting this summer and blocking the harbour. The new venue is Kiribati that, like many Pacific islands, has recovered large tracts of land in the last 40 years helped by rapidly rising and growing coral reefs. Many Pacific islands now have resorts with hotels, airports, convention centres and casinos.
It was at COP-37 that the IPCC, having negotiated immunity from prosecution and continuing pension rights for all surviving politicians and eco-scientists, declared that, all along, it had said that fossil fuels have been of immeasurable benefit to mankind and will continue to be for another couple of centuries. The IPCC produced the manipulated data to prove it.
Since then the focus of the COP meetings has been to develop global strategies to adapt to the developing mini-ice-age that, since COP-36, could no longer be denied. The average of the current 311 climate models predicts that the planet will cool by 9.481 degrees Centigrade by year 2123.
Attending COP-78 will be Grandmother Greta and her husband Al Gore’s grandson. They will be joined by their 4 children and 12 grandchildren. Greta’s children have used the vast Thunberg/Gore wealth fund to build a global monopoly, receiving substantial tax breaks, specialising in re-cycling the many thousands of wind and solar farms that have been dismantled during the last 30 years.
King George VII of England and I of Scotland will repeat the same speech he has held for the last 10 years giving dire warnings that civilisation has only 16 months 3 weeks and 2 days before we reach a catastrophic tipping point.
President Musk III of Mars will send observers.
Another issue the delegates will discuss is the alarming decline in world population, now heading towards just 6 billion and falling. Societies, over the last 50 years, have fully urbanised while they have grown wealthy on reliable, safe, cheap energy and women have become educated to university level. Couples are delaying or foregoing children (Greta is an exception). The birth rate now averages 1.3 children per couple. Large areas of previous agricultural land have become unmanaged and derelict. Wild beasts are returning en masse and must be regularly culled.
As always, African countries are demanding reparations from the West, accusing the rich countries of causing the continent-wide obesity epidemic. They are also asking for funds to manage the huge influx of Europeans crossing the Mediterranean in small boats trying to escape the icy northern winters. Lastly, the African countries want the USA to replace the first generation of small fusion reactors it donated. These ran Windows 2075, were easily hacked and tended to shut down abruptly. The new generation of small fusion reactors being mass-produced in China by Apple are rumoured to be more reliable, have a sexy design and can be ordered in any one of 9 colours.
You might get even more impure thoughts and even start suggesting scarce battery resources get spread around more equitably for struggletown via hybrids and playing into the hands of evil Toyota and that way lies the dark side. OTOH it’s all just a big feelgood scam eh?
Today, I have been mostly watching cat videos on youtube rather than bothering my pretty little head with COP27.
Good idea. There will always be another COP. 😉
There will always be another COP.
____________________________
Chris Farley’s “For the love of God” Please say you’re wrong!
Careful that smacks terribly of Louis Wain’s obsession, and THAT didn’t end so well. 😀
My latest on the unfolding “loss and damage” fiasco.
COP27 — Will “loss and damage” extremism kill national alarmism?
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2022/11/12/cop27-will-loss-and-damage-extremism-kill-national-alarmism/
The beginning: “The extreme rhetoric of “loss and damage reparations” could backfire, causing developed countries to question the developing country claims of human caused damage. The best defense against a ruinous liability claim is innocence.
Until now the alarmist governments of America and the other developed countries have gleefully touted the emergency threat of human caused climate change, because it gave them immense power. They happily boasted of transforming our society and transitioning our energy system, all to save us from the ever increasing greenhouse gasses.
Central to this alarmist narrative is the theme that the world is already suffering heavily from human caused climate change. Every weather disaster is now called a “climate event” or some silly such.
Well as we say in the mountains: “What goes around, comes around”.
The climate damage narrative has now come to bite the developed countries, and bite them really hard. In principle ruinously hard.”
Lots more in the article. Please share it.
Good article David. Thank you.
COP 27 has dissolved into a finger pointing blame fest and no one is prepared to take responsibility. The insurance world understands this very well. Never admit responsibility, negotiate on the details. The compromise will never be satisfactory to anyone but it does equal a resolution, until the next confrontation when the goalposts shift again.
French authorities suggest you watch Internet videos in low definition to avoid carbon emissions.
And they certainly made a video on that, as they always do. High def, of course.
(Why do people make videos instead of searchable texts?)
Did Nicole make landfall as a hurricane? This NHC cartoon says it did… https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/145629.shtml?swath But, where are the supporting sustained surface wind reports? It’s also interesting to note that the Euro model never forecast Nicole to reach hurricane strength.
Apparently, per Joe Bastardi’s Weather Bell (I trust his analysis and data), “Nicole” came ashore as a Cat. 1 Hurricane:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/atlantic/nicole-2022
The mainstream media is strrrrraining to make something of it. It was not a strong hurricane, so, it doesn’t change the trend for “no change” in landfall of MAJOR hurricanes in the U.S.. Thus, they are emphasizing that it is the first hurricane to come ashore in the month of November since 1982. 🙄
Yes, Bastardi works for WeatherBell, but the link you provided is from Accuweather — they are different companies. Let me know if you find a Bastardi comment about Nicole. In the meantime, good luck finding wind reports validating that Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane. Please let me know if you do. (By the way, that Accuweather report is only a forecast — not verified data. Anyone can make a forecast, just like Al Gore.)
I beg your pardon, Mr. Shewchuck. I mistakenly posted that link. 😕
Here is what I read that Joe Bastardi posted on his Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1591647011509764096?cxt=HHwWgIDQjcWh1ZYsAAAA
In that tweet, he cites a source calling “Nicole” a Cat. 1 hurricane. He seemed to be clearly affirming that to be a fact.
Thanks for the updated link. Yes, Joe said the winds were strong, but he never did confirm any reported wind speed data — he only commented about pictures he saw — not actual valid wind data. As we all know the max winds are within the eyewall of a storm. And, we also know that Nicole’s center nearly went over Vero Beach — which would have experienced Nicole’s max wrath. Here is Vero Beach wind data. Notice the non-hurricane winds around 3 AM — or eyewall passage … https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/vero-beach/KVRB/date/2022-11-10 Also knote which line is “sustained” versus “gust” wind. Nicole did not hit Florida as a Cat 1 — unless you can identify other eyewall data.
JS said: “ As we all know the max winds are within the eyewall of a storm”
…and only over the open ocean and only a very small part of the eyewall at that.
JS said: “And, we also know that Nicole’s center nearly went over Vero Beach — which would have experienced Nicole’s max wrath”
Vero Beach was a bit south of Vmax. Vmax was occurring on the right flank of the cyclone. Nevermind that land stations even coastal stations are rarely capable of measuring Vmax mainly due to the slowing effect caused by the friction of the land.
The only buoy I found in the path of Nicole was NDBC’s SPGF1. But, unfortunately it was south of Vmax. At 03:10Z it measured 41 kts sustained at 26.7N, 79W while simultaneously AF306 found Vmax at 27.4, 78.8W which was 80 km away. Florida Institute of Technology coastal buoy SIPF1 was near Vmax, but unfortunately it does not report wind speed.
Hurricane force “surface” winds never hit Florida — unless you can find some.
JS said: “Hurricane force “surface” winds never hit Florida — unless you can find some.”
No need for an exhaustive search. We already know NOAA3 and AF306 were measuring hurricane force surface winds.
Just show me the sustained surface wind reports around the eye wall. Specify the wind, the location, the date/time, and elevation.
Again…SFMR 95 kts unflagged (rain rate reported 0 mm/hr) at 26.617N, 78.267W at 23:22Z via NOAA3 #14 OB #15. I’ll repeat that is an SFMR measurement…and as know you that means the elevation is sea level.
Yes, I saw that data, but the 95 kt wind is a peak wind (as seen in the attached image). I’m only looking for sustained wind reports.
It is sustained…10s average. It may be a bit different than a 60s average, but not by much. It is standard practice to take the SFMR measurement as the sustained Vmax. It is unclear why the NHC went with a 65 kt assignment here. I suspect they did so due to the flight level winds. We won’t know until the official report comes out next year. There is also the 982mb dropsonde measurement that didn’t even hit the center and the 976 mb extrapolation that confirms the category 1 assignment. Given the multiple 65+ kts surface observations and the multiple corroborating pressure measurements we can definitively say Nicole was a hurricane. We’ll have to wait and see if it gets upgraded to a category 2 for the best track product available next year. Even despite the 95 kts measurement I lean more toward them sticking with category 1 here.
The standard definition for a “sustained” wind is a one-minute average. SFMR 10-sec data is something non-standard. Plus at flight level, they use a 30-second wind — a little closer to the standard. Maybe someday SFMR will be reprogrammed to follow standards. Until then, I’m still looking for sustained surface wind data.
The SFMR is designed to report a wind speed value that is consistent with a 1 minute average from traditional measurements already. Any changes to the sampling plan (like extending the averaging period) and associated model changes would need to continue to produce results consistent with the results from traditional measurements. Keep in mind that unlike traditional measurements the SFMR is measuring an effect that is itself modulated by the sustained component of the wind. And unlike traditional measurements it has a spatial component to it as well that depends on the angular width of the beam and how far the beam travels that also acts to smooth the measurement. And according to the literature the 10s averaging period is meant more as a means of reducing the uncertainty of the measurement than in differentiating the sustained and ebb/flow components of the wind speed anyway. I’m not sure much improvement on the uncertainty can be had by moving to a 60s averaging period (which would expands the spatial domain as well). The point is the SFMR is designed specifically for estimating sustained winds and assigning tropical cyclone intensities already. And it is reported as being able to do so within ±5 m/s (10 kts) of dropsonde measurements. So conservatively we can say that 95 kts measurement is consistent with a dropsonde measurement being at least 85 kts assuming there are no other quality issues with the measurement.
Where did you find these coordinates associated with OB #15 “26.617N, 78.267W at 23:22Z via NOAA3 #14 OB #15” ?
It is here. Or if looking at the raw URNT15 (HDOB) message it is columns 2 and 3. The SFMR value is in column 11.
Great, and thanks for the link and data details. I am now even more inclined to believe that Nicole never attained hurricane status. The accompanying SFMR, very light, flight-level winds expose a big problem. I’m frankly surprised that the 95 and 88 kt reports were printed — they should have been 9.5 and 8.8 kts. Plus, temperatures do not reflect warm core status — and rainfall totals do not reflect a typical tropical storm (no less a hurricane). Area wind field maps only show max winds on the north side, a reflection of pressure-gradient induced winds — a joint effort between Nicole and the strong anticyclone over the states. Max winds never encircled the storm.
So let me get this straight. The multiple 65+ kts surface measurements make you even more convinced that Nicole was never a hurricane and you question whether it was even a tropical storm because of the rainfall totals?
Enjoy global warming — part 2.
I don’t know what the response even means.
Do you accept the observations or not?
Do you think both the NOAA3 and AF306 SFRM were really off by a factor of 10 or not?
Do you really think the flight-level winds are exposing a big problem with the observations or not?
Do you think the rainfall totals cast doubt on whether Nicole was even a tropical storm or not?
Do you have a better way of identifying the location and magnitude of Vmax?
NOAA 3 mission #14 SFMR OB #15 at 95 kts (109 mph) unflagged. Near time of landfall there was OB #21 at 68 kts (78 mph) unflagged.
And what is the source URL for that data? And what is the Lat/Lon of that data? And what is the DTG of that data?
http://tropicalatlantic.com/ is usually what I use for the aircraft recon data. The 95 kts measurement was in the stronger right flank at 26.6N, 78.3W at 23:23Z. The 68 kts measurement was in the weaker left flank at 25.7N,77.8W at 00:24Z. AF306 mission #13 measured 78 kts (90 mph) in the stronger right flank at 27.4N, 78.8W at 03:08Z. That recon flight also measure a pressured of 982mb with a 17 kt wind at 03:16Z.
Thanks for the link — great information. I’m looking for max sustained surface wind data. Here is the wind plot for Ft Pierce (just south of Vero Beach) showing eye passage — with weak winds … https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/fort-pierce/KFPR/date/2022-11-10
Landfall was at 27.6N, 80.4W. KFPR is located at 27.5N, 80.4W. AF306 observed Vmax about +0.4N of the center. At landfall this would have put Vmax at 28.0N. That is 44 km north of the landfall and 56 km north of KFPR. KFPR would not have been positioned for a Vmax measurement anyway since it is a land station even if were at 28.0N.
The station best positioned for measuring Vmax was the FIT coastal buoy SIPF1, but unfortunately it is not equipped with an anemometer. SIPF1 would have been better position for a Vmax measurement since it was offshore around the barrier islands mitigating the land friction effect. You need to be a couple of clicks away from the mainland otherwise the winds bunch up and slow down. This is true even for mainland coastal buoys.
There are no surface sustained wind reports indicating Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane — not even where most damage occurred around Daytona Beach. This is why the Weather Channel stopped reporting winds when Nicole hit, and only focused on water and waves — because that’s all they had. It was obvious — they knew it was a nothingcane before it even hit Florida.
JS said: “There are no surface sustained wind reports indicating Nicole hit Florida as a hurricane”
NOAA3 and AF306 clearly show that Nicole was a hurricane. In fact, we cannot eliminate the possibility that is was a category 2. We’ll have to wait for the official report next year to see if that 95 kts measurement qualifies.
Fine, just show me the sustained surface wind reports around the eye wall — where max winds are found in tropical systems.
I did. And to be honest I think you’re feign ignorance of aircraft recon data here. Every meteorologist knows this data exists and where to find it. It is discussed ad-nauseum by the NHC and forums like AmericanWx, storm2k, etc so I know you know about this data. I just don’t know what you’re angle is here in pretending like it doesn’t exist.
I saw flight level winds, but not sustained surface winds. While discussions are nice, I like to look at actual data reports. Please identify just one sustained surface wind report: date/time, location, and source.
You also saw surface winds like the 95 kts measurement. I know you did because I posted them. You also know how and where to look them up. I know because 1) you’re a meteorologist, 2) the RAOB Program may already have a parser at least for the UZNT13 files and 3) the link to where you can find the observations was posted above.
Donald Trump should refrain from trashing his fellow Republicans.
I’m talking specifically about Florida Governor, Ron Desantis and Virginia Governor, Glenn Youngkin.
Governor Desantis and Governor Youngkin are rising stars in the Republican Party. They are doing things that are favored by a majority of Republicans.
Attacking them now, when they have not even said they were thinking about running for president, will only backfire on you, Donald. It will make you look like a petty, vindictive person. And Republicans will not buy your attempts to trash these people. They already have a high opinon of them, and your trying to trash that opinion will be seen for what it is and not favorably.
Declare you are running for president in 2024, and then attack Joe Biden and the Democrats, not Republicans.
Taking shots at Desantis and Youngkin is different from taking shots at Jeb Bush or some of the others you denigrated in the election of 2016. Desantis and Youngkin have established records.
Giving Desantis and Youngkin nasty, denigrating nicknames will only backfire on you, Donald.
Do the smart thing and concentrate on the real enemies, the radical Democrats. Call them all the names you want.
Don’t take shots at Republicans who may not even run against you.
I see Desantis as your successor, and that’s the way you should see it, too.
Otherwise, you may not get elected next time around.
Watch your mouth. It can make or break you now. Be nice. Except to radical Democrats.
Donald Trump will never be president again
DeSantis might be president in 2024
His policies are not that much different than Trump but he is more intelligent and much more polite.
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment:
“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
DeSantis has shown himself to be a much more competent executive than Biden could ever hope to be. An example, during the great Texas freeze of early 2021, Biden waited until the freeze was almost over before offering to send generators to Texas even though the freeze was forecast several days in advance. Before the latest hurricane struck Florida, DeSantis had several thousand linemen and utility trucks positioned to restore power.
Unlike Trump, DeSantis has his ego under control.
“Before the latest hurricane struck Florida, DeSantis had several thousand linemen and utility trucks positioned to restore power.”
While I support Gov DeSantis, the prepositioning of this kind is a cooperative among the southern states and is done anytime a weather disaster is coming.
We had cleanup crews from Louisiana clearing debris on my street. Likewise, Florida crews go out to other states under similar circumstances.
I doubt DeSantis is any more intelligent than Trump.
Trump didn’t get to be a billionaire by being thick.
There are two years before the next election and Trump has demonstrated he’s at least the equal of numerous world leaders.
He’s not being mean to DeSantis and Youngkin for fun, he’s doing it for a reason.
Yes, the Presidential primary race is on. Not a time to praise your competition.
Trump has great instincts and is a great salesman. On most subjects his intelligence seems below average for a major politician. Such as climate science. He was especially inept on the subject of Covid (promoting fakers Fauci and Birx) and Covid vaccinations. Trump took a risky Covid vaccination after his immune system defeated Covid and he already had natural antibodies to ward off future Covid infections. He continues to promote “his” vaccines in spite of the worst side effects of any vaccine in history. That’s just plain stupid.
Most Cons promote stupid vax like HPV and HepB.
Also most Cons deny that measles is a mostly benign childhood disease!
Cons aren’t bright.
Trump made several extremely dumb and immoral choices in baking up the wrong party in lawsuits, like Oracle vs. Google Android: Trump defended the “intellectual property” of Java side.
Very sick!
1. DeSantis is needed in FLORIDA.
2. Many people thought Trump would never be president (that’s most likely why the vote-riggers didn’t have their ducks in a row in 2016 — they were sure Crooked Hillary would win).
But, he won.
TRUMP 2024!
America is.
America is for Trump!
If Biden could “beat” Trump in 2020, anyone could beat Trump in 2024. Maybe even Flusterman!
Are you unironically using Reagan’s words on US politics as a guideline?
Like, really?
Reagan’s words contained wisdom
Note how Democrats follow that wisdom
They promote Biden and Flusterman as mentally competent when they are not
Reagan started the movement of mass migration in the US…
Kevin Sorbo says, “Biden Fetterman 2024. It’s a no brainer.”
Literally.
MSNBC suggested Abrams/Cheney
Flusterman has a machine that will translate Biden’s incoherent statements, while we have to rely on our Biden Gibberish Magic Decoder Rings, which don’t work as well.
K. Harris/O. Winfrey is a sure winner.
Today “The Hill” proposed this idea which I think has a lot of merit!
Biden confirms to run in 2024.
Biden drops Harris for the 2024 run.
Biden puts Gavin Newsom onboard as his 2024 VP.
After getting re-elected, Biden resigns and elevates Newsom to POTUS.
Newsom is the 2028 Democratic candidate….
Good strategy to hold the WH for another 10 years. Makes me gag.
Judging by the now parlous condition of the electoral system in the US, anyone who drools and stumbles enough could get elected.
The men in grey suits are running the US, not the elected houses, and they are using Europe as a sacrificial pawn in a battle for economic dominance over the emerging BRIC’s nations.
‘Climate Change’ is merely a battleground for these people and it’s falling apart. But fear not, another will be along soon.
“But fear not, another will be along soon.”
Actually, it’s here!
Climate-and-Green-Energy is the 50-year-old scam.
Covid-19 Lockdowns-and-“Vaccines” is the new scam.
Be very afraid – wolves have stampeded the sheep – again!
Just sent to our politicians and “bought” media:
AUSTRALIA BIRTHS DROP BY ~75% TEN MONTHS AFTER START OF TOXIC COVID-19 “VACCINES”
What about live births in Canada, the USA, Britain, New Zealand, France, Germany and the rest of Europe? Also plummeting?
The toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” are causing this carnage – not the COV-SARS-2 virus.
I warned them about the Covid-19 scam 32+ months ago on 21Mar2020.
I tried to save them, but they would not listen – Darwin Awards…
Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimates 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and 2 billion adverse reactions to date, and it’s not over. This Winter will be worse in Europe – caused by the toxic “vaccines” and the energy shortage – that we predicted in 2002. [insert strong expletive]
Why don’t we hear about this in our mainstream media (our “bought” mainstream media)?
Another holocaust, ~50 million total current and future “vaccine” deaths worldwide, similar to WW2.
Regrets, Allan MacRae in Calgary
.
“Why don’t we hear about this in our mainstream media “
Because it’s not true.
OK Simon:
You keep vaxxing yourself and I’ll keep NOT doing so.
Watch this 4 minute video pls:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1588263900897693698
Here is what our hospitals were like in March 2020 – EMPTY!!! Dancing health care workers.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1592020596376088576
I had determined in Feb2020 from hard-to-find quality data that Covid-19 was really only dangerous to the very elderly and infirm – the Great Barrington Declaration made identical conclusions six months later. Still, I was reluctant to publish because of the overwhelming propaganda that we had a very serious problem. What was I missing?
We locked down in mid-March 2020 for two weeks (must have been a typo – it was actually two YEARS!) to “flatten the curve”. Hospitals in Alberta were emptied for eight weeks starting ~mid-March 2020 to make room for a “tsunami of Covid-19 patients”. About 21Mar2020 I learned that our hospitals were empty of Covid-19 patients – “the Covid Tsunami that NEVER ARRIVED!” That is when I called the Covid-19 lockdown a scam.
The evidence used to support the Scamdemic was highly inflated (~45-cycle) Covid-19 PCR tests that were deliberately corrupted to yield huge numbers of false positives – a “Casedemic”. Our corrupt health authorities kept selling that charade for many months. It was all false – Kabuki theatre!
There was NO increase in total death trends in Alberta or Canada to 1July2020 – no total death increase means NO DANGEROUS PANDEMIC. The average age of Covid-19 deaths in Alberta to ~end-2020 was 82, vs an average lifespan of Albertans of ~79. These were very elderly, unwell people who were already at the end of their lives.
USA Covid-19 stats were completely corrupted and unreliable – you cannot use them. USA Covid-19-deaths were deliberately exaggerated ~16 times.
The level of overblown rhetoric used by wolves to panic the sheep was unequalled in our history. It was pure false propaganda.
The lockdowns, masking etc were ineffective, unjustified and economically destructive and probably deliberately so.
The Covid-19 “vaccines” were highly toxic and increasingly ineffective and probably deliberately so. I called that correctly on 8Jan2021. I was never an anti-vaxxer before this time.
It is impossible to believe that any of this was an accident. No rational person or group could be this obtuse, this utterly wrong for this long.
The Covid and Covid vaccine scam can’t continue because the Covid epidemic ended last Summer. The common Omicron infection is just a common cold, not dangerous Covid. Covid 19 is rare now.
“50 million total current and future “vaccine” deaths worldwide, similar to WW2” is tin hat conspiracy theory nonsense not supported by data
Covid-19 was never dangerous except for the very elderly and infirm.
In Canada AND in Alberta here was no increase in total deaths to 1July2020. See my tables and plots in CorrectPredictions.ca.
I called that correctly on 21Mar2020, six months before the Great Barrington Declaration.
In the USA the flawed treatments caused most of the excess deaths to 1July2020. Delay treatment, remdesivir and ventilators.
The deaths in Canada started with the toxic “vaccines”.
Re vaxx deaths, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson estimates 20 million dead from the Covid-19 jab worldwide and >1 billion adverse reactions to date, and I say it’s not over. Hope he and I are wrong – but doubt it.
Just for a second consider how the world would be if what you are saying had even a slither of truth. Every person on the planet would know people personally who have died or been affected. Well, I know of no one. I know of no one who knows anyone. Doesn’t stack up does it. We had a guy die here in NZ and it was all over the news. In fact it was big news.
How are they going to hide 20 million world wide when one can’t sneak by without making billboards? Sorry but what you are saying is just plain silly.
I think this is one of the data sources for the above claim of 20 million deaths worldwide from the toxic vaxxes. You can do the math.
C19 Summary data for the 21 countries with populations of more than 68 million (substack.com) 2Nov2022
The 50 million is not supported by data.
VAERS data could be extrapolated / adjusted to represent about 100,000 deaths (mainly in the US, but WAERS gets overseas reports too).
The world is big place – bigger than the USA – many people don’t know that. Read what I wrote: 20 million to date, more to follow.
The only reliable way to tell is by excess total deaths.
Hey – I want you to be right – it could happen!
CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF THE BNT162B2 MRNA COVID-19 VACCINE IN ADOLESCENTS
29% OF THE YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCE NON-TRIVIAL CHANGES IN THEIR CARDIAC BIOMARKERS.
A new study on cardiovascular impacts of the COVID VACCINES done in Thailand is particularly troubling.
You’re right. In the US, elected people are just for show/diversions while the bureaucrats run everything.
“It will make you look like a petty, vindictive person. ”
Tom, what do you mean “make you look?” Trump has been a petty, vindictive person all his life. And you can add narcissistic to the list. He has no loyalty to anyone but Donald. Anyone and I mean anyone who crosses him, will be derided. It makes no difference whether they are D or R. Desantis is now the enemy so watch this space. If I was Desantis I would say nothing. Let Donald shoot himself.
It’s power he needs and he cares not who he cuts on his way to getting it. Let’s not forget Donald was a Democrat no so long ago. He was also pro choice.
As an aside I don’t think there is any doubt that the poor showing by the Republicans in this election (relative to what was expected)is largely due to the Don. Watch… he will announce his run for the presidency even though the timing will hurt the R party. He just doesn’t care. And as his star fades, he will do as much damage as he can to those he perceives have been disloyal.
What you know of Trump’s character is from popular media. Judge him on his success’s and failures rather than his supposed character. By other media characterisations he’s a decent and generous man.
The fact is, you don’t wind up an enduring billionaire without lots of friends.
Ultimately, that’s true of all of us.
He’s had power. POTUS is arguably the ultimate global power. And you say it as though it’s a bad thing but he didn’t go mad and provoke a war in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world, indeed he’s the first POTUS in living memory not to begin a new war in a theatre remote from the US. So explain to me your perception of power please.
So, no one is allowed to change their mind? Apparently Joe Biden is a reformed racist, on which basis, the entire Democrat party are reformed racist’s. Accept that Trump can change his mind or accept that Democrats are still racist’s.
“The fact is, you don’t wind up an enduring billionaire without lots of friends.”
Oh so you think the more money you make the nicer you are? Interesting. But… there are numerous people who have worked with him who say he is all of what I have said. What did Rex Tillerson call him? Oh and General Kelly? Then there is his niece. She wasn’t very nice about him. Your turn. Who has said he was a “decent and generous man?”
“Ultimately, that’s true of all of us.”
Ummm no, Trumps single minded devotion to himself is unique.
“So explain to me your perception of power please.”
He expectation is that people worship him. When they don’t he belittles them. DeSantis thing is a classic. Not only is Ron DS not grateful, he is going to run against him. This is the ultimate betrayal in Donalds eyes. Watch this space.
“So, no one is allowed to change their mind?
Trump is so transparent with his flip flopping it is embarrassing. He goes where the votes are in a way that is cringeworthy. No better example that his courting the evangelicals. Here we have a philandering, conman, crock, who suddenly finds God (when it wins votes). Yuck!!!!
Simon,
Please refrain from trying to turn WUWT into a politicial opinion blog.
What individuals think and write about politics goes nowhere towards improving Life, so don’t clutter the airways, huh?
Geoff S
Ok so I didn’t bring it up, Tom did. I was merely agreeing with him. I was happy to leave it there. If people comment I comment back. It’s what you do on a blog like this. I’m sorry if my words hurt your feelings, but if you don’t like what I write, then I suggest you don’t read it.
Please refrain from trying to censor people on this open thread. It is not entitled “Open Science Thread”. The title is “Open Thread”.
Richard,
Please try to refrain from controlling or limiting other peoples comments through claims of censorship.
Tom Abbott’s advice is good.
Nevertheless, it isn’t a personality contest, it’s a search for the best executive to run this country.
Bottom line:
What Donald Trump says isn’t what Americans care about. They care about what he does. What Trump does is good for America (and all freedom-loving people everywhere).
Janice…. shouldn’t we care about both… I mean what he says and does? I mean, what he has said lately probably/possibly cost the Republicans the senate. Words do matter
We should care. That directs our prayers for the man. How we vote is determined by his actions.
I don’t agree that there is a proven cause-effect re: the senate.
Anyway. Good to see you, Simon. 🙂
“What Donald Trump says isn’t what Americans care about.”
Completely wrong. There are many independent and conservative women who do not like listening to Trump. especially in the first debate with Biden. That debate turned off my wife and her only conservative female friend. They still voted for Trump over Biden but really want someone else running in 2024. Trump’s political career is finished. He just doesn’t know it yet.
French TV news channels have been on 100% Trump bashing mode; even the night on US election (which I watched almost entirely – I’m courageous lol) had one Dem vs. NYer – very afraid of guns – “conservative”.
But in France I still see a lot of support for Trump on social media.
Simon– so simple you are. Go sample a pie.
Wow that’s clever…. Did your grandchild teach you that?
People don’t want to pay exorbitant prices for fake meat.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beyond-meats-stock-edges-lower-on-sales-drop-growing-losses-11668029348?mod=article_inline
“Maple Leaf Foods” (a big meat processor in Canada) declared a loss for 2022 in their “plant protein group”, but a profit in the real meat.
https://www.mapleleaffoods.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/11/Q3-2022-Interim-report.pdf
Fake meat has been sold for 25+ years now in the UK, confined to a single section of a small freezer in supermarkets. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if people buy it, I have bought and consumed it myself and it was ‘acceptable’ as fake mince (ground beef) in a bolognese. But when it’s compared to one of the ultimate test’s of UK cuisine, mince and doughballs, it can’t compete.
Traditional British fare is simple, the ingredients are the victors of the dish, not the embellishments.
For example, Cod straight from the depths of the cold North Sea, skinned, filleted, coated in batter and deep fried in animal fat (not vegetable oil) is a success of the fish, not the batter or the simple cooking method. The batter protects the delicate fish from the fierce heat of the scalding oil. Properly done, you consume a moist but firm piece of tasty fresh fish, healthy and nutritious with a balance of protein and carbs. The batter happens to be delicious as well.
A mince and dougballs recipe for you. Any root vegetable and many greens, like peas, can be added for a one pot wonder.
https://blackchapelkitchen.com/2021/03/28/no-171-scottish-mince-doughballs-suet-dumplings/
BBC News – Climate change: Dimming Earth, mustard shortages and other odd side-effects
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63585043
This makes a very amusing read!!
“Genetically male central bearded dragons – a species of lizard found in Australia – will actually change from male to female when they are incubated over a certain temperature. ”
Oh no… they’ve gone full Alex Jones, turning the frogs gay.
I’ve seen bearded drag queens as well as bearded drag-ons.
The theory of CO2 catastrophe, as expressed by Dr. Pierrehumbert:
As more CO2 is added the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR and the emissions height is raised. Then, at a higher emissions height but from the same temperature, we count down using the environmental lapse rate (6.5C/km) to get a warmer surface. Thus a mere rise in the emissions height of 300 meters would lead to a 1.95C surface warming.
Disaster looming?
Wait a minute. In the tropopause temperature decreases with height so a higher emissions height would have to be at a colder temperature, not at a warmer temperature. If we say that the atmosphere would be warmer then we’re assuming the conclusion: we’re assuming that the atmosphere has warmed already (from heat brought up from the surface) such that a higher emissions height is the same temperature.
If emissions are in the tropopause where the temperature does indeed stay the same with height, then we can’t use the “count down” gambit because the lapse rate stops just before the tropopause begins.
It’s just hand waving.
At any location, pressure as expressed in the dry and moist lapse rates largely governs atmospheric cooling despite excursions obviously caused by weather events. This is what skew-T diagrams tell us. An understanding of skew-T diagrams also leads us to understand that the “count down from higher emissions” is nonsense.
See Appendix in this article
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-systems-in-new-england
That aught to be a requirement to put wind or solar on the grid. Wind and Solar should both provide at least one day of battery power for each turbine or panel and require that before the turbine or panel reattaches to the grid the battery is recharged to a minimum of 80% to 90%. That way, when they come on the grid you can count on at least one day of uninterrupted power from each. Sure would make scheduling easier.
The real world OLR must be the weighted sum of clear sky and cloudy sky OLRs.
Observed from space, the active planetary surface is the cloud top and clear-sky terrestrial land/ocean surface.
It is a two level radiating system, surface and cloud top. The weighted value of these radiators is the Earth’s effective skin temperature.
At any given time the planet is about 2/3ds covered by cloud.
In the regions below the cloud cover, the IR radiation cannot escape to space and cannot contribute directly to planetary radiative balance. It is the cloud surface acting as the radiative skin.
In reality, limitless transfers of energy to-and-from latent heat reservoirs from the land/ocean surface and cloud maintains the bulk of active skin temperature observed from space. It is only the clear sky surface and cloud top participating in LW dissipation.
Modelers impose a deliberate constraint on the atmospheric response to increasing trace gas concentration. In reality, the non-radiative dissipative effects of latent heat transfers to cloud top are free to vary. This maintains the effective skin temperature.
The correct treatment of surface effective skin temperature is as follows:
Te = (L / (16πσD2))1/4
Where:
Earth effective skin temperature = 279 K.
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol212/lectures/19.html
279K is Earth’s effective radiating temperature. With no atmosphere this would all originate from the rocky frozen surface. With the atmosphere this represents the weighted average clear sky and cloudy sky effective skin temperature.
The LW radiative greenhouse effect is merely global average near surface temperature minus effective skin temperature established from well known astrophysics. 288K – 279K = 9K.
The weighted average effective skin is lifted about 1.4km in total. Using environmental lapse rate 6.5K/km results in 9K/6.5K/km = 1.4km.
With about 2/3rds the planet in cloud cover, the global average cloud radiating height is hypothetically (0.66) x 1.4km = 2.12km.
My point in my top comment was that using the lapse rate (6.5C/km) works only in the troposphere. In the troposphere the temperature decreases with height once we get anywhere near what the average emissions height is determined to be. The logic of “count down from a higher radiating height” is faulty.
What’s the average radiating height? Different people give different answers. The earth radiates from all levels of the atmosphere, including from the surface through the atmospheric window. But for reference, I used Clive Best’s calculations, figure 2 here: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4475
Earth TOA emission spectra peaks just below the 280K blue curve using US Standard Atmosphere illustrated below. It looks pretty close to the hypothetical curve of 279K, or a bulk average radiating height of 1.4km using an environmental lapse rate of 6.5K/km.
288-279K/6.5K/km.
Greetings, JCM:
Question (and it may be silly) but in your formula (which I am NOT questioning) you have D = distance from the sun. Astronomically, there are two possible values for that number, one in kilometres, one in A.U. Are you able to specify which value is the correct one? I have a temptation to use your information in a presentation I am preparing.
Also, if I may suggest, if one wishes to write, as in your formula, D2, I think you mean the second power of D, which most WUWTer’s would write as D^2. Similarly, 3.846 * 10^26 is a more readable format for SciNot.
Thanks,
Vlad
Yes it was just a lazy copy paste.
Earth sun distance averages about 149,600,000,000 metres.
Your equation s/b (1.4 / 0.66 = 2.12)
yup good shout
”Emissions height” is not a very enlightening concept. IR emissions of Earth viewed from satellites consist of the IR temperature of ground, ocean, cloud tops, ice, and to a lesser extent water vapor before it rises high enough to become cloud cover. Average them all together as if you had a very fuzzy lens, compare to atmospheric lapse rate, and you’ve got yourself the “emissions height”. But really it is the amount of convective cloud, ocean, and land area that is important.
Conceptually “emissions height” is similar to saying that the average traffic accident occurs at 15 mph above the posted speed limit. Possibly true, but not useful for determining what the speed limit should be on your new road….
Here’s a NASA satellite infrared view of South Florida. The “emissions height” concept would average the different pixels into one “temperature” number, and then tell you what altitude corresponds to that temperature. Obviously there is much more going on than emissions height.
Thanks for the comment. Theoretically, the use of emissions height and lapse rate are used to scare people into believing the imminence of CO2 catastrophe. My point was that the lapse rate and emissions height– whatever it actually is– aren’t related. The “environmental” lapse rate is the lapse rate is the lapse rate until just before the tropopause, and then it isn’t. They will tell us that “of course” the emissions height average is just theoretical but the theory of how raising the emissions height shifts the lapse rate to warmer temps is the scary part. But– my main comment– in the troposphere temp always decreases with height along the moist/dry adiabat trajectories(which are parallel above a certain temperature) in skew-T diagrams; we see this over and over in the data from numerous balloons launched twice each day (with consideration for clearly weather-related events that are the exception to the lapse rate profiles, not the rule.) Nevertheless we’re supposed to be very, very scared, and Greta Thunberg is right.
From ten years ago:
Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?
Just a reminder that the other side of the
argument is pretty much totally unhinged.
Here’s the code I share:
Sorry, but CO2 is not a pollutant.
It’s plant food for life. If we cut it, we cut the potential for life.
We are not doomed and won’t be until another ice age hits, thousands of years from now. Then they’ll blame it on witches like they did in the 1600s.
Over the last 10,000 years, 6,100 years were warmer than it is now and there were no fossil fuels or SUVs.
Seas have been rising at a steady pace for 200 years, since the end of the little ice age.
Burning Fossil Fuels helped the planet avoid dangerously low C02 levels, not the other way around.
There you have it, the facts. Your motorcycle pipes are cool and so is the ol’ lady’s SUV. When it’s warming life is abundant. When it cools or another ice age approaches, we’re in trouble.
Am I wrong?
No, you’re exactly right.
Let it grow.
CO2 is a LIFE GAS
No CO2 = No Life
You are right except burning of fossil fuels has little to do with the greening of the planet. natural emissions are at least 20 times man-made emissions so only a 5% per year increase in natural emissions can account for the observed year-to-year increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The IPPC assumes there is no year-to-year natural increase in emissions so they can claim burning of fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere. There is no accumulation of either natural or man made emissions beyond a year. All the sinks (including the cold open polar waters) are acting on both.
That is correct.
“Times below from his lecture: “Control of Atmospheric CO2,” London, UK, 2015,
.)
— Growth of fossil fuel emission increased by 300%; growth of total CO2 did not change. Salby, 2015 at 4:10.
— Net global CO2 emission (all sources and sinks, natural and human) does NOT resemble IN THE SLIGHTEST the human CO2 emission rate. Human CO2 and net CO2 emission data are incoherent, i.e., net global CO2 evolves INDEPENDENTLY OF HUMAN EMISSION. Salby, 2015 at 7:20.
Salby is a science fraud and anyone who believes him is a science denier, or just not very bright. Sorry, but Murray Salby and Ed Berry are both frauds. Grow up and learn some basic climate science.
Leftists do make far too many exaggerations and tell lies about the future climate, but not 100% of what they say is wrong. If you listen to Salby and Berry, you are believing that almost every other scientist in the world is 100% wrong on the greenhouse effect and manmade CO2’s part in it.
I am annoyed by this fake science — it is making Climate Skeptics into laughingstocks. I have tried to refute climate scaremongering for 25 years with facts, data and logic. The Salby’s and Berry’s of the world, and their flock of brainwashed parrots, are not on our side.
natural emissions are at least 20 times man-made emissions
You are very confused science denier of the worst kind
Completely clueless on what caused the CO2 level to increase by +50% since 1850.
I am finding this disinformation far too common among people who are skeptical of climate change scaremongering.
This belief is essentially claiming that almost every scientist on this planet is wrong about the greenhouse effect and that manmade CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect.
The INCREASE of the CO2 level since 1850 is 100% from manmade CO2 emissions. because nature is a net CO2 absorber.
You are thinking about the carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle describes the process in which carbon atoms continually travel from the atmosphere to the Earth and then back into the atmosphere. Since our planet and its atmosphere form a closed environment, the amount of carbon in this system does not change. Where the carbon is located — in the atmosphere or on Earth — is constantly in flux.
To offset vehicular emissions, Honda has selectively bred algae that absorbs CO2 and is 32 times more fecund than normal Algae. Lets hope it doesn’t get released into the world’s oceans….
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/03/21/business/honda-super-algae/
Over the last 10,000 years, 6,100 years were warmer than it is now
A nitpicking correction
9000 to 5000 years ago — Holocene Climate Optimum — is believed to have been one or two C. degrees warmer than today. That’s 4,000 years, not 6,100 years. Any other claims of warmer centuries in the past 5,000 years are well within a reasonable margin of error of averaged local climate reconstructions (opinions, not proven facts).
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-systems-in-new-england
Wind Systems Paired with Grid-Scale Battery Systems
Wind output is different from other electricity generators, because it is unpredictable and highly variable; its intermittency is not the main problem.
Wind provides desultory energy, MWh, but not reliable capacity, MW.
Reliable capacity is absolutely necessary, sin qua non, for any modern grid system, to match supply to demand, with high precision, at all times.
Grid-scale battery systems are increasingly paired with wind systems to reduce the adverse effects on grid stability, due to the variability of wind output, MW. During gusty wind conditions, the output of a wind system has large variations, which could adversely impact the stability of frequency and voltage of the grid.
For example, a utility, or grid operator, may require a 30 MW wind system have an output variability not exceeding 2 MW/min, up or down, to maintain grid voltage and frequency variations within prescribed ranges. See URL.
The battery systems must be capable of charging and discharging to meet the utility-required ramp rates, while also not overheating the batteries.
Overheating would shorten the battery useful service life, and may cause fires, that burn at high temperatures and take a long time to extinguish.
Battery systems are rated for delivering a power level of, say 10 MW for 4 hours = 40 MWh, as AC at battery voltage, from 100% full to 0% full. The battery likely would be about 60 to 70% full, when a wind down ramp would occur.
A maximum 2 MW/minute downward wind ramp is allowed by the utility; if exceeded, wind output curtailment would be required, by feathering the blades. The battery discharge would be 2 MW x 3 minutes/60 = 0.6 MWh, if the down ramp lasts 3 minutes.
Roundtrip battery system losses, A-to-Z basis, are about 18% for new li-ion systems, 20% or more, for older systems
The MW and MWh of the battery system would be based on the capacity of the wind system, MW
On average, the battery should be charging and discharging to always maintain a certain charge level to be ready for any up and down wind ramp.
In Hawaii, several battery systems caught fire, because they were charging and discharging too rapidly, i.e., they were undersized and/or did not have adequate cooling systems.
NOTE: EV batteries, in case of 1) fast charging at a charging station, 2) fast discharging during accelerating and going uphill, 3) frequent “range driving”, such as make long trips every day (charging to 95%, discharging to 5%, instead of the recommended 80%/20%), all of which would reduce battery life, due to overheating and cell damage; hot summer days and cold winter days are stressful for batteries.
NOTE: This National Renewable Energy Lab, NREL, report mentions above issues. NREL is a government, pro-wind entity, which tends to see wind through rosier glasses than private enterprise.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/59003.pdf
Solar Systems Paired with Grid-Scale Battery Systems
Variable clouds are the main reason for rapid changes of solar output, in addition to the normal daily cycle. See image
Solar output may decrease by 60% within a few seconds, due to a cloud passing over solar systems.
The time taken for the cloud to pass is dependent upon cloud height, sun elevation and wind speed.
These factors need to be considered regarding solar power output forecasting and integrating the variable output into the grid.
The graph shows solar output profiles for ZIP codes in California. The further north, the less solar.
For example, ZIP code 920 shows a downward spike from about 115 MW to 65 MW, or 50 MW in 10 seconds, or 300 MW/minute, at 1 pm, which would significantly affect frequency and voltage stability on the grid.
For at least a decade, California has been mandating utilities to install grid-scale battery systems on their distribution systems.
The costs of such battery systems are not charged to solar system owners to perpetuate the fantasy “solar is competitive with fossil”
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plants-require-large-scale-battery-systems
Interesting. With respect to requiring wind or solar farms to have battery for smoothing output variations fro changes in wind and insolation: It’s about EFF’ing time!!! I do think the costs of battery ownership should be born by the wind and solar farms.
OTOH, I’d like to see a utility scale battery operate for at least a couple of years without a battery fire before going hog wild on utility scale battery installations.
A further incentive for getting the wind and solar farms on board is to require that they need to bid 24 hours in advance for the power they sell, with them eating the cost of replacement power if they don’t deliver and preference given to providers that can supply power during peak demand.
How crazy has this world become…
I ‘showed interest’ (because of the insane money) in a set of Li-Ion batteries that are presently in an eBay auction here in the UK.
A set of 3 of the so-called ‘Pylontech’ brand and 3 off 4.8kWh at 48Volt = 14.4KW.
Bidding is presently at £4,700 for the set.
These being Li-Ion are the sort that will burn your house down and, unless you only use 70% or less of that capacity, will get you maybe 500 cycles
Little do they know but a set of 16 LiFePO4 cells, rated at 320Ah, 3.2 Volts (16.4kWh) and 5,000+ cycles while not burning your house down, can be had for £350
It’s certainly a good job we’re all so rich and intelligent these days doncha think.
(Is there a ‘Cause & effect Error’ implicit in there somewhere?)
A Tesla Powerwall 2 is $11,000 for 13.5kWh. Discounted to $8,000 each if you buy 10.
Useless unless you also have a correctly sized solar installation to charge them. You also need to buy new solar panels every 20 years and new batteries and inverters every ten years. Then there is the installation, maintenance and disposal costs, not to mention a new roof.
Serious question: what is climate change?
I can accept the IPCC definition of climate, and I know what weather is. I also know what it means to say the climate has changed. But what is someone talking about when they say “climate change” caused something? (Confusingly the term seems to often get abbreviated to just “climate”, so they will say “climate caused” something, but they can’t mean climate literally when they say that.) Can anyone tell me how to understand the term?
This may sound facetious but it really isn’t. “Climate/climate change” means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
It’s always caused by us (statistically and logically impossible) and the result is always bad (also statistically and logically impossible).
It’s best understood as a religious term, an intonation of the faith.
It is undefined because that helps the argument.
“Climate” is the new Satan.
I have just read the Summary for Policymakers attached to the recent AR6 from the IPCC. Notable that ‘global warming’ has disappeared from the vocabulary – it’s all climate change. And the summary is frightening – the effects on health, crops, migration, extreme events, floods, droughts are awful! Are they lying or is all that true? Why aren’t we seeing more of all these horrors? Pakistani floods were nothing new – does that count as extreme? Who is actually suffering from sea level rise?
Climate change is a means to a political/financial end. Could it be a New World Order? Only if one is daft enough to imagine that Putin, Xi, or even Biden are prepared to take orders from the Teutonic megalomaniac fantasist Klaus Schwab.
The worlds population has always been terrified by a NWO going back to, and beyond, Alexander. The Romans swept before them a NWO but were ultimately defeated from within. Adolf Hitler threatened one only 80 years ago, and less than a generation before him the threat of a Kaiser.
Simplistic, I know, but the point is, humanity is no more threatened now by a NWO functioning under the guise of something else than we ever were before.
What it might force us to examine is the political and financial wellbeing of the west, and that would be a very good thing.
We don’t want to end up with a Chinese Communist system, but that’s where we are headed, whilst China has moved from a wholly communist system to a political/commercial hybrid.
Capitalism and Democracy is is a dreadful state right now. What we should be asking is, how do we take advantage of the current global political/financial chaos to improve it.
None of the scaremongering is true
Global warming in the past 47 years has been beneficial in many ways, especially for plants. Siberia has warmer winter nights too. No one was harmed. Extreme weather events have actually been in long term downtrends:
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s. MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s. US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s. THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
It is a term not supposed to be understood, only to confuse. I have even heard people earnestly discussing “climate emissions”. I, for one, have never emitted any “climate”, and don’t intend to start.
Which climate are you asking about, specifically?
There is no one climate system across the earth, it’s made up of many systems within continents. The climate of the UK is not the climate of middle America which doesn’t have the Gulf Stream streaking by it.
The climate of the East coast of Australia is not equivalent to that of the Italian, French and Swiss Alps.
The term ‘climate’ was used to illustrate to school children the differing weather systems across numerous different land areas but it was hijacked by illeterates who misunderstood the basic concepts taught to 14 year old’s.
I accept that a ‘global temperature’ is a kind of rule of thumb, but how does that affect those myriad different climates and, on their boundaries, how do they affect one another?
Even were the earth warming significantly, how can anyone possibly predict it will be bad for “the world climate” rather than just different for each individual weather system?
“Climate Change” replaced “Global Warming” as the non-data-backed catastrophe used by the solar, wind, electric/hybrid vehicle, and other scammers to trick people into thinking human CO2 is a bad thing.
****************
Related: WUWT and other sites should always put the term “climate change” in quotes when using it in the above way. Otherwise, they do more to promote the lie than to expose it.
Climate change is now promoted as weather change, which is backwards because climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given area. The effect cannot be the cause. Words have definitions for a reason. When you change the definitions then there is no reason.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So, when someone invokes “climate change” as the reason something happened, what do they mean by “climate change”? They surely can’t mean the effect was the cause.
What is this thing that is capable of having effect?
Serious question.
“What is climate change?”
ANSWER: “climate change” is a phrase, consisting of the words, “climate” and “change”. Each of these words has a common meaning. Combining the words and their common meanings has a proper common understanding. This common understanding properly has NOTHING to do with humans.
Of course, this is NOT how the phrase is used. Rather, the phrase, “climate change” is most often used in a way that perverts the proper common understanding. The phrase has been hijacked and weaponized to spread climate fear porn.
Climate change caused Nut Zero.
Climate change actually means a wild guess worst case prediction of global warming 400 years from now, using an unreasonably high rate of estimated CO2 emissions growth (ECS with RCP 8.5, or CAGW, in science terms). This worst case prediction is unrelated to actual mild, harmless warming experienced in the past 47 years of global warming. The prediction has also been wrong for the past 47 years
Say good-bye to the free market economy and fossil fuels folks. Climate Marxism?
WEF’s Climate Agenda Will Replace Capitalism, COP27 Elites Reveal – Slay News
“The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda seeks to replace capitalism with a new economic system, global leaders and corporate elites revealed during the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week.
“The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) climate agenda seeks to replace capitalism with a new economic system, global leaders and corporate elites revealed during the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week.
“During the WEF’s panel discussion at COP27, Democrat President Joe Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry admitted that the climate change agenda was “modeled” on efforts to roll out vaccines during the Covid pandemic.
Kerry revealed that high-pressure, coercive government tactics, which have also been adopted by “woke” corporations, have been influenced by the WEF to push the green agenda.”
*************
If there was a more important time than now to push back against the CAGW narrative, I don’t know when/what it is. I recall reading somewhere that the head of the WEF has a bust of Lenin in his office. Now I know why.
They did great with their support of FTX. “You will own nothing and be happy.”
I can see a situation in the not too distant future where the powerful Human Rights movement establishes through international binding treaties that dependable, non-polluting electricity is a basic human right, and that it is legally incumbent on all governments to assure that this is supplied.
This development is where all the “climate refugees” are going to come from.
With what?
I’m happy to accept than Capitalism and Democracy are crumbling but unless they can come up with a viable alternative, spelled out from beginning to end, the WEF remains as it seems, a bunch of wealthy fantasist’s with delusions of grandeur willing to stab each other in the back to be king of the world.
Does anyone really imagine Putin, Xi or Rocket man will agree to the west adopting the ‘new and improved’ western political system which will knock theirs into a cocked hat with it’s success?
It would surely mean a better financial system, a better defence system, a better social model, a better industrial model. You name it. The system would be so good the rest of the world would be forced to adopt it.
Except that, Putin, Xi and Rocket man don’t like taking orders from anyone, they have their own NWO ambitions and they don’t include taking orders from the carnival barker Klaus Schwab.
The New World Order only works if the whole world is happy to adopt it and, so far, the EU ‘New Continent Order’ isn’t working out too well.
With what?
HotScot, I’m sure the arrogant elitists at the U.N. and the WEF will leave those petty little details to national governments around the world. As long as their game plans are consistent with Marxist ideology and pander to the the CAGW narrative, I doubt if the U.N. and WEF elitists will have a problem with those plans.
Wish them the best. Just kidding
Tony Heller claims that NOAA adjusted measured temperatures of the past downward giving the appearance of rising temperatures toward today. On the surface this seems crooked.
https://youtu.be/Z-Oh0ypckJs
True?
If yes, why did they do that?
Are the adjustments legit?
CO2 is relatively linear in a time series, but Temperatures are not. To make any climate model work relating CO2 to Temperatures, Temperatures need to be adjusted to closely resemble CO2, ie make them more linear. The problem that creates is that it defies the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. Temp isn’t a f(CO2), Temperature is a f(log(CO2)). Making Temperature more linear proves they know they are committing a fraud or are incompetent on an epic scale.
Jimbo!!! Is that YOU?? Oh, boy, if so, am I glad to see you are back! 😃
Someone smarter than me please explain why the data and theory put forward in the paper linked below can not be used to refute the entire foundation upon which climate change rests, namely that human emissions are the cause of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and not nature. I start with the assumption that given the papers theory a model could be developed to predict actual carbon dioxide levels 5-7 months in advance and then such predictions could be compared to another model using human emissions as the basis. Would such an experiment be a) possible and b) have the desired impact?
Enquiring minds want to know?
oops sorry forgot to link the paper: https://notrickszone.com/2022/11/07/new-paradigm-shifting-study-finds-annual-co2-flux-is-driven-by-temperature-dependent-sea-ice-flux/
Because the “Temperature at Alert inverted” would be different from temperatures anywhere else, so it sounds like a cherry-picked correlation. Alert is 82.5 degrees North and is continuously dark 5 months of the year, and continuously sunlit 5 months a year, and needless to say sits beside a usually frozen Arctic ocean. So it’s temperature correlation to CO2 is merely accidental. And one can easily come up with other possibilities such as the temperature at Alert depends on the time of year and CO2 absorption depends on the rate at which ocean currents change temperature as they move poleward (mostly).
Because he’s a curve fitter. Two years ago he was writing:
We refused to run it.
No wonder you refused to run it, that’s crackers!
Oh my… I take it that he is unaware of the greening of the earth?!
The No Tricks Zone is an inferior website mainly from the contributions of a Kenneth Richard. Mr. Richard favors any “study” that denies that Co2 is an important climate change variable. These local climate reconstructions or exaggerations of minor climate change variables, appear almost every week. I try to post comments there refuting the false claims, but that is a continuous battle. It seems like every other week there is a new cause of the global warming in the past 47 years.
So I’ve been looking into this further and found more evidence to support the idea that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is coming from increasing temperature at the poles. Here is a paper that studied carbon dioxide in Barrow, AK from 1973 to 1979 taking hourly samples. Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere followed precisely the pattern seen at Mauna Loa with no chance that this is a result of terrestrial sequestration. The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are absolutely related to temperature. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1982.tb01804.x Then take a look at data from the antarctic. Carbon dioxide levels change 6 months out of phase with the arctic. Again the absolute implication is atmospheric carbon dioxide is coming from ice that is melting and refreezing. Nothing in these two data sets supports the idea that human emissions are being mixed in the air and sent to these locations. At a MINIMUM this should be something HONEST climatologists should investigate further. Show me a paper that investigated this, and I’ll consider you unbiased. Otherwise better take a LONG look in the bias mirror.
Then take a look at data from the antarctic. Carbon dioxide levels change 6 months out of phase with the arctic.
When plants are growing, photosynthesis outweighs respiration. As a result, plants take more CO2 out of the atmosphere during the warm months when they are growing the most. This can lead to noticeably lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Winter in the Southern Hemisphere is Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, so you’d expect mirror-image CO2 variations.
***Breaking News****
From Crap27:
The EU is refusing to fill Swiss bank accounts and to fund the buying of arms, Bentleys and solid gold bathrooms in ‘Developing Countries’
Quote from EU negotiator Jacob Werksman:”“We don’t think that this process is ready to agree in principle that a new fund or facility is the right or the only way forward,” he told a news conference.
From: Net Zero Watch
(I’d give the link but my Firefox is being paranoid this arvo)
Not quite breaking news Peta. Having run from the conference centre of COP27, when he returned to the UK Sunak made a breathless announcement that he lied at the lectern, he’s not handing over reparations to the countries that demand it.
I wonder if it’s anything to do with the promises made at COP21 or so when the world was to hand over £100Bn a year to these same countries, but haven’t.
The back story is that having initially declined the invitation to attend COP27, Sunak sh*t his pants when Boris said he would be attending, and U turned. When Sunak promised to pay reparations to developing nations, Boris said it was a bad idea, and Sunak dutifully sh*t his pant’s and U turned again.
We have a pantomime going on in the HoC.
Any one think Ken Griffin owns Desantis?
Ha ha. That’s a new one.
Sounds like you’re looking for new conspiracy theories due to a lot of the old ones have come true.
Sounds more like he’s backing what he believes is a winner. He’s smart enough to leave the socialist state of Ilinois and the vile gnome in charge of Chicago.
We have misplaced priorities in the U.S. thanks to advocacy channeling by the Sierra Club and Green Peace.
Robber, clerk fatally shoot each other in Chicago grocery – ABC News
My latest on the unfolding “loss and damage” fiasco.
COP27 — Will “loss and damage” extremism kill national alarmism?
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2022/11/12/cop27-will-loss-and-damage-extremism-kill-national-alarmism/
The beginning: “The extreme rhetoric of “loss and damage reparations” could backfire, causing developed countries to question the developing country claims of human caused damage. The best defense against a ruinous liability claim is innocence.
Until now the alarmist governments of America and the other developed countries have gleefully touted the emergency threat of human caused climate change, because it gave them immense power. They happily boasted of transforming our society and transitioning our energy system, all to save us from the ever increasing greenhouse gasses.
Central to this alarmist narrative is the theme that the world is already suffering heavily from human caused climate change. Every weather disaster is now called a “climate event” or some silly such.
Well as we say in the mountains: “What goes around, comes around”.
The climate damage narrative has now come to bite the developed countries, and bite them really hard. In principle ruinously hard.”
Lots more in the article. Please share it.
Follow the science, they tell us. Well the US just went through its twice annual time change. I’m 64. All my life I have never read anything that said these time changes are good for peoples health. Every thing I’ve seen written by doctors says it’s bad for people’s health. There’s more heart attacks, strokes, not to mention more auto, and on the job accidents as people adjust to the time change.
It seems the science is pretty close to being settled. So if the PTB are as concerned about our health as they act, why not do something about it.
It would be simple. Just pass a law, no more time changes. Most people hate the time changes anyway and would be happy to leave the clocks alone.
But, I suppose there would be no need for a new government bureaucracy, lock downs, massive tax increases, end fossil fuels or hiring 87,000 clock police to enforce the law.
Is that why the government won’t follow the science?
Follow the science, yeah right.
I think the time changes are supposed to prevent children waiting for school buses from having to wait outside in the dark.
Why not just change school hours instead of having the whole country change their time?
That’s too logical
So will never happen
Went to an Eco-Fest today in Devon
put a tick in a box in a large table top question sheet, first question was “how worried are you about CO2 in the atmosphere?” all the ticks from the general public before me were in the far right hand box as “highly concerned”, I ticked the far left hand box as “not concerned at all” . The guy on the stall looked at me and pointed out I had put the tick in the wrong box !!!!!
The guy learnt something in the ensuing 15 minute “brain opening” discussion.
(((APPLAUSE!)))
That’s how we will keep the world free. One small battle at a time will win a war.
That is so funny! 🙂
Reminds me of a conversation with a student in some university program which is pretty much predicated on the idea that there at least will be catastrophic climate changes without significant changes being made and so forth.
So he was talking about things and I was making observations to the effect that not everyone quite agreed with all of this and a made some simple observations. After about 3 or 4 minutes, he comes to the shocking realization that I don’t believe that there is anything serious going on and says something like “Wait! How can an educated individual such as yourself think that this isn’t a big issue? How can you think that?” and then the conversation continues.
I think that I basically argued that habitat destruction rather than changes in the annual temperatures were the reason for the decline in certain bird species, noting that the decline wasn’t just in the southern part of their natural range and that temperature rise shouldn’t explain a corresponding decline in the northern part of it. Heuristic arguments along those lines.
The Port of Theodosius has been discovered in Istambul. Curiosity Stream has a documentary on it. They have a Big Dig going on and they have a large train station being built. Why is this relevant to climate change? It is far inland and well above sea level, meaning that it was much warmer in the 3rd to 6th Century. The Big DigIstanbul’s city planners have a problem: too much history. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-big-dig
Has any US Court decided that the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the detriments since pre- industrial times?
Judge William Alsup went close when he handed the parties “homework” on this matter in San Francisco and Oakland v Chevron,BP et al ( WUWT 29 May 2018).
However I am uncertain from the Court documents whether a final ruling was made by him.
The Court entered Judgement for the Defendants not long thereafter, ruling out the public nuisance claims.
The issue is now ‘hot button’ with Climate Reparations at COP 27.
I had a dream.
It is year 2073 and I have an invitation to attend COP-78. It was planned to be in Svalbad but the polar bear population is running out of control, the airport is threatened by an advancing glacier and the stubborn sea ice is not melting this summer and blocking the harbour. The new venue is Kiribati that, like many Pacific islands, has recovered large tracts of land in the last 40 years helped by rapidly rising and growing coral reefs. Many Pacific islands now have resorts with hotels, airports, convention centres and casinos.
It was at COP-37 that the IPCC, having negotiated immunity from prosecution and continuing pension rights for all surviving politicians and eco-scientists, declared that, all along, it had said that fossil fuels have been of immeasurable benefit to mankind and will continue to be for another couple of centuries. The IPCC produced the manipulated data to prove it.
Since then the focus of the COP meetings has been to develop global strategies to adapt to the developing mini-ice-age that, since COP-36, could no longer be denied. The average of the current 311 climate models predicts that the planet will cool by 9.481 degrees Centigrade by year 2123.
Attending COP-78 will be Grandmother Greta and her husband Al Gore’s grandson. They will be joined by their 4 children and 12 grandchildren. Greta’s children have used the vast Thunberg/Gore wealth fund to build a global monopoly, receiving substantial tax breaks, specialising in re-cycling the many thousands of wind and solar farms that have been dismantled during the last 30 years.
King George VII of England and I of Scotland will repeat the same speech he has held for the last 10 years giving dire warnings that civilisation has only 16 months 3 weeks and 2 days before we reach a catastrophic tipping point.
President Musk III of Mars will send observers.
Another issue the delegates will discuss is the alarming decline in world population, now heading towards just 6 billion and falling. Societies, over the last 50 years, have fully urbanised while they have grown wealthy on reliable, safe, cheap energy and women have become educated to university level. Couples are delaying or foregoing children (Greta is an exception). The birth rate now averages 1.3 children per couple. Large areas of previous agricultural land have become unmanaged and derelict. Wild beasts are returning en masse and must be regularly culled.
As always, African countries are demanding reparations from the West, accusing the rich countries of causing the continent-wide obesity epidemic. They are also asking for funds to manage the huge influx of Europeans crossing the Mediterranean in small boats trying to escape the icy northern winters. Lastly, the African countries want the USA to replace the first generation of small fusion reactors it donated. These ran Windows 2075, were easily hacked and tended to shut down abruptly. The new generation of small fusion reactors being mass-produced in China by Apple are rumoured to be more reliable, have a sexy design and can be ordered in any one of 9 colours.
Then I woke up.
Chuckle-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/why-manufacturers-are-getting-evs-completely-wrong/ar-AA1449n7
Careful Theo or next thing you know you’ll be critiquing luxury zoom zooms like hallowed Teslas and shaming Bollockswood into….gulp!… https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/business/2022/10/26/under-us5k-chinese-ev-seeks-entry-into-japans-minicar-market/
You might get even more impure thoughts and even start suggesting scarce battery resources get spread around more equitably for struggletown via hybrids and playing into the hands of evil Toyota and that way lies the dark side. OTOH it’s all just a big feelgood scam eh?