Open Thread

Open Thread

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Henry Pool
February 8, 2023 2:16 am

We have a shortage of electricity here. In South Africa. What to do? Is it possible to modify the old coal fired powerstations that do not have the sulphur removal from the exhaust, and which they want to scrap, to run on gas?

Reply to  Henry Pool
February 8, 2023 7:45 am

It would likely make more sense to install natural gas turbine generators at the site, taking advantage of whatever existing infrastructure can be, along with transmission lines, etc.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Henry Pool
February 8, 2023 11:08 am

So, off topic, but what’s with South Africa doing naval exercises with Russia, et. al.?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 1:38 pm

Why not?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Yirgach
February 8, 2023 1:42 pm

because, in case you didn’t know it, Russia is a misbehaving dictatorship- what’s in it for South Africa?

Reply to  Yirgach
February 9, 2023 7:42 pm

Well, I’m a bit surprised … to my knowledge they don’t have any operation vessels capable of naval exercises other than as tenders. They’re not the military force that they were 30-40 years ago when they kicked the collective butts of Russians, Cubans and East Germans in Angola.

Reply to  Henry Pool
February 8, 2023 12:35 pm

You can convert coal fired power plants to burn natural gas. This has been and continues to be done in the U.S. The boiler operates at a lower efficiency. You can bypass or turn off all of the air quality control equipment including precipitators, baghouses, scrubbers and SCRs. While burning natural gas in a boiler designed for burning coal is less efficient, doing this saves the capital costs of installing new boilers, turbines and auxiliary equipment.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Henry Pool
February 8, 2023 1:51 pm

Where would you get your gas? Mozambique plus a long pipeline?

Why not take advantage of the coal you have, and modernise the coal stations?

Henry Pool
Reply to  Henry Pool
February 9, 2023 2:01 pm

Thank you all. I also thought it would be stupid to scrap the old coal fired stations because of the infra structure. The pipeline gas is here. I just hope the price will be right.

Last edited 1 month ago by Henry Pool
Reply to  Henry Pool
February 9, 2023 7:44 pm

Ah Hah ! Henry … there’s the reasoning, the cadres can sell the scrap metal.

February 8, 2023 2:41 am

I have a couple questions for our experts here:

1) How much CO2 created warming do we receive, when we know that 70% of the Earth surface is covered by water and Long wave Infrared radiation only penetrate the water surface by a few mm? Further more the planck curve indicates, the the warming from CO2 is highly dependent of the local temperature. eg polar temperatures means that CO2 will actual create cooling, as shown by Happer and Wijngaarden. How can CO2 be calculated having a major impact on Earth?

2) When the temperature of the Earth is increased the out bound black body radiation should
increase by the temperature in the power of 4 and thereby accelerate the cooling. Is it only by using 2D simple avg greenhouse models that this CO2 warming is made significant?

3) Many of the ECS calculations made (in the range 1-2K) – consider only warming by CO2 despite the Earth have always experienced natural variations in the same amount as now and even more, which means that a calculated ECS of 1.5K may be very exaggerated. If the ECS was calculated just from real observations as the satellite UAH dataset, half of warming is considered being from a non recognized natural variability and the Urban Heat Island effect is considered being accountable of 0,4K warming, that leave almost no warming to be caused by CO2?

Any comments on these humble findings?

kind regards

Peta of Newark
Reply to  steenr
February 8, 2023 3:42 am

CO2 and the other ‘greenhouse gases’ work as Phosphors works.
e.g. In the classic fluorescent tube – short wavelength energy from the Mercury vapour discharge is absorbed by the phosphor and down-shifted to visible wavelengths.

i.e. They absorb and then radiate, re-radiate and conduct that energy away at a myriad of longer wavelengths, They shred the incoming energy and none of it can return to the surface.
Well OK yes it can, but it can not be absorbed there.

Super Simple Climate Model.
3 components:

  1. Earth = a single ‘blob’ floating in a cold vacuum with no internal energy source
  2. Sun – a hot ‘blob’, hot because it has an internal energy source
  3. Space – A cold vacuum with no energy source and perfect sink for all energy

Sun and Earth exist within sight of each other thus energy radiated by Sun will be absorbed by Earth and will heat it, because Sun is hotter than Earth. Not vice-versa.

Earth will absorb an amount of Sun’s energy according to only 3 things,
its Albedo
Earth/Sun distance
Temperature of Sun

Earth will then ‘attempt’ to raise its temperature to be equal to that of the Sun

Earth will lose energy according to only 2 things:
Its temperature
Its Emissivity

So, we’re told that ‘Earth’ has warmed.
Thus, the Enquiring Mind demands to know: Which of these 4 things have changed

  1. Sun’s temperature (energy output)
  2. Earth/Sun distance
  3. Earth’s Albedo
  4. Earth’s Emissivity

Because there is nothing else that can change Earth’s temperature – and those things (individually or in combination) are what Climate Science should be researching.

If they did, they might realise what is really going on

e.g. What is the Albedo of New York City? Or of the Corn Belt?
I ask because someone somewhere asserted that a new New York City is being created every month now and that epic ever increasing amounts of corn are being grown.

Is that really too much to ask. Is is really beyond the capabilities of NASA
Has someone done it? What’s the result. Where is that data?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 8, 2023 4:28 am

Great comment.
It has far too much rational thinking to pass muster wirth the traditional media, etc.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 8, 2023 6:25 am

‘Because there is nothing else that can change Earth’s temperature…’

I think you’re missing a few items from your list and anthropogenic sources of CO2 ain’t one of them.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 8, 2023 6:54 am

I never heard of the Blob planetary theory before although enjoyed the 1958 Steve McQueen movie The Blob.

Emissivity is defined as the ratio of the energy radiated from a material’s surface to that radiated from a perfect emitter, known as a blackbody, at the same temperature and wavelength and under the same viewing conditions.

Albedo—or whiteness—is defined as the proportion of light reflected from a surface. changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 11:10 am

The Blob movie- I recall seeing that as a kid- the stuff would crawl up your let and you’d melt. We were all screaming in the theater. Lots of great flicks back then.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 11:24 am

My wife called me a “blob” yesterday.
Nice to have a wife with a sense of humor.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 8, 2023 10:54 am

disagree. You state that 1. Earth is a blob in a vacuum with no internal energy source.. 100% false. What do you think the volcanic systems are? the core of the earth has massive heat energy contained within. This is how the oceans remain unfrozen

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 8, 2023 5:10 pm


Really great analogy using the flourescent lights.

Most of my friends think greenhouse effect like what we have with our gardening ones.

Gums sends…

Last edited 1 month ago by Gums
Reply to  steenr
February 8, 2023 4:13 am

There are numerous examples of the world being warmer than today, with CO2 being less than today, which puts the lie to decades of IPCC fabrications and scare-mongering, based on nonsense, not physics

Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 6:56 am

No manmade CO2 emissions when that was true
CO2 level changes in the atmosphere were the RESULT of changes to ocean temperatures in the ice core reconstructions.

David Dibbell
Reply to  steenr
February 8, 2023 5:17 am

From the position of the NOAA geostationary satellite GOES East, one can observe the end result of the longwave emission in the band of wavelengths centered at 13.3 microns. This is called the CO2 longwave band 16. I have pasted a link below which activates an 8-hour animated series of images of the “full disk” view of the planet. I note (from calculation using the equations and constants from the user manual) that the radiance at 30C on the brightness temperature color scale (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white.)

So what? The planet is observed as a huge array of highly variable emitter elements in high resolution. The formation and dissipation of clouds has a lot to do with this. So the end result does not look at all like the output of a passive radiative layer. Rather, it is all highly self-regulating as the atmosphere performs powerfully as the working fluid of its own heat engine operation. The resulting overturning motion from low to high altitude, and the equator-to-pole circulations, change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the incremental static warming effect of CO2 to end up. That energy cannot be accumulated at the surface to harmful effect on the planet.

That is how I see it, supported by near-real-time evidence from space.

I hope this helps.

Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 1:24 pm

That is a useful result.

30C is the ocean surface temperature limit. It takes 420W/m^2 daily average ToA sunlight to achieve that temperature. Once there, it does not change much because the day to night temperature range is small.

Note how rapidly Panama and Mexico warm up as the sun gets over them.

The SH is currently moving into a cool phase of the 11 year solar orbit. Perihelion will be at its maximum mid decade.

If you have the data available for February 2020, you should find more area yellow and more cloud doing the thermal regulation.

Old England
Reply to  steenr
February 8, 2023 5:37 am

The question I’m waiting to see asked or answered is this:

Once ‘Net Zero’ is achieved and everything in life is powered by electricity what is the recovery plan from a Carrington Event or a hostile EMP (electro magnetic pulse) attack? There doesn’t seem to be one. We know that either could scramble and disable all electricity grids and networks as well anything with electronic components – pretty much everything we now use or will have to rely on.

No transport or travel, no communications, no way to get food from the field to store, no way to heat or light, no way to purify or pump drinking water or to dispose of sewage the list seems endless. Civilisation and much/most of human life in Net Zero nations will collapse …….

Another Carrington Event is a certainty, be that in 10, 50 or 100 years time and the latest conservative estimates are a 0.7% chance per 100 years. Earth narrowly missed one in 2012. An EMP threat from a hostile power that has Not Decarbonised could seem attractive, if for no other reason than an extreme bargaining (blackmail) chip. China and Russia have EMP and North Korea is reported to have or be developing one ……

So having exterminated low-tech power from diesel, petrol, gas and coal where do we start from to recover civilisation? or do we let countless millions die of starvation and lack of water?

This doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Western ‘minds’ promoting ‘Net Zero’ ……

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Old England
February 8, 2023 6:43 am

Not to worry. If Net Zero has been ‘achieved’ before the next event, the world’s remaining populace will already be living a mid-19th century existence. There’s no effective difference between useless energy infrastructure and fried and useless energy infrastructure.

Old England
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 8, 2023 7:19 am

and of course it is only the Western world that has set itself the destructive target of Net Zero … so the likes of China, India etc won’t have the same sort of problems …..

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Old England
February 8, 2023 8:58 am

I guess Western progressives could always nuke them if they don’t comply.

Reply to  steenr
February 8, 2023 6:45 am

That’s a lot of questions.
CO2 obviously causes everything bad in the world when you are a leftist.

CO2 causes everything good in the world if you are conservative.

Creating more CO2 is good news because it correlates positively with economic growth. That’s what got me interested in CO2 emissions — I used to write a finance and economics newsletter, ECONOMIC LOGIC, for 43 years.

Burning hydrocarbon fuels without modern pollution controls is counterproductive — more CO2 is good, but more air pollution and coal ash pollution is bad.

The warming of the top layer of the ocean inhibits cooling of layers below that just as CO2 in the troposphere inhibits cooling of the entire surface of our planet. Mainly the first 100ppm of CO2, not much effect above 400ppm — we are now at 420ppm

ECS is a wild guess, not a calculation — there are no data for the future climate — just predictions likely to be wrong. You should pick an ECS number yourself. I think there is a contest.

I am not an expert — I am biased because I love CO2 and global warming, and want a lot more here in Michigan, speaking for me, the wife and my plants. My cat could not care less. I would also like to deport all leftists to Cuba but have not received much support on that issue. I originally recommended Bulgaria, but they wanted $1 million each to take our leftists.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 2:49 am

I would be interested in the opinions on this latest video on explaining Greenhouse theory by Sabine Hossenfelder. Her videos are always pitched at the uneducated masses but are very persuasive. Is this just climate change propaganda dressed up as factual science?

Reply to  simonsays
February 8, 2023 6:57 am

Are you implying that we are uneducated masses?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  simonsays
February 8, 2023 7:10 am

My take: at 13:10 in the video, she claims that the atmospheric window (the ditch) gets wider, which would mean that CO2 responds over a wider frequency, which I think is nonsense. Compare Wijngaarden’s more credible version here, from 14:00 (but watch at least from around 8:00 for context):

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
February 8, 2023 11:30 am

vanWijngaarden and Happer’s paper here in Fig 10 and it’s footnote, is pretty clear that the widening DOES occur in the amount of about 3 watts from 400 to 800 ppm CO2 increase. Whether 3 watts will turn the planet into a fiery cinder or simply evaporate more surface water, thus increasing evapotranspiration from 86 to 89 watts, is what needs to be more applicable to the discussion.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 8, 2023 1:18 pm

The widening is barely perceptible compared to the graph shown by Ms. Hossenfelder, which implies that adding CO2 makes it respond to a far larger range of the IR spectrum than it actually does. Her version is misleading..

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  simonsays
February 8, 2023 8:29 am

I’m late to the party, so will agree with Right-Handed Shark’s take on the video. What I found constructive is that she fairly points out that those explanations, what she referred to as ‘middle- and high-school physics’, that the vast majority of alarmists rely upon to scare the populace are easily refuted. (If you can recall Al Gore, John Kerry or any other alarmist shill admitting that their explanations were BS, please feel free to indicate this below).

So that takes her to the so-called ‘PhD physics’ level, where the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ is presumed to arise from a widening (line-broadening) of the parts of the spectrum where CO2 absorption is meaningful. This then will result in a ‘significant’ 1% change in forcing, per Pierrehumbert, who I presume is her favored ‘PhD’ source.

Unfortunately, on the downside, she doesn’t mention that there are other PhDs, like Happer and Wijngaarden, who have recently done more detailed work in this area and disagree with Pierrehumbert re. the need for alarmism. And she certainly doesn’t mention that there is no corroborative evidence for the need to curtail CO2 emissions to be found in the paleo record.

Reply to  simonsays
February 8, 2023 10:18 am

My comment on her roll…. that emission pressure/altitude of Pierrehumbert’s chapter 4 was not a good description of the real Earth’s atmosphere, only a mathematical construct after-the-fact, much like the assumption that a calculation of average snow depth in North America is of any use in albedo calcs….was nearly immediately moderated out of existence….but then put back on a day later.

Maybe she looked at the atmospheric window from 8 to 14 microns that covers Wein’s law temperatures from +90C to -65C and decided I wasn’t full of BS. I had stated something along the lines that, if you assume 5 degrees surface warming (and many places on Earth are 20 C rather than 15 C average), the Planck emission to outer space calculates out to a lot more watts than CO2 back radiation would calculate out to be using Modtran or Hitran, so can’t happen.

But I felt more likely she just put back comments that she felt were from “cranks and crackpots”….

Richard M
Reply to  simonsays
February 8, 2023 4:52 pm

It’s an improvement on the typical greenhouse effect descriptions. She correctly mentions the absorption band at 15 mm is saturated. She correct mentions the energy is absorbed very low in the atmosphere. Even Willis doesn’t understand this fact. She even showed the warming is a bottom up process. Wait, Willis, Rud and many other skeptics keep telling us it is top down. So, I do have to give her some credit. She has a far better understanding than many skeptics (lukewarmers) who have accepted the high school version of the science.

Goes downhill from here.

She then goes on to the absorption at the band edges. However, no one knows how big that is. It was estimated to be a huge 0.054 C by Dr. Heinz Hug for doubling CO2. Instead of making any estimate, she quickly moved on changes in the emission height, the “enhanced greenhouse effect”. Something completely different.

This is the latest sleight of hand from the climate cult. They know the edge absorption is easily proven to be real, but they know it’s insignificant. It’s really the emission height change that they are counting on to produce warming, but they have zero evidence to support it. So, they combine the two together hoping the evidence of band absorption will give credibility to the emission height fairy tale. There’s a good reason they have no evidence. It doesn’t exist. As I’ve been pointing out lately, emissions flux via CO2 molecules is a constant after reaching saturation. The emission height does not change when doubling CO2.

This was originally predicted in Miskolczi 2010. His approach was different but it comes to the same conclusion. There has been no increase in the observed GHE and Kirchhoff’s Law suggests there can’t be. I pointed out the reason why the emission height is fixed several times on this very site and yet no one seems to care.

Bob Weber
February 8, 2023 2:56 am

I think David Horowitz is half-right – Democrats must also stop accepting the agenda.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 8, 2023 4:24 am

Are you kidding?

The perks, the influence peddling, the palms being greased, the lobbying, etc., prevent any ending of the huge subsidy gravy train for the wind/solar/battery nonsense.

That is why Trump HAD to be ousted. He loved traditional energy, hated wind and solar.
He was screwing up their game plans, and could not be bought.

That is why Musk WILL be ousted or WILL HAVE AN ACCIDENT.
He is screwing up the world traditional car industry, and being 5 years ahead of them, and cannot be bought.

This is major hardball, at the highest world level.
You have to have a HUGE PAIR

China will help Musk to succeed, because it is in their national interest

Last edited 1 month ago by wilpost
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 2:03 pm

The only thing destroying the auto industry is the scramble to make worse-than-useless BEVs that nobody wants.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 8, 2023 7:49 am

That was a good article. I recommended it and two other Horowitz articles on my climate science and energy blog today. I thought he was a lawyer. I also had not been reading The Blaze and will check it out this week.
Honest Climate Science and Energy: The best climate science and energy articles I read today, February 8, 2023

I already visit about 50 websites a day.
So if I add a new one, an old one must go.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 2:57 am

Sadiq Khan has a huge financial hole to fill at Transport for London (TfL) thanks to his insistence that nobody use the bus or tube during the pandemic. He’s been bailed out by government but it was never going to be enough for our democratically void (52% maj – only 40% bothered to vote) Mayor.

He’s a strong leader not a democrat
“London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave evidence to a Commons select committee 

Khan said: “I was elected by the silent majority. I will stand up to those vested intersts [who oppose the ULEZ expansion]”. In a clear dig at former Prime Minister David Cameron over the EU referendum, the Rejoiner London Mayor added: “There’s a difference. A brave, strong leader doesn’t rely on referenda, to decide policy.

“There was a consultation not a referenda. “

Filling the TfL hole
ULEZ Expansion 2023: To create £300m in first year but £0 by 2027

It’ll never be enough. TfL had debts of over £11 billion in 2019 But to get this through Khan is pushing the “you want children etc to die” tactic…

“Essentially, in Khan’s telling, the callous councils opposed to the ULEZ are allowing thousands to die every year. It’s an extraordinary and ghoulish claim. And it is totally untrue.

in the same week he announced the ULEZ expansion, he unveiled Breathe: 2022, an art installation about air pollution, part of which involves the construction of a permanent memorial to Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in a Lewisham park. This memorial has a political message, as Khan made clear when announcing it: ‘As Breathe: 2022 reminds us, toxic air is a matter of social justice and it affects us all… which is why I recently announced the expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone London-wide.’

This is emotional blackmail, not a serious argument for an expanded road tax. Khan is essentially trying to argue that opponents of his scheme are happy to kill Londoners, including children.

There are words to describe reptiles like Sadiq Khan, but they would probably make Charles feel the need to moderate. 

NB every little helps….
“London transport fares could rise by up to 14% in 2023” – Auntie BBC

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 3:19 am

The UK’s First Past The Post system delivers a majority, even landslide majority on every election. The only vote on anything I can think of where over 50% of the vote failed to win was in the referendum, on 1 March 1979, Scotland voted in favour of devolution by 52% to 48% – but only 32.9% of the electorate had joined the majority.
The rule if I remember right was that over 50% of the electorate had to be in favour, perhaps that ruleshould be applied at every election and voting be made complusory?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 8, 2023 3:27 am

“The UK’s First Past The Post system delivers a…”

Rearrangement of the deck chairs. It is a Parliamentary dictatorship with the veneer of a democratic vote every 5 years.

Can you even recall an MP? No.

Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 3:55 am

Yes. Recall of MPs Act 2015.
And it’s been used successfully a couple of times. (Well, “successful” in the sense the MP was removed. Maybe not successful in the sense of making everything wonderful.)

Reply to  quelgeek
February 8, 2023 9:13 am

Only Mr Speaker has the power of recall

The voters don’t and probably never will

It doesnot add up
Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 2:04 pm

I think the Committee on Standards effectively has that power too.

Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 5:53 am

voting be made complusory

Rearrangement of the deck chairs.

It is those two sentences together that makes my spine chill. The Scotch thing is a triumph of democracy, inasmuch as not voting, IS a vote. I feel morally fouled, choosing between two or three or ten misanthrope narcissists, I definitely object to being forced into it by people who think they can solve things; just add more laws!

ethical voter
Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 12:23 pm

Parliamentary dictatorship starts with party dictatorship. Parliament without parties would create democracy as its never been. But that would require independent thought and action by individuals. Herein is the proof of the method.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 8, 2023 2:03 pm

The mayoralty was not a FPTP vote. It was a two round affair, with a runoff between the top two candidates with second preference votes transferred from the other candidates. It will now switch to FPTP next time.

Reply to  strativarius
February 8, 2023 5:59 am

A “strong leader” don’t need no advice from no voters, by gum!

As an amateur grammarian, I was pleased to see Mayor Khan’s reference to “referenda”. Then he immediately ruined it by referring to “a referenda”. Sigh!

Alan Welch
February 8, 2023 3:38 am

One of my main interests is accelerating sea level rises (must get a life) and another is classical music. At a recent local classical music group that I lead 1 in 8 “Jammie Dodgers” were found to have no jam. For non-UK readers refer to for a detailed background to this product.
The next day the BBC and The Guardian put this catastrophe down to Man Made Climate Change and the University of Colorado stated they had found an acceleration of 0.1 jam less “Jammie Dodgers”/year2. Greta Thunberg despaired that her grandchildren would never see a proper “Jammie Dodgers” in their lifetimes and Al Gore stated that we should all turn to alternatives like Bourbon Biscuits. Extinction Rebellion have taken to the streets to create as many traffic jams (pun intended) as possible.
The UNFCCC put out an urgent statement that 2 days would be set to discuss this at COP28 when 100 of the world’s top “Jammie Dodgers” manufacturers would attend with their advisors, spouses etc to discuss this frightening development. By 2040 it was hoped the level of jam less “Jammie Dodgers” would not exceed an average 1.5 in every 8 before levelling off and reducing.
Like all crises there are winners and losers.  I prefer Bourbon Biscuits.

Just a bit of light relief – you can’t be serious all the time!!

Reply to  Alan Welch
February 8, 2023 10:07 am

Thanks for educating me on “Jammie Dodgers.”

One comment, bourbon sans biscuits isn’t bad either.

Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 3:38 am

New study shows that quercetin may be effective adjuvant therapy of mild to moderate COVID-19

My sister and me have been taking quercetin since the covid-19 pandemic began. My father contracted covid-19 while in the hospital and both of us were in close contact with him, but neither one of us has contracted covid-19.

I’m going to depend on quercetin instead of getting a vaccine.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 4:06 am

Feel free to do as you wish as long as you’re not hurting anyone. I think you are making a bold decision there though. It is wise to treat medical studies with as much suspicion as climate studies. I worked in the field for ten years and saw some things.

Also, to save us having to wade through that study, can you drop a spoiler? If quercetin is the adjuvant what is it used with?

Reply to  quelgeek
February 8, 2023 7:24 am

Quercetin improves zinc assimilation.
The decision to supplement quercetin is intelligent, not bold.
Your attempt to refute it is generic and of no value.

Zinc assimilation is important because only small zinc doses should be taken if zinc rich foods are not common in your diet, which is true for me.
How Zinc and Quercetin Work Together (

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 8:37 am

Yes, I take quercentin along with zinc.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 4:32 am

Don’t miss zinc in your diet.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 8, 2023 6:55 am

Correct. Zinc is the needed ion but quercetin is the thing that carries Zinc through the cell membrane. It is called an ionophore.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Hultquist
February 8, 2023 8:39 am

The quercetin supposedly acts in a similar way to the way hydroxychloriquine works, by expediting zinc into the cells and the zinc supposedly interferes with the cell being taken over by the virus.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 2:14 pm

Hydroxychloriquine is used for RA due to its anti inflammatory properties. That is why is was recommended for COVID.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 7:18 am

We recommend vitamin C, Vitamin D, zinc and quercetin supplements. I have been taking the first three for over 50 years. Added quercetin in January 2021. No Covid19, no Omicron, no influenza, no common colds in three years for both of us. I have never had influenza in my life and my last common cold was over 5 years ago. We are both old. My diet is unhealthy — I think pizza is a health food.

No unsafe and ineffective Covid vaccines for us, of course — we are not stupid. My last vaccine was about 63 years ago with a bad allergic reaction as a child. No more vaccines after that. Not even a smallpox vaccine. i survived, it appears, and will hit 70 later this year.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 8:47 am

Not being vaccinated when enough people have is not a major problem unless you happen to meet a person with a particular illness you’re not immune to. Problems happen when a significant minority are not immune.
I had a close encounter with the Grim Reaper at under 4 years old and spent 4 months in isolation hospital. When a new doctor finds out I have to go for cardiac tests. They haven’t found anything – yet.
So now I’m in my 70s I’ve had seventy years bonus life. I take various supplements, although Vitamin C is taken in natural form.
Until our grandchildren reached school age I escaped colds and flu.
I’m still convinced that most of the victims of CV19 were those like me that should have met Mr G Reaper years and decades earlier.

Happy Seventieth when it comes

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 8, 2023 11:34 am

Of course a good diet, exercise and sunshine are best.
But my diet is bad, I don’t exercise except for jumping to con clusions, and sunshine gave me skin cancer, so I take many food supplements.

We are all going to die anyway. So why ruin your life on a diet of kale salads and tofu? My Dad lived to 98, caring for himself until the end, on a diet of eggs, bacon, steaks and potatoes. Go figure.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 3:39 pm

Eggs and bacon ARE healthy. The worst thing on that list is potatoes.

A high fat diet is healthy. Another thing we’ve been lied to about based on junk science.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 9, 2023 2:56 pm

Another thing we’ve been lied to about based on junk science.

One of the most egregious examples I think I’ve seen.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 10:16 am

Apparently, in 2019 the CEO of Moderna knew there was going to be a pandemic “next year” and asked his staff how they could boost their production of corona virus vaccines from 100,000 to 1 billion.

I would like to know more detail about this. For example, when in 2019 did he “know” there would be a pandemic “next year?” Good guess?

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Tom in Florida
Reply to  Scissor
February 8, 2023 2:19 pm

My new pet theory is that big pharma, especially the ones little Hilter had a stake in, conspired to modify a virus to be deadly early on to old people, then have it mutate to less deadly forms over three years until it is almost harmless. They could then scare everyone into taking their “vaccine”, earning billions of $$$, then pushing boosters to continue to earn billions of $$$ but knowing in the end it would all go away.
I call it the Andromeda Strain theory.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
February 10, 2023 3:40 am

The earliest news about a new virus rapidly spreading in China was about October of 2019.

The Chinese military in Wuhan suddenly went on lockdown at that time.

I wouldn’t say there was enough general information at that time to declare it was going to be a pandemic. The Chinese wouldn’t even admit it could be transmitted human to human until sometime in December.

The Republican congress will be looking into this matter in the future. Maybe we’ll get some answers then.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 10, 2023 9:18 pm

Good recommendation thank you Tom – take Quercetin daily with trace Zinc – but do not overdo the Zinc.

If you can get it, Ivermectin (IVM) is even better – cures severe cases of Covid in about five days. It also cures moderate cases of Covid-19 vaxx-injury – such as chronic bleeding.
I bought some IVM from India. It was banned by our corrupt government health authorities circa Feb2021 – because it actually works and is cheap – less than 10 cents a pill retail in small quantities – and that interfered with the scheme to sell the toxic, ineffective  costly Covid-19 vaccines.
My conservative estimate is ~16 million total deaths worldwide caused by the Lockdowns+Vaccines to 1H2023. Nuremberg 2.0!
This death toll will continue to increase by many millions per year for years, unless we take countermeasures.
I am proposing and seeking support for:
Cost for a 7-day package would be about one dollar!
Typically cures cases of Covid-19 in (less than) one 7-day package.
Helps cure moderate vaxx-injuries and rid the body of the toxic “vaccines” with several seven-day packages.
My conservative calculation is 10,500 deaths in Alberta caused by the Lockdowns+Vaccines to 1H2023.
None of this was necessary or justified – it was always “wolves stampeding the sheep” for political and financial gain.
I knew in Feb2020 and published on 21Mar2020 that the general lockdowns were not justified and would be net-harmful – same as the Great Barrington Declaration by world experts, six months later.
I wrote my Alberta and federal government reps on 8Jan2021 to NOT release the toxic Covid-19 injections – all correct! 
Regards, Allan MacRae

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 11, 2023 4:58 pm

VIDEO: Stew Peters & Dr William Makis
Former Twitter executives:  Rep. Nancy Mace may have just single-handedly sent them all to GITMO!
It’s all being exposed. I strongly recommend this video:…/status/1624134526078226460…

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 12, 2023 6:54 am

Steve Kirsch 11Feb2023
Age-stratified COVID-19 vaccine-dose fatality rate for Israel and Australia
Executive summary
The paper suggests you can take the number of vaccine doses delivered, divide by 1,000 to get an estimate of the number of people killed by the COVID vaccine.
My public comment:

February 8, 2023 4:05 am

Wind and Solar are Molly-Coddled up to Their Armpits
Grossly Excessive Financial Incentives: About 45 to 50% of the “wind, all-in LCOE” (levelized cost of energy) of wind turbine projects consists of various financial in incentives. I have the 20-y spreadsheets.
If no financial incentives were available, Owners would have to sell their electricity at almost 2 times the price, c/kWh, they now receive, which would be very bad PR for wind.
Wind Output is Variable Almost 100% of the Time: I looked at the hour-to-hour wind output in New England (ISO-NE website) for an entire year, 8766 hours. I was bleary eyed.
I found there ALWAYS was some wind output. It was NEVER zero.
Wind output is variable almost 100% of the time 
Counteracting Variable Wind Output: What makes wind a grid disturber, or very expensive, or very uneconomical (take your pick) is the VARIABLE output, because OTHER generators (likely gas-fired power plants) HAVE to counteract, on a less than minute-to-minute basis, the output variations, UP TO NEAR ZERO wind output, 24/7/365, year after year.
By exporting excess electricity, such as to Quebec, via not-yet-existing HV DC lines, NE generators will do less counteracting, but Quebec generators will do more counteracting; there is no free lunch in the real engineering world. 
Cost of Counteracting Variable Wind Output: The counteracting costs imposed on the other generators will be an addition to the “all-in LCOE” of the other generators. 
Depending on grid conditions/topology, that cost addition is:
Less than 5% at up to 5% annual wind penetration,
About 5% at about 10% wind penetration,
About 10% at about 15% wind penetration, etc., as proven in Ireland at 17% wind

That cost addition becomes very large at high levels of wind penetration, because more and more of the other generators will be operating less economically, due to:
1) Ramping up/down, at about 75% of rated output, to counteract, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, the variable wind outputs; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
2) Being on hot, synchronous standby, and cold standby; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
3) Having much more fuel-guzzling cold start and stops; more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh 
4) Having much more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more c/kWh.
5) Producing less, but more expensive electricity, due to inefficiently operating, at a lesser capacity factor, with wind on the grid
NOTE: The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the electricity quantities that need to be counteracted, and the greater the cost of the counteracting services, as proven in Germany and Ireland.
Ignoring the Money and Environmental Impacts?  
The public not looking at the wind project spreadsheets and not being made aware of wind’s lifetime adverse environmental consequences, is exactly what “rich folks with tax-shelters and their protectors” want.
Over the decades, those folks have set up nationwide PR structures to lie and cheat every-which-way to get their projects approved, built and paid for in Europe and the US.
In that manner, wind is ARTIFICIALLY made to LOOK economically and socially palatable to the kept-ignorant/deluded/brainwashed ratepayers and taxpayers.
The PR ideal is to make “skunk-wind” perceived as a “low-maintenance, perfumed beauty at a garden party”.
To sum up, wind gets:
1) Various federal and state financial incentives,
2) Plus, free electric grid expansion/augmentation,
3) Plus, free backup/standby power plant services
4) Plus, free grid management services
5) Plus, free hazardous waste disposal during project life, and at end of life,
6) Plus, free legalized killing of bats and birds, including bald eagles, and of whales,
7) Plus, free legalized ruining of the fishing industry,
8) Plus, free sickening of people and animals with infrasound, which is felt, but not heard,
9) Plus, free visual blight all over the place
There would be no wind, solar and battery systems without the huge, politics-inspired, financial incentives.
Thank heavens, ISO-NE has, till now, adequate backup/standby plants, plus adequate natural gas and fuel oil storage capacity near power plants, to INSTANTLY COUNTERACT the ups and downs and absences of wind and solar, 24/7/365, year after year. 

Last edited 1 month ago by wilpost
Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 7:26 am

You just wrote a good article disguised as a comment!

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 8:27 am

Thank you,

I have been posting it as a comment on various sites, and altering it to its present state.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 2:48 pm

I agree with Richard, i.e., a very informative comment.

I don’t have any market data, but what I’ve gleaned from hourly PJM data for 2022 is that any amount of wind production greatly increases the variance of the net load that has to be met by conventional sources. And this result does not take into account that wind, unlike load, is intermittent, hence completely unpredictable.

I’m convinced that there are just two ‘book-end’ possibilities on wind: The first is that it just starts bad and gets worse for grid stability and system economics as one adds wind capacity. The second is that even though wind generation is de-stabilizing, it affords an economic benefit to consumers due to a net reduction in fuel costs.

As I said, I have no market data that could either support or refute the second possibility, but I’m willing to bet that given the political pressure, as well as the direct subsidies you highlight, above, no one else has this information either. So until there is actually an unhampered market for wind generation, I’ll stick with the first possibility.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 8, 2023 6:02 pm

The net reduction in fuel costs gets eaten up by various inefficiencies, that are kept hazy/invisible, except they make their appearance on huge electric household bills in countries with high levels of wind, such as Denmark, Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 7:08 pm

That would be my take, barring evidence to the contrary, i.e., displacement of conventional energy sources by wind energy under free-market conditions. As we don’t have free-markets in this regard, I always wonder how commenters like Nick Stokes can be absolutely certain that any amount of energy from wind is economically justified.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  wilpost
February 8, 2023 3:47 pm

I don’t blame Warren Buffet, I blame the government for its stupid energy policies. At least he’s honest about it. He told it like it is – “the only reason it’s worth building these things is for the government tax credits,” or words to that effect.

He’s not one of the idiots clamoring about “climate change.”

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 9, 2023 7:05 am

The government has stupid energy policies, because many US-media-deluded folks voted IN the grifters and grafters in the US Congress.

If not enough, more or less, legal votes, many BALLOTS appeared out of nowhere, before and after Election Day, to be credited in favor of the people, who would not to stand in the way of these stupid energy policies, such as long-time, insider creatures, like highly compromised, bought-and-paid-for, demented Biden.

Just blame it on the Russians or the Chinese, as per disproven “Russian-Interference Hoax”, attested to “as true” by 41 high-level intelligence officials, under oath.

The MESS is malignant beyond cure.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  wilpost
February 11, 2023 9:22 pm

Good post Wilpost. Agreed.
We published in 2002:
1.   “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2.   “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this
would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– by Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian), Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Professional Engineer – retired.
McGill, Queen’s, U of Alberta)
Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse,
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002

David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 4:11 am

Differences by Date

Last year I posted plots of day-by-day long-term trends of mean Tmax for NOAA’s USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) list of stations.

This is an update with daily Tmax data from 1895 through the end of 2022. This time I have computed and plotted anomalies rather than temperature itself. This allows all the 365 days of the year to use the same vertical scale.

In this Google Drive folder you will find a readme.txt file and various formats and versions of the plots. I use a 5-year centered mean as the clearest way to see the differences by date. I also provide a Lowess smooth and the unsmoothed plots for comparison. I acknowledge Willis Eschenbach’s recent caution here on WUWT about what may happen using a running centered mean.

For the quickest look, here is a direct link to a pdf file of 365 slides. If you download and open it, it should work as a slideshow. Click through the slides to see the overall point.

Why do the plots look this way, changing as they do date-by-date? I don’t know precisely, but it is certainly not CO2 driving the trends and cycles and differences by date.

I invite comments.

Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 6:00 am

David Dibbel:

The only way to determine whether warming is actually occurring is to delete all TEMPORARY warming or cooling events, such as La Ninas, El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, etc. from your data set.

David Dibbell
Reply to  BurlHenry
February 8, 2023 6:10 am

Please understand this analysis is not attempting to “determine whether warming is actually occurring.” The point is to highlight the differences by date, which imply timed effects.

Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 10:27 am

Each day can and likely does have a different Tmax just do to weather variability.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Scissor
February 8, 2023 10:57 am

Of course. But WHY, for example, does the plot for May 24th look so tame compared to May 17th and 31st? It does not look like random variability.

Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 1:12 pm

I’d like to see see the plots of absolute temperatures, precipitation also.

Perhaps there is a seasonal reason for stability around the 24th. Doesn’t seem likely but the data is the data.

In winter, the variability of air temperature in the arctic is much greater than in summer when at that time ice thaw buffers temperature swings.

Early October of your plots, and the 4th in particular, seems to exhibit lower variability too.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Scissor
February 8, 2023 1:50 pm

Here is a pdf slide show of the Tmax values in degrees F. The vertical scale is different by month. The plot images are also now in the Google Drive folder Images5. I did not analyze precipitation. And yes the winter variability is greater than summer.

Curious George
Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 8:01 am

I love the idea of “day-by-day long-term trends”. Never too late to learn.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Curious George
February 8, 2023 8:23 am

Did you look at the plots?

Right-Handed Shark
February 8, 2023 4:37 am

Interesting initiative from Jordan Peterson

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
February 8, 2023 10:59 am

Michael Mann favors tyranny and he hates Jordon Peterson.

Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 4:43 am

cool- been waiting for an open thread

In the most recent Unscientific Unamerican, I see 2 articles that make me puke. I’ll mention 1 here and the other in another thread. It’s all about how to improve the propaganda. (issue Feb., 2023)

The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate ChangeSpeaking to people’s priorities can build the will needed to implement climate solutions

By Susan Joy Hassol

Climate change is already disrupting the lives of billions of people. What was once considered a problem for the future is raging all around us right now. This reality has helped convince a majority of the public that we must act to limit the suffering. In an August 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center, 71 percent of Americans said they had experienced at least one heat wave, flood, drought or wildfire in the past year. Among those people, more than 80 percent said climate change had contributed. In another 2022 poll, 77 percent of Americans who said they had been affected by extreme weather in the past five years saw climate change as a crisis or major problem.

Yet the response is not meeting the urgency of the crisis. A transition to clean energy is underway, but it is happening too slowly to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The U.S. government finally took long-delayed action by passing the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, but much more progress is needed, and it is hampered by entrenched politics. The partisan divide largely stems from conservatives’ perception that climate change solutions will involve big government controlling people’s choices and imposing sacrifices. Research shows that Republicans’ skepticism about climate change is largely attributable to a conflict between ideological values and often discussed solutions, particularly government regulations. A 2019 study in Climatic Change found that political and ideological polarization on climate change is particularly acute in the U.S. and other English-speaking countries.

One thing we can all do to ease this gridlock is to alter the language and messages we use about climate change. The words we use and the stories we tell matter. Transforming the way we talk about climate change can engage people and build the political will needed to implement policies strong enough to confront the crisis with the urgency required.

To inspire people, we need to tell a story not of sacrifice and deprivation but of opportunity and improvement in our lives, our health and our well-being—a story of humans flourishing in a post-fossil-fuel age.

Some of the language problems we face in presenting this story are inadvertent and innocent, such as how scientists use jargon and think the facts speak for themselves. Others are intentional and insidious, such as the well-funded disinformation campaign led by the fossil-fuel industry that is meant to confuse, obfuscate and mislead.

Jargon can be hard to understand, but even worse are familiar terms that in a scientific context have entirely different meanings. For example, people generally use “positive” to mean “good” and “negative” to mean “bad.” But climate scientists use “positive” to mean “increasing” and “negative” for “decreasing.” So a positive trend in temperature means it’s going up—not good in an era of global warming. Scientists also speak of negative emissions, which sounds like bad pollution but in fact refers to the removal of carbon dioxide from the air—a good thing! It would be clearer to call these efforts CO2 removal, uptake or drawdown.

Perceptions can be greatly influenced by the words we use. “Natural” commonly refers to things occurring in nature that are not influenced by humans. But many events we call natural disasters—such as torrential rains and more powerful hurricanes that lead to severe flooding or extreme heat and drought that exacerbate wildfires—are no longer entirely natural. By disrupting climate and erecting buildings in vulnerable locations, humans are creating unnatural disasters. The word “natural” can be exploited in other ways, too. In 2021 researchers at Yale University found that Americans associate natural gas with “clean” and methane gas with “pollution”—even though natural gas is almost entirely methane.

The language we use for climate solutions can exacerbate the cultural divide. Terms such as “regulate,” “restrict,” “cut,” “control” and “tax” are unpopular, especially among conservatives. Perhaps people would be more likely to support solutions described with words such as “innovation,” “entrepreneurship,” “ingenuity,” “market-based” and “competing in the global clean energy race.” The fact that the first significant U.S. climate policy is called the Inflation Reduction Act is another example of how word choice matters. The name itself helped to gain the crucial support of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the swing vote. The name may also have made the legislation more appealing to the many Americans who worry about climate change but rank it below inflation and the economy on their list of priorities.

Changing other words can help inform people and redirect the climate conversation. Instead of referring to greenhouse gases, we can refer to “heat-trapping pollution.” That term reinforces the basic mechanism of human-caused climate change, and “pollution” has negative associations, which are appropriate in this context. “Climate change” has become pretty standard, but a better description of what we’re experiencing is “human-caused climate disruption.” Sadly, “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” are accurate, too.

In low-lying coastal areas, seawater increasingly fills the streets at high tide, even on days with no rain. The costs are enormous: cities such as Miami spend hundreds of millions of dollars on systems to pump the water out. Yet experts call this “nuisance flooding,” greatly understating its human and monetary impacts. It might more appropriately be referred to as “sunny-day” or “recurrent” flooding. Similarly, as sea level rises and stronger hurricanes hit, we are beginning to hear calls for “managed retreat” from the coasts. But that sounds too much like surrender. As military generals have been known to say, we never retreat; we just advance in a different direction. It would be more positive to call for “proactive relocation” to safer, higher ground.

Word choice is part of the broader set of communication challenges we must face to build the political will needed to swiftly address the climate crisis. We can group the challenges into disinformation, misconceptions and the pigeonholing of climate change as an environmental issue. Let’s take disinformation first.

The fossil-fuel industry and those who do its bidding have executed a well-funded, long-running disinformation campaign that takes advantage of the confusion around climate language. The people behind this campaign know that scientists use “theory” to mean an idea that is very well established in science, but to the public, a theory is just a hunch. They also know that to the public, “uncertainty” is synonymous with “ignorance,” even though scientists use the term to refer to a range of possible results. So fossil-fuel advocates endlessly repeat: “Climate change is only a theory. There’s so much uncertainty.”

As the climate crisis has increasingly affected our daily lives, it has become more difficult to deny its reality. That’s why people guarding the status quo have changed tactics, shifting from denial of climate science to strategies such as deflection—for example, getting us to focus on our own personal carbon footprints rather than examining the huge role of big oil and gas companies in delaying climate action. They also sow doubt by promoting myths and lies about solutions—they’re too expensive, they’re unreliable. Donald Trump told a crowd in 2019 that if a “windmill” were erected anywhere near their house, their home value would drop 75 percent, and the noise would cause cancer.

One way to counter disinformation is to get ahead of it by “inoculating” the public—promoting accurate information and helping people recognize disinformation techniques. Researchers have determined that preemptive messages explaining disinformation techniques while highlighting correct information can be effective in preventing misunderstanding. One key fact to emphasize is that the cost of renewable energy has plummeted, making clean energy cheaper than dirty energy. The prices of solar power and batteries have fallen by about 90 percent in the past decade, and there have been steep declines in the cost of wind energy as well.

Good progress has also been made on managing variable energy sources such as solar and wind, as well as in storing the energy they produce. We’re not waiting for an energy miracle; we’ve already had one.

The second major challenge, often related to the first, involves widespread misconceptions about climate disruption and public perception. Research published in 2022 in Nature Communications showed that although 66 to 80 percent of Americans support climate change policies, they think only 37 to 43 percent of the population does; they believe the climate-concerned community is a minority, when in fact it’s a majority. The researchers also found that although supporters of policies to limit climate change outnumber opponents two to one, Americans falsely perceive the opposite to be true. This false social reality tends to limit how much people talk about the subject, and it decreases motivation and political pressure to pursue climate policies. One response is simply to talk about climate change more with family, friends, co-workers, and leaders in the public and private sectors. Each of us can be part of this solution.

There’s also a growing misconception that it’s too late to act—that global climate catastrophe is inevitable. This may result, in part, from the media’s focus on disasters rather than solutions, which can make many people feel a sense of hopelessness or fatalism. A 2021 study in the Lancet revealed that young people are especially vulnerable to these feelings, with 84 percent saying they’re worried and 75 percent saying they think the future is frightening. If people are convinced we’re doomed— that there’s nothing we can do—why would they bother trying? It is imperative that we clearly communicate that it is not too late to avoid the worst outcomes. We must act urgently because every delay means a hotter and costlier future. Every fraction of a degree matters, and every action matters. As climate activist Greta Thunberg of Sweden so aptly put it, “When we start to act, hope is everywhere.”

People who feel constructive hope (as opposed to passive hope, such as that “God will save us”) are more likely to act and support climate policies, according to a 2019 study by researchers at Yale and George Mason University. Raising feelings of hope involves boosting a sense of efficacy—that what we do as individuals and as a society can truly make a difference. Rather than promoting stories of doom and deprivation, we can tell stories that illustrate the many benefits we will reap from the clean energy transition and from protecting nature. We need to paint a picture of that better world—powered by renewable energy, with friendlier, more walkable cities—and show how and where the improvements are already unfolding. It’s psychologically important for people to know that we’re not just starting; we’re already on our way.

The third challenge is that climate disruption has for years been categorized as an environmental issue. A 2021 Gallup survey found that only 41 percent of Americans consider themselves environmentalists. And environmental issues, especially climate change, have become so politically polarized that some people are hostile to any discussion of them.

The reality is that everyone cares about something affected by the climate emergency. Are they people of faith? Climate disruption is damaging God’s creation and disproportionately hurting people who are “the least of these.” Do they like to fish? Climate change is warming up our rivers, reducing the habitat for cold-water species such as salmon and trout. Are they skiers? Warming is reducing winter recreation opportunities. Everyone has to eat, and climate change is taking a toll on some of our favorite things, such as coffee and chocolate, as well as important staple crops, including corn and wheat. Many people are suffering from rising summer heat and humidity, wildfire smoke, and other aspects of increasingly extreme weather. The next time you want to talk with someone about climate disruption, consider what they care about and use that as an entry point. As with most good communication, success depends on the ways we connect on values, build trust and find common ground.

If you know that someone’s group allegiance leads them to reject the notion of human-caused climate change, rather than banging your head against a locked front door, look for a side door. For example, almost everyone likes clean energy, and for good reason. It offers clean air and water, energy security, reduced costs, job creation, and more. So even without invoking climate change, there are many reasons to support deploying clean energy. A 2015 study in Nature Climate Change showed that across 24 countries, action on climate change was motivated by other benefits, notably economic development and healthier communities. A 2022 study in Nature Energy compared three ways of framing renewable energy’s benefits—cost savings, economic boost and climate change mitigation—and found that cost savings was the most effective frame across political groups. One ironic example: in 2017 the Kentucky Coal Museum covered its roof with 80 solar panels because the technology saved the organization money.

Making the changes necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate disruption will require sufficient social support before the world crosses too many dangerous climate thresholds. Research published in 2018 in Science suggests large-scale social changes require the active engagement of about 25 percent of the population. Surveys suggest that in the U.S. we are rapidly approaching that point on climate. Researchers at Yale and George Mason found that as of late 2021, one third of Americans were alarmed about the climate crisis, and most of them were willing to act.

Addressing climate communication challenges could help us build enough political will in time to blunt the worst climate change effects. People must grasp the urgency of the choice we face between a future with a little more warming and global catastrophe. And they need to recognize that the choices we make now will determine our fate.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 7:32 am

“In the most recent Unscientific Unamerican, I see 2 articles that make me puke.”

That you actually read “Scientific” American almost makes me want to puke. That you quoted two articles here, caused that to happen. I guess we need to know what the Climate Howler Global Whiners are saying, although it has not changed much in 40 years. Same claptrap, just louder.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 8:57 am

It is difficult, but we do have to know what the latest lunacy is from the climate alarmists, and Scientific American is a hotbed of them.

Just reading the headlines is enough to make me shutter. I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American back in the middle 1980’s after I decided they had abandoned the scientific method when it came to climate change.

I signed up for Apple+ which includes Scientific American but I very seldom read it. Just reading the headlines tells me all I need to know.

All our institutions are compromised over this bogus CO2 issue.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 11:02 am

I’m letting the subscription run out. It’s good to know what the enemy thinks- maybe you’d only like to read people who you agree with. To defeat an enemy you have to know what they think. Just recall what General Patton had to say on this subject.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 8:52 am

From Scientific American:

“By Susan Joy Hassol

Climate change is already disrupting the lives of billions of people. What was once considered a problem for the future is raging all around us right now.”

That’s completely false, Susan. You couldn’t prove that if your life depended on doing so. You are repeating something you heard, not something you know. Assuming you are an honest person.

Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 4:53 am

And the 2nd item in the latest Unscientific Unamerican that makes me puke. I might add that almost every article is written by a woman. I have nothing against women editors but I see this as reverse discrimination. Meanwhile, here in Wokachusetts, everyone is screaming about high gasoline and fuel oil prices- after years of screaming that we need to decarbonize everything. Yuh, makes me puke.

Let’s Get Real
“Realists” say oil and gas won’t go away
soon. Our climate is doomed if they don’t
By Naomi Oreskes

Toward the end of 2022, I was a panelist at a session on climate
change held by a major scientific society. Near the end of the session,
a prominent scientist declared that we needed to be “realistic”:
oil and gas weren’t going away anytime soon, and we had
to accept that as we attempted to solve our climate crisis.

The oil and gas industry makes this argument all the time, of
course, but lately I’ve heard it from scientists such as the person
at that meeting. Even some environmentalists make it when they
have accepted the idea that natural gas needs to be a “bridge
fuel.” But carbon pollution from burning oil and gas (and coal)—
along with deforestation and animal agriculture—is the cause of
the climate crisis. Is it realistic to think you can solve a problem
while continuing to do the very thing that caused it?

Some years ago I gave a college commencement address entitled
“Don’t Be Realistic.” To the graduating students in front of
me, I said that pleas for “realism” are often used to discourage
those who think the world can be a different place. The people
making them want to justify the status quo and deflate the ambitions
of those among us who would be agents of change. The
argument for realism in dealing with climate change is one of
those calls for inaction. It is an excuse to resist change.

This is not the only time in history that the U.S. has been asked
not to change. This country was founded as a nation partly
enslaved. At the Constitutional Convention, there were bitter battles
over whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to
the proposition that all people are created equal should permit
one segment of its population to remain in bondage.
Those who argued for the preservation of slavery
insisted its abolition was simply not realistic.

Eighty years later, when Abraham Lincoln confronted
the issue of emancipation, he also faced the realist
argument. It wasn’t realistic, some said, to think formerly
enslaved people could become self-sufficient members
of a republic or that society was ready to embrace
them as citizens. In some ways, the realists making that
second point were right: After taking nearly a century
to abolish slavery, the U.S. took another one to legally
abolish its residues of enforced segregation, physical
violence and grossly unequal protection under the law.
When Martin Luther King, Jr., marched on Washington,
D.C., in the 1960s to gain civil rights, he was advised not
to push too hard. He was counseled to go slow.

But it was his very unrealistic expectation—the outrageous
belief that it was possible to have a country
that practiced what it preached, a country where all
people and not just white males were not only created
equal but treated equally—that led to change. That
unrealistic expectation helped to bring about a new reality.

The truly realistic solution to climate change is “deep decarbonization”—
reorganizing our energy systems to rely on technologies
that do not cause carbon pollution. We have to start this
work immediately and cut emissions in half by 2030 to keep
global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius—
a threshold beyond which catastrophic damage is almost certain
to occur, according to recent scientific analysis.

To accomplish this goal, we should focus our attention on
proven technologies that can do the lion’s share of the job. This
means rapid expansion of wind and solar, supplemented by
hydropower, biomass reactors and existing nuclear energy. It also
means developing policies that encourage energy efficiency. It
means focusing our research dollars on energy storage and
improvements to the electricity grid required to maximize our
use of the wind and the sun.

And it means not getting distracted by promises of breakthroughs
that may or may not come on time. (Computer scientist
John Mashey, who worked at Bell Labs—one of the greatest
centers of innovation in the mid-20th century—says they had a
slogan: “Never schedule breakthroughs.”)

Conventional realism asserts that we cannot live any other
way than the way we do now. The fossil-fuel industry asserts that
we cannot live without its products. But history shows that
humans have lived and thrived in many different configurations.
It is not unreasonable to think we could, in the future, live in
a less destructive manner than we do now. And if that aspiration
appears to be unrealistic, then we need to find strategies to
make it real.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 5:46 am

Thanks for posting these articles. The delusions of these authors are very real, and the effects are pernicious.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  David Dibbell
February 8, 2023 6:16 am

Oreskes compares climate change to slavery! Puke!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 11:06 am

Proving that she doesn’t get by on good looks alone.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Scissor
February 9, 2023 3:30 am


AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2023 2:51 am

The irony being, that the “solutions” her ilk would impose pretty much reinstated slavery for the bulk of humanity.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 7:00 am

“[H]istory shows that humans have lived and thrived in many different configurations.”

There is no history of over seven billion people ever “living and thriving” in any configuration other than the present one.

If she weren’t so prominent, and well-regarded in some circles, that would be laugh-out-loud funny. But it is horrifying. If she ever got her hands on any of the levers of power she’d make Stalin’s famines look like like a cornucopia.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  quelgeek
February 9, 2023 3:33 am

Well put! But like the rest of the leftist loons, she imagines herself one of the “survivors” and doesn’t care about the rest.

Stalin is probably the idol for people like Oreskes, with quotes like this one – “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 8, 2023 9:15 am

From Scientific American:

“Realists” say oil and gas won’t go away
soon. Our climate is doomed if they don’t
By Naomi Oreskes”

Nope, there’s no evidence Earth’s climate is doomed by CO2. And Naomi knows it. That makes Naomi a propagandist and a liar.

Naomi says, “and deflate the ambitions of those among us who would be agents of change.”

See, Naomi sees herself as an agent of change. She is really just a distorter of the truth, and her climate change lies do great harm to society.

Naomi has the Megaphone of Scientific American to spread her climate change disinformation.

She could not prove a damn claim she makes about any connection between CO2 and Earth’s climate and/or weather. That doesn’t stop her from making the claims, though. Fanatics are not dissuaded easily.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2023 11:24 am

She could not prove a damn claim she makes about any connection between CO2 and Earth’s climate and/or weather.”
I know I have shown you this before Tom but you seem to dismiss it. I’m curious why because it would seem to show very well that CO2 and temperature are linked.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
February 9, 2023 4:35 am

I don’t believe in Hockey Sticks, Simon. I think they were specifically created in computers to make it appear that temperatures and CO2 concentrations are linked.

There are other temperature records, the written, historical records, that refute the Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile, and show CO2 and temperatures are not linked.

If you didn’t have a Hockey Stick to show, you wouldn’t have anything. The Temperature Data Mannipulators gave you an argument, which was their intention. If that argument proves bogus, then you and them have nothing. And as far as I’m concerned, it has been proven bogus because it doesn’t agree with the historical record. That, and the obvious corruption of the temperature records outlined in the Climategate emails.

Here are 600 temperature charts from around the world, none of which show the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the Hockey Stick charts. Instead, the historical, written records show the temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as they are today, and refute the Hockey Stick temperature profile which shows the globe is experiencing unprecedented warming today.

There is no unprecedented warming today according to the written, historical temperature records, which means CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s climate. So minor that we can and should forget about it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 9, 2023 11:17 am

I don’t believe in Hockey Sticks, Simon. I think they were specifically created in computers to make it appear that temperatures and CO2 concentrations are linked.”
But… hmmmm… a hockey stick is just a representation of the data. Are you saying if yo have stocks and they rocket up then you don’t believe the data because the graph looks like a hockey stick?
“If you didn’t have a Hockey Stick to show, you wouldn’t have anything. The Temperature Data Mannipulators gave you an argument, which was their intention. “
Except and here is the big “except” … skeptics have tried and tried but none have come up with a credible gotcha on the data. I mean, they say it’s the sun or UHI, but none have ever proven that the mainstream data sets are fraudulently manipulated. I could list the times they have tried to go to court and failed, but we both know you don’t and wont read anything that is not pro skeptic.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
February 10, 2023 4:08 am

“But… hmmmm… a hockey stick is just a representation of the data.”

The data it supposedly repesents, the written,historical temperature data, the only data available to the data mannipulators, does not show a Hockey Stick Profile.

Instead, the written, historical records since the end of the Little Ice Age show a cyclical movement of the temperatures where the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades and then the process repeats, and the temperatures vary by about 2.0C between warm and cool (see the U.S. chart below).

So how do you get a scary Hockey Stick profile out of the data that does not show a scary Hockey Stick profile?

Below is a comparison of a written, historical temperature record, the U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) compared to a computer-generated Hockey Stick chart showing temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter and now being at the hottest time in human history. The written, historical record doesn’t show a hotter and hotter profile.

I believe the written, historical record. It shows the scary computer-generated Hockey Stick charts are a big lie.

Unmodified, written, historical regional temperature records from all around the world show a similar temperature profile to the U.S. regional chart, where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. None of them show a scary, unprecedentedly warm Hockey Stick temperature profile.

Who you going to believe? The temperature data recorders? Or the temperture data mannipulators?

I’ll go with the written record. And it shows there is nothing to worry about from CO2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, than in the past, but it is no warmer today than in the past. Therefore, CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperature.

comment image

Bob Rogers
February 8, 2023 6:17 am

How much of global warming is a result of burning fuel directly? What I’m getting at is when you burn say gasoline to make a car go, it releases a lot of heat–because that’s what burning something does. I’ve never seen this direct heat release accounted for in climate models. I’m not an expert at math, but based on my quick calculation it seems like the gasoline burned in the US accounts for about 100 watts per square metre per day. Obviously it’s concentrated where there are more people.

Reply to  Bob Rogers
February 8, 2023 7:35 am

Most people live in abot 3% of the Earth’s surface.

95% of the world’s population is concentrated in just 10% of the land surface. 

10% x 30% is 3%
(70% is oceans 30% is land)

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Bob Rogers
February 8, 2023 2:24 pm

Very quick order of magnitude calculation: gasoline demand runs at 8.5mb/d=1 million tonnes a day, at 42MJ/kg so 1bn kg is 42PJ. Area of USA is a tad over 9m km^2 or 9Tm^2. So that is 42,000/9 J per day per sq m, or 4,666J/day/m^2. There are 24×3600 seconds in a day, so that’s 0.054W/m^2

February 8, 2023 6:17 am

It is well documented in Hartmann 1994 Global Physical Climatology – after the findings of Schwarzschild for clear-sky:

σTs^4 – σTsa^4 = σTe^4 / 2

Emission Temp: Te
Air adjacent to surface: Tsa
Radiative equivalent surface temperature: Ts

Surface Upward Flux – Atmospheric Emission = Surface Net Radiation = OLR / 2

Surface Net Radiation and the corresponding convective activity (H + LE) are set unequivocally to OLR / 2.

This relationship is independent of radiative flux optical depth in the thermodynamic system.

It requires no reference to greenhouse gas content.

Net radiation at the surface is set to = OLR / 2 in clear sky.

It is a simple function of OLR and a factor of 2.

Surface Net Radiation = OLR/2

Let’s try Wild 2020 Reference Estimates

Clear sky Surface Net Radiation = OLR / 2

LW down – LW up + SW down – SW up = OLR /2

314 – 398 + 247 – 30 = 267 / 2

Reply to  JCM
February 8, 2023 6:19 am

Schematic diagram

clear-sky optical depth is simply 2. It is a matter of geometry, not gas content, in the atmosphere.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
Reply to  JCM
February 8, 2023 7:15 am

If it’s too cryptic, the implication is that gas composition makes no difference to energy balance. OLR is fixed to surface flux.

The only perturbation can be through the condensate – cloud – reduced albedo. And/or, oceanic circulation.

For instance, earth energy imbalance can be considered through greater solar absorption into ocean depths. Perhaps cloud has changed.

In ocean absorption of solar, the energy is not immediately available at the surface. This could be where the heat is “trapped” resulting in the discontinuity of solar absorbed and outgoing radiation.

There can be no excess heat trapping imbalance in atmosphere.

David Wojick
February 8, 2023 7:16 am

Hilarious: “Scientists have called it: The world has blown its shot at keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius — the line between really bad and really, really bad.”

Getting out of the Little Ice Age was really good, not really bad, you fool.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  David Wojick
February 9, 2023 3:38 am

Biggest lie they’re selling is that a “warmer climate” is worse.

February 8, 2023 7:49 am

USA is respected in the Western world, says Pew.

In France, there is indeed some support for USA military help to Ukraine, but no, nobody respects Biden. I mean on the right, left, far right, far left… Even French academic leftists point out Biden bizarre answers and his “gaffes”.

February 8, 2023 8:35 am

US bombed Nord Stream gas pipelines, claims investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
Nord Stream gas pipeline bombings were a covert operation ordered by the White House and carried out by the CIA.

MIke McHenry
Reply to  vuk
February 8, 2023 8:59 am

The article is pay walled

Krishna Gans
Reply to  MIke McHenry
February 8, 2023 2:20 pm

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until nowby Seymour Hersh

It doesnot add up
Reply to  vuk
February 8, 2023 4:01 pm

Hersh’s article is reproduced in full here:

Full of colour detail. Is it right? Maybe.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 9, 2023 4:46 am

“Is it right? Maybe.”

Time will tell.

MIke McHenry
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 11, 2023 7:29 am

I’d put my money on an environmental organization doing it

Reply to  vuk
February 10, 2023 7:05 am

They try to discredit Seymour Hersh by saying his reporting on Syrian chemical attacks is conspiratorial and contradicted by respected institutions (like OPCW).
They just forgot that there are not just an OPCW “whistleblower”, but two!

We live in an era where whistleblowers are demi-gods. Usually the media can’t get enough of whistleblowers, even when their claims are unproven.

In that case, there isn’t a word about whistleblowers, or just to “debunk” them.

Just because OPCW was once respected doesn’t mean it has to be respected forever.

Reply to  niceguy12345
February 10, 2023 7:11 am

Usually the media can’t get enough of whistleblowers

Only when they agree with the media’s agenda though.

MIke McHenry
February 8, 2023 8:47 am

As most of you know water has a lot more heat in it than dry air at the same temperature. Very Humid air would therefore contain more heat than dryer air at the same temperature. Then how can global temperatures be averaged?

February 8, 2023 9:24 am

I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts.


Reply to  CO2isLife
February 8, 2023 9:37 am

and the other hot dry, and cold deserts

yes, the existing deserts are where to look for the CO2 effect. It is only in the deserts where we have a climate that depends on radiation.

One should not try to diagnose a CO2 radiative effect in the 5 billion hectares of newly created desert. In these areas it is hindered vertical enthalpy flux compared to pre-industrial times which is often confused for radiative effects. This warms the surface and cools aloft.

Reply to  JCM
February 8, 2023 4:01 pm

There are countless locations other than Antarctica showing no warming. None, nada, zip. They can write a nonsensical article explaining away why the laws of physics cease to exist at the South Pole. Here is a link to many more locations from all around the world showing no warming. Link

Reply to  CO2isLife
February 8, 2023 5:35 pm

This would indicate a low radiative forcing effect from trace gas, if areas such as existing deserts, and areas which do not have reducing moisture (such as coastal or island locales) have minimal net warming.

Reply to  JCM
February 9, 2023 4:40 am
Yep, that is exactly my point, and anyone truly seeking the truth would understand that. Problem is, no one is seeking the truth, they are seeking funding.
Reply to  CO2isLife
February 9, 2023 9:54 am

Yep, that is exactly my point, and anyone truly seeking the truth would understand that. Problem is, no one is seeking the truth, they are seeking funding.

Reply to  CO2isLife
February 8, 2023 11:41 am

Antarctica is a rare exception to the CO2 warming effects in cold dry climates. Here is an explanation. Other scientists admit this is true but are unsure of the correct explanation: No warming there. Lots of warming in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere.

“Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools much of Antarctica
Local weather conditions, altitude to blame for counterintuitive trend
comment imageNASA

In a world where most regions are warming because of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), central Antarctica has been cooling slightly in recent years. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 typically trap heat radiated back toward space from the planet’s surface, but large swaths of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the broad pink mass on the right side of the image) are, on average, actually colder than the upper layers of the atmosphere for much of the year—the only place on Earth where that’s true. When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters. And adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the short-term triggered even more energy loss from the surface and lower atmosphere there, the team’s climate simulations suggest. The topsy-turvy temperature trend stems, in part, from the region’s high elevation; much of the surface of the ice sheet smothering East Antarctica lies above an elevation of 3000 meters, so it is much colder than it would be at lower altitudes. Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up. For the lower-altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.”

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 8, 2023 1:42 pm

Richard, from the linked paper in your comment:

‘The emitted LW flux at the top-of-atmosphere FTOA as measured by satellites can be estimated from the transmitted surface radiation (1 − εatm) σ T4surf (with σ as Stefan-Boltzmann constant and assuming the emissivity of the surface to be 1) and the emission of the atmosphere εatm σ Tatm4…’

I’m not an expert on these things, but am under the impression that the Stefan-Boltzman equation is NOT strictly applicable to gaseous surfaces. But alarmist scientists have been getting away with this for years because it conveniently translates any TOA radiative imbalance to a change in surface temperature, hence is supportive of the ‘CO2 is the control knob of climate’ narrative.

WE gives a pretty good explanation of what they’re doing here:


Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 8, 2023 4:07 pm

The Stephan-Boltzeman Curve represents a MAXIMUM that CO2 could achieve…but CO2 isn’t a black body. CO2 simply absorbs and emits a very very very narrow band between 13 and 18 Micron, peak of 15. From the included graphic one can see that CO2 and 15 Micron lines up with the 210K. 210K is -63 C. This entire CO2 causes warming theory is based upon 1 out of every 2,500 molecules, 1 out of 10,000 due to man, vibrating with the energy of a -63 C Black Body can somehow impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules. That is 100% pure nonsense. (Link)

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 8, 2023 5:31 pm

gaseous surfaces

The problem here is that gases do not have surfaces, and do not emit full spectrum IR. They emit only in the narrow bands in which they absorb.

Only solids and liquids emit full spectrum IR.

From space we observed a broad spectrum in the OLR.

The bulk emission to space is the combination of earth surface flux, and flux from condensed liquids and solid surfaces in atmosphere.

Gaseous emission is very small.

Under Beer-Lambert principles, the minimum net transmittance is about 10% through the atmosphere. This, even under 100% absorptivity.

Bulk net upward emission originates in atmosphere, at a temperature of 273K.

Liquid and Solid atmospheric particles have an emissivity about 0.6. These are the condensate, not gas. they are the Clouds etc. emitting full spectra.

Assume Earth system emissivity observed from space is about 0.6

Ts= [S(1-a)/4εσ]^1/4

S = solar input, say 1365 W m-2
a = albedo
ε = emissivity
σ = stefan-boltzmann constant 5.6704×10−8 W-m2·K^4

ε = 0.6
a = 0.3

Ts = 288K

This straightforward view indicates a greybody system, with emissivity < 1, approximates the assumed system temperature.

Bulk emission being 273K, indicates average height of emission, 288K-273K/lapse rate 6.5K/km = 2.3km.

Atmospheric transmissivity above average height of emission = about 25%. Total column 10%.

It is the blackbody concept which creates the virtual 255K reference temperature. A greybody system emitting with intensity <1 is more appropriate for radiative enthusiasts to understand the spectra.

It is the greybody emittance which is required to understand the (higher) 288K temperature, compared to the blackbody reference ε1.0 = 255K.

The bulk of OLR is the combined spectra of Earth surface, and the emission from atmosphere (full spectrum surfaces). Bulk emissivity about 0.6. Maybe more like 0.62 all things considered.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  JCM
February 8, 2023 7:48 pm

Ts= [S(1-a)/4εσ]^1/4 is correct for a planet without a GHE, in which case emissivity is approximately 1.0 (per the IPCC’s convention).

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 9, 2023 10:56 am

It is suitable with or without atmosphere, observed from space. Increasing emissivity increases radiance to space. Most people appear to understand this in reverse.

The supposed 255K emission temperature, and 33K greenhouse effect, is a consequence of blackbody theory. Such a concept is not applicable to the Earth system.

ε 1 = 255K (imaginary)
ε 0.87 = 264K (barren rock)
ε 0.6 = 288K (earth system)

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  JCM
February 9, 2023 12:00 pm

Not sure if we’re saying the same thing or not. The 255K surface emission temperature only assumes that LW out from the surface = SW absorbed = S/4*(1-alpha) = ~239 W/m^2. So yes, it’s a fictitious Earth with an albedo of ~30%, but no GHE. The 288K surface emission temperature uses the exact same assumptions, except that the emissivity is now assumed to be 0.6 vs. 1.0. I don’t see the latter as any more of a construct than the former.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 9, 2023 5:47 pm

The thermal radiation intensity from Earth system is always weaker than that of a blackbody.

Earth system emissivity is 0 < e < 1, with or without atmosphere.

To emit 240 W/m2, the effective temperature must be higher than a presumed reference temperature 255K.

Whatever the effect of the greenhouse is having, it must be less than 33K.

We observe 288K, and we calculate the virtual 255K radiative equivalent effective temperature.

Blackbody assumptions will always result in radiative equivalent temperatures calculated on the low side. The radiative equivalent temperature of 255K must be too low.

It is a blackbody assumption which results in the need for a complicated feedback greenhouse regime reaching 33K.

Blackbody system:
T effective 255K
T actual 288K
Greenhouse effect 33K

Graybody system:
T effective >255K
T actual 288K
Greenhouse effect <33K.

From space we see no greenhouse at all. We see only the emission from the various surfaces within the radiating system.

A barren Earth in space with no cloud would have a calculated blackbody temperature of 279K. With a true emissivity the barren radiative equivalent temperature would be even higher. This is ignoring albedo factors of a barren Earth, to illustrate how nonsensical it is to be ignoring emissivity.

We might as well ignore both albedo and emissivity, if one or the other is deemed arbitrary, then we may actually arrive at a better answer.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
Reply to  JCM
February 9, 2023 4:45 am

Yep, what he said. Finally, we are getting some valuable evidence for my post. To expand on the precious comment, not all wavelengths are created equal. 15 micron LWIR is consistent with -80 C. Claiming that adding CO2 can cause warming is like saying adding ice to coffee can warm it. CO2 puts a temperature floor, simply look at the low temp of the Stratosphere.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 8, 2023 8:46 pm

That article i over my head. Explain it in simple language if you can

I know that Antarctica is not warming or melting

The reason is not as important as the observation.

90% of the ice on our planet is on Antarctica and is not melting from a +50% increase of the CO2 level since 1850.

Based on decent ice mass and temperature measurements since the 1970s, a period (1970 to 2023) which includes 68%of the total CO2 level increase from 1850 to 2023.

1850 280ppm estimated
1970 325ppm measured
2023 420ppm measured

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 9, 2023 12:03 pm

Which article, WE’s or the GRL article that your comment had a link to?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 9, 2023 3:44 am

“Warming because of…”

Facts not in evidence, again.

February 8, 2023 10:43 am

There is little point in trying to debate fanatics with facts. What they believe is quite different to what they know. Society exists in a giant Truman Show bubble daubed with the grafiti fantasies of stupid and bad people.

Steve Case
February 8, 2023 12:52 pm

If You Leave the Gate Open  
If you leave the gate open, the cow will wander off. So, if you intentionally leave the gate open, you want the cow to wander off. You can’t blame stupidity or laziness. It was intentional. 
If you cut police budgets, you will get more crime on the streets. So, if you intentionally cut police budgets, you wanted more crime on the streets. 
If you cut back the supply of oil, gas prices will go up. So if you intentionally cut back the supply of oil, you wanted gas prices to go up. 
If you print trillions of dollars without increasing the supply of goods, inflation will hit hard. So if you intentionally print trillions of dollars without more goods you wanted inflation to hit hard. 
If you leave the southern border wide open, you get more drug trafficking and human trafficking. So if you intentionally leave the border wide open, you wanted more drug trafficking and human trafficking. 
If you shut down 40% of the supply of baby formula in February, you’ll get a huge shortage. When you KNOW a huge baby formula shortage is coming because of the FDAs actions and you purposefully do nothing to prevent it, month after month, until the crisis finally hits hard, you INTENDED this crisis. 
It is time to recognize the evil people behind that old man. They want crisis. They want chaos. They want riots. They want conflicts in your town. 
Their stated purpose years ago with Obama was to “take the US down a few notches on the world stage.” You can feel the quality of your life going down with the country. 
These are not foolish or misguided people. They are intentionally and purposely taking our country somewhere we don’t want to go… 

Reply to  Steve Case
February 8, 2023 8:56 pm

Exactly right
Omaba wanted fundamental transformation. We assumed that meant socialism. I believe the US became a socialist nation in 2020. With massive government spending over 1/3 of Real GDP. 34.5% of Real GDP in 2022. Was higher on 2020 and 2021. I consider over 33% to be socialism. So why does fndamental transformation continue?

It continues because the gaol was fascism and the last stop is Marxism

To reach the last stop, the current economic system (socialism by my definition) must be ruined so people will reject it.

Some might call this a Marxist Revolution without guns.
I am one of them:
Brainwashing in schools
Rejection of Christian values
War on small businesses with Covid lockdowns
mandatory unsafe and ineffective vaccines
Government directed private media censorship
January 6, 2021 political prisoners
prosecution and persecution of Trump supporters
Open borders
DAs easy on criminals
Nut Zero

The only possible explanation for ALL of these plans and decisions is leftists trying deliberately to ruin what works, with their evil goal of fundamental transformation to totalitarianism of some kind.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 9, 2023 2:48 pm

Good inferences.
They combine to affect the way people conduct their lives.
They reduce what I call the pursuit of personal excellence.
When people lose more and more control over what they do, society overall degrades.
Example, road traffic tolls go up because drivers mentally think “Why should I drive carefully when there is no reward,no incentive, nobody anymore takes time to congratulate. Society has become dominated by threats and orders rather than individual pursuit of excellence.”
Many more examples from most walks of life.
Geoff S

ethical voter
February 8, 2023 12:54 pm

The climate debate is political. It is the political front that will carry the day. Has any one wondered why, in a world of so many intelligent, wonderful and honest people, our democratically elected leaders are such rubbish. I have and I must tell you, paradoxically, that democracy is working perfectly. It is the GIGO effect. The only way to have good people at the top is to have good people at the bottom and that starts with the integrity of the voter. It is dishonest to vote for someone for the bribes they offer. Be it personal or via a party.

February 8, 2023 3:09 pm

This is Bill Gate’s hypocrisy at it’s finest:
Private Jets for me because I’m important and fighting on the “right” side.

February 8, 2023 7:38 pm
February 8, 2023 11:16 pm

story tip — in the Roman warm period they just a toga, in the little ice age (Henrik 8th’s time) they used like 10-20 layers of clothing. There is a correlation with temperature.

February 9, 2023 7:05 am

Thoughts on this video about the greenhouse effect

Reply to  JohnC
February 11, 2023 8:04 am

Listen specifically to 2:20 on regarding the absorption of 100% IR before 20 meters. I’ve been pointing that out for years. You can only absorb 100% of the energy, you can not create energy, you can only change it in form. By boosting the level of CO2 you only slightly decrease the level at which 100% is absorbed. I’ve demonstrated that thousands of times on these threads. You can use the gas cell at spectral calc. Scientists know this fact and yet they push this nonsense. This video is extremely important, and proves the CO2 causes warming is nonsense. As I’ve said 1000 times, you can’t absorb more than 100% of the energy.

Reply to  JohnC
February 11, 2023 9:40 am

This graphic highlights how 100% of 15 Micron LWIR is absorbed by 10cm. Adding more CO2 only lowers the level at which 100% is absorbed. Simply experiment with a gas cell. This is an actual experiment you can do to debunk this CO2 causes warming nonsense. Link

This concept totally debunks CO2 causes warming. You can’t absorb more than 100%.

Gas Cell 10 cm.png
February 9, 2023 6:08 pm

Just watched a sequence on French state TV France 2 on electric busses in Sweden.
Unlike diesel busses that can work “24 hours”, electric busses must be recharged after an hour.
They also cost more.
Conclusion: they need to buy more… electric busses.
It makes sense, somehow…

February 17, 2023 1:54 am

Wikipedia at it again…

30,000,000 acres. Right.

February 17, 2023 4:19 pm

‘Chernobyl 2.0’? Ohio Train Derailment Spurs Wild Speculation.

For many influencers across the political spectrum, claims about the environmental effects of the train derailment have gone far beyond known facts.

But for many commentators from across the political spectrum, the speculation has gone far beyond known facts. Right-wing commentators have been particularly critical, using the crisis to sow distrust about government agencies and suggest that the damage could be irreparable.

Controlled burns… Phosgene in the air…
But that’s soooo right wing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights