So, the latest cruise excursions for nerds as paid for by the Australian taxpayer. I’m sure they’ll all have a jolly time, living it up onboard their cruise ship while doing very little work, come back and all the theories they started out with will be mysteriously supported by their ‘research’.
My basic question for climate catastrophists to explain to me –
in a coupled, non- linear, CHAOTIC system, how does just one bit- player element determine the course of all overall permanent effects of the whole system?
It’s either a coupled, non-linear, CHAOTIC system, or it’s a coupled, linear, ORDERED system?
“in a coupled, non- linear, CHAOTIC system, how does just one bit- player element determine the course of all overall permanent effects of the whole system?”
Easy question
You just need politicians, bureaucrats, teachers and “journalists” repeating the same claptrap scary predictions since 1979.
I would call these two-bit players, rather than one-bit players, and their useful idiot believers are nit-wit players.
I should mention that scientists say climate change will kill your dog, and driving an EV will make male driver’s hair fall out, and women drivers will suddenly want to start smoking Cuban cigars, as a side effect from EMF radiation.
That’s why I have doubts about the ECS- which implies it’s all about CO2. We need a more complex formula. I know nothing about non-linear chaotic systems. What do they even look like? Most likely CO2 will be part of such a complex formula but it’ll have many other elements and of course any formula now will only be tentative. Trying to derive it will be like the search for the unified field theory or the Drake equation.
“I know nothing about non-linear chaotic systems. What do they even look like?”
Excellent question.
We can skip the formula and “watch” the longwave emitter output in relatively high resolution and near-real-time in one of the same bands of infrared wavelengths for which the static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 is claimed. This is why I composed and posted this video and wrote the description.
So this is what a non-linear chaotic climate system looks like.
At about 0.015% C3 plants and the other life that feeds directly and indirectly on C3 plants starts to die off. At 0.0004% we’d be looking at a nearly lifeless planet. Maybe some tube worms in thermal vents at the bottom of the sea and other exotic species.
The Drake equation is an unscientific guesstimate – it poses unanswerable questions and inserts random WAG’s to make it look knowledgeable. The only answer to ‘is there life (or intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe?’ is ‘go and look.’
true, be we know a lot more about what’s out there than when the Drake equation was first proposed- back then we had no evidence that there are any other planets- now we know there – everywhere- so the equation is slightly more useful and will only get better- we can look but we can’t go- and for all we know, the aliens are already here
The equation is useless Joseph, and I’m being incredibly fair to Frank Drake who never intended his equation to be used as a method of estimating the chances of life in the universe. He only ever used it as a way of stimulating interest and discussion at the first SETI conference, no more than that.
More importantly, if his equation had shown extraterrestrial life to be highly improbable, then money could have been spent on more pressing issues. However, as Joseph has pointed out, in the intervening decades, the probability of life existing elsewhere — based on Drake’s Equation — has increased.
If his equation had been interpreted to show extraterrestrial life to be improbable, then they would have simply played with & tweaked a few of the variable inputs.
The lizard people running the NWO? That I can believe.
Not sure that observational evidence of exoplanets really changes much. Can you think of even a far-fetched hypothesis for how our star would be the only one out of roughly a septillion stars in the visible universe to be formed with planets?
Maybe not rare over the life of the universe (could be infinite) but more than 90% of the universe is over a billion light years away. So any hint of life we might be able to detect with our best telescopes is likely to have come and gone more than a billion years ago. Certainly any idea of 2-way communication is ridiculous.
The “equation” is made up out his ass since Dr. Crichton exposed what a pile of crap it is:
Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
N=R*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*fL
[where R is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.]
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses — just so we’re clear — are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
When you think about it carefully, you can see just how sophomoric Michael Crichton was in his arguments as stated in your text asserted to be from his January 17, 2003, lecture at Caltech.
Primarily, Crichton focused on not “knowing the numerical values” of variables, but he overlooked the scientific value of bounding the probabilistic ranges of such variables.
Since Heisenberg developed his Uncertainty Principle and since quantum mechanics found practical applications of great benefit to humans, most scientists now must fundamentally acknowledge that physics at its most fundamental levels is composed of bounding probabilistic estimates of unknowable outcomes of future events.
Faith Once the door is closed in the Schrödinger cat experiment, the existence of the cat is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Just curious as to how one human has the hubris to talk about “unanswerable questions” . . . as if the history of advancement of mankind’s knowledge has not already show how sophomoric such an assertion is.
In this regard, please define “life” on Earth . . . is a seed alive for the year or so before it is planted? . . . is a dormant virus alive or dead?
Also, within the Scientific Method, “guesstimates” are often considered to be the equivalent of initial “postulates”, and are quite acceptable as starting points in the evolution of scientific knowledge . . . not that all pan out to be correct.
No. The estimates are probabilities based on observations. One can estimate the height of a typical tree to the nearest order of magnitude. There is no need to actually measure 1,000 trees if only an approximation is necessary. Precision is not always necessary to answer a question.
No Clyde. The estimates are wild guesses. Taking your example, I have exactly one tree and I’m going to just use that one tree to estimate the number of trees on the planet and all of their heights. There is no way we can answer those questions without God-like omniscience. It’s a nonsense.
Hmmm . . . we have (based on scientific observations) only one universe and only one universal cosmic background radiation (centered around a temperature of about 2.7 K).
Therefore, it’s pointless to pursue cosmological questions such as was there a “Big Bang”?, how old/”large” is our universe?, is it open or closed topologically? . . . heck even Fermi was stupid to ask his “Where is everybody?” question. Yeah, right.
A much more straightforward example: we had no examples of television sets until the first one was invented and constructed by humans . . . strange, that, eh?
/sarc
Fortunately, many humans decided to look beyond God in seeking answers to important questions they themselves generated.
Doubts about the ECS of CO2?
Join the crowd
Pick a number,
any number
The ECS being discussed
is the ECS of CO2.
No one knows what it is/
Can’t be measured in the atmosphetre
Too many other variable
can cause global warming.
ECS of CO2 can be estimated in a lab.
Some people look at the warming since 1975 and blame it all on CO2. They estimate a worst case ECS of CO2 from that. Probably about 1.5 degrees C. per CO2x2
The right answer is we don’t know but few people accept the right answer.
The best estimate is from lab spectroscopy with a without a modest water vapor positive feedback. That gets a CO2 ECS estimate in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 degrees C. The range that includes most skeptic scientists, with perhaps +1 degree C. as the most common guess
Let’s assume a +1 degree C. ECS of CO2
Doubling CO2 from 420 to 640ppm
at the current rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year would take 168 years
So we have the average temperature up +1 degree C. (or +1.5) gradually over the next 18 years, with all other climate variables … in this climate guessing exercise.
That’s not going to scare anyone.
And that’s why the IPCC guess +2 .5 to +4.0 degrees C. … and they never mention most of the warming with be TMIN not TMAX.
We do have a reasonable guess of ECS of CO2 supported by Richard Lindzen and William Happer and others. They all say theire is no climate emergency or even a climate problem, I agree with them
I only wish Wokeachusetts wasn’t fanatic regarding the climate. Well, when I read comments posted to the Boston Globe’s online version of the paper- to climate articles, many people seem to be very skeptical- but that skepticism never rises to the surface.
The world is supposed to end by 2030, according to that young school girl, and AOC, who used to tend a bar in New York.
Washington attracts bunches of misfits, sex oddities, and ignorami in high places, all under the doddering, senile, in-the-basement chief
Drs Wijngaarden & Happer, have published a paper on CO2 and its atmospheric effects. The complex formulae, established from accepted mathematical & physical theory. Have been compared to actual atmospheric measurements. With a high degree of correlation.
Your comment “it’ll have many other elements” is absolutely correct, the problem is, that with so many variables, which are by and large nowhere near understood, the building of a more complex system is impossible.
I took the initial shot and booster back in 2021 and a subsequent booster in 2022, but have refused it since then due to the conclusion that the risks exceeded the benefits (if any).
I would be interested in informed opinions on the topic, particularly from those who dispute the premises of the biologist interviewed.
Just to clarify, every vaccine is a one size fits all. Everyone has a unique immune system, even those who are blood relatives. The purpose of the immune systems of all organisms is to protect the species. If humans didn’t have such diversity then we would be in a genetic bottleneck. One species that is in such a bottleneck is the Tasmanian Devil. Within these animals certain cancers are transmitted between individuals in the population.
Note that most adverse reactions to vaccines like Guillain Barre Syndrome are due to the overreaction of the immune system, in fact the primary cause of GBS is food poisoning.
Ok but the guy in the TC interview (Bret Weinstein) says that the mRNA technology is inherently unsafe because if it’s administered incorrectly and goes directly into the bloodstream, it will affect whichever cells it happens to impinge on rather than being kept localized in muscle tissue. He says the if this happens, some of it will modify heart tissue which will cause the immune system to damage the heart.
If you want even more info (qualified) go to: “who is Dr. Malone” website, or search for “Dr. Cory”, or….. I am somewhat surprised that you were not aware of the MANY problems with the ‘jabs’, prior to that particular TC interview… the info has been ‘out there’ for ages. (I have had no ‘jabs’, for ANY flu year) Age: 88.
Yeah I get that traditional vaccines were one size fits all.
But they weren’t delivered into our immune systems via a programmable messenger product.
That’s where we jumped the shark.
The lipid nanoparticles the RNA is packed in go EVERYWHERE in the body, from brain to testicles. The RNA is a chemically modified so it is difficult to break down. It tells your own cells to make spike proteins, which are the bit of the virus that makes you sick. Its one thing for this to be restricted to your respiratory tract and quite another to have it in your kidneys. Your immune system recognizes a damaged cell and gobbles it up. Problem is that the heart and brain lack the ability to make new cells to compensate. In the linings of your blood vessels the spike laden epithelial cells shed and cause a whole variety of blood clots,
A German pathologist fought the system to do autopsies on suspicious deaths. His slides show what happens in glowing colours. See the last interview with him on RUMBLE
I knew about attempts to make a Corona virus vaccine in the ’80s and ’90s. The problem was that when vaccinated mice were infected, the died – “antibody dependent enhancement”. Having done both animal and human pharmacological experiments, there was no way there was time to look for unintended consequences. I therefore passed up the vaccine.
It’s was my understanding that the spike proteins are just a part of the virus. They do not in themselves make you sick but by inducing the immune system to produce antibodies against the proteins they would also disable the whole virus if it were to be present later.
Supposedly injecting into the muscle rather than intravenously, most of the effective ingredients would remain in place. Of course, blood flows throughout the body at least through capillaries, so it seems certain that at least some of the mRNA would escape the injection site. Presumably the assumption was that what little escaped wouldn’t be significant?
I would reason that just as mRNA causes the immune system to attack heart cells that are producing foreign proteins, so would any number of naturally-occurring viruses that might infect heart cells. I don’t know if that is a correct assumption or not. If it is correct, then the harms caused by mRNA should not be as alarming as the video makes out. Obviously we can’t avoid being exposed to many naturally-occurring viruses. The loss of heart cells from those infections doesn’t cause us noticeable harm.
What I understood from the video was that the harmful effects would come if due to negligence, the bolus were injected directly into a vein, causing nearly all of it to pass through the heart. In such a case, the person could be vulnerable to adverse effects until scar tissue replaced the damaged heart cells that might have been affected.
Well my big question is whether the harmful effects continue to be a serious concern years later, or if, as I reasoned, the body deals with such injuries all the time and the serious risk only existed at the point where there may have been a large amount of scar tissue needing to be formed but not yet healed up?
I took the initial jab and one booster. That was when the virus was spreading rapidly, so my (informed) judgement was that on balance that was the thing to do. I did not take any further jabs because when the virus was basically resident in the population my (also informed) judgement was that further jabs for this one were not needed. Two month ago I caught the current variant, was rather grotty for a few days, but up and running after a week with a only a long lingering cough which disappeared after a few weeks.
Having said that, the jab may have caused serious problems for some, but the infection itself was pretty nasty with a lot of people, including a relative of mine, suffering from long covid, having caught the bug very early, before the vaccination was rolled out. I therefore consider the protection the jab may have given me as worthwhile.
The only real reason I accepted it in the first place was to avoid the hassles that I would have had to deal with at work. And once I had taken it, seemingly without ill effect, when my doctor was browbeating me at my annual physical, I didn’t really give it much thought. It was easier just to say ok.
The irony is that I was on a flight from LA to Hartford mid-March 2020 and I got fever and chill symptoms during that flight. Subsequently I lost the sense of smell for about a week. That was when the tests were in short supply. When I called the doctor, I no longer had a fever so they wouldn’t give me a test. I think it’s likely that I had natural immunity anyway.
Listening to the video I linked, it’s pretty disturbing to think that it may not have been so harmless after all. I was hoping someone out there would be able to make the case that it’s nothing to be concerned about at this point.
Look up Dr Shankara Chetty and the work he was doing in South Africa on Covid. He observed that Covid had a 10-day cycle, treated the first 7 days as a flu type virus with antibiotics then from the 8th to 10th days, when the allergic reaction set in, treated it with a tailored anti-hystamine for either heart or lung infection. He treated over 14,000 patients with a 100% survival rate, no deaths, hospitalisations, ventilators or mrna vaccines. Now the South African authorities are questioning him on medical ethics grounds because he wouldn’t administer the mrna vaccine to his patients.
Yes, this goes to the other concern raised in the video I posted. There are attempts to make sure that “next time” nobody can resist. Discussions such as this would be banned if not punished.
As with climate change, it seems that there are multiple players with different motives probably acting independently. Big Pharma presumably is interested in the profit of selling a universally used drug to governments. Rent-seekers within the bureaucracy get kickbacks in various forms. Others in government may have even more nefarious motives going beyond graft to totalitarian control.
For a recent cancer diagnosis, I was put into a study where I got immunotherapy using an mRNA product. My reaction was severe enough that it was stopped after the second infusion. Mine manifested as skin lesions that have remained to this day. I had all the Covid shots after that but don’t know if I have had reactions.
Richard Greene
January 7, 2024 3:54 am
6am thoughts about high level climate and energy facts this blog editor wants to see a lot more often in climate and energy articles:
(1) Climate Change is Not Science
Science requires data
Climate change is only predictions of CAGW (manmade global warming) doom. But CAGW has never happened before, so there are no historical CAGW data. There are never data for the future climate.
Therefore, climate change is really just wild guess, data free predictions of CAGW … that have been wrong since 1979.
(2) Can Government Scientists Be Trusted?
Without considering global temperature data inaccuracy, does anyone here believe reported global warming will ever stop as long as government bureaucrats are in charge of the reporting the statistics predict gloal warming and want their predictions to look good?
(3) Will any government bureaucrat scientists ever admit the 1880 or 1850 average temperature is a very rough wild guess of the Northern Hemisphere average absolute temperature, that could be off by up to +/- 1 degree C.?
(4) Will any government bureaucrat scientists ever admit the climate models predict whatever they are programmed to predict, which is enough global warming to scare people … and computer output is not data?
(5) Will the next article you read on CO2 mention the fact that CO2 at 600ppm to 800ppm improves C3 plant growth from about 10% to 100%, and even helps C4 plants? And the plants also require less water? Based on thousands of scientific experiments.
(6) Will the next article you read on climate change mention that global warming is good news for most people, and only has a small effect on areas where it could be bad news (the tropics) and almost no effect where it could have been dangerous in the long run (Antarctica)?
(7) Will the next article you read criticizing Nut Zero or EVs point out that Nut Zero is a completely unnecessary waste of money, along with EVs? And that less than 1/8 of the world’s population cares about CO2?
(8) Will leftists in Michigan (and other non-tropical climates) ever admit our warmer winters, with a lot less snow since the 1970s, have been good news?
NOTE: These are the same people who claim Covid shots are safe and effective … even after they caught Covid several times after being vaccinated. And there was no 2020 election fraud.
And throw in a leftist joke too, such as:
How many leftists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: 6
One to stand on the ladder holding the LED bulb and four to lift the ladder up and rotate it. The sixth guy gives a tedious speech to passersby on LED bulb efficiency and how it will save the world.
Thank you for an upvote. bnice2000 will soon be here to give me an upchuck
I voted on one comment since 1996 because it was so good that it was much better than the article that it was about
I’d write the same comments if I got upvotes or 100 downvotes. I don’t care at all.
I only care that so many people believe a climate disaster is coming after 50 years of hearing those predictions as the actual climate improved from the cold 1970s. It seems that enough propaganda can make people believe anything.
I really care that the FBI has announced they plan to arrest people who merely stood OUTSIDE the Capital building on January 5, 2-21 protesting obvious election fraud. If that is not US fascism, I don’t know what is
They can’t do that. Epps, who the day before & earlier that day, ‘stood around’ (and encouraged trespass) has been so far given a waiver.
There is no way they can spin going after those that stood around and still ignore their Epps. (Unless, off course, Epps colludes with the background guys to take the hit, knowing it will help his lawsuit).
I was talking about the many millions of people who live in southern Michigan. We crossed The Bridge once. You 300,000 Yoopers are part of the Arctic, eh?
They called us fudgies, and trolls, in the UP, which did not sound good. And we were chased by Yoopers wearing Kromers and Choppers swinging their Yooper Scoopers, and then chased by polar bears. We hid in an igloo for safety. Fortunately, they had a case of Widow Maker Black Ale.
UP Winter
Eight months of blizzards, black ice, and temperatures so low your beard will frost over.
UP Summer
The two months between the muddy season and tourist season, when the lake isn’t as cold and the temperatures rise.
Sault Ste. Marie is one of the snowiest places in Michigan. It attracted national media attention in December of 1995 when the annual total snowfall topped 209 inches (5.3 m), after 62 inches (1.6 m) fell during a continuous five-day snowstorm, and 28 inches (710 mm) fell in 24 hours.
Since they are leftists, they wouldn’t know about “lefty loosy, righty tighty”, turn the ladder in the wrong direction and never screw in the light bulb.
That would be the case if the question was about muslims. After parading around their god in a clockwise rotation it becomes a habit.
strativarius
January 7, 2024 4:03 am
That Chris Skidmore resignation…
Guardian hero “Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/05/chris-skidmore-resigns-conservative-whip-over-sunaks-oil-and-gas-licence-plan
From Guido Fawkes “Chris Skidmore has given up the Tory whip over oil and gas licensing. We already knew he was stepping down at the election – now he says he wants to resign as an MP “as soon as possible“. By-election incoming…
UPDATE: For no particular reason, here is a part of Chris’ register of interests:
[ From 3 January 2023 until further notice, Adviser to the Emissions Capture Company (industrial decarbonisation and clean technology), 8 – 10 Hill Street, London W1J 5NG. I receive £80,000 per annum, paid monthly, for providing advice on the global energy transition and decarbonisation. Hours: 160 – 192 hrs per annum ]
Skidmore’s seat is being abolished by boundary changes at the next election and he had already decided to quit at that time. So, he’s brought it forward a few months with an added major hissy fit.
The basic annual salary of a Member Of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons is £86,584 Now he’s down to his decarbonised £80,000 (at least). However will he cope?
Oh well, 10 years later than he should’ve resigned but at least he’s gone. Good riddance.
Ron Long
January 7, 2024 4:22 am
What is normal, with respect to weather and climate? Where I was born, Eugene, Oregon, the average annual rainfall is about 40 inches. However, looking at annual data at http://www.weather.gov, from 1892 to 2022, the lows (3 times) were 27 inches, and the high (once, but several other 60+ inches) was 65 inches. What is “normal”? OK, 40 inches appear 9 times in the 131 year record, but what is normal? For the CAGW True Believers 40 inches of annual rainfall, in Eugene, Oregon, is normal, and ANYTHING more or less is Climate Change.
Annual rainfall has always been extremely variable. I am guessing that annual evaporation is a much better indicator of climate change in the Willamette Valley. I haven’t looked, but I am also guessing that it (evaporation) has been much more consistent through the last 50 years than rainfall, reflecting little ‘climate change’.
“To successfully transition the grid, Australia needs to triple its renewable energy output by 2030 and increase it seven-fold by 2050…”
Sure, no problem, 6 years should be enough time to triple green energy! And I see a number of those options claim they’ll just take electricity when its cheap and store it. When it’s cheap???
Richard M
January 7, 2024 4:50 am
From an old paper we can see that water vapor feedback really is negative.
But what if it isn’t a feedback? What if it is a forcing?
When IR emitting gases reach saturation the claimed 3.7 w/m2 warming effect from DWIR disappears. It’s not saturation itself, it’s a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.
When saturation occurs the concentration of the gases radiating energy back towards the surface is high enough that almost all the energy that reaches the surfaces comes from very low in the atmosphere. Most of it within 10 meters or less.
The evaporation is obvious since the Earth is 80% covered in H2O and IR doesn’t penetrate the surface deeper than the surface skin. IR from these gases will increase the odds of evaporation.
The lack of any warming is because an IR emission event causes the lower atmosphere to cool when the surface warms. Because these two areas are in direct contact, the 2LOT corrects it very quickly. Any energy that doesn’t go into evaporation will be conducted back into the lower atmosphere.
********Once again, we get evaporation without any warming.
What we have is a direct forcing of evaporation at the surface from the IR emitted by either CO2 or methane. The linked paper explains how this cools the atmosphere. This view of science also explains why Christy et al 2016 finds no tropical hot spot and why Miskolczi 2010 found a constant opacity.
Time for the luke-warmers to get on board. The small forcing from CO2 absorption band widening (~3 watts/m2/doubling) is countered by this cooling forcing which appears to be almost identical in strength.
Good points. The description you are giving is largely what I was getting at in this essay posted in 2022 in the quote below. Anything that improves the transfer of energy from the surface to the lower atmosphere promotes the operation of the heat engine. The net result, as a surface temperature response to incremental GHGs? I can’t see how it could ever be differentiated from zero by any means we have available to us. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
“Down lower, the working fluid experiences an incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the atmosphere to the surface. This energy – the static GHG “forcing” – cannot be accumulated at the surface. It is much too easily transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine, to circulate to whatever altitude is needed.”
I like the videos you post and points you make. I might these two:
There is some general talk here of “the heat engine”, but “the” implies a single entity and from what I see there are myriad heat engines that run from the smallest dust devil, to the ITCZ. It’s a broad spectrum. I have been trying to write an essay to submit here on this topic, but I really don’t like it at present and may put it aside for now. However, I have been looking in depth at such engines operating in the polar night and a recent review article has listed a broad category of such things (commas, and polar lows) that number over a thousand each winter. It is a messy topic.
While we speak of these as heat engines, they are all so inefficient (7-14%) that their main effect is heat transfer from supplies of various sorts at the surface to space — augmented by every single one of them drying out the atmosphere, as in the paper linked by Richard M, above. The drying is very significant and maybe underappreciated. I would call them mainly refrigerators driven by inefficient heat engines.
You make a good point that it’s not a singular heat engine. As you say, there are countless circulations that emerge (Willis’s “emergent climate phenomena”) and terminate on their own. What an amazing system. And yes, the refrigerator description is apt.
Whether you are right or wrong, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
This war is not about the fine points of climate science. It is not about science AT ALL! It is about the intentional destruction of western civilization. “Luke-warmers” getting on board your train isn’t going to have the SLIGHTEST impact.
You are not bringing a knife to a gun fight. You are bringing a feather duster to a nuclear exchange.
You can’t fight the entire war at once. You need to hit them at their weak points and make it obvious they are wrong. Every time you do that you are one step closer to victory.
Right now no one is putting up much of a fight on the climate front. Luke warmers give away the high ground. Better to attack the pseudo science where you know they have it wrong.
Don’t be ridiculous. How is it a weak point when they have the bought-and-paid-for climastrology clergy and nearly 100% of the propaganda elite arguing authoritatively that you’re wrong?
There’s no climate emergency whether their faulty ‘science’ is correct or not. Anyone can see that they are exaggerating. That’s where we need to hit them with ridicule.
I agree, that ceding the point that “some warming should be expected” from incremental CO2 was a mistake from the beginning. There never was any good reason to expect to isolate a climate system response for reliable attribution. I have great respect for many who hold a “lukewarm” position, but I will keep trying, as you are, to point out the problems with that view.
Boston resident Stephen Monk recalls the sound vividly.
He was kayaking with fellow passengers while on a cruise to Antarctica. Suddenly, the instructor told the group to stop, remain still, and listen.
“All you could hear was this effervescence, a popping sound,” Monk said. “It was the ice underneath the surface of the water melting. As it melted, it sent bubbles up to the surface. It was startling because you realized what was happening. You were listening to Antarctica melting.”
Monk is one of the more than 100,000 tourists who went to Antarctica last year to see the beauty of the towering glaciers, the sweeping white landscape that stretches to the horizon, and the continent’s abundant penguins, whales, and seals. It’s a naturalist’s paradise and an experience visitors describe as life-changing.
Antarctica is not warming except for the tiny peninsula from nearby underseas volcanoes and changes in ocean currents.
Most of Antarctica gets colder except ice shelves (pink area on chart below) from more CO2 in the atmosphere because of a permanent temperature inversion.
Few people know that.
That fact explains the lack of warming since the 1970s, except the peninsula, where almost everyone goes because it’s warmer there.
If tourists go there- I doubt it’s in winter. So, one said he heard bubbles of melting ice! OMG, some ice is melting, probably in summer! How horrible! We must panic! And declare an emergency!
I think the fact that he was kayaking in a shallow area of open water laying on top of a layer of ice should have given him a clue that it isn’t always rock solid blocks of ice in Antarctica. I suppose it’s too much to hope for that tourists are intelligent rather than the usual gawping, empty-headed, blank-looked but very rich, morons that usually infest ‘interesting or photogenic’ places but one can live in hope. At least these morons were discouraged from stripping off in their photo’s like they seem to want to do everywhere else.
1987 and 1988 are strange years for Arctic sea ice. 1987 was touted as having a thickness maximum then thinning sea ice from 1988 onwards. Supposedly compiled from submarine ‘observations’ and model output the thinning was noted in several papers from 1999 to 2003. A cynical person might suggest that from 1988 onwards the climate enthusiasts were using models and satellite data to get the ‘right’ answers.
Huff post is an activist rag. I don’t doubt NuScale’s having to lay off some of its workforce but the reason it failed is because it was the wrong financial setup for a pioneering, experimental SMR reactor design. The investors wanted instant profits and the company needed to reinvest in the safety and mass production aspects – neither got what they wanted and there was no possible compromise solution.
It confirms that there’s no roadblocks with technologies for SMRs, just keeping the cashflow buoyant without the massive taxpayer subsidies that wind & solar have gorged on.
Dunno why Huffpost headlined the article as they did. (yes I do).
The there’s this –
China, meanwhile, is constructing more reactors at home than nearly all the world combined, and built four large-scale reactors using the leading new American design before the U.S. could complete its first.
What is quite interesting is that, although China relies heavily on the PWR designs for its existing nuclear power plants, it’s building several different designs around the country. I think they’re evaluating different designs to see what they’ll be using for the next 50+ years as a replacement for their older PWR reactors.
I recently read an article, sorry, no link, where it was stated that NuScale’s self safe design took way more concrete to build that an old style light water reactor, so their costs were way higher than originally projected.
It’s a good idea but needs sounder long-term investment management behind it; if it can get that then they should be good to go.
No, letting some of your workforce go doesn’t mean bankruptcy, it probably means they’re cutting costs while they work things out. Just have to wait and see.
morfu03
January 7, 2024 5:58 am
Well, for many years I keep thinking the “climate change” discussion should be over! (Also, I may sound a bit like a broken record here, but so do all those ignorant alarmists)
This is not about the ever changing climate, but about the anthropogenic contribution to global warming and for at least 50 years this number has been highly uncertain somewhere between 1-4°C and in some rare publications even below or above that interval. Climate science has reported very little progress for that parameter and likely will not get anywhere soon.Past reconstructions are questionable. They take a number of proxies and extract a temperature value (with an uncertainty) from it, the detailed methods as well as meaningfulness of various proxies is questionable, but there is also the additional question, if the extracted value is representative for the global temperature. For example McShane and Wyner write about Mann´s 1998 data https://www.jstor.org/stable/23024822 :
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
Do these values really represent the global temperature at that time and most improtantly why is it not discussed in the publication (or any other), the image is from Steve McIntrye at Climate Audit:
Most people recognize the dramatic effect the better cloud parametization of the CMIP6 model generation had on parameters like the CO2-sensistivity (a change of about 25% for that one)
Pat Frank nicely shows the consequence of new information for trends calculated with outdated models: https://i0.wp.com/climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/0image-82.webp?resize=768%2C338&ssl=1
I wonder where is a working quality control, while works like Zeke Hausfather or Gavin Schmidt´s model trend v reality work shows good agreement with reality for older models with completely wrong parameters. Apparently, we have no criteria if climate models are good or not.
Current measurements From UAH to HADCRU using essentially the same data to derive different trends, the difference then must be displayed as a systematic error, which is not done. Additionally, the work by Zou https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472 seems to indicate that the UAH algorithm is the better one
With respect to Mann, here’s hoping that the long delay in Mann vs Stein will allow Stein to show that Mann actually did commit scientific fraud. One example is the recent un-earthing of the data that Mann excluded from his Hockey Stick calculations.
Like I said “the detailed methods as well as meaningfulness of various proxies is questionable”, but that was not the point of my post!
Try to understand that there is really something missing in all these proxy calculations, just like the statisticians McShane and Wyner said, it is a lot worse than just a bad forgery.
Actually, all these reconstructions are pretty meaningless, for example you can see reconstructions of the same period with non-overlapping results!
Retiredinky
January 7, 2024 6:48 am
I have been reading WUWT and other climate related articles for years and believe that the intent of this Net Zero is not to reduce CO2 but is to collapse the western societies. I am increasingly frustrated that “we” are only preaching to ourselves with no to little effect on the left wing. I am worn out.
Reality must prevail. Climate has always changed and always will. The interglacial humans enjoy will end soon enough and human survival in the high latitudes of Northern Hemisphere will become challenging. NutZero cannot occur using wind and solar.
So the question is the damage that will be done before reality wins. I am encouraged by the recent DEFUND Act introduced on December 6 in the US Congress:
WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act, which calls for the United States’ complete withdrawal from the United Nations (UN). This legislation confronts imperative issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability, which have been persistent points of criticism against the United States involvement in the UN. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX 21) spearheads the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
The UN is the driving force behind de-industrialising the west. Defunding it would be a step in the right direction. Remove the headquarters from US territory to central Africa or Pacific Islands who demand Climate Ambition from the west.
Trump is firming as the next US President. He would support defunding the UN.
COP28: the Climate Church in Conclave
.
This year, global warming was never out of the media spotlight. This warming was eagerly highlighted at COP28 in Dubai.
The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, scare-mongered about a “boiling earth”.
COP28 had a gigantic CO2 footprint, with 88,000 registered in the blue zone and 40,000 in the green zone, including the world’s elite, with jet planes
They spouted a pseudo-science, based on subjective climate models for a non-existent problem.
The essential shortcoming of subjective climate models is, they do not capture reality.
In this article, we will delve deeper using measurements and observations.
We want to show, the official CO2 story is already too simplified, and other, much stronger natural forces and factors are determining our Earth’s climate , El Niño, an Exceptional Event in Late Summer of 2021 .
At present, one of the most determining factors in climate is El Niño.
El Niño is a recurring phenomenon that causes a sudden increase in temperature.
All El Niños originate at the same fixed “Point Source”, a 9000-meter deep trench, located east of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
That trench has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather, after about a 2-y delay.
As part of an El Niño, a stream of warm water wells up from that point source, departing from there, towards the Peruvian coast.
Any west-to-east trade winds near the equator are reinforced by the periodic El Niños, which receive their driving force (heat) from the active volcanic activity in the 9000-meter deep trench, where several tectonic plates come together and subduct each other.
The image shows a very strong El Niño peaking in late summer of 2023, which caused world atmospheric temperatures to increase, as shown on below UAH satellite image. https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Self-Destruction of the West? .
This study shows, the existence of the UAH satellite measurements starting in 1979, world temperature increases have been increasing, step-by-step, and are dominantly due to El Niños, and their after effects.
The sun and moon and tectonic plate movement are driving forces of El Niños.
We must adhere to the golden rule of causality of real science: observe, measure and repeat.
In reality, CO2 does not play the slightest role here and shows that the IPCC climate models are based on political pseudo-science and are therefore worthless.
. To put it into perspective with a simplified calculation on the back of an envelope
From the UAH graph, it can be concluded, an intense El Niño produces a temperature jump across the entire Earth of approximately 0.3°C.
E= K T4 K = 5.670367 x 10^-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Taking the derivative delivers:
dE= 4 K T3 dT = 4 x 5.670367^-8 x 288^3 x 0.3 = 1.625 W/m2
If the Earth were to absorb the associated energy as radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates, this corresponds to a radiation effect of 1.625 W/m².
That is 829 TW for the total earth surface of 510 100 000 km², or an annual energy production of 26,143 EJ (Exajoules). Annual human primary energy production for all uses was estimated at about 557 EJ.
Conclusion
A single, strong El Niño produces a warming effect on the lower layer of the atmosphere 26143/557 = 47 times stronger than the CO2 emissions of the human annual primary energy, plus an El Niño (weak to very strong) can occur, on average, every 3.6 years. See above image.
.
Human thermal influence on Earth’s temperature compares to one of the many active faults or volcanic submarine hot spots (estimated to number 5,000) in the world (of which the El Niño heat source is just one) is immeasurably small.
It is completely self-destructive for the Western world to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions that have only a small, not even marginal impact on human energy CO2 emissions
The human energy CO2 emission is completely insignificant compared to the external thermal influences to which the earth is subjected.
.
All politicians and activists have been warned: the earth, moon, sun and celestial bodies will never listen to capricious rules and legislation imposed by them on the earth’s inhabitants.
Step right up folks
and see the junk science
El Nino Underseas Volcano Nut
Looks only at El Ninos
Doesn’t see their effect is temporary/
Blind to La Ninas
Overlooks the fact that
over the long run
El Ninos and La Ninas offset
so the ENSO cycles have no
long term net temperature effect
Spouts off about underseas volcanoes
with no data on how much heat they release, whether there is enough heat to affect the ocean’s surface or whether there is
a rising, steady or falling trend of heat releases
No data = no science.
This is clueless silly junk science
that makes conservatives look like science deniers.
I am smart enough to know that author Eric Blowhard is clueless, and that science requires data and he has none. I’ve heard the El Nino Underseas Volcano claptrap before from Joe Bastardi and David Wojick.
I read 24 articles this morning and recommended them on my blog, with over 690,000 lifetime page views… because I avoid recommending junk science articles or waste my time reading them
“I am smart enough to know that author Eric Blowhard is clueless”
Please define ‘Blowhard’.
I don’t need to read your definition of ‘clueless’, I think I know what your mean there.
But a good definitive explanation of blowhard, coming from someone as knowledgeable as you, with your background, would really really set a concrete & non-arguable standard.
Wrong. An hypothesis is part of the scientific process. Anthropogenic co2-induced warming is a valid hypothesis. Assuming is is proven (like you often do) is junk science.
You fail to provide measurement data for the ”anthropogenic co2 warming” yet you hysterically demand measurement data for undersea volcano warming and you claim it is junk science without it.
Ireneusz , you post interesting weather patterns but you never explain the implications for us simpletons – you just give tantalising hints . Please explain , thank you .
When the polar vortex is broken up the jet current in the upper troposphere moves toward the pole. The jet current forms highs and lows. The upper loop forms a high, the lower a low. A high so high in the north will pull Arctic air into western Europe. https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
I can confirm that there is plenty of cold and snow in the Colorado mountains. (We can almost always use more snow, however). Over 15,700 vertical feet skied in about 4 hours is enough to prove it to me.
Ireneusz Palmowski
January 7, 2024 12:44 pm
The coldest winter month in the northern hemisphere is ahead, and the polar vortex will be shattered. This is a 10-day forecast.
We have had about 10 years of measurement data from Mars with the surface landers carrying temperature sensors. Other than that you’ve got estimates using microwave sensors to measure brightness as a proxy for temperature in a similar way to NOAA’s climate satellites. So, basically, we’ve got less than 50 years of estimated temperatures and 10 years of measured temperatures for Mars and that’s more than we’ve got for any other planet in the solar system.
Ireneusz Palmowski
January 7, 2024 11:50 pm
The beast from the east reaches France.
Ireneusz Palmowski
January 8, 2024 3:49 am
Snowfall is beginning in England as a result of the “lake effect” as frigid winds from the east blow over the warmer North Sea.
Ireneusz Palmowski
January 8, 2024 7:01 am
America and Europe get ready plenty of fuel. The polar vortex is attacking.
Story tip–Provide more factual stories on “electrification” and blackout threats! (some good, factual comments in the absurd “Double Grid” article.
Even the mentions are scary and dangerous. “Green”and “electification” promoters are naive or intentionally destroying the West.
Provide articles on both distribution and transmission grids that describe how designed and operated. LAY language please.
Issues: grid issues that lead to unavailable electric service will kill, harm people and can result in very long periods without lights, heat, refrigeration, manufacturing, medical, police and fire response.
Courageous experienced, design and operational professionals need to speak up.
ALSO: one reason utilities and actual experts don’t speak publicly is that they don’t want to tell our enemies (inside and out) that the grids are NOT built to withstand terrorist or adversarial actions and protection from sabotage may be impossible to do at every critical point on a grid.
Oz CSIRO sciencey types ship out for Antarctica with eager open minds to see what they can discover in the name of science-
CSIRO vessel embarks on Antarctic trip (msn.com)
I wonder if “Ship Of Fools” Antarctic holiday makers leader Chris Turney got a berth?
(or maybe he’s been down there all this time?)
So, the latest cruise excursions for nerds as paid for by the Australian taxpayer. I’m sure they’ll all have a jolly time, living it up onboard their cruise ship while doing very little work, come back and all the theories they started out with will be mysteriously supported by their ‘research’.
Doubtless they will find what they’re looking for when they measure some old ice and molest the odd penguin between video nights and cocktails.
They are slightly smarter than the last “Ship of Fools.” That group went during the Southern winter and got stuck in the ice–darn global warming!
My basic question for climate catastrophists to explain to me –
in a coupled, non- linear, CHAOTIC system, how does just one bit- player element determine the course of all overall permanent effects of the whole system?
It’s either a coupled, non-linear, CHAOTIC system, or it’s a coupled, linear, ORDERED system?
Surely Shirley.
“in a coupled, non- linear, CHAOTIC system, how does just one bit- player element determine the course of all overall permanent effects of the whole system?”
Easy question
You just need politicians, bureaucrats, teachers and “journalists” repeating the same claptrap scary predictions since 1979.
I would call these two-bit players, rather than one-bit players, and their useful idiot believers are nit-wit players.
I should mention that scientists say climate change will kill your dog, and driving an EV will make male driver’s hair fall out, and women drivers will suddenly want to start smoking Cuban cigars, as a side effect from EMF radiation.
“EMF”, is that a subdivision of the WEF? 😊
They’re all part of WTF.
No. ESG
That’s why I have doubts about the ECS- which implies it’s all about CO2. We need a more complex formula. I know nothing about non-linear chaotic systems. What do they even look like? Most likely CO2 will be part of such a complex formula but it’ll have many other elements and of course any formula now will only be tentative. Trying to derive it will be like the search for the unified field theory or the Drake equation.
“I know nothing about non-linear chaotic systems. What do they even look like?”
Excellent question.
We can skip the formula and “watch” the longwave emitter output in relatively high resolution and near-real-time in one of the same bands of infrared wavelengths for which the static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 is claimed. This is why I composed and posted this video and wrote the description.
So this is what a non-linear chaotic climate system looks like.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Doctrinaire Climate scientists are perfect examples of One Track-minded Linear Thinkers, so to them there are no coupled chaotic systems.
Thanks for this David.
Looks like a lot going on there.
And to think, that’s all being driven by 0.0004% of the atmosphere.
It’s 0.043%, Mr. Let’s strive for accuracy.
At about 0.015% C3 plants and the other life that feeds directly and indirectly on C3 plants starts to die off. At 0.0004% we’d be looking at a nearly lifeless planet. Maybe some tube worms in thermal vents at the bottom of the sea and other exotic species.
You’re right of course Rich.
And I must stop posting before coffee time 🙁
The Drake equation is an unscientific guesstimate – it poses unanswerable questions and inserts random WAG’s to make it look knowledgeable. The only answer to ‘is there life (or intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe?’ is ‘go and look.’
true, be we know a lot more about what’s out there than when the Drake equation was first proposed- back then we had no evidence that there are any other planets- now we know there – everywhere- so the equation is slightly more useful and will only get better- we can look but we can’t go- and for all we know, the aliens are already here
The equation is useless Joseph, and I’m being incredibly fair to Frank Drake who never intended his equation to be used as a method of estimating the chances of life in the universe. He only ever used it as a way of stimulating interest and discussion at the first SETI conference, no more than that.
Yes, of course. I had no thought that it was meant to give any answers- just something think about.
More importantly, if his equation had shown extraterrestrial life to be highly improbable, then money could have been spent on more pressing issues. However, as Joseph has pointed out, in the intervening decades, the probability of life existing elsewhere — based on Drake’s Equation — has increased.
If his equation had been interpreted to show extraterrestrial life to be improbable, then they would have simply played with & tweaked a few of the variable inputs.
The lizard people running the NWO? That I can believe.
Not sure that observational evidence of exoplanets really changes much. Can you think of even a far-fetched hypothesis for how our star would be the only one out of roughly a septillion stars in the visible universe to be formed with planets?
Given observational data from our own planet some form of life is likely to exist out in the universe but intelligent life? Not a chance.
No where? Not a chance. 🙂
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Richard!
Goodness! There HAS TO BE a more intelligent form of life out there.. Earth is certainly lacking.
Sure, it was pretty obvious planets had to be common as dirt- and they are. And for the same reason- life is probably not rare.
Maybe not rare over the life of the universe (could be infinite) but more than 90% of the universe is over a billion light years away. So any hint of life we might be able to detect with our best telescopes is likely to have come and gone more than a billion years ago. Certainly any idea of 2-way communication is ridiculous.
I wonder what someone from say 300 years ago would think about your smart phone. “Oh, that is ridiculous”.
I suggest that they are insect, not lizard. That’s why they are pushing insect diets, to lessen the possibility of local competition developing.
Richard ==. “The Drake equation is an unscientific guesstimate” It doesn’t even live up to that abysmally low standard — it is at best — nonsense.
I would somewhat disagree, the equation itself is reasonable, but pulling the parameters out of thin air is where it drifts into nonsense.
I am glad to see some effort put into finding signs of extraterrestrial life as opposed to extraterrestrial intelligence.
“I would somewhat disagree, the equation itself is reasonable, but pulling the parameters out of thin air is where it drifts into nonsense.”
Are you talking about “climate models “.. ???
No, but pretty much the same applies.
The “equation” is made up out his ass since Dr. Crichton exposed what a pile of crap it is:
Aliens Cause Global Warming
By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
More here LINK
When you think about it carefully, you can see just how sophomoric Michael Crichton was in his arguments as stated in your text asserted to be from his January 17, 2003, lecture at Caltech.
Primarily, Crichton focused on not “knowing the numerical values” of variables, but he overlooked the scientific value of bounding the probabilistic ranges of such variables.
Since Heisenberg developed his Uncertainty Principle and since quantum mechanics found practical applications of great benefit to humans, most scientists now must fundamentally acknowledge that physics at its most fundamental levels is composed of bounding probabilistic estimates of unknowable outcomes of future events.
FaithOnce the door is closed in the Schrödinger cat experiment, the existence of the cat is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.Just curious as to how one human has the hubris to talk about “unanswerable questions” . . . as if the history of advancement of mankind’s knowledge has not already show how sophomoric such an assertion is.
In this regard, please define “life” on Earth . . . is a seed alive for the year or so before it is planted? . . . is a dormant virus alive or dead?
Also, within the Scientific Method, “guesstimates” are often considered to be the equivalent of initial “postulates”, and are quite acceptable as starting points in the evolution of scientific knowledge . . . not that all pan out to be correct.
Read the Drake equation and, I think you’d agree, there is no way we can answer those questions without God-like omniscience.
No. The estimates are probabilities based on observations. One can estimate the height of a typical tree to the nearest order of magnitude. There is no need to actually measure 1,000 trees if only an approximation is necessary. Precision is not always necessary to answer a question.
No Clyde. The estimates are wild guesses. Taking your example, I have exactly one tree and I’m going to just use that one tree to estimate the number of trees on the planet and all of their heights. There is no way we can answer those questions without God-like omniscience. It’s a nonsense.
Hmmm . . . we have (based on scientific observations) only one universe and only one universal cosmic background radiation (centered around a temperature of about 2.7 K).
Therefore, it’s pointless to pursue cosmological questions such as was there a “Big Bang”?, how old/”large” is our universe?, is it open or closed topologically? . . . heck even Fermi was stupid to ask his “Where is everybody?” question. Yeah, right.
A much more straightforward example: we had no examples of television sets until the first one was invented and constructed by humans . . . strange, that, eh?
/sarc
Fortunately, many humans decided to look beyond God in seeking answers to important questions they themselves generated.
“. . . Drake equation . . . .”
Heh! They should add a parameter for stupid liberals. The chances of intelligent life persisting is eliminated with liberals.
Doubts about the ECS of CO2?
Join the crowd
Pick a number,
any number
The ECS being discussed
is the ECS of CO2.
No one knows what it is/
Can’t be measured in the atmosphetre
Too many other variable
can cause global warming.
ECS of CO2 can be estimated in a lab.
Some people look at the warming since 1975 and blame it all on CO2. They estimate a worst case ECS of CO2 from that. Probably about 1.5 degrees C. per CO2x2
The right answer is we don’t know but few people accept the right answer.
The best estimate is from lab spectroscopy with a without a modest water vapor positive feedback. That gets a CO2 ECS estimate in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 degrees C. The range that includes most skeptic scientists, with perhaps +1 degree C. as the most common guess
Let’s assume a +1 degree C. ECS of CO2
Doubling CO2 from 420 to 640ppm
at the current rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year would take 168 years
So we have the average temperature up +1 degree C. (or +1.5) gradually over the next 18 years, with all other climate variables … in this climate guessing exercise.
That’s not going to scare anyone.
And that’s why the IPCC guess +2 .5 to +4.0 degrees C. … and they never mention most of the warming with be TMIN not TMAX.
We do have a reasonable guess of ECS of CO2 supported by Richard Lindzen and William Happer and others. They all say theire is no climate emergency or even a climate problem, I agree with them
I only wish Wokeachusetts wasn’t fanatic regarding the climate. Well, when I read comments posted to the Boston Globe’s online version of the paper- to climate articles, many people seem to be very skeptical- but that skepticism never rises to the surface.
RG you have a couple of typos there. Doubling from 420ppm to what? (Not 640 ppm)
Gradually over the next 168 years (not 18).
Thanks
If you don’t see typos in my comment,
that means I hired a ghostwriter
CO2 from 420ppm to 840ppm in 168 years
at a +2.5ppm a year rise rats
Try not to panic
Based on the speed I repair things around the house, the wife insists that I should start building an ark right now.
The world is supposed to end by 2030, according to that young school girl, and AOC, who used to tend a bar in New York.
Washington attracts bunches of misfits, sex oddities, and ignorami in high places, all under the doddering, senile, in-the-basement chief
When we were cavemen all systems were chaotic. We’ve spent 100,000yrs trying to scope them out. One day…
Drs Wijngaarden & Happer, have published a paper on CO2 and its atmospheric effects. The complex formulae, established from accepted mathematical & physical theory. Have been compared to actual atmospheric measurements. With a high degree of correlation.
Your comment “it’ll have many other elements” is absolutely correct, the problem is, that with so many variables, which are by and large nowhere near understood, the building of a more complex system is impossible.
“the building of a more complex system is impossible”
there we go- yet, they proceed with policies as if they know for sure- “the science is settled” they claim
Mr. ==> With humility, I suggest reading my series on Chaos and Climate starting here. Also try Chaos and Weather.
The interface between Chaos Studies and Weather/Climate are fascinating.
Thanks Kip.
Will do.
Your basic question deserves a most-basic answer:
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
I love that picture heading this thread.
Kinda like in Avatar- and a hike I took back in ’70. 🙂
There is nothing like connecting to the interstellar mycelium while hiking.
You mean to tell me that the they are NOT depicting Tiffany lamps?
Darn!
Tucker Carlson has a recent video on X about the dangers of mRNA technology (as used in the COVID “vaccine”).
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1743405833667371329?s=20
I took the initial shot and booster back in 2021 and a subsequent booster in 2022, but have refused it since then due to the conclusion that the risks exceeded the benefits (if any).
I would be interested in informed opinions on the topic, particularly from those who dispute the premises of the biologist interviewed.
I stopped having the mRNA shots where you did Rich.
I can vouch 1st hand from having immunotherapy how immune systems can be sent haywire, with unforeseen serious detrimental effects.
Everybody’s immune system is different.
A “one-size-fits-all” vaccine to intercede in unique immune systems is uncharted territory.
If we’re all to be treated as labrats we should firstly all be fitted with tails and whiskers.
Just to clarify, every vaccine is a one size fits all. Everyone has a unique immune system, even those who are blood relatives. The purpose of the immune systems of all organisms is to protect the species. If humans didn’t have such diversity then we would be in a genetic bottleneck. One species that is in such a bottleneck is the Tasmanian Devil. Within these animals certain cancers are transmitted between individuals in the population.
Note that most adverse reactions to vaccines like Guillain Barre Syndrome are due to the overreaction of the immune system, in fact the primary cause of GBS is food poisoning.
Ok but the guy in the TC interview (Bret Weinstein) says that the mRNA technology is inherently unsafe because if it’s administered incorrectly and goes directly into the bloodstream, it will affect whichever cells it happens to impinge on rather than being kept localized in muscle tissue. He says the if this happens, some of it will modify heart tissue which will cause the immune system to damage the heart.
Here’s the 1st hand account by an immunologist of how his own cancer went ballistic after receiving his mRNA shots.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/mrna-covid-vaccine-booster-lymphoma-cancer/671308/
If you want even more info (qualified) go to: “who is Dr. Malone” website, or search for “Dr. Cory”, or….. I am somewhat surprised that you were not aware of the MANY problems with the ‘jabs’, prior to that particular TC interview… the info has been ‘out there’ for ages. (I have had no ‘jabs’, for ANY flu year) Age: 88.
Yeah I get that traditional vaccines were one size fits all.
But they weren’t delivered into our immune systems via a programmable messenger product.
That’s where we jumped the shark.
Get enough ‘jabs’, and you are likely to end up with them.
The lipid nanoparticles the RNA is packed in go EVERYWHERE in the body, from brain to testicles. The RNA is a chemically modified so it is difficult to break down. It tells your own cells to make spike proteins, which are the bit of the virus that makes you sick. Its one thing for this to be restricted to your respiratory tract and quite another to have it in your kidneys. Your immune system recognizes a damaged cell and gobbles it up. Problem is that the heart and brain lack the ability to make new cells to compensate. In the linings of your blood vessels the spike laden epithelial cells shed and cause a whole variety of blood clots,
A German pathologist fought the system to do autopsies on suspicious deaths. His slides show what happens in glowing colours. See the last interview with him on RUMBLE
https://rumble.com/v42yfh5-pathologist-arne-burkhardt-final-interview-revealing-the-grave-dangers-of-m.html
I knew about attempts to make a Corona virus vaccine in the ’80s and ’90s. The problem was that when vaccinated mice were infected, the died – “antibody dependent enhancement”. Having done both animal and human pharmacological experiments, there was no way there was time to look for unintended consequences. I therefore passed up the vaccine.
It’s was my understanding that the spike proteins are just a part of the virus. They do not in themselves make you sick but by inducing the immune system to produce antibodies against the proteins they would also disable the whole virus if it were to be present later.
Supposedly injecting into the muscle rather than intravenously, most of the effective ingredients would remain in place. Of course, blood flows throughout the body at least through capillaries, so it seems certain that at least some of the mRNA would escape the injection site. Presumably the assumption was that what little escaped wouldn’t be significant?
I would reason that just as mRNA causes the immune system to attack heart cells that are producing foreign proteins, so would any number of naturally-occurring viruses that might infect heart cells. I don’t know if that is a correct assumption or not. If it is correct, then the harms caused by mRNA should not be as alarming as the video makes out. Obviously we can’t avoid being exposed to many naturally-occurring viruses. The loss of heart cells from those infections doesn’t cause us noticeable harm.
What I understood from the video was that the harmful effects would come if due to negligence, the bolus were injected directly into a vein, causing nearly all of it to pass through the heart. In such a case, the person could be vulnerable to adverse effects until scar tissue replaced the damaged heart cells that might have been affected.
Well my big question is whether the harmful effects continue to be a serious concern years later, or if, as I reasoned, the body deals with such injuries all the time and the serious risk only existed at the point where there may have been a large amount of scar tissue needing to be formed but not yet healed up?
The heart cannot ‘repair’ itself… Scars remain.
Thanks for your post. Good info.
I took the initial jab and one booster. That was when the virus was spreading rapidly, so my (informed) judgement was that on balance that was the thing to do. I did not take any further jabs because when the virus was basically resident in the population my (also informed) judgement was that further jabs for this one were not needed. Two month ago I caught the current variant, was rather grotty for a few days, but up and running after a week with a only a long lingering cough which disappeared after a few weeks.
Having said that, the jab may have caused serious problems for some, but the infection itself was pretty nasty with a lot of people, including a relative of mine, suffering from long covid, having caught the bug very early, before the vaccination was rolled out. I therefore consider the protection the jab may have given me as worthwhile.
The only real reason I accepted it in the first place was to avoid the hassles that I would have had to deal with at work. And once I had taken it, seemingly without ill effect, when my doctor was browbeating me at my annual physical, I didn’t really give it much thought. It was easier just to say ok.
The irony is that I was on a flight from LA to Hartford mid-March 2020 and I got fever and chill symptoms during that flight. Subsequently I lost the sense of smell for about a week. That was when the tests were in short supply. When I called the doctor, I no longer had a fever so they wouldn’t give me a test. I think it’s likely that I had natural immunity anyway.
Listening to the video I linked, it’s pretty disturbing to think that it may not have been so harmless after all. I was hoping someone out there would be able to make the case that it’s nothing to be concerned about at this point.
Look up Dr Shankara Chetty and the work he was doing in South Africa on Covid. He observed that Covid had a 10-day cycle, treated the first 7 days as a flu type virus with antibiotics then from the 8th to 10th days, when the allergic reaction set in, treated it with a tailored anti-hystamine for either heart or lung infection. He treated over 14,000 patients with a 100% survival rate, no deaths, hospitalisations, ventilators or mrna vaccines. Now the South African authorities are questioning him on medical ethics grounds because he wouldn’t administer the mrna vaccine to his patients.
Yes, this goes to the other concern raised in the video I posted. There are attempts to make sure that “next time” nobody can resist. Discussions such as this would be banned if not punished.
As with climate change, it seems that there are multiple players with different motives probably acting independently. Big Pharma presumably is interested in the profit of selling a universally used drug to governments. Rent-seekers within the bureaucracy get kickbacks in various forms. Others in government may have even more nefarious motives going beyond graft to totalitarian control.
For a recent cancer diagnosis, I was put into a study where I got immunotherapy using an mRNA product. My reaction was severe enough that it was stopped after the second infusion. Mine manifested as skin lesions that have remained to this day. I had all the Covid shots after that but don’t know if I have had reactions.
6am thoughts about high level climate and energy facts this blog editor wants to see a lot more often in climate and energy articles:
(1) Climate Change is Not Science
Science requires data
Climate change is only predictions of CAGW (manmade global warming) doom. But CAGW has never happened before, so there are no historical CAGW data. There are never data for the future climate.
Therefore, climate change is really just wild guess, data free predictions of CAGW … that have been wrong since 1979.
(2) Can Government Scientists Be Trusted?
Without considering global temperature data inaccuracy, does anyone here believe reported global warming will ever stop as long as government bureaucrats are in charge of the reporting the statistics predict gloal warming and want their predictions to look good?
(3) Will any government bureaucrat scientists ever admit the 1880 or 1850 average temperature is a very rough wild guess of the Northern Hemisphere average absolute temperature, that could be off by up to +/- 1 degree C.?
(4) Will any government bureaucrat scientists ever admit the climate models predict whatever they are programmed to predict, which is enough global warming to scare people … and computer output is not data?
(5) Will the next article you read on CO2 mention the fact that CO2 at 600ppm to 800ppm improves C3 plant growth from about 10% to 100%, and even helps C4 plants? And the plants also require less water? Based on thousands of scientific experiments.
(6) Will the next article you read on climate change mention that global warming is good news for most people, and only has a small effect on areas where it could be bad news (the tropics) and almost no effect where it could have been dangerous in the long run (Antarctica)?
(7) Will the next article you read criticizing Nut Zero or EVs point out that Nut Zero is a completely unnecessary waste of money, along with EVs? And that less than 1/8 of the world’s population cares about CO2?
(8) Will leftists in Michigan (and other non-tropical climates) ever admit our warmer winters, with a lot less snow since the 1970s, have been good news?
NOTE: These are the same people who claim Covid shots are safe and effective … even after they caught Covid several times after being vaccinated. And there was no 2020 election fraud.
And throw in a leftist joke too, such as:
How many leftists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: 6
One to stand on the ladder holding the LED bulb and four to lift the ladder up and rotate it. The sixth guy gives a tedious speech to passersby on LED bulb efficiency and how it will save the world.
In a word, climate CONJECTURE.
Climate astrology to create a fake CO2 boogeyman that can only be defeated with fascism.
Sounds ridiculous but it is working.
Nice, I just gave you an upvote for the first time!
As for snow, it finally snowed for the first time here in north central Wokachusetts- dam it! Now this geezer has to get out and shovel that sh*t!
Thank you for an upvote. bnice2000 will soon be here to give me an upchuck
I voted on one comment since 1996 because it was so good that it was much better than the article that it was about
I’d write the same comments if I got upvotes or 100 downvotes. I don’t care at all.
I only care that so many people believe a climate disaster is coming after 50 years of hearing those predictions as the actual climate improved from the cold 1970s. It seems that enough propaganda can make people believe anything.
I really care that the FBI has announced they plan to arrest people who merely stood OUTSIDE the Capital building on January 5, 2-21 protesting obvious election fraud. If that is not US fascism, I don’t know what is
DC US Attorney Matthew Graves Says DOJ is Now Going to Target THOUSANDS of Americans Who Were Around the Capitol on Jan 6 – But Did Not Enter the Building (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
They can’t do that. Epps, who the day before & earlier that day, ‘stood around’ (and encouraged trespass) has been so far given a waiver.
There is no way they can spin going after those that stood around and still ignore their Epps. (Unless, off course, Epps colludes with the background guys to take the hit, knowing it will help his lawsuit).
You get different colored snow than we do here in WA. State.
It’s not snow we have to shovel, but its color is similar.
Number 8 is not true for all of Michigan. Where I live the top 10 snow totals for a season are after 1970. Number 1 is 1995 with over 200 inches.
I was talking about the many millions of people who live in southern Michigan. We crossed The Bridge once. You 300,000 Yoopers are part of the Arctic, eh?
They called us fudgies, and trolls, in the UP, which did not sound good. And we were chased by Yoopers wearing Kromers and Choppers swinging their Yooper Scoopers, and then chased by polar bears. We hid in an igloo for safety. Fortunately, they had a case of Widow Maker Black Ale.
UP Winter
Eight months of blizzards, black ice, and temperatures so low your beard will frost over.
UP Summer
The two months between the muddy season and tourist season, when the lake isn’t as cold and the temperatures rise.
Sault Ste. Marie is one of the snowiest places in Michigan. It attracted national media attention in December of 1995 when the annual total snowfall topped 209 inches (5.3 m), after 62 inches (1.6 m) fell during a continuous five-day snowstorm, and 28 inches (710 mm) fell in 24 hours.
So you admit number 8 was wrong.
Since they are leftists, they wouldn’t know about “lefty loosy, righty tighty”, turn the ladder in the wrong direction and never screw in the light bulb.
That would be the case if the question was about muslims. After parading around their god in a clockwise rotation it becomes a habit.
That Chris Skidmore resignation…
Guardian hero
“Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/05/chris-skidmore-resigns-conservative-whip-over-sunaks-oil-and-gas-licence-plan
From Guido Fawkes
“Chris Skidmore has given up the Tory whip over oil and gas licensing. We already knew he was stepping down at the election – now he says he wants to resign as an MP “as soon as possible“. By-election incoming…
UPDATE: For no particular reason, here is a part of Chris’ register of interests:
[ From 3 January 2023 until further notice, Adviser to the Emissions Capture Company (industrial decarbonisation and clean technology), 8 – 10 Hill Street, London W1J 5NG. I receive £80,000 per annum, paid monthly, for providing advice on the global energy transition and decarbonisation. Hours: 160 – 192 hrs per annum ]
That’s between £416-£500 per hour…”
https://order-order.com/2024/01/05/chris-skidmore-resigns-tory-whip/
Skidmore’s seat is being abolished by boundary changes at the next election and he had already decided to quit at that time. So, he’s brought it forward a few months with an added major hissy fit.
The basic annual salary of a Member Of Parliament (MP) in the House of Commons is £86,584 Now he’s down to his decarbonised £80,000 (at least). However will he cope?
Oh well, 10 years later than he should’ve resigned but at least he’s gone. Good riddance.
What is normal, with respect to weather and climate? Where I was born, Eugene, Oregon, the average annual rainfall is about 40 inches. However, looking at annual data at http://www.weather.gov, from 1892 to 2022, the lows (3 times) were 27 inches, and the high (once, but several other 60+ inches) was 65 inches. What is “normal”? OK, 40 inches appear 9 times in the 131 year record, but what is normal? For the CAGW True Believers 40 inches of annual rainfall, in Eugene, Oregon, is normal, and ANYTHING more or less is Climate Change.
“ANYTHING more or less is Climate Change emergency and crisis requiring panic and the expense of a few hundred trillion bucks”
fixed it
I’d suggest that we have all been blessed to live at a time on this planet when “the normal” is pretty dam good.
As to what equates to “normal” rainfall, I’d offer something like this graph of annual rainfall in Oxford England since 1853.
Annual rainfall has always been extremely variable. I am guessing that annual evaporation is a much better indicator of climate change in the Willamette Valley. I haven’t looked, but I am also guessing that it (evaporation) has been much more consistent through the last 50 years than rainfall, reflecting little ‘climate change’.
(and I thought you were Canyonville)
DonM, I grew up, if that’s the right phrase, in Canyonville.
I’m heading up hill to research conditions of snow, will report back later.
I live at the top of a hill. No danger of flooding here! The only danger is the local authority.
I live at the top of a hill. No danger of flooding here! The only danger is the local authority.
Buy a few cannons and keep them loaded.
They’ll protect your still and moonshining business.
Shush Richard, no-one’s supposed to know about that.
God help us while they help themselves to our taxes ‘exploring hi-tech solutions’-
How to solve our looming energy storage crisis? These companies are exploring high-tech solutions (msn.com)
from that link
“To successfully transition the grid, Australia needs to triple its renewable energy output by 2030 and increase it seven-fold by 2050…”
Sure, no problem, 6 years should be enough time to triple green energy! And I see a number of those options claim they’ll just take electricity when its cheap and store it. When it’s cheap???
From an old paper we can see that water vapor feedback really is negative.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2010_ams.pdf
But what if it isn’t a feedback? What if it is a forcing?
When IR emitting gases reach saturation the claimed 3.7 w/m2 warming effect from DWIR disappears. It’s not saturation itself, it’s a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.
When saturation occurs the concentration of the gases radiating energy back towards the surface is high enough that almost all the energy that reaches the surfaces comes from very low in the atmosphere. Most of it within 10 meters or less.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
********This induces evaporative cooling w/o warming.
The evaporation is obvious since the Earth is 80% covered in H2O and IR doesn’t penetrate the surface deeper than the surface skin. IR from these gases will increase the odds of evaporation.
The lack of any warming is because an IR emission event causes the lower atmosphere to cool when the surface warms. Because these two areas are in direct contact, the 2LOT corrects it very quickly. Any energy that doesn’t go into evaporation will be conducted back into the lower atmosphere.
********Once again, we get evaporation without any warming.
What we have is a direct forcing of evaporation at the surface from the IR emitted by either CO2 or methane. The linked paper explains how this cools the atmosphere. This view of science also explains why Christy et al 2016 finds no tropical hot spot and why Miskolczi 2010 found a constant opacity.
Time for the luke-warmers to get on board. The small forcing from CO2 absorption band widening (~3 watts/m2/doubling) is countered by this cooling forcing which appears to be almost identical in strength.
Good points. The description you are giving is largely what I was getting at in this essay posted in 2022 in the quote below. Anything that improves the transfer of energy from the surface to the lower atmosphere promotes the operation of the heat engine. The net result, as a surface temperature response to incremental GHGs? I can’t see how it could ever be differentiated from zero by any means we have available to us.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
“Down lower, the working fluid experiences an incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the atmosphere to the surface. This energy – the static GHG “forcing” – cannot be accumulated at the surface. It is much too easily transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine, to circulate to whatever altitude is needed.”
Agreed. Your posts and those by JCM explain this view from a higher level. I tried to get down to why it works like it does. The basic physics.
I like the videos you post and points you make. I might these two:
You make a good point that it’s not a singular heat engine. As you say, there are countless circulations that emerge (Willis’s “emergent climate phenomena”) and terminate on their own. What an amazing system. And yes, the refrigerator description is apt.
Thanks for the link to that paper.
Whether you are right or wrong, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
This war is not about the fine points of climate science. It is not about science AT ALL! It is about the intentional destruction of western civilization. “Luke-warmers” getting on board your train isn’t going to have the SLIGHTEST impact.
You are not bringing a knife to a gun fight. You are bringing a feather duster to a nuclear exchange.
You can’t fight the entire war at once. You need to hit them at their weak points and make it obvious they are wrong. Every time you do that you are one step closer to victory.
Right now no one is putting up much of a fight on the climate front. Luke warmers give away the high ground. Better to attack the pseudo science where you know they have it wrong.
Don’t be ridiculous. How is it a weak point when they have the bought-and-paid-for climastrology clergy and nearly 100% of the propaganda elite arguing authoritatively that you’re wrong?
There’s no climate emergency whether their faulty ‘science’ is correct or not. Anyone can see that they are exaggerating. That’s where we need to hit them with ridicule.
I agree, that ceding the point that “some warming should be expected” from incremental CO2 was a mistake from the beginning. There never was any good reason to expect to isolate a climate system response for reliable attribution. I have great respect for many who hold a “lukewarm” position, but I will keep trying, as you are, to point out the problems with that view.
from today’s Bah-stin Globe- now the tourists are destroying the Antarctica! 🙂
Antarctica is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. Are tourists making it worse?The number of visitors is soaring with no signs of slowing down
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/05/lifestyle/antarctica-climate-change-tourism/
Antarctica is not warming except for the tiny peninsula from nearby underseas volcanoes and changes in ocean currents.
Most of Antarctica gets colder except ice shelves (pink area on chart below) from more CO2 in the atmosphere because of a permanent temperature inversion.
Few people know that.
That fact explains the lack of warming since the 1970s, except the peninsula, where almost everyone goes because it’s warmer there.
If tourists go there- I doubt it’s in winter. So, one said he heard bubbles of melting ice! OMG, some ice is melting, probably in summer! How horrible! We must panic! And declare an emergency!
I think the fact that he was kayaking in a shallow area of open water laying on top of a layer of ice should have given him a clue that it isn’t always rock solid blocks of ice in Antarctica. I suppose it’s too much to hope for that tourists are intelligent rather than the usual gawping, empty-headed, blank-looked but very rich, morons that usually infest ‘interesting or photogenic’ places but one can live in hope. At least these morons were discouraged from stripping off in their photo’s like they seem to want to do everywhere else.
The NOAA/NSIDC monthly data for Arctic sea ice area (not “extent”) has been updated for December.
Values are in millions of square kilometers.
December values are about the same as in the ’80’s.
There is no “emergency” of any kind, nor is there any reason to think that “warming” or related conditions in the Arctic are driving cold snaps.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/monthly/data/n_icearea.mon.data
Something seems a bit odd when you compare these two graphs of December.
The “extent” graph and the “area” graph correlate quite well after 1988, but not before.
Anyone know why?
1987 and 1988 are strange years for Arctic sea ice. 1987 was touted as having a thickness maximum then thinning sea ice from 1988 onwards. Supposedly compiled from submarine ‘observations’ and model output the thinning was noted in several papers from 1999 to 2003. A cynical person might suggest that from 1988 onwards the climate enthusiasts were using models and satellite data to get the ‘right’ answers.
Pioneering Nuclear Startup Lays Off Nearly Half Its Workforce
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuscale-layoffs-nuclear-power_n_65985ac5e4b075f4cfd24dba
Huff post is an activist rag. I don’t doubt NuScale’s having to lay off some of its workforce but the reason it failed is because it was the wrong financial setup for a pioneering, experimental SMR reactor design. The investors wanted instant profits and the company needed to reinvest in the safety and mass production aspects – neither got what they wanted and there was no possible compromise solution.
Interesting article.
It confirms that there’s no roadblocks with technologies for SMRs, just keeping the cashflow buoyant without the massive taxpayer subsidies that wind & solar have gorged on.
Dunno why Huffpost headlined the article as they did. (yes I do).
The there’s this –
What is quite interesting is that, although China relies heavily on the PWR designs for its existing nuclear power plants, it’s building several different designs around the country. I think they’re evaluating different designs to see what they’ll be using for the next 50+ years as a replacement for their older PWR reactors.
I recently read an article, sorry, no link, where it was stated that NuScale’s self safe design took way more concrete to build that an old style light water reactor, so their costs were way higher than originally projected.
So too high costs, utilities backed out.
So bankruptcy soon?
It’s a good idea but needs sounder long-term investment management behind it; if it can get that then they should be good to go.
No, letting some of your workforce go doesn’t mean bankruptcy, it probably means they’re cutting costs while they work things out. Just have to wait and see.
Well, for many years I keep thinking the “climate change” discussion should be over! (Also, I may sound a bit like a broken record here, but so do all those ignorant alarmists)
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
Do these values really represent the global temperature at that time and most improtantly why is it not discussed in the publication (or any other), the image is from Steve McIntrye at Climate Audit:
Pat Frank nicely shows the consequence of new information for trends calculated with outdated models:
https://i0.wp.com/climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/0image-82.webp?resize=768%2C338&ssl=1
I wonder where is a working quality control, while works like Zeke Hausfather or Gavin Schmidt´s model trend v reality work shows good agreement with reality for older models with completely wrong parameters. Apparently, we have no criteria if climate models are good or not.
In summary, if you focus on proven science,
also, to never forget, here are details of a story where 8 climate scientists suppress a critical paper without a scientific review process in 2023 can be found here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, Michael Mann, Richard Betts, Friederike Otto, Stefan Rahmstorf and Peter Cox
With respect to Mann, here’s hoping that the long delay in Mann vs Stein will allow Stein to show that Mann actually did commit scientific fraud. One example is the recent un-earthing of the data that Mann excluded from his Hockey Stick calculations.
January 16th, 2024. A date to put in your diary (hopefully).
Like I said “the detailed methods as well as meaningfulness of various proxies is questionable”, but that was not the point of my post!
Try to understand that there is really something missing in all these proxy calculations, just like the statisticians McShane and Wyner said, it is a lot worse than just a bad forgery.
Actually, all these reconstructions are pretty meaningless, for example you can see reconstructions of the same period with non-overlapping results!
I have been reading WUWT and other climate related articles for years and believe that the intent of this Net Zero is not to reduce CO2 but is to collapse the western societies. I am increasingly frustrated that “we” are only preaching to ourselves with no to little effect on the left wing. I am worn out.
We live in interesting times.
Reality must prevail. Climate has always changed and always will. The interglacial humans enjoy will end soon enough and human survival in the high latitudes of Northern Hemisphere will become challenging. NutZero cannot occur using wind and solar.
So the question is the damage that will be done before reality wins. I am encouraged by the recent DEFUND Act introduced on December 6 in the US Congress:
The UN is the driving force behind de-industrialising the west. Defunding it would be a step in the right direction. Remove the headquarters from US territory to central Africa or Pacific Islands who demand Climate Ambition from the west.
Trump is firming as the next US President. He would support defunding the UN.
How unsurprising, climate activists don’t know what all EVs look like:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-67893216.amp
Well, from a previous article, they can’t tell the difference between crude oil and vegetable oil so they’ve got no chance here.
DEEP OCEAN VOLCANOS CAUSE PERIODIC GLOBAL WARMING BY EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
By Doctor, Engineer, Eric Blondeel
.
EXCERPT
COP28: the Climate Church in Conclave
.
This year, global warming was never out of the media spotlight. This warming was eagerly highlighted at COP28 in Dubai.
The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, scare-mongered about a “boiling earth”.
COP28 had a gigantic CO2 footprint, with 88,000 registered in the blue zone and 40,000 in the green zone, including the world’s elite, with jet planes
They spouted a pseudo-science, based on subjective climate models for a non-existent problem.
The essential shortcoming of subjective climate models is, they do not capture reality.
In this article, we will delve deeper using measurements and observations.
We want to show, the official CO2 story is already too simplified, and other, much stronger natural forces and factors are determining our Earth’s climate
,
El Niño, an Exceptional Event in Late Summer of 2021
.
At present, one of the most determining factors in climate is El Niño.
El Niño is a recurring phenomenon that causes a sudden increase in temperature.
All El Niños originate at the same fixed “Point Source”, a 9000-meter deep trench, located east of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
That trench has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather, after about a 2-y delay.
As part of an El Niño, a stream of warm water wells up from that point source, departing from there, towards the Peruvian coast.
Any west-to-east trade winds near the equator are reinforced by the periodic El Niños, which receive their driving force (heat) from the active volcanic activity in the 9000-meter deep trench, where several tectonic plates come together and subduct each other.
The image shows a very strong El Niño peaking in late summer of 2023, which caused world atmospheric temperatures to increase, as shown on below UAH satellite image.
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Self-Destruction of the West?
.
This study shows, the existence of the UAH satellite measurements starting in 1979, world temperature increases have been increasing, step-by-step, and are dominantly due to El Niños, and their after effects.
The sun and moon and tectonic plate movement are driving forces of El Niños.
We must adhere to the golden rule of causality of real science: observe, measure and repeat.
In reality, CO2 does not play the slightest role here and shows that the IPCC climate models are based on political pseudo-science and are therefore worthless.
.
To put it into perspective with a simplified calculation on the back of an envelope
From the UAH graph, it can be concluded, an intense El Niño produces a temperature jump across the entire Earth of approximately 0.3°C.
E= K T4 K = 5.670367 x 10^-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Taking the derivative delivers:
dE= 4 K T3 dT = 4 x 5.670367^-8 x 288^3 x 0.3 = 1.625 W/m2
If the Earth were to absorb the associated energy as radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates, this corresponds to a radiation effect of 1.625 W/m².
That is 829 TW for the total earth surface of 510 100 000 km², or an annual energy production of 26,143 EJ (Exajoules). Annual human primary energy production for all uses was estimated at about 557 EJ.
Conclusion
A single, strong El Niño produces a warming effect on the lower layer of the atmosphere 26143/557 = 47 times stronger than the CO2 emissions of the human annual primary energy, plus an El Niño (weak to very strong) can occur, on average, every 3.6 years. See above image.
.
Human thermal influence on Earth’s temperature compares to one of the many active faults or volcanic submarine hot spots (estimated to number 5,000) in the world (of which the El Niño heat source is just one) is immeasurably small.
It is completely self-destructive for the Western world to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions that have only a small, not even marginal impact on human energy CO2 emissions
The human energy CO2 emission is completely insignificant compared to the external thermal influences to which the earth is subjected.
.
All politicians and activists have been warned: the earth, moon, sun and celestial bodies will never listen to capricious rules and legislation imposed by them on the earth’s inhabitants.
Step right up folks
and see the junk science
El Nino Underseas Volcano Nut
Looks only at El Ninos
Doesn’t see their effect is temporary/
Blind to La Ninas
Overlooks the fact that
over the long run
El Ninos and La Ninas offset
so the ENSO cycles have no
long term net temperature effect
Spouts off about underseas volcanoes
with no data on how much heat they release, whether there is enough heat to affect the ocean’s surface or whether there is
a rising, steady or falling trend of heat releases
No data = no science.
This is clueless silly junk science
that makes conservatives look like science deniers.
How could you comment, without reading the article?
Your comments might be so much smarter, if you did,
I am smart enough to know that author Eric Blowhard is clueless, and that science requires data and he has none. I’ve heard the El Nino Underseas Volcano claptrap before from Joe Bastardi and David Wojick.
I read 24 articles this morning and recommended them on my blog, with over 690,000 lifetime page views… because I avoid recommending junk science articles or waste my time reading them
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
“I am smart enough to know that author Eric Blowhard is clueless”
Please define ‘Blowhard’.
I don’t need to read your definition of ‘clueless’, I think I know what your mean there.
But a good definitive explanation of blowhard, coming from someone as knowledgeable as you, with your background, would really really set a concrete & non-arguable standard.
I doubt that last part very much. Richards comments will never be any smarter, even if they wore tuxedo’s.
”No data = no science.”
Wrong. An hypothesis is part of the scientific process. Anthropogenic co2-induced warming is a valid hypothesis. Assuming is is proven (like you often do) is junk science.
Define ”long term”
You fail to provide measurement data for the ”anthropogenic co2 warming” yet you hysterically demand measurement data for undersea volcano warming and you claim it is junk science without it.
Pray Europe and get the fuel ready.
https://i.ibb.co/hC73M9S/hgt300.webp
Ireneusz , you post interesting weather patterns but you never explain the implications for us simpletons – you just give tantalising hints . Please explain , thank you .
When the polar vortex is broken up the jet current in the upper troposphere moves toward the pole. The jet current forms highs and lows. The upper loop forms a high, the lower a low. A high so high in the north will pull Arctic air into western Europe.
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
I can confirm that there is plenty of cold and snow in the Colorado mountains. (We can almost always use more snow, however). Over 15,700 vertical feet skied in about 4 hours is enough to prove it to me.
The coldest winter month in the northern hemisphere is ahead, and the polar vortex will be shattered. This is a 10-day forecast.
“The coldest winter month”… since when, please?
What do we know about the temperature histories (if anything!) of other planets in our solar system?
Most folks ‘in control’ are ignoring temperature histories here on Earth… why bother studying those ‘other planets’?
I thought global warming on Mars was due to all those SUVs Martians were driving.
We have had about 10 years of measurement data from Mars with the surface landers carrying temperature sensors. Other than that you’ve got estimates using microwave sensors to measure brightness as a proxy for temperature in a similar way to NOAA’s climate satellites. So, basically, we’ve got less than 50 years of estimated temperatures and 10 years of measured temperatures for Mars and that’s more than we’ve got for any other planet in the solar system.
The beast from the east reaches France.
Snowfall is beginning in England as a result of the “lake effect” as frigid winds from the east blow over the warmer North Sea.
America and Europe get ready plenty of fuel. The polar vortex is attacking.
Demented self deluding universities beyond redemption are about to face competition for ideas-
‘Absolutely demented’: Dr Jordan Peterson slams ‘self-diluting’ universities (msn.com)
No identifiers presumably-
‘He’s a fake’: Details emerge of late Indigenous scholar’s heritage (msn.com)
Controversy after trans model appointed ‘UK champion’ for UN women (msn.com)
Story tip–Provide more factual stories on “electrification” and blackout threats! (some good, factual comments in the absurd “Double Grid” article.
Even the mentions are scary and dangerous. “Green”and “electification” promoters are naive or intentionally destroying the West.
Provide articles on both distribution and transmission grids that describe how designed and operated. LAY language please.
Issues: grid issues that lead to unavailable electric service will kill, harm people and can result in very long periods without lights, heat, refrigeration, manufacturing, medical, police and fire response.
Courageous experienced, design and operational professionals need to speak up.
ALSO: one reason utilities and actual experts don’t speak publicly is that they don’t want to tell our enemies (inside and out) that the grids are NOT built to withstand terrorist or adversarial actions and protection from sabotage may be impossible to do at every critical point on a grid.
That ship has sailed. SPEAK UP!
(thank you WUWT…keep trying!)