Regardless of amplitude settings, the Red line’s hi/lo peaks maintain proportional differences. The interesting part is how well the Bray and Eddy solar cycles correlate to the recent 2,000 years of climate change. We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age.
The significance of the B&E line, is that the changes speed up or slow down. During the RWP, climates changes were faster than the MWP. And likewise, coming out of the Little Ice Age is faster than the Dark Ages. In theory, we should now be entering into a warming period like the RWP. But I wonder if there are other influences, such as the Milankovitch cycles.
Absolutely yes. My program can also plot the Obliquity (the main Milankovitch cycle) forcing, plus the 3 main, shorter-term Sunspot forcing cycles: the Feynman, de Vries, and Schwabe cycles. This graph, however, only plots the Bray and Eddy cycles to show the main drivers of longer-term climate changes, which clearly show we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age — which is warming the oceans and releasing more CO2.
The output is very interesting. But more importantly, why doesn’t the IPCC do this — or are they hiding something? I will soon make a video on this — stay tuned … https://www.youtube.com/@climatecraze/videos
What do you call someone who thinks for themselves and reaches their own conclusions?
Far-right of course. It’s the new racism, yet another term whose meaning is ripe for homeopathic dilution until it loses all meaning.
This weekend the London Marathon is on. Having caused chaos – and probably the deaths of some horses – at the Grand National race, having thrown paint powder over snooker tables at the world championships in Manchester XR and JSO are gearing up for it.
“We both [XR and marathon organisers] acknowledged that the charities and campaigns groups that runners are supporting are unequivocally in favour of acting against climate collapse.
“In an emergency, as we are, we must find a way to share the London streets as we all want to support charity but we also need to hold government to account. Unlike our government, the marathon organisers are happy to have an adult conversation about the situation and how to work together.”
“JSO, which disrupted the World Snooker Championship on Monday, would not say whether it plans to target the race. A spokesman for the group said: “We will continue to disrupt sports and cultural events until sporting and cultural institutions join us in civil resistance against new new oil and gas.” https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-19/london-marathon-could-the-race-be-disrupted-by-climate-protests
XR got a bloody nose a few times, most notably at Canning Town tube station. JSO obviously needs some of the same.
One minor correction, strativarius. Sheffield not Manchester!
I hear that there might be some comprise re the London Marathon. I think these idiots are just starting to understand how far on the wrong side of the argument they are going to be if they disrupt an event like that.
Horse racing they can just about get away with but a “people’s” event of this size ….
The beginning: “When a world leader in grid scale batteries says they are not the way to net zero electric power it is a big thing. Tesla has produced what is says is the optimal net zero plan and it uses almost no batteries for grid scale storage. The grandiose title of this quick study is “Sustainable Energy for All of Earth”. Woohoo! See https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
The most detailed part is about bringing net zero to America and the primary point of interest is this. The total grid storage required (by them) is 120 terawatt hours. Of this just 6.5 is with batteries. That is a minuscule 5%. Batteries have almost no role to play. I agree. I love that we are now into the land of terawatts, which is trillions of watts. I foolishly thought gigawatts were big. Remember the 100 watt lightbulb that you held in your hand? Think trillions instead. But then Federal spending (and taxes) are now in the trillions so it is all of a piece, but I digress.
Absent their batteries, how does Tesla propose to store the enormous amounts of juice required for net zero? In a word — hydrogen. Unlike batteries, hydrogen has never been deployed at scale so there is no way to know what depending on this magic elixir might cost. That is a huge advantage when it comes to fantasy projections, right? Keep in mind that this study merely finds that net zero is “technically feasible”, as have many others. That just means it is physically possible, not that it is realistically possible. For comparison it is technically feasible that America is powered by gerbils running in cages.”
More in the article. Please share it. Net zero is technically feasible nonsense.
Musk is a self-declared speciesist. He is also a practical man. There is nothing you could possibly describe as practical about net zero, it’s not really designed to be anything other than reductionist [in living standards].
I don’t need a research project to know that Hydrogen is a “technically feasible” energy storage method. I don’t really need one to confirm that it’s not “practically feasible” nor “economically feasible”
Yes but there is that gigantic problem of the energy needed to produce the hydrogen, and where THAT energy comes from (read: fossil fuels or nuclear).
And since the Eco-Nazis and their “activist” allies cheer the shutdown of every nuclear plant that closes and fight the construction of every new one, this quickly degenerates into another tail-chasing exercise with fossil fuels being the ultimate energy source.
And for those who think we’re going to produce the hydrogen with wind and solar aka “renewables,” THOSE are produced with…AND must be backed up with…fossil fuels. Again, another tail-chasing exercise.
I spoke to a young man on the check out this this morning who was very excited about the Starship lainch today. Reminded me how the Apollo missions were followed when I was at school.
I didn’t even hear about this, but knowing Musk he wants to re-use the “stage” components.
It’s easier to get them to separate when you treat them as disposable, and therefore need not be concerned about how “violent” the “separation” is, I suspect.
At least Musk is a pragmatist. When it goes wrong he is prepared to try again, until he has got it right. Now the Global Warming loonies, they will not readdress their false predictions over 50 years, so they will never get it right!
Bigus Macus
April 20, 2023 3:28 am
It’s been a dry winter/ spring so far in southeast VA. We’ve had a Red Flag already because of it.
From the NWS; A Red Flag Warning is in effect for all of our VA/MD counties and an Increased Fire Danger Statement is in effect for NC
Then the interfering bizzies sprang this: Headline:“Sean Taylor told his home had to be sold to someone working within two miles
He was ‘told’ by the local council in a Welsh National Park – they really did seem to think they could tell/force a private individual who he could sell his own home to and for how much.
My sister lives in darkest Dorset. There’s no gas grid, only oil fired heating. She was turned down on reinsuring her house because it has an oil-fired system. This is becoming a more common problem, no doubt designed to make people scrap their oil systems for heat pumps.
There’s no limit on what they believe they can do, now – in the name of saving the planet.
Why is an insurance company that stupid? If they don’t like it, normally they just increase the premiums and profits. It must be a case of corporate senility. Shareholders, dismiss the entire Board!
Same reason oil companies attempt to curry favor with the Eco-Nazis. Appeasement – or as Winston Churchill so aptly put it – “feeding the crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last.”
Just making a brief point about whatever concept is being expressed here at WUWT, or anywhere, about the greenhouse effect, the earth’s energy balance, or the climate response to non-condensing GHGs.
Any proposed conceptualization of what is happening in the atmosphere must be consistent with what is being observed from space, both longwave emission and shortwave reflection – the CERES and GOES observations.
I keep posting this link to the GOES East Band 16 images to help anchor the dialogue to what is being observed and visualized in near-real-time and relatively high resolution. The radiance at 30C(yellow) on the brightness temperature scale is 10 times the radiance at -90C(white.)
I hold that the widely held conceptualization of the static greenhouse effect, and the increase in the characteristic emission altitude resulting from increased concentrations of GHGs, is valid theoretically. But it cannot be observed in this visualized data. There is way too much active variation in longwave emission, driven by the motion and cloud activity to ever isolate this effect for reliable attribution.
I could be off base. I could be missing something. I could be making the same mistake I am concerned about. If someone would point it out, it would be most welcome.
But the atmosphere cannot be wrong about its own operation, the output of which we can readily observe by clicking and watching.
If you add it all all cells you will find an average system emission temperature of 278K. This is the contribution from average atmospherical emission temperature of 273K, plus surface transmitted flux averaging 288K.
The bulk system emission temperatures are actually depicted in various shades of grey in the GOES graphic.
Greater amounts of direct surface transmitted flux are depicted in darker shades of grey into blacks. Greater amounts of atmospherical emission are in lighter shades of grey into whites.
The window band is not all dark grey into black because there is always some degree of condensed water surfaces, practically everywhere. This is the primary control on emission temperature. We don’t notice because they are not depicted bright and colorful, but it is everywhere.
Brightly coloured areas are fully saturated, resulting in zero direct transmitted flux. This is what produces the surface sensible heat flux residual in energy budget diagrams about 19 Wm-2. This is a permanent feature which is sometimes called the cloud-radiative effect.
But, despite the mis-labelling CRE, the actual surface flux is that of the tangible kind. This tangible heat flux residual helps to drive convective currents which is the fluid transport mode for the latent component of surface flux. This spills out into the sea of “greys” on such graphics.
The total condensed matter atmosphere averages about 2/3rds of all sky. The fully saturated bits (bright colors) are a much lower fraction.
In summary, using this remote sensing product in the 11.2μm band yields a bulk emission temperature 278K. Darker shades are open windows (see Sahara). Lighter shades are varying degrees of atmospherical emission, averaging 273K.
PS: I just noticed the legend is in degrees C, but it still works. Let me know what you think. thanks
“But the band you are looking at obscures the picture a bit.” Perhaps so. But on the other hand, the color scale for band 16 helps depict the wide range of emitter outputs for direct viewing. It also provides impressive contrast to show the motion and how it relates to cloud formation and dissipation, and to overturning circulation.
Another reason for linking to Band 16, which NOAA calls the CO2 longwave IR band, is that it is centered on a wavelength of 13.3 microns in the shoulder of the atmospheric window. This coincides with a peak in the difference by wavelength in overall transmittance from a doubling of CO2, as determined from MODTRAN. This is plotted in the attached image. So I see some value in referring to Band 16 specifically to point out that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is in this band.
I will take your suggestion and look into the Band 14 images. I wish there were easily accessible visualizations of the hourly CERES LW & SW data. Even though it is low resolution at 1 deg x 1 deg, a good color scale could help to show the attribution problem.
yes Band 16 is certainly highly relevant if one wishes to explore specific CO2 effects. One notices immediately the impact of the view angle on the diffuse optical depth – where around the edges of the band 16 scene appear “cooler” than in the nadir position. A ‘real’ effect.
I would argue one benefit of looking in the “window” is that ultimately the bulk of flux, even in the window, is from condensed matter surfaces.
Greenhouse theorists and radiation enthusiasts would have average emission height set over 5km, corresponding with emission temperature 255K. However, using your insight to look at these GOES scenes we can see plainly that bulk emission temperature is in fact much higher.
If bulk emission temperature is around 278K, as depicted in most of the GOES bands, representing about 1/3 at 288K and 2/3 around 273K, the average emission altitude may be as low as 1.5km. The bulk atmospherical emission being 273K about 2.3km, and 288K average surface 0km.
Therefore, the transmitted flux via the windows offers the best glance at the actual variable emitter elements. The bulk of GOES observed spectra from space is much higher than 255K. Therefore, it is passing through much more atmospheric depth than usually conceived.
We see also using Band 14 there is not the optical depth diffusion aspect around the edges, which suggests it really is broad spectrum emission surfaces (condensate) plus terrestrial surface that is providing the bulk emissions source. These would not exhibit the same spectral optical diffusion effect of gaseous emission around the edges when viewed through the window band.
I appreciate your idea to look at these GOES scenes. It would be further interesting to see a product with bands 8 through 16 combined into a bulk broadband product. This can be achieved by summing the radiance of bands 8 through 16 using imaging software to understand better the nature of flux. However, it is unfortunate we hardly ever see emission spectra in the FIR. It is in that region where peak atmospherical emission is actually occurring. This region of the spectrum is largely ignored at the peril of earth system researchers.
thanks again, and I look forward to more of your insights.
Thanks for this further reply. “One notices immediately the impact of the view angle on the diffuse optical depth – where around the edges of the band 16 scene appear “cooler” than in the nadir position. A ‘real’ effect.” Absolutely. The NASA documentation explains this effect nicely.
About your suggestions – yes, one of my next projects will be to download the CERES “window” sensor hourly data. I believe this is for 8 to 14 microns. Previously I had only downloaded SW and LW. As you say, the window data should help illustrate the variation (over time and location), thus the attribution problem.
David,
It is very interesting that whitish -60 to -90 C bands show over the equator. This being cloud top temperatures. The tops of these same clouds also have a high albedo, thus locally reflecting about 50% of the incoming SW (sunlight) back into outer space.
Proof that clouds control the planet’s average temperature….clouds being the result of the vapor pressure/temperature relationship of water, primarily sea surface temperature.
“It is very interesting that whitish -60 to -90 C bands show over the equator.” Yes, it is! Which leads me to express a sense that this strong suppression of longwave emission above convective cells implies a self-limiting characteristic, preserving energy to drive circulation.
I have read this posting several times and then went to your posted image on band 16 and I opened another window on band 13. Band 13 is within the clear atmospheric window — No CO2 no WV. In each find the clearest part of the window to view the same scene of the surface — this eliminates any effect of weather. I’d look at central Mexico or Northern Chile. Use the temperature scale to determine the indicated surface temperature. Band 16 will indicate a slightly cooler temperature. The explanation is that in band 16 CO2 absorbs some of the surface emission and reradiates at a slightly lower temperature at greater height in the atmosphere. This is the “static” greenhouse effect you seek.
I hope that what I am interpreting from your post is explained here.
Thank you for this reply. When I say “But it cannot be observed in this visualized data” I mean that the end result of overall emission across the scene or across the planet does not depend on the effect of incremental GHGs at the surface. I should have been clearer about that. I don’t disagree at all with you that there are places where comparing different bands will reveal that there is indeed an absorption and emission effect of the CO2 molecule (and, of course, WV). As JCM pointed out, the blue “cooled” edge of the Band 16 image shows this. It is the motion, the formation and dissipation of clouds, and the overturning circulations that make the overall emitter output a composite of extremes as the atmosphere performs so powerfully as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation. And in that respect, the incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the compressed atmosphere to the surface promotes the transfer of energy to the working fluid to drive circulation.
There is no room to even summarize the many threads that your comment opens up, is there? Even if all I wished to do was to state that Band 16 temperatures are some weighted average of CO2 emissions through the atmosphere making their way to the satellite sensors converted to temperatures, and these temperatures, in turn, are governed ultimately by the First Law of thermodynamics, I would find myself pushed inexorably toward constructing a complex 3-D heat transfer model. It wouldn’t provide any more satisfying explanation than would a global climate model, which the majority of people at this site dislike — they don’t think models explain very much and I agree with them to an extent. Moreover, many people at this site look for simple proofs that the greenhouse theory is wrong or doesn’t even exist. No such simple proof is possible even if one were to suppose, a priori, that the GHE is not the cause of a slightly warming Earth; of course just spectroscopic measurements tell a person that CO2 must have some effect on temperatures so any effort to prove the GHE doesn’t exist is doomed to failure.
As you say the incremental increases in CO2 produce ” incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the compressed atmosphere to the surface promotes the transfer of energy to the working fluid to drive circulation.”
Yet, does this have any consequential impact on weather or climate? My experience with this past winter suggests not. If a person were able to capture one of these Band 16 loops from the mid 1970s, a time of one-fourth less CO2, could a “blinded” expert observer be able to identify the 1970s version from the one at your link? I think not.
Thank you, Kevin, for your further reply.
“Yet, does this have any consequential impact on weather or climate?” I agree with your answer – “I think not.”
Ultimately the aim of my posts like this is to show, in the clearest way possible, why attribution of reported warming to increased CO2 concentration is unsound, and has been so from the beginning. It is unsound not because the idea of absorption and emission of longwave energy in the atmosphere is wrong. It is because the physics of compressible fluid flow, and the presence of so much water and its change of phase, obscures the small increment of the resulting effect. The Band 16 images are just one way to show this.
Another way is to consider the physics-based computed values from the models themselves. For example,
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. Link
Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water. Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend
This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link
I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data. Malcolm Roberts of Queensland https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g
1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures.
2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s.
3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not.
Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry.
CO2 doesn’t oscillate, it trends. No way can CO2 explain the variability in temperatures. CO2 also varies +/- on an annual basis, yet no annual variation is noted in the temperatures.
Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures. Link
It would have to be a president, considering how far this crazy climate change plan has gone. It will take a powerful person to change the course of this vested-interest ship.
I’m pretty sure that any politicians with the required public profile and level of respect are all more enamoured with the idea that they can get away with the taxation of air than they are concerned with the injustice of CAGW theory.
DeSantis- and he could put Steven Koonin in charge of energy. Of course many here accuse Koonin of being a “warmist” because he does say the climate is warming up a bit but, for him it’s not an emergency. Trump hasn’t got a chance- so everyone needs to start “working” DeSantis- to get him up to speed on the climate thing.
I’m finally reading his “Unsettled” and like it a lot.
I’m a little leary of DeSantis after some of his statements on Ukraine.
If you don’t understand the importance of the Ukraine war, then, imo, you are not qualified to lead the United States.
DeSantis kind of backed off his “Ukraine is a regional war” statement, but just making the statement has me looking at him a little closer, and not in a good way.
I agree with you about his Ukraine comments- as I strongly support Ukraine. I spend many hours every day watching YouTube videos on the war and I’ve read a lot on subject. It’s certainly a complicated topic, geopolitically. From Russia’s point of view- it’s a key part of their old empire and having it look to the west- wanting to be part of the EU and NATO really disturbs Putin and much of the Russian public. That’s understandable- but it’s also understandable that the Ukrainians, most of them, simply don’t want to be part of the “Russian world” and it’s in the long term interest of the West to not let that happen. So why did DeSantis say what he said? Either he really doesn’t understand the long term history of that part of the world or he’s speaking to many in the far right who prefer isolationism- perhaps trying to grab some of Trump’s supporters. He should read about the Holodomor- the historical epoch when Stalin tried to kill Ukrainian independence by starving them and he succeeded in starving millions. They haven’t forgotten- just like the way Russia hasn’t forgotten Hitler’s invasion or Napoleons. So, wars never end.
“So why did DeSantis say what he said? Either he really doesn’t understand the long term history of that part of the world or he’s speaking to many in the far right who prefer isolationism- perhaps trying to grab some of Trump’s supporters.”
DeSantis may not see “the Big Picture”. It’s hard to say at this point, but his “regional war” statement is short-sighted.
DeSantis may have been trying to pander to Tucker Carlson and some of the minority of Republicans who are pacifists, like Tucker. But if he was, it backfired on him, as his poll numbers dropped immedately.
Trump’s supporters are main stream. Very few are far right (radical). I’m one of Trump’s supporters and I favor helping the Ukrainians in every way possible.
Notice that Trump has voiced complaints about the handling of the Ukraine war, but he hasn’t demoted it to a “regional conflict”. If Trump were president right now, the Ukrainians would be getting all the military hardware they wanted, unlike the slow-walking of military hardware by Joe Biden.
The question Tucker Carlson and the other pacifists on the Right, and maybe Desantis, has to answer is if we don’t stop Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, then where are we going to draw the line after he takes Ukraine? You think a victorious Putin would be satisfied with just taking Ukraine? How naive are you? A Dictator on the Roll? Dictators on a roll, tend to try to continue on that roll. Human psychology.
A line will have to be drawn somewhere in the battle. Ukraine is the line to draw. The Ukrainians are more than willing to fight for their freedom, all they need is hardware and munitions.
General Keane says he thinks the Ukrainians are going to make good progress against Putin in the coming weeks and months, despite all the shortages of equipment they are having to deal with.
The Putin offensive Putin’s defenders here were telling us was going to devastate the Ukrainians has now run out of gas, just like General Keane said it would.
Now General Keane says the Ukrianians will have the upper hand in the coming spring battles and are going to take back more of their territory from Putin. You should listen to General Keane.
Just think how well the Ukrianians would do if Joe Biden would give them the military equipment they need. The Ukrainians are fighting Putin and a Pacifist Joe Biden at the same time.
Listen to General Keane if you want to know what’s going on in Ukraine. You can hear him every day on Fox News Channel.
I see General Hodges a lot on YouTube. He’s strongly in favor of Ukraine taking back Crimea. He says it’s essential for the future of Ukraine. I agree. Hodges also agrees that we must give Ukraine long range missiles like ATACMS.
While there was an historical case for Crimea being Russian (which explains the support from the French “far right”, and even some of the right, of Russia taking back Crimea), the last year suggests that Russia shouldn’t be given anything, ever.
Also, there is an as strong case for Russia not trying to break the 4 colors theorem.
I think ultimately, the boundaries of nations aren’t about what’s right, what’s reasonable, what’s fair- it’s about how much power a nation has and a long history of wars. Every nation can complain about lost territories. Every nation would like to be bigger, richer, more powerful. But that historical reality can’t continue. Russia and China should give it up- their claims.
You are all barking up the wrong tree. The party political system cannot produce the leaders you crave. followship is what you have. fools following fools following votes. Nothing will change until the voters changes how they vote. Vote not for the collective but for individuals. Then you will be represented.
The person I would vote for would disavow political parties, have good education, have demonstrable courage ethics and achievments. No name springs to mind. If no suitable candidate I would not debase my vote by giving it to an unworthy candidate.
There are basically two viable political parties in the US. I’m sure you can see some difference between the two. Not voting is a cop out. Be specific and comment about Vivek’s 25 point plan, if you read it. Does he sound like something you just described as your ideal candidate. All except disavowing political parties, which would be the end of his candidacy here in the US.
We may have to agree to disagree. IMHO no political parties are viable. There is little difference between them (Dems / Rep.) Both, by their collective structure, are well left of centre. Vivek`s 25 point plan is just another election bribe just like all other election bribes. Hollow. No. Not voting is not a cope out. It is a statement. I would rather keep my vote and my integrity than vote for something I think is wrong.
“I like Vivek Ramaswamy. Probably won’t win, but his ideas should be discussed, and hopefully shake up the race with his powerful platform”
Yes, I’m glad Vivek is getting in the race. People need to hear his perspective on things.
Vivek will stimulate the conversation and the political debate.
I think the upcoming Republican debates are going to be *very* good. We are going to have a lot of very smart, common sense people going at it, and explaining the conservatie position to the people of the United States.
I recall Vivek explicitly stating once that he knows he doesn’t have a chance, but he’s entering specifically in order to raise those issues. I hope he is successful at doing so.
I have found that every aspect of our climate can be explained by changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions in our atmosphere, of both volcanic and industrial origin, with no hint of any additional warming from CO2.
I have 11 articles on Research Gate, or Google Scholar, supporting the above thesis.
Earlier in this thread, Joseph Zorzin said “We need a plan to battle this climate lunacy”
The most effective way would be to present an alternate, falsifiable model for our climate, and I believe that I that I have such a model, based upon changing levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
I have 11 published articles on the subject of Climate Change, yet no one follows up n my thesis, even though trillions of dollars are being wasted on the greenhouse gas hoax, millions of people are suffering from high energy costs, heat-related deaths have occurred, and temperatures will very quickly exceed the 1.5 Deg C threshold, because of Net-zero and Clean Air efforts to abandon the burning of fossil fuels and their protective SO2 aerosol emissions.
Individuals need a plan to isolate themselves from the worst outcomes. Be pragmatic and set up for the long run. Take advantage of every government handout that reduces cost of living in your circumstances. Reality is the powerful force that eventually prevails but it is still going to take a long time.
There are some good signs as reality of energy poverty is hitting more people. Coal fuelled generating plants are still being built; mostly in Asia.
Go with the flow to reach your objective rather than fighting against the current. The tide will turn.
I think it’ll turn quicker if everyone starts yelling at their politicians.
iflyjetzzz
April 20, 2023 6:08 am
What is the minimum amount of time that would be considered statistically significant for temperature trends?
It seems to me that the answer is at least 1000 years. 10, 50, even 100 years seems way too short for a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician.
It depends. There are a few factors involved. The biggest one is probably the autocorrelation of the data. Using an AR(1) correction factor I get a trend of +0.20 ± 0.05 C/decade from 1979 to 2022 for the surface temperature trend of a blend of GISS, NOAA, BEST, HadCRUT, ERA, JRA, and MERRA. That means the trend is statistically significant at +0.15 C/decade and higher with ~95% confidence.
Here is a plot of the trend at different points in time. Notice how the uncertainty envelope is large early in the period and narrows later in the period as more data points are being considered.
“statistically significant” being the criteria, this is quantifiable using various rules of thumb.
However, it gives us no sense of meaning which I think is the crux of your remark.
I can measure a statistically significant increase in my wife’s driving speed over the past few years, but she’s still driving slow. The important bit is the judgement. I judge that she’s driving slow for my taste.
That the increase is statistically significant is meaningless in and of itself. It requires a judgement. Statistical technicians sometimes forget this.
And, just because a trend is statistically significant doesn’t prevent the trend from changing abruptly at some point in the future. Therefore, even a statistically significant trend doesn’t allow one to forecast the future with high reliability. What is needed for forecasting is a test of stability of the trend. That would require a better understanding of the ‘control knob(s).’
The trend fetishism is completely decoupled from any evidence of causation, and is therefore meaningless.
And also ignores THE BIGGEST LIE – the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse. A warmer climate IS BETTER, and has been repeatedly shown to be better throughout human history. A cold climate has repeatedly been shown to result in misery and suffering throughout human existence.
Very good site Fred. Personally, I would require a bit more math to back up the statement
”…the sink rate from the regions atmosphere is being controlled by the fraction of open sea water…”
You might be able to do it with with equilibrium CO2 content at various sea surface temps and ocean current estimated flowrates. I did some calcs on it once upon a time and don’t recall them being a smoking gun, but I am prone to slipping decimals and ignoring biological sequestration….
I’m still having that “random” log out issue. It looks like it happens roughly once per month, and when it happens, it logs me out on both computers I use. Often, it does it after the page is loaded and I try to comment or subscribe – the page still says that I’m logged in but it rejects the request.
Trying to figure out why it happens on two different computers running different OSs.
What OS and browser? Last time I mentioned it, nobody else seemed to be having a problem. I’m using FF on MacOS and Ubuntu.
Trying to figure out if it’s something browser specific.
Brave is mozilla based. Maybe I’ll try another browser for a bit and see if anything changes. I HAVE noticed one other site that seems to do the same thing.
I have experienced the problem also. It was very disconcerting the first time. I’ve since just gone looking for the log in window.
bdgwx
April 20, 2023 7:23 am
I’m expecting a drop in the UAH TLT anomaly for 2023/04. My preliminary expectation is 0.08 ± 0.24. Monckton Pause probabilities are 5% for <= 105 months, 95% for >= 106 months, 77% for >= 107 months, 40% for >= 108 months, and 2% for >= 109 months. The best guess is that the Monckton Pause will extend to 107 months.
Is that what you intended to write? It isn’t a very useful prediction when the uncertainty is ±3X the nominal value. You are saying it could be either positive or negative.
You are saying it could be either positive or negative.
Correct. There is a 25% chance of it being negative and a 75% chance of it being positive.
It isn’t a very useful prediction when the uncertainty is ±3X the nominal value.
This is an anomaly. As such 0 C does not mean absolute zero so multipliers like 3x have little if any practical meaning. For example, on the old 1981-2010 baseline the expectation would be 0.20 ± 0.24 C resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 0.20 = 1.2x. Or if we used 1979-1984 as the baseline the expectation would be 0.33 ± 0.24 C resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 0.33 = 0.7x. Or if kept in absolute form the expectation would be 263.80 ± 0.24 K resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 263.80 = 0.009x. They all embody the same expectation just presented on a different scale.
I wish I could do better, but the published UAH TLT monthly uncertainty of ±0.20 C makes for a nearly insurmountable impediment to predictive skill better than ± 0.24 C.
MH
a). The globe is very big.
b). Coriolis circulations, weather front motions, started by a butterfly flapping it’s wings somewhere.
c). Advection is relatively huge.
d). Water vapor absorbs a FEW watts of IR, making the air warmer. It rises, reaches saturation, forms clouds…which suddenly start reflecting HUNDREDS of watts worth of incoming sunlight back into outer space.
a) b) and d) are a bit like a Casino…the odds of the various games work out that the Casino can tell how much money it is going to make just by the number of customers walk through their doors per month.
Intended to cover in as simple as possible description, the
“water vapor content…how is it possible…average temperature” part. Other than that, nothing to do with what you posted.
/s
“Since heat content of air varies significant with water vapor content how is it possible to add up and average global temperatures?”
That’s way too easy. You just ignore the fact that “heat content of air varies significant with water vapor content” and hope that no one will call you out for scientific fraud for using the wrong metric.
South Caroline U.S. Senator Tim Scott is preparing to declare his candidacy for the Republican nominee for President of the United States.
I think Tim Scott has a unique, and very powerful message that all Americans should hear.
I do hope he runs for president because then this message will be heard, and I believe people will pay attention.
What message you ask? You’ll know what I’m talking about when you hear him speak.
I think Tim Scott would make a fine president, although I’m still planning on voting for Trump, but Scott would make a good vice president, and president four years later.
Republicans have a lot of good talent running for president. Nikki Haley being another that I have a lot of confidence in.
The reporters keep trying to get a fight started between Trump and his political rivals, but Tim Scott says, he is not going after Republicans, he’s going after the Democrats. That’s his answer. And should be the answer of every Republican, including Trump.
The People of the United States need to hear Tim Scott’s story, and his take on reality. Tim Scott sees clearly.
sheesh- 2 old farts again- America was once the young nation with new ideas- now it’s gone crazy with the climate thing, all the woke stuff and the 2 major parties led by guys who should really give it up
I think Trump is more than capable of getting this ship back on the right course, if given the chance.
Any Republican running is basically going to be promoting Trump’s policies.
It’s just that Trump is so much better at it. And he is a proven quantify. I liked it when gasoline was $1.84 a gallon under Trump. The Good Old Days!
Vlad the Impaler
April 20, 2023 8:35 am
I”m going to post a quote that I’m fairly certain has been posted before, either here or at Jo’s. If it is redundant, please accept my apologies, but I feel that with all that is happening (and not just with ‘climate science’ but things in general), the quote is more applicable to the Western [democratic] nations than ever before. Since these governments are bent on self-immolation, this brief paragraph succinctly summarizes what seems to be going on.
At 72, I finally decided to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. For those who might have limited familiarity, the basic plot is centered on a young woman who tries to keep her railroad operating in the face of a totalitarian U. S. government. I’m about half-way through it, as of the date of this epistle.
On page 436, a character is talking to another character, explaining why things are the way they are, and says:
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — — and you create a nation of law-breakers — — and then you cash in on guilt.”
Then on page 548, the same character is talking again, to a different character, and says,
“If there’s not enough guilt in the world, we must create it.”
Note that the character who makes these declarations is a ‘government’ official.
For me, it’s just hitting much to close to home. My opinion: this statement (and seeming summary of some of the Western governments) needs to be proclaimed far and wide. Show people what’s behind some of the insanity which is overtaking us at an increasing rate, and a few eyes may be opened.
Amazing prescience by Rand, and Mencken (his famous quote of practical politics).
Haven’t read it- but read The Fountanhead and saw the movie. Loved the way the young architect refused to just make boring, predictable buildings. Instead he wanted to build great buildings so couldn’t get a job like his less inspired peers and went off on his own and starved for years until finally getting recognition.
I think you’re right. One reason I identify with the story is that it’s my story too. As a forester- I could have made a lot more money doing shoddy work- which is all too common. And I could have gone along with whatever idiocy the bureaucracies who run the forestry world say- but I didn’t. I always challenged them and they always found ways to go after me- but I never gave up.
And I really like FLW’s work. He was quite the character. He once said, “I am the world’s greatest architect” as if it was obvious. When he designed a house he would design everything in the house and would argue with the owner if they changed anything. Some of his buildings, like Falling Water have had structural problems but that’s to be expected when being so innovative. There are documentaries about him and they are very interesting to watch.
I’m also a fan of Wright’s work. There is a renovated Prairie House near me in Ohio that I have toured a couple of times. However, when I visited Taliesin West in Phoenix, I was surprised at the crudity of the workmanship. Perhaps it was the fault of the apprentices.
Atlas Shrugged is a must-read for every American. Hank Readon’s Brother and Wife are some of my favorite characters. They are the kind of people that support all the Climate Change nonsense. Just read the chapter “Sign of the Dollar” and you won’t be able to put the book down. Philip Rearden (Brother) Lillian Rearden (Wife)
Everyone loves a bad zombie and everyone hates waste. The basis of all pixie dust schemes like the Telsa 3 report (linked above) is reducing waste in current power plants and ICE while ignoring waste in wind, solar, and battery storage.
I do not care about waste, safety and reliability are much more important parameters.
When you look at life cycle assessments of wind, solar, and storage they are not sustainable. This because they not reliable or safe. When you tell the board of directors the cost of fixing things, they want to know the rate of return.
Of course they will still have pictures in the annual report showing environmental stewardship but no section on benefit based on production.
They are not reliable, safe OR DURABLE. Rebuilding the whole thing every 15-20 years the the antithesis of “sustainable,” their favorite fantasy buzzword.
Ireneusz Palmowski
April 20, 2023 11:02 am
The surface temperature of the South Pacific is dropping. Winter in the south is approaching.
It is easy to see why we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. The Bray and Eddy solar cycles are still in their warming phases.
Modern Dark Ages entering.
After the Eddy cycle begins cooling again — in about 200 years.
Interesting piece of amplitude modulation.
Regardless of amplitude settings, the Red line’s hi/lo peaks maintain proportional differences. The interesting part is how well the Bray and Eddy solar cycles correlate to the recent 2,000 years of climate change. We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age.
The significance of the B&E line, is that the changes speed up or slow down. During the RWP, climates changes were faster than the MWP. And likewise, coming out of the Little Ice Age is faster than the Dark Ages. In theory, we should now be entering into a warming period like the RWP. But I wonder if there are other influences, such as the Milankovitch cycles.
Absolutely yes. My program can also plot the Obliquity (the main Milankovitch cycle) forcing, plus the 3 main, shorter-term Sunspot forcing cycles: the Feynman, de Vries, and Schwabe cycles. This graph, however, only plots the Bray and Eddy cycles to show the main drivers of longer-term climate changes, which clearly show we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age — which is warming the oceans and releasing more CO2.
I wonder if you plotted all the cycles in just one graph, what would the trace look like?
The output is very interesting. But more importantly, why doesn’t the IPCC do this — or are they hiding something? I will soon make a video on this — stay tuned … https://www.youtube.com/@climatecraze/videos
Thank you, I will look forward to that with great interest.
As to your question/answer yes 😀
Just subscribed to your YT channel, I’m going to have some interesting hours viewing your material 👍
I also post on Twitter … https://twitter.com/_ClimateCraze/status/1647269777700790276
What do you call someone who thinks for themselves and reaches their own conclusions?
Far-right of course. It’s the new racism, yet another term whose meaning is ripe for homeopathic dilution until it loses all meaning.
This weekend the London Marathon is on. Having caused chaos – and probably the deaths of some horses – at the Grand National race, having thrown paint powder over snooker tables at the world championships in Manchester XR and JSO are gearing up for it.
“It was all caused by these so-called animal lovers who are actually ignorant and have absolutely no idea about the welfare of horses”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/65296693
World Snooker Championship 2023: Play stopped by Just Stop Oil protesters at the Crucible
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/65305903
They hate joy and they see it everywhere…
“We both [XR and marathon organisers] acknowledged that the charities and campaigns groups that runners are supporting are unequivocally in favour of acting against climate collapse.
“In an emergency, as we are, we must find a way to share the London streets as we all want to support charity but we also need to hold government to account. Unlike our government, the marathon organisers are happy to have an adult conversation about the situation and how to work together.”
It would be “wrong” to disrupt the marathon, Extinction Rebellion Protest Liaison Richard Ecclestone told Times Radio, as “so many people who will be running in that marathon share our concerns about a multitude of issues.”
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-19/london-marathon-could-the-race-be-disrupted-by-climate-protests
Meanwhile…
“JSO, which disrupted the World Snooker Championship on Monday, would not say whether it plans to target the race. A spokesman for the group said: “We will continue to disrupt sports and cultural events until sporting and cultural institutions join us in civil resistance against new new oil and gas.”
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-19/london-marathon-could-the-race-be-disrupted-by-climate-protests
XR got a bloody nose a few times, most notably at Canning Town tube station. JSO obviously needs some of the same.
Watch out, you might be identified as a stupidityphobe.
Most of the perpetrators of these stupid stunts are self-identifying socialists or Marxists.
The thing is though, they don’t really want to practice socialism themselves, they just want to inflict it on everyone else.
One minor correction, strativarius. Sheffield not Manchester!
I hear that there might be some comprise re the London Marathon. I think these idiots are just starting to understand how far on the wrong side of the argument they are going to be if they disrupt an event like that.
Horse racing they can just about get away with but a “people’s” event of this size ….
Oops!
Useful fantasy.
Tesla rejects batteries for net zero storage
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2023/04/17/tesla-rejects-batteries-for-net-zero-storage/
The beginning: “When a world leader in grid scale batteries says they are not the way to net zero electric power it is a big thing. Tesla has produced what is says is the optimal net zero plan and it uses almost no batteries for grid scale storage. The grandiose title of this quick study is “Sustainable Energy for All of Earth”. Woohoo! See https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
The most detailed part is about bringing net zero to America and the primary point of interest is this. The total grid storage required (by them) is 120 terawatt hours. Of this just 6.5 is with batteries. That is a minuscule 5%. Batteries have almost no role to play. I agree. I love that we are now into the land of terawatts, which is trillions of watts. I foolishly thought gigawatts were big. Remember the 100 watt lightbulb that you held in your hand? Think trillions instead. But then Federal spending (and taxes) are now in the trillions so it is all of a piece, but I digress.
Absent their batteries, how does Tesla propose to store the enormous amounts of juice required for net zero? In a word — hydrogen. Unlike batteries, hydrogen has never been deployed at scale so there is no way to know what depending on this magic elixir might cost. That is a huge advantage when it comes to fantasy projections, right? Keep in mind that this study merely finds that net zero is “technically feasible”, as have many others. That just means it is physically possible, not that it is realistically possible. For comparison it is technically feasible that America is powered by gerbils running in cages.”
More in the article. Please share it. Net zero is technically feasible nonsense.
Musk is a self-declared speciesist. He is also a practical man. There is nothing you could possibly describe as practical about net zero, it’s not really designed to be anything other than reductionist [in living standards].
I don’t need a research project to know that Hydrogen is a “technically feasible” energy storage method. I don’t really need one to confirm that it’s not “practically feasible” nor “economically feasible”
Yes but there is that gigantic problem of the energy needed to produce the hydrogen, and where THAT energy comes from (read: fossil fuels or nuclear).
And since the Eco-Nazis and their “activist” allies cheer the shutdown of every nuclear plant that closes and fight the construction of every new one, this quickly degenerates into another tail-chasing exercise with fossil fuels being the ultimate energy source.
And for those who think we’re going to produce the hydrogen with wind and solar aka “renewables,” THOSE are produced with…AND must be backed up with…fossil fuels. Again, another tail-chasing exercise.
“Remember the 100 watt lightbulb that you held in your hand?”
Er, not while it was switched on 😊
Oh, you would remember it if you were holding it in your hand while lit!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
There was a (hybrid) total eclipse of the sun today in Exmouth Western Australia —Totality only lasted 62 seconds..
Satellite
Hoping Starship will make it off the ground today….
Good luck. That rocket is outrageous. Could very likely “blow up” on ignition.
One reason for a test, eh?
I spoke to a young man on the check out this this morning who was very excited about the Starship lainch today. Reminded me how the Apollo missions were followed when I was at school.
,,and now Artemis..
Just did !
It made it off the ground, but the second stage failed to separate, and the whole vehicle crashed into the Atlantic ocean.
Musk says the launch will teach them how to do better next time.
I didn’t even hear about this, but knowing Musk he wants to re-use the “stage” components.
It’s easier to get them to separate when you treat them as disposable, and therefore need not be concerned about how “violent” the “separation” is, I suspect.
At least Musk is a pragmatist. When it goes wrong he is prepared to try again, until he has got it right. Now the Global Warming loonies, they will not readdress their false predictions over 50 years, so they will never get it right!
It’s been a dry winter/ spring so far in southeast VA. We’ve had a Red Flag already because of it.
From the NWS; A Red Flag Warning is in effect for all of our VA/MD counties and an Increased Fire Danger Statement is in effect for NC
a total train wreck coming from madness & paranoia
Headline:“The village where net zero won’t work – and why it’s not alone
How many whammys for these villagers because:
they will not be on the gas gridwill be dependant on oil for heating and probably cookingwhile oil boilers are being banned in 2026god only know the rules will be for wood burning, PM particles etc by then
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/gas-electric/rural-communities-net-zero-oil-burners-heat-pumps/
Then the interfering bizzies sprang this:
Headline:“Sean Taylor told his home had to be sold to someone working within two miles
He was ‘told’ by the local council in a Welsh National Park – they really did seem to think they could tell/force a private individual who he could sell his own home to and for how much.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11986489/Homeowner-told-sell-house-locals-wins-appeal-proving-afford-it.html
My sister lives in darkest Dorset. There’s no gas grid, only oil fired heating. She was turned down on reinsuring her house because it has an oil-fired system. This is becoming a more common problem, no doubt designed to make people scrap their oil systems for heat pumps.
There’s no limit on what they believe they can do, now – in the name of saving the planet.
Business opportunity – oil companies should establish a new insurance company to insure homes heated with oil and gas. No ESG crap allowed!
There’s a good idea! 🙂
Why is an insurance company that stupid? If they don’t like it, normally they just increase the premiums and profits. It must be a case of corporate senility. Shareholders, dismiss the entire Board!
Same reason oil companies attempt to curry favor with the Eco-Nazis. Appeasement – or as Winston Churchill so aptly put it – “feeding the crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last.”
ESG is a cancer.
Just making a brief point about whatever concept is being expressed here at WUWT, or anywhere, about the greenhouse effect, the earth’s energy balance, or the climate response to non-condensing GHGs.
Any proposed conceptualization of what is happening in the atmosphere must be consistent with what is being observed from space, both longwave emission and shortwave reflection – the CERES and GOES observations.
I keep posting this link to the GOES East Band 16 images to help anchor the dialogue to what is being observed and visualized in near-real-time and relatively high resolution. The radiance at 30C(yellow) on the brightness temperature scale is 10 times the radiance at -90C(white.)
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
I hold that the widely held conceptualization of the static greenhouse effect, and the increase in the characteristic emission altitude resulting from increased concentrations of GHGs, is valid theoretically. But it cannot be observed in this visualized data. There is way too much active variation in longwave emission, driven by the motion and cloud activity to ever isolate this effect for reliable attribution.
I could be off base. I could be missing something. I could be making the same mistake I am concerned about. If someone would point it out, it would be most welcome.
But the atmosphere cannot be wrong about its own operation, the output of which we can readily observe by clicking and watching.
I think you are on the right track. But the band you are looking at obscures the picture a bit.
The optimal place to look for atmospherical emission is at about 19 μm. But this is generally unavailable.
As an alternative, as a balance of all sky emission plus surface, is in the window available at 11.2μm:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=14&length=12&dim=1
If you add it all all cells you will find an average system emission temperature of 278K. This is the contribution from average atmospherical emission temperature of 273K, plus surface transmitted flux averaging 288K.
The bulk system emission temperatures are actually depicted in various shades of grey in the GOES graphic.
Greater amounts of direct surface transmitted flux are depicted in darker shades of grey into blacks. Greater amounts of atmospherical emission are in lighter shades of grey into whites.
The window band is not all dark grey into black because there is always some degree of condensed water surfaces, practically everywhere. This is the primary control on emission temperature. We don’t notice because they are not depicted bright and colorful, but it is everywhere.
Brightly coloured areas are fully saturated, resulting in zero direct transmitted flux. This is what produces the surface sensible heat flux residual in energy budget diagrams about 19 Wm-2. This is a permanent feature which is sometimes called the cloud-radiative effect.
But, despite the mis-labelling CRE, the actual surface flux is that of the tangible kind. This tangible heat flux residual helps to drive convective currents which is the fluid transport mode for the latent component of surface flux. This spills out into the sea of “greys” on such graphics.
The total condensed matter atmosphere averages about 2/3rds of all sky. The fully saturated bits (bright colors) are a much lower fraction.
In summary, using this remote sensing product in the 11.2μm band yields a bulk emission temperature 278K. Darker shades are open windows (see Sahara). Lighter shades are varying degrees of atmospherical emission, averaging 273K.
PS: I just noticed the legend is in degrees C, but it still works. Let me know what you think. thanks
Thank you for your reply. Greatly appreciated.
“But the band you are looking at obscures the picture a bit.”
Perhaps so. But on the other hand, the color scale for band 16 helps depict the wide range of emitter outputs for direct viewing. It also provides impressive contrast to show the motion and how it relates to cloud formation and dissipation, and to overturning circulation.
Another reason for linking to Band 16, which NOAA calls the CO2 longwave IR band, is that it is centered on a wavelength of 13.3 microns in the shoulder of the atmospheric window. This coincides with a peak in the difference by wavelength in overall transmittance from a doubling of CO2, as determined from MODTRAN. This is plotted in the attached image. So I see some value in referring to Band 16 specifically to point out that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is in this band.
I will take your suggestion and look into the Band 14 images. I wish there were easily accessible visualizations of the hourly CERES LW & SW data. Even though it is low resolution at 1 deg x 1 deg, a good color scale could help to show the attribution problem.
Hello David,
yes Band 16 is certainly highly relevant if one wishes to explore specific CO2 effects. One notices immediately the impact of the view angle on the diffuse optical depth – where around the edges of the band 16 scene appear “cooler” than in the nadir position. A ‘real’ effect.
I would argue one benefit of looking in the “window” is that ultimately the bulk of flux, even in the window, is from condensed matter surfaces.
Greenhouse theorists and radiation enthusiasts would have average emission height set over 5km, corresponding with emission temperature 255K. However, using your insight to look at these GOES scenes we can see plainly that bulk emission temperature is in fact much higher.
If bulk emission temperature is around 278K, as depicted in most of the GOES bands, representing about 1/3 at 288K and 2/3 around 273K, the average emission altitude may be as low as 1.5km. The bulk atmospherical emission being 273K about 2.3km, and 288K average surface 0km.
Therefore, the transmitted flux via the windows offers the best glance at the actual variable emitter elements. The bulk of GOES observed spectra from space is much higher than 255K. Therefore, it is passing through much more atmospheric depth than usually conceived.
We see also using Band 14 there is not the optical depth diffusion aspect around the edges, which suggests it really is broad spectrum emission surfaces (condensate) plus terrestrial surface that is providing the bulk emissions source. These would not exhibit the same spectral optical diffusion effect of gaseous emission around the edges when viewed through the window band.
I appreciate your idea to look at these GOES scenes. It would be further interesting to see a product with bands 8 through 16 combined into a bulk broadband product. This can be achieved by summing the radiance of bands 8 through 16 using imaging software to understand better the nature of flux. However, it is unfortunate we hardly ever see emission spectra in the FIR. It is in that region where peak atmospherical emission is actually occurring. This region of the spectrum is largely ignored at the peril of earth system researchers.
thanks again, and I look forward to more of your insights.
Thanks for this further reply.
“One notices immediately the impact of the view angle on the diffuse optical depth – where around the edges of the band 16 scene appear “cooler” than in the nadir position. A ‘real’ effect.”
Absolutely. The NASA documentation explains this effect nicely.
About your suggestions – yes, one of my next projects will be to download the CERES “window” sensor hourly data. I believe this is for 8 to 14 microns. Previously I had only downloaded SW and LW. As you say, the window data should help illustrate the variation (over time and location), thus the attribution problem.
David,
It is very interesting that whitish -60 to -90 C bands show over the equator. This being cloud top temperatures. The tops of these same clouds also have a high albedo, thus locally reflecting about 50% of the incoming SW (sunlight) back into outer space.
Proof that clouds control the planet’s average temperature….clouds being the result of the vapor pressure/temperature relationship of water, primarily sea surface temperature.
“It is very interesting that whitish -60 to -90 C bands show over the equator.”
Yes, it is! Which leads me to express a sense that this strong suppression of longwave emission above convective cells implies a self-limiting characteristic, preserving energy to drive circulation.
What? You’re trying to inject Measurement and Observation into a discussion of CACC? “How dare you!!”
I appreciate the Greta impersonation! 🙂
I have read this posting several times and then went to your posted image on band 16 and I opened another window on band 13. Band 13 is within the clear atmospheric window — No CO2 no WV. In each find the clearest part of the window to view the same scene of the surface — this eliminates any effect of weather. I’d look at central Mexico or Northern Chile. Use the temperature scale to determine the indicated surface temperature. Band 16 will indicate a slightly cooler temperature. The explanation is that in band 16 CO2 absorbs some of the surface emission and reradiates at a slightly lower temperature at greater height in the atmosphere. This is the “static” greenhouse effect you seek.
I hope that what I am interpreting from your post is explained here.
Thank you for this reply. When I say “But it cannot be observed in this visualized data” I mean that the end result of overall emission across the scene or across the planet does not depend on the effect of incremental GHGs at the surface. I should have been clearer about that. I don’t disagree at all with you that there are places where comparing different bands will reveal that there is indeed an absorption and emission effect of the CO2 molecule (and, of course, WV). As JCM pointed out, the blue “cooled” edge of the Band 16 image shows this. It is the motion, the formation and dissipation of clouds, and the overturning circulations that make the overall emitter output a composite of extremes as the atmosphere performs so powerfully as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation. And in that respect, the incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the compressed atmosphere to the surface promotes the transfer of energy to the working fluid to drive circulation.
Does that answer the question?
I’ll have to think about it…
There is no room to even summarize the many threads that your comment opens up, is there? Even if all I wished to do was to state that Band 16 temperatures are some weighted average of CO2 emissions through the atmosphere making their way to the satellite sensors converted to temperatures, and these temperatures, in turn, are governed ultimately by the First Law of thermodynamics, I would find myself pushed inexorably toward constructing a complex 3-D heat transfer model. It wouldn’t provide any more satisfying explanation than would a global climate model, which the majority of people at this site dislike — they don’t think models explain very much and I agree with them to an extent. Moreover, many people at this site look for simple proofs that the greenhouse theory is wrong or doesn’t even exist. No such simple proof is possible even if one were to suppose, a priori, that the GHE is not the cause of a slightly warming Earth; of course just spectroscopic measurements tell a person that CO2 must have some effect on temperatures so any effort to prove the GHE doesn’t exist is doomed to failure.
Yet, does this have any consequential impact on weather or climate? My experience with this past winter suggests not. If a person were able to capture one of these Band 16 loops from the mid 1970s, a time of one-fourth less CO2, could a “blinded” expert observer be able to identify the 1970s version from the one at your link? I think not.
Thank you, Kevin, for your further reply.
“Yet, does this have any consequential impact on weather or climate?” I agree with your answer – “I think not.”
Ultimately the aim of my posts like this is to show, in the clearest way possible, why attribution of reported warming to increased CO2 concentration is unsound, and has been so from the beginning. It is unsound not because the idea of absorption and emission of longwave energy in the atmosphere is wrong. It is because the physics of compressible fluid flow, and the presence of so much water and its change of phase, obscures the small increment of the resulting effect. The Band 16 images are just one way to show this.
Another way is to consider the physics-based computed values from the models themselves. For example,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/30/essay-contest-results-delayed-a-bit-and-open-thread/#comment-3443611
I appreciate the time you have taken to think about my post and write your replies.
Is there a problem with “No Tricks Zone“? I can’t access the site today
WordPress>Error “There has been a critical error on this website.” since yesterday evening.
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.
Link
Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water.
Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend
This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link
I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data.
Malcolm Roberts of Queensland
https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g
1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures.
2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s.
3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not.
Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry.
CO2 doesn’t oscillate, it trends. No way can CO2 explain the variability in temperatures. CO2 also varies +/- on an annual basis, yet no annual variation is noted in the temperatures.
Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures.
Link
Past Notes
There’s literally families of climate change fanatics embedded in the government bureaucracy.
We need a plan to battle this climate lunacy. Just talking about it isn’t working.
We need a leader we can rally around.
Where’s the Climate Change Skeptic Leader?
It would have to be a president, considering how far this crazy climate change plan has gone. It will take a powerful person to change the course of this vested-interest ship.
I’m pretty sure that any politicians with the required public profile and level of respect are all more enamoured with the idea that they can get away with the taxation of air than they are concerned with the injustice of CAGW theory.
DeSantis- and he could put Steven Koonin in charge of energy. Of course many here accuse Koonin of being a “warmist” because he does say the climate is warming up a bit but, for him it’s not an emergency. Trump hasn’t got a chance- so everyone needs to start “working” DeSantis- to get him up to speed on the climate thing.
I’m finally reading his “Unsettled” and like it a lot.
I’m a little leary of DeSantis after some of his statements on Ukraine.
If you don’t understand the importance of the Ukraine war, then, imo, you are not qualified to lead the United States.
DeSantis kind of backed off his “Ukraine is a regional war” statement, but just making the statement has me looking at him a little closer, and not in a good way.
I agree with you about his Ukraine comments- as I strongly support Ukraine. I spend many hours every day watching YouTube videos on the war and I’ve read a lot on subject. It’s certainly a complicated topic, geopolitically. From Russia’s point of view- it’s a key part of their old empire and having it look to the west- wanting to be part of the EU and NATO really disturbs Putin and much of the Russian public. That’s understandable- but it’s also understandable that the Ukrainians, most of them, simply don’t want to be part of the “Russian world” and it’s in the long term interest of the West to not let that happen. So why did DeSantis say what he said? Either he really doesn’t understand the long term history of that part of the world or he’s speaking to many in the far right who prefer isolationism- perhaps trying to grab some of Trump’s supporters. He should read about the Holodomor- the historical epoch when Stalin tried to kill Ukrainian independence by starving them and he succeeded in starving millions. They haven’t forgotten- just like the way Russia hasn’t forgotten Hitler’s invasion or Napoleons. So, wars never end.
“So why did DeSantis say what he said? Either he really doesn’t understand the long term history of that part of the world or he’s speaking to many in the far right who prefer isolationism- perhaps trying to grab some of Trump’s supporters.”
DeSantis may not see “the Big Picture”. It’s hard to say at this point, but his “regional war” statement is short-sighted.
DeSantis may have been trying to pander to Tucker Carlson and some of the minority of Republicans who are pacifists, like Tucker. But if he was, it backfired on him, as his poll numbers dropped immedately.
Trump’s supporters are main stream. Very few are far right (radical). I’m one of Trump’s supporters and I favor helping the Ukrainians in every way possible.
Notice that Trump has voiced complaints about the handling of the Ukraine war, but he hasn’t demoted it to a “regional conflict”. If Trump were president right now, the Ukrainians would be getting all the military hardware they wanted, unlike the slow-walking of military hardware by Joe Biden.
The question Tucker Carlson and the other pacifists on the Right, and maybe Desantis, has to answer is if we don’t stop Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, then where are we going to draw the line after he takes Ukraine? You think a victorious Putin would be satisfied with just taking Ukraine? How naive are you? A Dictator on the Roll? Dictators on a roll, tend to try to continue on that roll. Human psychology.
A line will have to be drawn somewhere in the battle. Ukraine is the line to draw. The Ukrainians are more than willing to fight for their freedom, all they need is hardware and munitions.
General Keane says he thinks the Ukrainians are going to make good progress against Putin in the coming weeks and months, despite all the shortages of equipment they are having to deal with.
The Putin offensive Putin’s defenders here were telling us was going to devastate the Ukrainians has now run out of gas, just like General Keane said it would.
Now General Keane says the Ukrianians will have the upper hand in the coming spring battles and are going to take back more of their territory from Putin. You should listen to General Keane.
Just think how well the Ukrianians would do if Joe Biden would give them the military equipment they need. The Ukrainians are fighting Putin and a Pacifist Joe Biden at the same time.
Listen to General Keane if you want to know what’s going on in Ukraine. You can hear him every day on Fox News Channel.
I see General Hodges a lot on YouTube. He’s strongly in favor of Ukraine taking back Crimea. He says it’s essential for the future of Ukraine. I agree. Hodges also agrees that we must give Ukraine long range missiles like ATACMS.
While there was an historical case for Crimea being Russian (which explains the support from the French “far right”, and even some of the right, of Russia taking back Crimea), the last year suggests that Russia shouldn’t be given anything, ever.
Also, there is an as strong case for Russia not trying to break the 4 colors theorem.
I think ultimately, the boundaries of nations aren’t about what’s right, what’s reasonable, what’s fair- it’s about how much power a nation has and a long history of wars. Every nation can complain about lost territories. Every nation would like to be bigger, richer, more powerful. But that historical reality can’t continue. Russia and China should give it up- their claims.
And who enabled the Reich militarization, if not Russia, lol?
I like Vivek Ramaswamy. Probably won’t win, but his ideas should be discussed, and hopefully shake up the race with his powerful platform:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/04/14/exclsuive-ramaswamy-25-policy-visions/
You are all barking up the wrong tree. The party political system cannot produce the leaders you crave. followship is what you have. fools following fools following votes. Nothing will change until the voters changes how they vote. Vote not for the collective but for individuals. Then you will be represented.
be more specific. Name an individual you would vote for.
The person I would vote for would disavow political parties, have good education, have demonstrable courage ethics and achievments. No name springs to mind. If no suitable candidate I would not debase my vote by giving it to an unworthy candidate.
There are basically two viable political parties in the US. I’m sure you can see some difference between the two. Not voting is a cop out. Be specific and comment about Vivek’s 25 point plan, if you read it. Does he sound like something you just described as your ideal candidate. All except disavowing political parties, which would be the end of his candidacy here in the US.
We may have to agree to disagree. IMHO no political parties are viable. There is little difference between them (Dems / Rep.) Both, by their collective structure, are well left of centre. Vivek`s 25 point plan is just another election bribe just like all other election bribes. Hollow. No. Not voting is not a cope out. It is a statement. I would rather keep my vote and my integrity than vote for something I think is wrong.
“I like Vivek Ramaswamy. Probably won’t win, but his ideas should be discussed, and hopefully shake up the race with his powerful platform”
Yes, I’m glad Vivek is getting in the race. People need to hear his perspective on things.
Vivek will stimulate the conversation and the political debate.
I think the upcoming Republican debates are going to be *very* good. We are going to have a lot of very smart, common sense people going at it, and explaining the conservatie position to the people of the United States.
I look forward to it.
I recall Vivek explicitly stating once that he knows he doesn’t have a chance, but he’s entering specifically in order to raise those issues. I hope he is successful at doing so.
Joseph Zorzin:
I have found that every aspect of our climate can be explained by changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions in our atmosphere, of both volcanic and industrial origin, with no hint of any additional warming from CO2.
I have 11 articles on Research Gate, or Google Scholar, supporting the above thesis.
Earlier in this thread, Joseph Zorzin said “We need a plan to battle this climate lunacy”
The most effective way would be to present an alternate, falsifiable model for our climate, and I believe that I that I have such a model, based upon changing levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
I have 11 published articles on the subject of Climate Change, yet no one follows up n my thesis, even though trillions of dollars are being wasted on the greenhouse gas hoax, millions of people are suffering from high energy costs, heat-related deaths have occurred, and temperatures will very quickly exceed the 1.5 Deg C threshold, because of Net-zero and Clean Air efforts to abandon the burning of fossil fuels and their protective SO2 aerosol emissions.
Sorry for the ranting!
I think one problem with that, Joseph, is that we don’t really have any leaders who are willing and have the time to organize.
DeSantis! When he sent a plane of illegals to Martha’s Vineyard, he got my vote!
Individuals need a plan to isolate themselves from the worst outcomes. Be pragmatic and set up for the long run. Take advantage of every government handout that reduces cost of living in your circumstances. Reality is the powerful force that eventually prevails but it is still going to take a long time.
There are some good signs as reality of energy poverty is hitting more people. Coal fuelled generating plants are still being built; mostly in Asia.
Go with the flow to reach your objective rather than fighting against the current. The tide will turn.
I think it’ll turn quicker if everyone starts yelling at their politicians.
What is the minimum amount of time that would be considered statistically significant for temperature trends?
It seems to me that the answer is at least 1000 years. 10, 50, even 100 years seems way too short for a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician.
It depends. There are a few factors involved. The biggest one is probably the autocorrelation of the data. Using an AR(1) correction factor I get a trend of +0.20 ± 0.05 C/decade from 1979 to 2022 for the surface temperature trend of a blend of GISS, NOAA, BEST, HadCRUT, ERA, JRA, and MERRA. That means the trend is statistically significant at +0.15 C/decade and higher with ~95% confidence.
Here is a plot of the trend at different points in time. Notice how the uncertainty envelope is large early in the period and narrows later in the period as more data points are being considered.
The usual impossibly small “uncertainty” numbers…
Plus the usual “start during a cold period, end in a warm period, assume CO2 is the cause” cherry picking.
“statistically significant” being the criteria, this is quantifiable using various rules of thumb.
However, it gives us no sense of meaning which I think is the crux of your remark.
I can measure a statistically significant increase in my wife’s driving speed over the past few years, but she’s still driving slow. The important bit is the judgement. I judge that she’s driving slow for my taste.
That the increase is statistically significant is meaningless in and of itself. It requires a judgement. Statistical technicians sometimes forget this.
And, just because a trend is statistically significant doesn’t prevent the trend from changing abruptly at some point in the future. Therefore, even a statistically significant trend doesn’t allow one to forecast the future with high reliability. What is needed for forecasting is a test of stability of the trend. That would require a better understanding of the ‘control knob(s).’
The trend fetishism is completely decoupled from any evidence of causation, and is therefore meaningless.
And also ignores THE BIGGEST LIE – the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse. A warmer climate IS BETTER, and has been repeatedly shown to be better throughout human history. A cold climate has repeatedly been shown to result in misery and suffering throughout human existence.
Appetite for new electric cars slumps as Tesla signals more price cuts to drum up demand
The IEA are due to publish their ‘Global EV Outlook 2023’ on April 26th. Will be interesting to see what they say.
The auto industry is headed for a catastrophe to the extent it goes “all in” on EVs.
When the only thing you have to sell is a product nobody wants, you’re basically going out of business.
I would like reviews and comments of https://retiredresearcher.com/2023/03/28/natures-net-zero-2/
Very good site Fred. Personally, I would require a bit more math to back up the statement
”…the sink rate from the regions atmosphere is being controlled by the fraction of open sea water…”
You might be able to do it with with equilibrium CO2 content at various sea surface temps and ocean current estimated flowrates. I did some calcs on it once upon a time and don’t recall them being a smoking gun, but I am prone to slipping decimals and ignoring biological sequestration….
I’m still having that “random” log out issue. It looks like it happens roughly once per month, and when it happens, it logs me out on both computers I use. Often, it does it after the page is loaded and I try to comment or subscribe – the page still says that I’m logged in but it rejects the request.
Trying to figure out why it happens on two different computers running different OSs.
me too- also maybe once/month- in my case it doesn’t show me logged in- it’s a bit annoying
I got bumped out this morning, might be a timer expiring.
What OS and browser? Last time I mentioned it, nobody else seemed to be having a problem. I’m using FF on MacOS and Ubuntu.
Trying to figure out if it’s something browser specific.
MacOS / Brave
Brave is mozilla based. Maybe I’ll try another browser for a bit and see if anything changes. I HAVE noticed one other site that seems to do the same thing.
I have experienced the problem also. It was very disconcerting the first time. I’ve since just gone looking for the log in window.
I’m expecting a drop in the UAH TLT anomaly for 2023/04. My preliminary expectation is 0.08 ± 0.24. Monckton Pause probabilities are 5% for <= 105 months, 95% for >= 106 months, 77% for >= 107 months, 40% for >= 108 months, and 2% for >= 109 months. The best guess is that the Monckton Pause will extend to 107 months.
Is that what you intended to write? It isn’t a very useful prediction when the uncertainty is ±3X the nominal value. You are saying it could be either positive or negative.
Yes. That is what I intended.
Correct. There is a 25% chance of it being negative and a 75% chance of it being positive.
This is an anomaly. As such 0 C does not mean absolute zero so multipliers like 3x have little if any practical meaning. For example, on the old 1981-2010 baseline the expectation would be 0.20 ± 0.24 C resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 0.20 = 1.2x. Or if we used 1979-1984 as the baseline the expectation would be 0.33 ± 0.24 C resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 0.33 = 0.7x. Or if kept in absolute form the expectation would be 263.80 ± 0.24 K resulting in a multiplier of 0.24 / 263.80 = 0.009x. They all embody the same expectation just presented on a different scale.
I wish I could do better, but the published UAH TLT monthly uncertainty of ±0.20 C makes for a nearly insurmountable impediment to predictive skill better than ± 0.24 C.
Do me a favor and get back to us on how well you did after the April numbers are published.
Will do.
Since heat content of air varies significant with water vapor content how is it possible to add up and average global temperatures?
MH
a). The globe is very big.
b). Coriolis circulations, weather front motions, started by a butterfly flapping it’s wings somewhere.
c). Advection is relatively huge.
d). Water vapor absorbs a FEW watts of IR, making the air warmer. It rises, reaches saturation, forms clouds…which suddenly start reflecting HUNDREDS of watts worth of incoming sunlight back into outer space.
a) b) and d) are a bit like a Casino…the odds of the various games work out that the Casino can tell how much money it is going to make just by the number of customers walk through their doors per month.
Nothing to do with what i posted
Intended to cover in as simple as possible description, the
“water vapor content…how is it possible…average temperature” part. Other than that, nothing to do with what you posted.
/s
“Since heat content of air varies significant with water vapor content how is it possible to add up and average global temperatures?”
That’s way too easy. You just ignore the fact that “heat content of air varies significant with water vapor content” and hope that no one will call you out for scientific fraud for using the wrong metric.
Seems to work.
South Caroline U.S. Senator Tim Scott is preparing to declare his candidacy for the Republican nominee for President of the United States.
I think Tim Scott has a unique, and very powerful message that all Americans should hear.
I do hope he runs for president because then this message will be heard, and I believe people will pay attention.
What message you ask? You’ll know what I’m talking about when you hear him speak.
I think Tim Scott would make a fine president, although I’m still planning on voting for Trump, but Scott would make a good vice president, and president four years later.
Republicans have a lot of good talent running for president. Nikki Haley being another that I have a lot of confidence in.
The reporters keep trying to get a fight started between Trump and his political rivals, but Tim Scott says, he is not going after Republicans, he’s going after the Democrats. That’s his answer. And should be the answer of every Republican, including Trump.
The People of the United States need to hear Tim Scott’s story, and his take on reality. Tim Scott sees clearly.
I wish both parties would nominate middle age white guys. There, I said it! 🙂
It looks like it is going to be Trump and Biden. Unless Trump stumbles badly and/or Biden is indicted.
sheesh- 2 old farts again- America was once the young nation with new ideas- now it’s gone crazy with the climate thing, all the woke stuff and the 2 major parties led by guys who should really give it up
I think Trump is more than capable of getting this ship back on the right course, if given the chance.
Any Republican running is basically going to be promoting Trump’s policies.
It’s just that Trump is so much better at it. And he is a proven quantify. I liked it when gasoline was $1.84 a gallon under Trump. The Good Old Days!
I”m going to post a quote that I’m fairly certain has been posted before, either here or at Jo’s. If it is redundant, please accept my apologies, but I feel that with all that is happening (and not just with ‘climate science’ but things in general), the quote is more applicable to the Western [democratic] nations than ever before. Since these governments are bent on self-immolation, this brief paragraph succinctly summarizes what seems to be going on.
At 72, I finally decided to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. For those who might have limited familiarity, the basic plot is centered on a young woman who tries to keep her railroad operating in the face of a totalitarian U. S. government. I’m about half-way through it, as of the date of this epistle.
On page 436, a character is talking to another character, explaining why things are the way they are, and says:
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — — and you create a nation of law-breakers — — and then you cash in on guilt.”
Then on page 548, the same character is talking again, to a different character, and says,
“If there’s not enough guilt in the world, we must create it.”
Note that the character who makes these declarations is a ‘government’ official.
For me, it’s just hitting much to close to home. My opinion: this statement (and seeming summary of some of the Western governments) needs to be proclaimed far and wide. Show people what’s behind some of the insanity which is overtaking us at an increasing rate, and a few eyes may be opened.
Amazing prescience by Rand, and Mencken (his famous quote of practical politics).
Regards to all,
Vlad
Haven’t read it- but read The Fountanhead and saw the movie. Loved the way the young architect refused to just make boring, predictable buildings. Instead he wanted to build great buildings so couldn’t get a job like his less inspired peers and went off on his own and starved for years until finally getting recognition.
It is my understanding that the character for The Fountainhead was based on Frank Loyd Wright.
I think you’re right. One reason I identify with the story is that it’s my story too. As a forester- I could have made a lot more money doing shoddy work- which is all too common. And I could have gone along with whatever idiocy the bureaucracies who run the forestry world say- but I didn’t. I always challenged them and they always found ways to go after me- but I never gave up.
And I really like FLW’s work. He was quite the character. He once said, “I am the world’s greatest architect” as if it was obvious. When he designed a house he would design everything in the house and would argue with the owner if they changed anything. Some of his buildings, like Falling Water have had structural problems but that’s to be expected when being so innovative. There are documentaries about him and they are very interesting to watch.
I’m also a fan of Wright’s work. There is a renovated Prairie House near me in Ohio that I have toured a couple of times. However, when I visited Taliesin West in Phoenix, I was surprised at the crudity of the workmanship. Perhaps it was the fault of the apprentices.
Atlas Shrugged is a must-read for every American. Hank Readon’s Brother and Wife are some of my favorite characters. They are the kind of people that support all the Climate Change nonsense. Just read the chapter “Sign of the Dollar” and you won’t be able to put the book down. Philip Rearden (Brother) Lillian Rearden (Wife)
Any thoughts on why Hank Rearden and Howard Roark have the same initials?
story tip more ice melting scare stories
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300858659/devastating-melt-of-greenland-antarctic-ice-sheets-found
and there reference a dodgy journal https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/
Climate Alarmists never give up on the Science Fiction stories.
Story tip – good article;
Canadian Experts Blame Climate Change on Capitalism and Whiteness – PJ Media
And they used to refer to Canada as the Great White North….
If you are more than 200 miles from any US blue state, it is still “the Great White North”.
“Canadian experts”
I don’t think so.
Everyone loves a bad zombie and everyone hates waste. The basis of all pixie dust schemes like the Telsa 3 report (linked above) is reducing waste in current power plants and ICE while ignoring waste in wind, solar, and battery storage.
I do not care about waste, safety and reliability are much more important parameters.
When you look at life cycle assessments of wind, solar, and storage they are not sustainable. This because they not reliable or safe. When you tell the board of directors the cost of fixing things, they want to know the rate of return.
Of course they will still have pictures in the annual report showing environmental stewardship but no section on benefit based on production.
They are not reliable, safe OR DURABLE. Rebuilding the whole thing every 15-20 years the the antithesis of “sustainable,” their favorite fantasy buzzword.
The surface temperature of the South Pacific is dropping. Winter in the south is approaching.
Graphic #1: Where is the warming Apr thru June? 1895 Temp 16.11 C Today 16.11 C. How can the entire Contiguous US show no warming for 128 Years? Link
Graphic #2: Where is the warming Apr thru June? 1910 Temp 3.00 C Today 3.00 C. How can the entire Contiguous US show no warming for 128 Years? Link
Your data could be used to show there has been a warming trend since 1980. I don’t think I would use that graph.