“”The misery of Net Zero is now impossible to ignore. The Port Talbot steelworks in Wales is only its latest casualty. As we learned earlier today, its last two blast furnaces will be removed and over 2,000 jobs will be lost, under plans to ‘decarbonise’ the plant. The transition to new, eco-friendly ‘electric arc furnaces’ will come with other costs, too. It will mean that Britain, once a pioneer in steelmaking, will lose its capacity to produce virgin steel from scratch – the kind of steel we need most for other manufacturing”” https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/19/port-talbot-and-the-human-cost-of-net-zero/
Port Talbot has been given £500 million to go green, effectively paying over 150K for each lost job
In May, 2022 California Governor Newsom issued his famous “get used to permanent drought” decree, and backed it up with a drought resolution and education funding. Pictures of Lake Shasta, the Shasta River behind the Shasta Dam, with water levels way below normal, boats stranded, and boat ramps to nowhere, were in wide circulation amongst the CAGW crowd. In May, 2023, Shasta Lake was full and even running over the top of the dam. Now the lake is down some but back on its way to full again. Interesting to think that Gov Newsom is speculated to be the substitute Democrat nominee for President on standby, if Weekend at Bernies is finalized (Michelle Obama also, but that is another story). Fun fact: the Rainbow Trout introduced into Argentina rivers was from the Shasta River (I personally guarantee they taste delicious).
Yep. It’s gonna be another rainy day here in the Bay Area. The California droughtist crackpots have been pretty quiet of late. Another couple of years of this and the same crowd will have retooled themselves as California floodists, chanting the new and improved recycled turd memes.
For normal people, there’s this. I check this almost every day, along with the Charctic sea ice page:
One of the frauds is the focusing on Arctic sea ice extent which I admit has gone down a little bit. They ignore the Antarctic se ice extent which according to their data, is quite stable.
E. Schaffer
January 21, 2024 3:00 am
Did it ever occur to anyone, that the basic dOLR/dTs climate sensitivity question is nonsense?
I just realized this when going through the respective series on SoD:
As I have already pointed out there is no way to get a 1.8W/m2 in WV feedback from radiative transfer calculations. That fact alone is already contradicting the WV feedback narrative. Apparently this “detail” gets ignored and instead it is all about said dOLR/dTs relation. In words: changes in outgoing longwave radiation relative to changes in surface temperature.
The assumption is for 1K delta in Ts there should be 3.6W/m2 delta in OLR with clear skies (3.3W/m2 with all skies). Both figures are wrong, but that is another story. The observed dOLR is smaller, like 2W/m2 for seasonal or random variations (f.i. el ninos, la ninas) of surface temperature. This is interpreted as a strong positive WV feedback.
In reality however the atmospheric temperature (Ta) just does not follow suit with Ts. That should be no surprise as the heat content of the “climate system” barely changes over the year. In fact it is highest in NH winter (with Earth closest to the sun) and lowest in NH summer. Ts goes the opposite way and is highest in NH summer. Anyway..
We know the annual temperature range (ATR) is much smaller on mountain tops than at low altitudes. This is representing the sluggishness of tropospheric temperatures. Also in high latitude winter you typically have inversions, indicating the same issue.
So of course dOLR/dTs is smaller than expected, but that is because Ta shows less variation than Ts. It has nothing to do with WV feedback. This little misinterpretation seems to be the primary basis for the feedback assumption..
Why is that weather station in the middle of the desert (it is now solar noon there) recording Zero Celsius – it spent the whole night at minus 5 Celsius
(circle blue)
While up north along the coast of the Mediterranean is in the high teens (circle yellow) and down south is in the low 30’s Celsius (circle red)
Remember, “deserts are hot and dry places” yet it recorded (last year) twice the rainfall (1,333mm) that Berlin did.
how did carbon oxide do that
how do sunspots do that
how does the Age of Aquarius do that (even if we in said time, does anyone really know)
how did a few piddling little watts per metre do that,
….watts that are not even absorbed as they come from a cold place (the sky) and impinge a warm place (Earth’s surface)
Peta hon’, it’s more like 1-POINT-333 INCHES per year. (About 33 mm). And deserts are DRY but they are only hot when the sun shines. Frigid at night.
Yes, yes, we know, the climate there has NOTHING to do with Hadley cells. It’s all due to sugar-mongers cutting down the rain forest thousands of years ago.
Deserts are associated with flinging less moisture up into the air. And for that they impose limits on condensation locally aloft and remotely in space-time. What is the difference between a landscape which once absorbed 1m of rainfall annually to one that is pillaged and now absorbs half that? Find that answer in the changing global solar absorbed radiation, global circulation, and heat accumulation. That is the desertification, out of sight and mind, by your classy-grassy lawn mono plantation.
That’s like saying that the desert is dark at night because it reflects less light, instead of it reflecting less light at night because it’s dark.
There’s no water to ‘fling’ into the air because there’s NO RAIN.
And yes, if there were trees and the rain necessary to keep them alive, then there would be more water vapor in the air than there would be with just the rain and no trees. Some of that water vapor does lead to more rain downwind than would otherwise have been the case without the trees, but that’s a minor factor like a feedback effect.
Deserts are DRY. They are dry because of atmospheric circulation where the air that comes into the area is dry, having given up its moisture in tropical thunderstorms. Once trees die off from lack of rain, obviously there is no longer any water vapor added by transpiration.
In terms of the minor feedback factors: is the cloud fraction not totally and exclusively a feedback? Is the observed global warming not exclusively and totally attributable to increasing absorbed solar radiation? By what, 1%? Is the desertification here, there, and everywhere, including and especially below the classy grassy lawn – once moist, soft, biodiverse, and humid nature – now rock hard dry, and aesthetically pleasing – actually resembling Sahara?
JCM,
There are many emergent phenomena in the climate and some of them are quite significant. For example, tropical thunderstorms famously expounded on in these pages by our great autodidact Willis Eschenbach. But none of them are as important as the one factor that drives nearly all of the energy on earth, and that is insolation, the sun.
Without our star, our atmosphere would shrink down, condense, and eventually freeze solid. Thank God, our sun is pretty stable. Combined with those emergent phenomena, we end up with a remarkable homeostatic ark of life sailing through space, called Earth.
Just as cloud cover modulates the solar energy that reaches the surface, so transpiration increases the amount of water vapor downwind of a forest. But cloud cover is emergent from insolation and transpiration is emergent from rainfall.
Nobody should doubt that having lots of organic matter in the soil will retain moisture and improve plant growth. Those of us who push back on Peta’s pet theories (and apparently yours) are not denying any of that. But we are saying that the positive effects are secondary to the primary effect which is that land that receives rainfall will grow forests and land where bone dry air descends will be desiccated.
You may cut down, burn the slash, and then pave over the Amazon or the African jungle, yet there will still be rain because there will still be a tropical ocean heated by good old Sol. Stop maintaining the pavement and nature will reclaim it. Over time there will be no evidence of your folly.
The Sahara was once green when the earth was much warmer. It is likely that humans did impact that environment using fire to capture prey. But the Sahara became a desert when the earth cooled and the inter-tropical convergence zone shifted and the rains ended.
The rain necessarily increases with desertification, as the climate warms with reduced cloud fraction. No amount of Eschenbach’s emergent phenomena will counter that. There is no virtue in paving the Amazon, and it can be certain that hydrological and temperature extremes will follow from that.
That’s just profoundly wrong, backwards causality and counterfactual thinking.
Deserts form when no rain falls for an extended time. The trees die, the grasses burn up, winds blow away the organic topsoil.
When there is no water, temperature rises dramatically at sunrise. No cloud cover forms, by late afternoon it is an oven. Then the sun sets and it cools rapidly until the next sunrise.
if you can artificially introduce water, say by desalination, the deserts will bloom and temperatures moderate, both during the day, and at night.
How do you explain the fact that the Sahara has gone back and forth between being a desert and being a savanna many times over the last few million years?
there is a really quite gaping and profound blind spot among thermodynamic regulation enthusiasts, being that such effects only act to stabilize the LW condition i.e. greenhouse effects. They do not “know” to modulate in the SW. They are thermo-dynamic, that is temperature gradients. Not absolutes.
It is the climate obsessed who have everyone operating within the greenhouse framework and its emergent phenomena, when temperature is free to vary independently of that.
I don’t know who these thermodynamic regulation enthusiasts might be? Or how you link emergent phenomena to a greenhouse framework. Emergent phenomena have essentially nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. They have to do with the physical properties of water. They are essentially negative feedbacks that act to oppose deviation from homeostasis.
Do you agree that there’s no climate emergency? I could care less about any of your other opinions. Believe whatever nonsense you like as long as you vote for people who don’t want to destroy our society chasing an insane theory.
I understand better now where you’re coming from. Your idea is to try to think of any homeostasis effect to explain why things could not change. But there are some logical problems emerging from your starting premise.
For example, while you suggest that paving of vast ecosystems could not change climates because if humans stopped existing at some point the eco-hydrological regime might return back to some free base state. Soil genesis would resume, ecosystems growing back, and the stable hydrological regime resumed.
The issue obviously however is that we will continue to exist, to prosper, and to forever slash back the homeostatic impulses. And so, you must allow room to consider the possibility that we do affect change. As for emergency no I think it’s a media type term.
I’m not saying that paving the Amazon would have no effect, JCM. Far from it! I am confident that such an abomination would greatly impact the climate in that region.
All I said was that the rains would not stop. If there were no trees and the surface were impervious then there would be terrible floods and heat islands and who knows what else. But it would NOT produce a permanent irreversible desert as Peta would have us believe was the fate of the Sahara.
And no, I do not believe that homeostasis is magical. (Maybe just a bit mystical in the amazing properties of water that seem designed to maintain a livable planet).
For example when water freezes it becomes less dense and thus it floats, rather than sinking and freezing all bodies of water from the bottom up, killing all life in it. Instead it crusts the surface insulating it.
Water vapor carries away vast latent heat and it is buoyant in our atmosphere. The hotter the sea surface gets, the more evaporation that cools the surface.
Because of its buoyancy, the water vapor rises high up into the sky until it is cold enough to condense. There it forms clouds that shield the surface from further heating. It virtually limits the sea surface temperature to 30°C.
But if it gets cold, evaporation comes to a crawl. Clouds dissipate, sunlight warms the surface again. Even colder and the surface freezes liberating latent heat and insulating the water below.
Nothing directs these effects. They simply emerge from current conditions. But the end effect is like a thermostat.
Where did you get the crazy notion that Rich is claiming that things don’t change? You are so determined to fit people into whatever boxes you are pushing today, that you don’t even bother to read what they say, much less try to understand it.
We already know water vapor feedback. We’ve been collecting data since 1950 on relative humidity of the atmosphere. You can see it in this paper.
“The NCEP reanalysis data shows that there has been a steady decrease in upper tropospheric RH over the last 40 years as global temperatures have risen (Figure 5). If global warming is occurring it certainly is not occurring in the mode envisioned by the modelers. ”
There’s a reason models don’t use this data. The feedback is negative which would essentially eliminate most if not all of the warming due to CO2 increases.
The relative drying of atmosphere is stabilizing in the LW, but undoubtedly positive the SW owing to cloud fraction. The reality of the mechanisms involved in that should be obvious, but they are refused by all sides. It starts below your feet.
There is extra evaporation at the surface everywhere due to increased DWIR from CO2. This creates more buoyancy which increases convective forces. In the Tropics where convective storms dominate, this leads to the upper atmosphere drying because moisture is driven into higher, colder altitudes. You get more rain and clouds become a little thicker.
This would dry the upper atmosphere both inside and outside the Tropics due to the Hadley circulation even though the amount of convective storms outside the Tropics is low.
While this would seemingly lead to a lower cloud fraction, we should still get more lower atmosphere evaporation and slightly increased frontal lift due to the higher water vapor content. This should reduce the effect of the upper atmosphere drying.
I think the thicker clouds in the tropics would block more SW while the lower upper atmosphere humidity outside the Tropics would produce less clouds which block less SW. They should compensate reasonably well.
Limiting surface moisture results in a net increase of buoyancy by increased sensible heat (hot air) and expansion of the boundary layer depth (see urban heat islands). That boundary layer expansion is associated more lower atmospheric heat storage and reduced cloud fraction.
It is the latent flux why downdrafts are systematically cooler than updrafts, in addition to some degree of turbulent dissipation. Net increase of buoyancy is only by sensible heat, such as the drying and warming of the air aloft by condensation, or unnaturally limiting moisture at the surface. Same.
The evaporation buoyancy being relatively high compared to dry hot air is a physical myth as it’s borne out in reality. The depth of boundary layer tends to be reduced when moisture is uninhibited, by achieving the lifted condensation level (dewpoint saturation) at lower altitudes. There the clouds are lower and we experience a climate down here at the surface which has less dry, less hot, and less buoyant air.
Interesting concept but appears to conflict with the existence of the Hadley circulation.
The Tropics are ~50% of Earth’s surface and mainly oceans. The air is both moist and hot. I still think evaporation will be the dominate characteristic driving convective currents and the Hadley circulation especially during the day time. That is when SW comes into play.
flip side of the coin is the condensation (drying aloft and sensible heating) driving the thermodynamic buoyancy and large scale overturning. practically inseparable from ET. good stuff. From a cloud fraction perspective, however, which dominates climate change, the increasing proportion of surface sensible heat suppresses cloud and increases boundary layer depth (i.e. lower atmosphere heat storage). cheers
There is precedent for this but can’t immediately recall (possibly The Vaxx) : “”Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.
What if climate researchers told us in plain words how they tune the models to produce TOA results that plausibly reproduce observations? And what about clouds, which we know have a huge effect on outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and shortwave (SW) reflection?
“We calibrate AM4.0 TOA radiative fluxes (OLR and SW absorption) toward the observed values primarily through tuning the parameters related to cloud processes.”
“The parameterization of clouds and cloud microphysics in most current GCMs (including AM3 and AM4.0) is still very crude.”
So what?
This means that the model is inherently incapable of diagnosing the climate system response to incremental non-condensing GHGs. How much reliable information is being produced in the model outputs for the various emissions scenarios? NONE. It cannot be otherwise, if one grasps what the tuning implies.
The IPCC is entering a new cycle of assessment, which presumably will result in AR7. Will the projections for various emissions scenarios provide reliable updated guidance for policy? No.
There is one-up a ship in the modeling business, plus a desire to preserve salaries and benefits for the long term.
If you do modeling, you want to be some near the main stream, so when the models are averaged you are pretty close
Case closed, off to the beach
Congratulations for adding the ENSO/SST page to WUWT
That subject had been swept under the rug
.
Hot venting, volcanic flows, and eruptions, on land and under water, which occur world wide, and especially in the Circle of Fire, have been downplayed by the IPCC, which blames everything on CO2.
COP28: the Climate Church in Conclave
.
During 2023, global warming was never out of the mainstream Media spotlight. This warming was eagerly highlighted at COP28 in Dubai.
The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, scare-mongered about a “boiling earth”.
Such pronouncements are relentlessly magnified by the IPCC, associated entities and mainstream Media.
They are colluding to keep people misinformed.
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, yachts, staying at 5-star hotels, etc.
They spouted a pseudo-science, based on subjective air temperature models for a non-existent problem.
The image of the temperature models is a distortion of reality, as seen through the lens of biased observers
The essential shortcoming of the IPCC-sanctioned climate models is, they do not reflect the reality of objective data, such as measured by satellites since 1979.
The divergence between subjective, IPCC-sanctioned models and satellite reality is mind boggling. See image 1
ITCZ shift and extratropical teleconnections drive ENSO response to volcanic eruptions AbstractThe mechanisms through which volcanic eruptions affect the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) state are still controversial. Previous studies have invoked direct radiative forcing, an ocean dynamical thermostat (ODT) mechanism, and shifts of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), among others, to explain the ENSO response to tropical eruptions. Here, these mechanisms are tested using ensemble simulations with an Earth system model in which volcanic aerosols from a Tambora-like eruption are confined either in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. We show that the primary drivers of the ENSO response are the shifts of the ITCZ together with extratropical circulation changes, which affect the tropics; the ODT mechanism does not operate in our simulations. Our study highlights the importance of initial conditions in the ENSO response to tropical volcanic eruptions and provides explanations for the predominance of posteruption El Niño events and for the occasional posteruption La Niña in observations and reconstructions.
The last thing conservatives need is data free theories about underseas volcanoes heat releases and blaming El Ninos for long term global warming trends while ignoring La Ninas.
Junk science theories here do not deserve any more respect than predictions of climate doom from leftists.
Conclusions without data are not science. They do not deserve respect. It’s long past time for these conservative El Nino Volcano Nutters, There is No AGW Nutters, There is No Greenhouse Effect Nutters and 97% of CO2 is Natural Nutters, to be told they are fools. Someone has to do it.
Because they make all conservatives look like fools…even when we present good arguments against CAGW scaremongering.
There is a greenhouse effect
Manmade CO2 adds to it
The results range from neutral to beneficial, depending on where you live.
There is AGW
There is no CAGW
There is no climate emergency
There is no climate problem
Nut Zero is a waste of money
If you think conservatives can stop Nut Zero with bizarre theories such as claiming global warming is really caused by underseas volcanoes and El Ninos, the propaganda battle is lost. But we will give leftists a good laugh.
Your response is like someone looking casually at an early steam engine and remarking that it will never see widespread adoption because it will tear itself apart. That same pundit either missed the speed governor, or if he did see it, didn’t understand the purpose.
You can’t look at a complex, interactive system and single-out part of it and predict the behavior on just that single element. One has to evaluate the system as a whole, considering all the feedbacks. It is not unlike people who want to ban certain potential medicines based on the fact that in large quantities the drug is toxic. They don’t understand that everything can be toxic in sufficient quantities — even water and the trace elements that are essential to all living organisms.
By focusing narrowly on just one aspect of a complex system, you will never understand the system. It is the tradeoffs and compromises in life that make things work.
Thank you for suggesting that I have the wisdom of someone born in the 1800s. However, I’m not quite that old. You, unfortunately, come across as someone who was born yesterday.
Geologic activity produces quite a lot of energy that happens 24/7/365, not just day and night, and has been ongoing for many millions of years
It often comes in big pulses that cause temperature highs in the lower-atmosphere, as shown by the red cones lining up with the highs. See images in article
These energy pulses upset established weather patterns over large areas of the Earth, as did the El Niño that peaked in late 2023, which was augmented by the very large Hunga Tonga eruption, and which originated in the same area of the Pacific Ocean as the El Niño
The IPCC, and affiliated entities, and main stream Media assign all those weather disturbances, in a scare-mongering manner, to CO2, which is off-the-charts absurd, yet the public is so brainwashed, it, like docile sheep, accepts black as white.
There are signs, some people are fighting back against the nonsense, such as farmers in the Netherlands, Germany, France, etc., and truck drivers in Canada.
The end of those woke idiots is near, because they have run out of spending other people’s money.
“The end of those woke idiots is near, because they have run out of spending other people’s money.” Not quite yet, I’m sorry to say… and do not forget the new, 20-40 thousand IRS storm troopers unleashed in the USA. So, more $$$ coming to the waste basket.
Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
H2O molecules are at least 4000/423 = 9.5 times more abundant than CO2 molecules
.
H2O molecules have several broad frequency windows to absorb infrared radiation photons with many frequencies, which causes vibration and rotation, i.e., high frequency off excitement.
.
H2O molecules are more frequently excited than CO2 molecules, because CO2 molecules have several narrow frequency windows to absorb infrared radiation photons with relatively few frequencies, i.e., low frequency of excitement.
.
As a result, only about 8% of the available infrared radiation photons get absorbed by CO2
.
H2O molecules absorb a significant percentage of the remaining 92% of photons, with most of the rest returning to space at the speed of light.
H2O molecules are at least 2 times more prone to excitement than CO2 molecules, regarding absorption of infrared radiation photons
H2O contributes, on average, at least 9.5 x 2 = 19 times more to global warming than CO2.
.
Water vapor plays a huge role in world climates.
Without its existence, the Earth would be at a very uncomfortable -10 C, or worse.
Water can be ice, snow, hail, rain, water vapor, clouds, etc.
.
CO2 ppm is gradually increasing in the lower-atmosphere.
Any warming by CO2 will increase lower-atmosphere temperature, increase evaporation, increase the water vapor warming effect, increase cloud formation.
Countering the increased water vapor and CO2 would require increased tree planting to promote flora growth
.
The variations of the sun’s output of solar energy have cyclic warming and cooling effects.
The volcanic venting and eruptions, on land and ocean floors, add, on average, a steady supply of heat and water vapor. The venting and eruptions are amplified by the moon’s orbit around the earth, which pulls tectonic plates back and forth
See dark areas regarding infra-red absorption in Image 11A
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a dependent variable with the long term perentage correlating with troposphere temperatures
Water vapor does not directly change the climate. Changes requires something else to happen first. Something that maes the troposphere warmer.
‘
Something else could be CO2, SO2, clouds or sunlight reaching earths surface.
The amount if solar energy measured at the top of the atmosphere has not increased since the 1970s so could NOT have caused any of the global warming since 1975
And 100% of geologists will tell you that the amount of energy added to the climate by the earth itself is miniscule compared to the energy added by the sun.
yet another in a long series of science free Don Rickles style insult posts from a lunatic who should be sedated and given a lobotomy in a mental asylum, The first lobotomy did not work.
What he has is a premise. You can call it a claptrap theory if you want to (why do you want to do that?), but that doesn’t mean it is not something that warrants further consideration.
One way of looking at it is that the La Nina is the baseline condition and El Ninos are generated when there is excess heat that needs to be dissipated.
How much snow the Northeast has lost to climate changeA new study shows for the first time that human-driven climate change is responsible for snow loss. Scientists say the Northeast, including New Hampshire, is hurtling towards winters dominated by rain, rather than snow. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/10/metro/how-much-snow-weve-lost-climate-change/
CONCORD, N.H. — Climate change is responsible for the sharp drop in snowpack since the 1980s, according to a new study published in Nature by researchers at Dartmouth.
Snowpack has shrunk significantly in the last 40 years, and that change has been particularly pronounced in the Northeast. For the first time, researchers were ableto attribute that decline to human-driven warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“We were able to really unambiguously identify a human fingerprint on long-term snowpack trends across the Northern Hemisphere,” said Alex Gottlieb, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth and lead author of the paper.
The Merrimack River watershed was among those areas that saw the most pronounced decline, losing more than 40 percent of spring snowpack in the period from 1981 to 2020, as did watersheds around the Connecticut, Hudson, Susquehanna, and Delaware rivers.
Gottlieb said that’s because the region is at what he called a “snow loss cliff.” When the average winter temperature is around 17 degrees Fahrenheit, snow loss starts getting much worse, and an area will lose snow more quickly.
In colder temperatures, there’s a wider margin for fluctuating temperature before it starts to have a noticeable difference on the snow. But at around 17 degrees, small temperature changes have a significant impact on snowpack.
“Snow is really sensitive to small increases in temperature,” said Gottlieb. “On average, even a modest amount of warning can wipe out a really substantial portion of our snowpack.”
One reason it’s been historically difficult to study the impact of warming on snow is that areas hadn’t yet reached that threshold where scientists could start to observe warming temperatures diminishing the snow.
But now, they say, we have.
Once regions reach this snow loss cliff, “snow loss accelerates rapidly,” said Justin Mankin, associate professor of geography at Dartmouth, and a senior author of the paper.
That means once scientists are able to document it, “The damage is done,” he said. “It’s not a warning. It’s an accounting of what already occurred.”
For over a decade, Mankin’s work has focused on water security. This latest study shows that the speed and scope of snow loss could put hundreds of millions of people at risk who depend on snowpack for theirwater supply.
While the Northeast doesn’t face the same water security risks as places in the western United States, Mankin said the shift from snow-dominated to rain-dominated winters could still have an impact on groundwater wells. There are other consequences for New England as well, he said.
He pointed to the winter tourism economy, dependent on snow for time-honored traditions, as well as the timber industry that has historically used frozen ground to safely maneuver heavy machinery.
Scientists are still investigating how this will affect the ecosystem, where less snow can lead to more pests and blight.
Mankin said his research has shifted from looking ahead to looking back and assessing climate impacts that have already occurred. This research is a part of that effort to document the impact of climate change to date.
“We live in a world where global warming has already occurred, and it has impacted things we care about,” he said. Mankin and Gottlieb decided to work on the project when they realized there was a gap in conclusive research about the impact of climate change on snow in a 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Mankin hopes that clearly showing that climate change is responsible for snow loss will spur investments in mitigation and adaptation, and show just how urgent the problem is. He believes the cost of global warming has been systematically underestimated.
“To the extent that we care about the status quo, we are rapidly altering it,” he said.
“the timber industry that has historically used frozen ground to safely maneuver heavy machinery”
As usual, people who comment on forestry NEVER talk to foresters and loggers. Sure, loggers prefer frozen ground for that heavy machinery, but they also prefer snow not too deep. Frozen ground with 6″ of snow is ideal. We have about that much now in Wokeachusetts. They don’t like very deep snow because log skidders will slip and slide on it just like your car, especially on hilly terrain. I’ve had loggers pull off jobs when the snow got more than 3′ deep. But really good loggers learn how to deal with any weather conditions. Modern “feller- bunchers” with tracks (like an army tank) do well on ground not frozen in winter. In winter, even with little snow, and relatively warm temperatures, the ground will freeze at night, then thaw in the day. So, loggers will work in the morning and quit when the ground thaws. They’ll often back drag the trails to smooth them out and remove much of the snow- then what frost does occur will get deeper into the ground.
And, with warmer summers- the ground is often dry enough to work in areas that would otherwise be too wet- even swamps. So, winter logging has become a bit more difficult and summer logging easier. Though loggers have always hated “bad weather”- what they really hate is excessive burro-ocracy and enviros who’d love to end all logging. Currently, here in Wokeachusetts, the state is trying to lock up most of the forests to “save the planet”.
It’s a big machine- like an excavator but designed to cut and remove trees. No more using a chainsaw and risking it falling on you. The first time I saw one on a job it was like seeing Superman as a logger. It can cut and remove timber orders of magnitude faster than a guy with a chainsaw. I’ve attached a photo of one. I made a YouTube video of my first project where the timber buyer used one (back around ’08): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&t=296s
(that was my first video- with a cheap camcorder and zero experience/knowledge of how to do it)
They’ve been around for decades elsewhere in North America but not common in southern New England until maybe 15-20 years ago. A new one goes for about $400K.
““We were able to really unambiguously identify a human fingerprint on long-term snowpack trends across the Northern Hemisphere,” said Alex Gottlieb, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth and lead author of the paper.”
Unambiguously, said the PhD candidate- hoping that his climate lunacy will ensure getting his doctorate and eventually the easy life of tenure.
A Penn state professor is suing the university after being forced to attend CRA seminar in which he was ridiculed for being white, told that White professors were the problem and that the English language is an example of white supremacy.
When he complained to HR, he was written up for bullying.
A judge that was appointed by Obama is letting the case go forward stating that calling racism, anti-racism, doesn’t make it acceptable.
“From the link: “We were able to really unambiguously identify a human fingerprint on long-term snowpack trends across the Northern Hemisphere,” said Alex Gottlieb, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth and lead author of the paper.”
So what they are saying is warming, caused by humans, is the cause of less snow pack. The problem with their theory is they cannot establish that the warming is caused by human beings, or CO2. Correlation is not necessarily causation. They are making unsubstantiated assertions about human beings, CO2, and the snow pack.
What was the snowpack like back in the 1930’s? It, no doubt, was similar to today since the warming was similar back then. That warming was not caused by human beings or CO2.
Translation, if anything has changed, CO2 must be the cause.
Can they prove that CO2 is the cause of the loss of snow? No.
Can they prove that there have been no previous changes in the amount of snow fall? No.
They don’t have to, they are climate scientists.
taxed
January 21, 2024 4:57 am
UK posters keep a eye out for when the MET Office release the data for mean temps for January.
As the higher daytime temps that AWS’s record over that of a glass thermometer during the coming milder spell of weather will be used to “average up” the mean temp for January up to the average or higher.
“”Scientists Are Already Bracing for Record-Breaking Heat in 2024””https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/scientists-are-already-bracing-for-record-breaking-heat-in-2024
I’ve lost count of the number of warnings the MO has been throwing out and nothing happened
Yes my current research on this topic has been a real eye opener.
As its shown that AWS’s can record daytime temps as much as 2.5C higher over the reading from my glass thermometer. Also interestly l have noted that AWS’s nearly always record higher daytime temps then my glass thermometer.
lts because l have learned about the weather the old school way is what lead me to have doubt’s in the first place. Sadly in today’s world most people are totally dependent on AWS’s and the MSM for there weather data. Which allows the state to treat them like mushrooms.
Taxed, the reason it will probably end up average or slightly above, in the CET at least, is because it wasn’t that cold or long lived. It started off incredibly warm, went a bit chilly for a week, then the rest of the month is forecast as mild, up to 15C! Did we get minus teens in the south, or 10 days without the temperature getting above zero? No; But that’s what a cold January looks like.
taxed
January 21, 2024 5:01 am
UK posters keep a eye out for when the MET Office release the data for mean temps for January.
As the higher daytime temps that AWS’s record over that of a glass thermometer during the coming milder spell of weather will be used to “average up” the mean temp for January so it ends up going above average.
I’m thinking of starting a new personal project on the history of the development of Equilibrium Climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (and, of course, its magnitude and progression thereof).
I thought this would be a great forum to ask the following question, to get me started:
Can anyone please point me to the origin of ECS, its initial definition in serious papers, and who were the authors of the initial concept?
I’m pretty certain that it would be too much to ask for it to be phrased as a falsifiable hypothesis.
I’m thinking of it being a long-term side project, and I’ll be happy to give back to this community the data (links, figures, tables, etc.) that I amass where appropriate on threads about ECS.
It’s actually pretty easy to calculate the ECS. Note that the sun’s luminosity varies, over an 11 year period, by about 0.3 W/m2. This is roughly the effect of 15 years of CO2 emissions. Look at the energy imbalance and see the effect this 11 year signal has. Run a fourier transform on the EEI data to pull out the 11 year contribution. If the IPCC is right and the change in downwelling radiation is amplified by about 3, you would see a cycle that is ~1 W/m2. What’s interesting is there is no 11 year cycle in the EEI even though there is an 11 year cycle in downwelling radiation, indicating that the earth’s system suppresses, rather than amplifies, the change in downwelling radiation.
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Who was the scientist who discovered global warming?
The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
What did Eunice Foote discover?
Eunice Newton Foote, who discovered the greenhouse effect and was a pivotal figure in women’s rights movements. They named the fig newton cookie after her.
physicist John Tyndall
Instead of Foote’s story, the historical record holds that, in 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered the warming effect of the sun’s rays on carbon dioxide and water vapor, better known as the greenhouse gas effect. Tyndall made the discovery three years after Foote, and yet he’s received the credit.
Arrhenius couldn’t even get his equations dimensionally correct ! (see equation 4 of his paper)
He did absolutely no experiments of atmospheric CO2, and his conclusions were based on erroneous conjecture.
You still seem extremely confused and ignorant about what was actually “discovered”
ie the radiative properties of CO2, H2O
All else was pure conjecture, which remain unproven.
Radiation only models show the theoretical possibility of CO2 warming, but when it comes to energy movement within the atmosphere radiation is just one of many energy balancing mechanisms.
Balloon data analysis proves that the gas laws are the over-riding control of that energy movement, and CO2 is just another gas in the atmosphere.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
But since you lack any real scientific education, and just “believe” all the brain-washing the AGW has given you over the years, it is understandable you are so gullibly ignorant…
… and such an AGW apostle
“The Arrhenius type greenhouse effect of the CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.”“
You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. If you try hard, I’m sure you will be able to sound intelligent. Just find someone else to give you your opinions.
Basically if you do the reverse of Richard Greene’s trawling of wikipedia pages for propaganda, you’ll be on a better track. Svante Arrhenius corrected his badly wrong first paper with a second – you should read the second paper with or without reading the first. Eunice Newton Foote and John Tyndall were the first two scientists to establish the absorption/emission spectra of CO2 under laboratory conditions but had nothing to do with greenhouse theory which was proposed in 1901 by Nils Gustaf Ekholm. Look at the work of Syukuru Manabe and Richard Wetharald (1967) as well as Jule Charney and James Hansen (1979) for the established Climate Sensitivity calculations.
There are no “established” climate sensitivity to CO2 calculations. You know nothing
In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapor than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide.
The discovery of the greenhouse effect is often attributed to physicist John Tyndall, who carried out a series of experiments in 1859 looking at how heat affected air.
Who was the first scientist to realize the effects of CO2?
Svante Arrhenius
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.
The term greenhouse was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils
Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
Naming the greenhouse effect does not mean discovering the greenhouse effect.
Thanks for the answers so far, but I know all about Arrhenius and have read his carbonic acid paper on numerous occasions (and his follow-ups, and Einstein’s demolition paper). (BTW, I suspect that carbon dioxide got mangled into carbonic acid by the Swedish to English translator in the 1896 paper, but I might be wrong). Also, back then, I don’t think there was a distinction between Transient and Equilibrium CS. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
What I was looking for exactly was the first time ever that the concept of ECS specifically was introduced, and who it was introduced by. Was it IPCC, usual suspects or anyone practicing credible science?
You can now see where I’m going with this but, just because it’s “climate” I don’t want to start with the conclusion and the usual climate science “will it go round in circles” routine. I want to find the exact origin of ECS, it’s original definition, if one exists, and, quite frankly, if ECS even actually exists in reality.
Come on team, a round of beers, for the first commenters to give me a paper with a date that has ECS in it. A round of beers to commenters who can go further back, and so on and so forth …..
I think I already did. 1967 – Manabe and Wetherald. Theirs was the first paper to set out a value for Climate Sensitivity although I’m not sure if Ekholm mentioned anything like it in 1901 when he looks at a greenhouse effect. Honestly, didn’t you follow up on any of those nuggets I gave you or are you waiting with your mouth open to be spoon-fed every little bit? I was expecting more from you, to be honest.
Yeah sorry, I was a bit rushed when I responded earlier and got a bit dyslexic skimming through the answers too quickly but yes, you are also correct that I was indeed asking to be spoon fed a bit. I’ll check out the references for sure. I’m trying to understand the history of whenTCS started getting morphed into ECS. It seems to me that the mathematics of defining, for example, when equilibrium is reached would be beyond the usual suspects, so I’ve always been suspicious of the morph into ECS.
Let me know which bar or pub to send payment for your round of beer !!!
Bnice and Greene do that on pretty much every post, on thread after thread. You get so that you tune most of it out and just challenge Greene’s most egregious propaganda posts.
I only respond with insults AFTER bNasty insults my comment with a zero science insult.
I’m sure you would be happier if I did not respond.
But then I would get insulted with every post by the angry lunatic who hides n the moniker bNasty2000
And now you have demonstrated your poor character by insulting me with no attempt to even try to refute one science related sentence in any comment I left here.
The conservatives here want this to be an anti-government anti-climate consensus echo chamber
Any bizarre theory gets three cheers and everyone sings Kumbaya.
A safety zone.
And when someone upsets your safety zone, you resort to insults. because that’s all you have.
A few years ago, someone was trying to get some traction for his questioning of the accepted value of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks. He finally got a response from the person who produced that value (in the early 1960s, I believe) , and put it into a blog reply. Unfortunately I have no memory of names or location. This is the gist of what I understood:
When we were working on the question, there wasn’t enough computing power in the world to actually calculate the values. There still isn’t. 1.2 C is a first order approximation that only applies at sea level. It is the maximum. Because of several factors (listed in the reply), one of which is the increasing distance between molecules as altitude increases and density decreases, this 1.2 C value varies with altitude and these other factors. However, I gave up trying to get that information acknowledged quite some time ago. “Climate scientists” were only interested in having something to plug into their models. They wanted no distractions with the complexities of reality.
Thank you Andy. I’ve obviously made a very erratic start to my “project” and with hindsight, it’s by trying to beat around the bush, and not explaining my goal well.
Your last two sentences are on-point to what I’m trying to get to – to retrace the scientific history of the development of ECS, such that its inventors have names. Was there a point in time where a committee at a conference, for example, proposed ECS as a new way forward, or was it proposed in a “peer-reviewed” paper, either or both with some kind of definition of what it was? It could then be judged for its likely/certain defects with a more accurate understanding of parameters that weren’t even considered at the time.
The Paris Agreement, for example, would have to have a number, which I think is most probably ECS for their simple a X b = 1.5 degrees, where either a or b is ECS.
I believe you misunderstand the 1.5C figure. It is not about ECS, it is a pulled out of the hat number for an amount of warming above that existing at the time the number was imagined. It is the amount of warming from Paris COP conditions that will supposedly destroy much of the biosphere.
That 1.5 C change is, in principal, independent of any particular amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is just the degree of warming from whatever amount of GHG produces that temperature rise.
“The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
From my orior comment
This was the first known experiment with doubling and halving of CO2
Why is it so important who came up with the name ECS?
In a nutshell, because I think it is possibly fraud. I think the definition is more important in determining that though, and if it was deliberate, since TCS wasn’t doing it for them. They needed a new shiny object, far away in the distant future that coincided with (their) pensions, and could still use “the already baked-into the system” scary line.
I’m already getting a sense that there may not have ever been a definition, so thanks.
To paraphrase my response to AndyHce – was the Paris Agreement’s hard number based on simple maths with one parameter that was neither defined nor known by those scientific legends of science, who are also unknown to the people, for example, paying for the Paris Agreement, etc.
Right Lusername because the military always avoids expensive technology and they could never build and operate a reactor to produce plutonium on their own. And we’d know right away if they had.
<blockquote>With renewables and storage significantly cheaper </blockqute>
You really believe fairy tales like this I am sure.
First off, the conversation only publishes stuff pushed by the lunatic left. (Assuming that isn’t redundant).
Secondly, the government has done nothing of the sort.
1. The authorised indications You state that based on the authorised indications, the vaccines ‘should only be administered to individuals who seek personal protection, and they are not authori sed for the purpose of reducing transmission or infection rates (transmission control)’. You also state that the authorised indication does not align with uses promoted by ‘pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and health professionals’. You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only. The product information for COVID-19 vaccines clearly states that the vaccines are for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19. In addition, EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility.EMA will continue to be transparent about the approved uses of COVID -19 vaccines and identify areas where we need to tackle misconceptions.
Or you could have been one of the many who opted to take hydroxychloroquine and be one of the estimated 17000 who lost their lives because they believed the snake oil salesman of the time. Very sad in the end. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X
At the time, the initial idea behind them was to reduce symptoms and prevent the need for hospitalisations, thus reducing the strain on health services.
Bollocks. The idea was to come up with something…. anything…. that would mean people didn’t have to take the “leftist” vaccines. People were so desperate to convince themselves that covid was a communist plot to overthrow the Trump government they believed and took anything, except the vaccine, which was the one thing that really could help them.
Right. Whatever is going on in your head, kindly keep it there, will you – I was replying to Richard Greene’s post, not yours.
I live in the UK and this is what I understood the mrna vaccines were developed for, to reduce the strain on health services.
Of course I am, that’s how the vaccines work? Have the flu shot every year too. Now Mr “make it up.” Show me one peer reviewed study that backs up your claim that the covid vaccines cause “irreversible mental damage.” I’ll look forward to your answer (which we both know will never come because you … well… “made it up” didn’t you). Or perhaps you read it on some looney site, either way it is bollocks, like 99% of what you write. El Nino anyone?
“There is a greater than expected occurrence of severe neurological adverse events such as cortical sinus venous thrombosis, Bell’s palsy, transverse myelitis, and Guillain–Barré syndromes along with other common effects such as headaches following different kinds of COVID-19 vaccination.”
Are you also going to inform us that ivermectin was never meant for human consumption and was dangerous too? Some of us have actually had prescriptions for that one, but somehow media seemed to think that the extensive research put into its discovery was for veterinary use…
But the told story was save your grand parents and get the vacc, save your friends and get the vacc, get the vacc to stop the spread, get the vacc to break the transmission line.
Who ever was asked, health ministers, official meds and politicians told about the act of solidarity that the vacc were.
That was the way of the lies from the beginning.
Gregory Woods
January 21, 2024 5:47 am
Now, I admit to being an old, white, heterosexual retired ME, but here is my two cents worth about this so-called Global Warming, (or whatever you call it): Correlation and causation. Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any way related to temperature? Is this a syllogism? If ‘A’ then ‘B’? From what I have read, mostly here at WUWT, there is no geological evidence of correlation, let alone causation. Global warming is a scam. Game, set and match.
The eco angst of climate crazies all rests on whether the increase in temperature of the orange line is caused by CO2 and whether it is a problem….graph courtesy of Dr. Lindzen’s article here 1 day ago.
I would like to follow you if I will be able to read only one post typed by your fingers that shows at least one, only one scientific argument.
Unfortunately you haven’t, never ever, you only are able to bully unscientific BS without any serious background and want to be taken as a serious commenter. But you are so faaaar away…
*Global warming is real (First, define ‘Global Warming’; then realize that temperatures have increased (on average) over the last 150 years, but the correlation with atmospheric CO2 is not there.)
*CO2 causes warming by impeding cooling (CO2 retains energy … to a point, then releases said energy. The theory that, in an open system, atmospheric temperature increases relative to atmospheric CO2 concentration may be correct … up to a point, but historic data shows CO2 lagging temperature increases.)
*No one has been harmed (significantly, or provably; and it is not likely that anyone will be harmed. Fires, Sea surface levels, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Rain, Lack of Rain, Etc. are not caused by or even indirectly linked to atmospheric CO2 levels)
*Our planet benefits from more CO2 and warming (From a human perspective, the planet is a better place when it is warmer; and plants grow better (not just faster) when the CO2 concentration is higher)
*You have a lot to learn (is, often as not, a statement made by individuals that think that they are already there, and they already know everything they need to know. Those type of people alienate others, but can’t quite grasp why they are so lonely.)
There is no significant correlation between temperature and CO2.
Hundreds of subscribers.
And you believe that proves something?
Millions of people believe in communism, despite the fact that it has failed every time it has been tried.
There seems to be no obvious correlation between the two at geological time scales.
The Law Dome (Antarctica) ice cores speak to the issue of causation. They appear to show that temperature changes occur about 800 years before CO2 changes.
We should strive for the simplest explanation possible. Millions of pages of statistics won’t convince Alarmists. Will anything? I guess not – little Dickie Green proves that. He is not even literate. No correlation, no causation.
The simple explanation of the changing average temperature since 1940 is increased SO2 emissions after 1940, followed by increased CO2 emissions after 1975 and reduced SO2 emissions after 1980′.
That explanation meets the definition of Occam’s razor
Simplicity does not make an explanation correct but this explanation is a contender, unless you have an anti-government closed mind.
‘That explanation meets the definition of Occam’s razor’
No it doesn’t, since the Earth has been repeatedly warming and cooling over geologic time, including repeated episodes throughout the Holocene.
Yes, Richard, CO2 is a GHG and there is a GHE, but as Clyde pointed out above, there is no evidence form ice cores that it has does anything but lag temperature during the Pleistocene glaciations, nor is there any evidence from ocean cores that it has affected temperatures over the last 65 my+ despite repeated doublings and halvings.
In short, there is no evidence that our emissions of CO2 have had any effect on temperature.
CO2 in the atmosphere is a feedback to changes in ocean temperatures. This a small slow process
CO2 is alsi a forcing that chages surface temperatures by impeding cooling. This is a modest but relatively fast process
Both processes happen at the same time
CO2 emissions are far higher than ocean CO2 outgassing. I fact oceans are net CO2 absorbers even as they wrm because atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly.
The claim the CO2 lags ocean temperatures in the past is true but that is a stupid argument because there were no offsetting manmade CO2 emissions in the 100,000 year CO2 cycles in the Antarctica ice core proxies.
Peak to trough changes in CO2 concentration from the ice cores are consistently about 100 ppm over periods on the order of 41 to 100 ky. (Actually much less, since the warming phase is always substantially much shorter than the cooling phase). The commensurate change in temperatures, which consistently lead CO2, are on the order of 10C. Geologically speaking, these are neither small nor slow changes.
Our supposed anthropogenic warming of the industrial era is estimated at about 1C over a period less than 200 years, during which CO2 also increased by about 100 ppm. If nothing else, this should inform you that there is a huge disconnect between physical reality and the CO2 control know narrative of the alarmists.
Your sulfate hypothesis is only anecdotal, at best. We don’t have measurements going back far enough in time to establish that it is a general process, versus a one-time event. Therefore, Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply. You are essentially creating a special explanation for something that may have a simpler explanation, such as geothermal heating from spreading centers and volcanoes at subduction zones.
The fact that nobody has a solid read on how much SO2 was emitted over that time period is completely lost on you.
Beyond that, the areas where the largest amount of SO2 emitted showed the least cooling is also a problem for the belief that SO2 explains the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.
“Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any way related to temperature?”
As a fellow retired ME, I offer an answer based on the relatively well-understood dynamics of compressible fluids, which is the basis of numerical weather prediction models. One cannot distinguish “warming” from “expansion” and “acceleration” as the IR absorbing power of the clear atmosphere is slightly increased by incremental CO2. Said another way, the climate response of incremental CO2 cannot be isolated for reliable attribution. Neither should one expect heat energy to accumulate to a detectable extent on land or in the oceans from incremental CO2. More here at this Youtube video. Please read the full explanation in the description box.
I should just like to take this opportunity to thank the person or people responsible behind the scenes at WUWT for bringing back the edit function (as well as a few more useful extra’s).
👏👏👏 take a bow, you have more than earned it.
Now lets just see if we can all remember how to use it!
I noticed “Edit” worked again recently.
As I recall from comments and answers back when it stopped working, it took A LOT of time and work behind the scenes to get it fixed.
Whoever put the time and work into it, THANK YOU!!
(I don’t sound so dumb now! 😎
I’m not sure what you mean.
The little “gear” for edit doesn’t show until you hover the cursor over the right spot.
Move it to right of the comment box on the same line as the “reply” icon. (or just above the “link” icon.)
I’m guessing Trump will pick U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina (who endorsed Trump a couple of days ago) or Kristi Noem, the current governor of South Dakota as his running mate. Both would be excellent choices.
It will be interesting to see the New Hampshire vote tomorrow. There are a lot of unaffiliated voters who can vote in the Republican primary. The pundits seem to think those votes will go to Haley, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.
I think Haley will be done after the New Hampshire election. Next up is Nevada where Trump said last night that he was winning by 100 percent, although there are some legal questions about the way Nevada picks its nominee, and Haley is trailing Trump badly in her home State of South Carolina whose voting takes place in about three weeks.
I don’t see how Haley can stay in the race if she loses the next three elections and it looks like she will lose all three.
Haley says controversy surrounds Trump and therefore one shouldn’t vote for him. Haley apparently doesn’t understand that the controversy is around the leader of the Republian Party, not Trump per se.
If Haley were the leader of the Republican Party, then controversy would be surrounding her because that’s the way the Leftwing Media operates. They trash the one they fear the most. Haley or any other Republican would get the same treatment as Trump if they were the leader. Thinking controvery will disappear if Trump disappears is wishful, flawed thinking. Haley won’t be an improvement over Trump in this area.
The only reason they wouldn’t attack Haley so much is because she wouldn’t fight back, the way Trump does, where he hits them back every time they criticize him.
If Haley were to hit back in the same way, the Leftwing Media would stay on her case just like they do Trump.
So do we want a docile Nikki, or do we want one that fights back against the Leftwing Media’s constant lying, which undermines the nation and our society?
I don’t know that Haley would not fight back against the Leftwing Media, but I don’t know that she would, either. She might turn into a George W. Bush, and allow the Leftwing Media to lie about her without pushback. I know what Trump would do in this case, and I like it and want it. Somebody has to beat these radical Democrats over the head and Trump is just the guy to do it.
The Leftwing Media hates Trump because Trump tells the truth about the Radical Left/Democrats. They can’t stand to hear the truth. Which makes sense because the truth makes Radical Democrats look very bad.
And only for last year. How many years has this clown been at it?
Paul Stevens
January 21, 2024 2:07 pm
I am always surprised that more isn’t made of the current receding glaciers and the tree stumps they expose as they shrink. The fact that tree stumps, often with roots going deep into the earth are proof that temperatures must have been equivalent to today’s, and the earth was warm enough to allow roots to penetrate so there could have been no year-round frost layer for the hundreds of years it took for the trees to grow. These tree remnants are sometimes found and heights that they don’t grow at currently. If there was no “Grand Extinction” at the time of the tree’s existence, .why is there any worry about a climate crisis today. No math, computer models or atmospheric measures of CO2 concentrations are necessary to show that life existed and flourished at temperatures equivalent of higher than todays
The media, as is also the case with most so-called intellectuals, is highly incentivized to support narratives / suppress evidence that favors / disfavors the establishment and maintenance of a powerful central government, aka, the ‘State’. Specifically, there’s a huge difference in the lifestyle afforded a ‘journalist’ between hosting a national cable news program to discuss the Federal policy impacts of ‘climate change’ and standing on top of a snow drift with a tape measure on the local 11pm news.
UK coal import history: is it really a potential alternative with secure, diverse supply? Asian markets have taken away several sources, Russia is off limits, and the USA is not a reliable source because of varying export economics and regulatory impediments.
Is there something different about open threads that they don’t send out notifications to subscribers? I did not receive an email notification to this or the previous one.
idbodbi
January 22, 2024 11:30 am
Happened to see from 10 years ago: “An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim.”
Isn’t there a bigger Oopsie?
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
What does “contributing factor” mean to a scientist?
“Contributing Factor. An event or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of an undesired outcome, but if eliminated or modified, would not on its own have prevented the occurrence.”
Here is my drive-by plug for this YouTube fellow, Dr, John Robson. His channel is CDN – Climate Discussion Nexus. I think he is pretty clear in his presentations, and entertaining – he finds the irony.
“”The misery of Net Zero is now impossible to ignore. The Port Talbot steelworks in Wales is only its latest casualty. As we learned earlier today, its last two blast furnaces will be removed and over 2,000 jobs will be lost, under plans to ‘decarbonise’ the plant. The transition to new, eco-friendly ‘electric arc furnaces’ will come with other costs, too. It will mean that Britain, once a pioneer in steelmaking, will lose its capacity to produce virgin steel from scratch – the kind of steel we need most for other manufacturing””
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/19/port-talbot-and-the-human-cost-of-net-zero/
Port Talbot has been given £500 million to go green, effectively paying over 150K for each lost job
Welcome to the Orwellian period
Yes, but think of all those highly-paid green jobs that will replace the 2000 lost jobs
Net Deficit….
Surely there must be two or three gender dysphoria counseling jobs opening up for each of those steelworkers to just slide into?
Aren’t they crying out for wind turbine blade cleaners?
That too
In May, 2022 California Governor Newsom issued his famous “get used to permanent drought” decree, and backed it up with a drought resolution and education funding. Pictures of Lake Shasta, the Shasta River behind the Shasta Dam, with water levels way below normal, boats stranded, and boat ramps to nowhere, were in wide circulation amongst the CAGW crowd. In May, 2023, Shasta Lake was full and even running over the top of the dam. Now the lake is down some but back on its way to full again. Interesting to think that Gov Newsom is speculated to be the substitute Democrat nominee for President on standby, if Weekend at Bernies is finalized (Michelle Obama also, but that is another story). Fun fact: the Rainbow Trout introduced into Argentina rivers was from the Shasta River (I personally guarantee they taste delicious).
Yep. It’s gonna be another rainy day here in the Bay Area. The California droughtist crackpots have been pretty quiet of late. Another couple of years of this and the same crowd will have retooled themselves as California floodists, chanting the new and improved recycled turd memes.
For normal people, there’s this. I check this almost every day, along with the Charctic sea ice page:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And the sea ice frauds are still using the 1981 to 2020 “30 year climate” for comparison.
NSIDC are frauds.
One of the frauds is the focusing on Arctic sea ice extent which I admit has gone down a little bit. They ignore the Antarctic se ice extent which according to their data, is quite stable.
Did it ever occur to anyone, that the basic dOLR/dTs climate sensitivity question is nonsense?
I just realized this when going through the respective series on SoD:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/clouds-and-water-vapor/
As I have already pointed out there is no way to get a 1.8W/m2 in WV feedback from radiative transfer calculations. That fact alone is already contradicting the WV feedback narrative. Apparently this “detail” gets ignored and instead it is all about said dOLR/dTs relation. In words: changes in outgoing longwave radiation relative to changes in surface temperature.
The assumption is for 1K delta in Ts there should be 3.6W/m2 delta in OLR with clear skies (3.3W/m2 with all skies). Both figures are wrong, but that is another story. The observed dOLR is smaller, like 2W/m2 for seasonal or random variations (f.i. el ninos, la ninas) of surface temperature. This is interpreted as a strong positive WV feedback.
In reality however the atmospheric temperature (Ta) just does not follow suit with Ts. That should be no surprise as the heat content of the “climate system” barely changes over the year. In fact it is highest in NH winter (with Earth closest to the sun) and lowest in NH summer. Ts goes the opposite way and is highest in NH summer. Anyway..
We know the annual temperature range (ATR) is much smaller on mountain tops than at low altitudes. This is representing the sluggishness of tropospheric temperatures. Also in high latitude winter you typically have inversions, indicating the same issue.
So of course dOLR/dTs is smaller than expected, but that is because Ta shows less variation than Ts. It has nothing to do with WV feedback. This little misinterpretation seems to be the primary basis for the feedback assumption..
Fantastic – now explain this.
Why is that weather station in the middle of the desert (it is now solar noon there) recording Zero Celsius – it spent the whole night at minus 5 Celsius
(circle blue)
While up north along the coast of the Mediterranean is in the high teens (circle yellow) and down south is in the low 30’s Celsius (circle red)
Remember, “deserts are hot and dry places” yet it recorded (last year) twice the rainfall (1,333mm) that Berlin did.
how did carbon oxide do that
how do sunspots do that
how does the Age of Aquarius do that (even if we in said time, does anyone really know)
how did a few piddling little watts per metre do that,
….watts that are not even absorbed as they come from a cold place (the sky) and impinge a warm place (Earth’s surface)
Hard to tell on that map, but this is probably the reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibesti_Mountains
Peta hon’, it’s more like 1-POINT-333 INCHES per year. (About 33 mm). And deserts are DRY but they are only hot when the sun shines. Frigid at night.
Yes, yes, we know, the climate there has NOTHING to do with Hadley cells. It’s all due to sugar-mongers cutting down the rain forest thousands of years ago.
https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/chad#faya_largeau
Deserts are associated with flinging less moisture up into the air. And for that they impose limits on condensation locally aloft and remotely in space-time. What is the difference between a landscape which once absorbed 1m of rainfall annually to one that is pillaged and now absorbs half that? Find that answer in the changing global solar absorbed radiation, global circulation, and heat accumulation. That is the desertification, out of sight and mind, by your classy-grassy lawn mono plantation.
That’s like saying that the desert is dark at night because it reflects less light, instead of it reflecting less light at night because it’s dark.
There’s no water to ‘fling’ into the air because there’s NO RAIN.
And yes, if there were trees and the rain necessary to keep them alive, then there would be more water vapor in the air than there would be with just the rain and no trees. Some of that water vapor does lead to more rain downwind than would otherwise have been the case without the trees, but that’s a minor factor like a feedback effect.
Deserts are DRY. They are dry because of atmospheric circulation where the air that comes into the area is dry, having given up its moisture in tropical thunderstorms. Once trees die off from lack of rain, obviously there is no longer any water vapor added by transpiration.
In terms of the minor feedback factors: is the cloud fraction not totally and exclusively a feedback? Is the observed global warming not exclusively and totally attributable to increasing absorbed solar radiation? By what, 1%? Is the desertification here, there, and everywhere, including and especially below the classy grassy lawn – once moist, soft, biodiverse, and humid nature – now rock hard dry, and aesthetically pleasing – actually resembling Sahara?
JCM,
There are many emergent phenomena in the climate and some of them are quite significant. For example, tropical thunderstorms famously expounded on in these pages by our great autodidact Willis Eschenbach. But none of them are as important as the one factor that drives nearly all of the energy on earth, and that is insolation, the sun.
Without our star, our atmosphere would shrink down, condense, and eventually freeze solid. Thank God, our sun is pretty stable. Combined with those emergent phenomena, we end up with a remarkable homeostatic ark of life sailing through space, called Earth.
Have you ever seen what happens in the desert after a period of rain? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_bloom
Just as cloud cover modulates the solar energy that reaches the surface, so transpiration increases the amount of water vapor downwind of a forest. But cloud cover is emergent from insolation and transpiration is emergent from rainfall.
Nobody should doubt that having lots of organic matter in the soil will retain moisture and improve plant growth. Those of us who push back on Peta’s pet theories (and apparently yours) are not denying any of that. But we are saying that the positive effects are secondary to the primary effect which is that land that receives rainfall will grow forests and land where bone dry air descends will be desiccated.
You may cut down, burn the slash, and then pave over the Amazon or the African jungle, yet there will still be rain because there will still be a tropical ocean heated by good old Sol. Stop maintaining the pavement and nature will reclaim it. Over time there will be no evidence of your folly.
The Sahara was once green when the earth was much warmer. It is likely that humans did impact that environment using fire to capture prey. But the Sahara became a desert when the earth cooled and the inter-tropical convergence zone shifted and the rains ended.
The rain necessarily increases with desertification, as the climate warms with reduced cloud fraction. No amount of Eschenbach’s emergent phenomena will counter that. There is no virtue in paving the Amazon, and it can be certain that hydrological and temperature extremes will follow from that.
That’s just profoundly wrong, backwards causality and counterfactual thinking.
Deserts form when no rain falls for an extended time. The trees die, the grasses burn up, winds blow away the organic topsoil.
When there is no water, temperature rises dramatically at sunrise. No cloud cover forms, by late afternoon it is an oven. Then the sun sets and it cools rapidly until the next sunrise.
if you can artificially introduce water, say by desalination, the deserts will bloom and temperatures moderate, both during the day, and at night.
How do you explain the fact that the Sahara has gone back and forth between being a desert and being a savanna many times over the last few million years?
there is a really quite gaping and profound blind spot among thermodynamic regulation enthusiasts, being that such effects only act to stabilize the LW condition i.e. greenhouse effects. They do not “know” to modulate in the SW. They are thermo-dynamic, that is temperature gradients. Not absolutes.
It is the climate obsessed who have everyone operating within the greenhouse framework and its emergent phenomena, when temperature is free to vary independently of that.
I don’t know who these thermodynamic regulation enthusiasts might be? Or how you link emergent phenomena to a greenhouse framework. Emergent phenomena have essentially nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. They have to do with the physical properties of water. They are essentially negative feedbacks that act to oppose deviation from homeostasis.
can’t win, eh? a magic homeostasis decoupled from having paved the whole lot. carry on then
Do you agree that there’s no climate emergency? I could care less about any of your other opinions. Believe whatever nonsense you like as long as you vote for people who don’t want to destroy our society chasing an insane theory.
I understand better now where you’re coming from. Your idea is to try to think of any homeostasis effect to explain why things could not change. But there are some logical problems emerging from your starting premise.
For example, while you suggest that paving of vast ecosystems could not change climates because if humans stopped existing at some point the eco-hydrological regime might return back to some free base state. Soil genesis would resume, ecosystems growing back, and the stable hydrological regime resumed.
The issue obviously however is that we will continue to exist, to prosper, and to forever slash back the homeostatic impulses. And so, you must allow room to consider the possibility that we do affect change. As for emergency no I think it’s a media type term.
I’m not saying that paving the Amazon would have no effect, JCM. Far from it! I am confident that such an abomination would greatly impact the climate in that region.
All I said was that the rains would not stop. If there were no trees and the surface were impervious then there would be terrible floods and heat islands and who knows what else. But it would NOT produce a permanent irreversible desert as Peta would have us believe was the fate of the Sahara.
And no, I do not believe that homeostasis is magical. (Maybe just a bit mystical in the amazing properties of water that seem designed to maintain a livable planet).
For example when water freezes it becomes less dense and thus it floats, rather than sinking and freezing all bodies of water from the bottom up, killing all life in it. Instead it crusts the surface insulating it.
Water vapor carries away vast latent heat and it is buoyant in our atmosphere. The hotter the sea surface gets, the more evaporation that cools the surface.
Because of its buoyancy, the water vapor rises high up into the sky until it is cold enough to condense. There it forms clouds that shield the surface from further heating. It virtually limits the sea surface temperature to 30°C.
But if it gets cold, evaporation comes to a crawl. Clouds dissipate, sunlight warms the surface again. Even colder and the surface freezes liberating latent heat and insulating the water below.
Nothing directs these effects. They simply emerge from current conditions. But the end effect is like a thermostat.
Where did you get the crazy notion that Rich is claiming that things don’t change? You are so determined to fit people into whatever boxes you are pushing today, that you don’t even bother to read what they say, much less try to understand it.
You dismiss what you don’t understand as being magic thinking?
No wonder your thinking is so confused.
You do realize that what you wrote makes no sense?
It can and does rain in the deserts of the world.
When rain patterns shift again, the deserts will bloom again.
Plus, obviously you’re misinformed about the state of my lawn. 😝
Antarctica is a desert.
Deserts are measured by the rainfall.
Are going to try and claim that deserts are caused by deforestation again?
We already know water vapor feedback. We’ve been collecting data since 1950 on relative humidity of the atmosphere. You can see it in this paper.
“The NCEP reanalysis data shows that there has been a steady decrease in upper tropospheric RH over the last 40 years as global temperatures have risen (Figure 5). If global warming is occurring it certainly is not occurring in the mode envisioned by the modelers. ”
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2010_ams.pdf
There’s a reason models don’t use this data. The feedback is negative which would essentially eliminate most if not all of the warming due to CO2 increases.
The relative drying of atmosphere is stabilizing in the LW, but undoubtedly positive the SW owing to cloud fraction. The reality of the mechanisms involved in that should be obvious, but they are refused by all sides. It starts below your feet.
I think it is more complicated.
There is extra evaporation at the surface everywhere due to increased DWIR from CO2. This creates more buoyancy which increases convective forces. In the Tropics where convective storms dominate, this leads to the upper atmosphere drying because moisture is driven into higher, colder altitudes. You get more rain and clouds become a little thicker.
This would dry the upper atmosphere both inside and outside the Tropics due to the Hadley circulation even though the amount of convective storms outside the Tropics is low.
While this would seemingly lead to a lower cloud fraction, we should still get more lower atmosphere evaporation and slightly increased frontal lift due to the higher water vapor content. This should reduce the effect of the upper atmosphere drying.
I think the thicker clouds in the tropics would block more SW while the lower upper atmosphere humidity outside the Tropics would produce less clouds which block less SW. They should compensate reasonably well.
Limiting surface moisture results in a net increase of buoyancy by increased sensible heat (hot air) and expansion of the boundary layer depth (see urban heat islands). That boundary layer expansion is associated more lower atmospheric heat storage and reduced cloud fraction.
It is the latent flux why downdrafts are systematically cooler than updrafts, in addition to some degree of turbulent dissipation. Net increase of buoyancy is only by sensible heat, such as the drying and warming of the air aloft by condensation, or unnaturally limiting moisture at the surface. Same.
The evaporation buoyancy being relatively high compared to dry hot air is a physical myth as it’s borne out in reality. The depth of boundary layer tends to be reduced when moisture is uninhibited, by achieving the lifted condensation level (dewpoint saturation) at lower altitudes. There the clouds are lower and we experience a climate down here at the surface which has less dry, less hot, and less buoyant air.
Interesting concept but appears to conflict with the existence of the Hadley circulation.
The Tropics are ~50% of Earth’s surface and mainly oceans. The air is both moist and hot. I still think evaporation will be the dominate characteristic driving convective currents and the Hadley circulation especially during the day time. That is when SW comes into play.
flip side of the coin is the condensation (drying aloft and sensible heating) driving the thermodynamic buoyancy and large scale overturning. practically inseparable from ET. good stuff. From a cloud fraction perspective, however, which dominates climate change, the increasing proportion of surface sensible heat suppresses cloud and increases boundary layer depth (i.e. lower atmosphere heat storage). cheers
There is precedent for this but can’t immediately recall (possibly The Vaxx) : “”Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/20/climate-change-wind-farms-royal-society-green-energy/
The Climate Change Committee also never did a cost – benefit analysis for net zero as it “is too complicated” and “not a sensible approach”
In other words, since they are trying to save the planet, it doesn’t matter if a few of the little people have to suffer, or even die.
What if climate researchers told us in plain words how they tune the models to produce TOA results that plausibly reproduce observations? And what about clouds, which we know have a huge effect on outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and shortwave (SW) reflection?
The quotes below are from “The GFDL Global Atmosphere and Land Model AM4.0/LM4.0: 2. Model Description, Sensitivity Studies, and Tuning Strategies”
M. Zhao, et al 2018b
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017MS001209
“We calibrate AM4.0 TOA radiative fluxes (OLR and SW absorption) toward the observed values primarily through tuning the parameters related to cloud processes.”
“The parameterization of clouds and cloud microphysics in most current GCMs (including AM3 and AM4.0) is still very crude.”
So what?
This means that the model is inherently incapable of diagnosing the climate system response to incremental non-condensing GHGs. How much reliable information is being produced in the model outputs for the various emissions scenarios? NONE. It cannot be otherwise, if one grasps what the tuning implies.
The IPCC is entering a new cycle of assessment, which presumably will result in AR7. Will the projections for various emissions scenarios provide reliable updated guidance for policy? No.
There is one-up a ship in the modeling business, plus a desire to preserve salaries and benefits for the long term.
If you do modeling, you want to be some near the main stream, so when the models are averaged you are pretty close
Case closed, off to the beach
Sorry, is that ‘one upmanship?’
Again, apologies, but it was difficult to make out.
Sounds more like “going along with the herd”.
Congratulations for adding the ENSO/SST page to WUWT
That subject had been swept under the rug
.
Hot venting, volcanic flows, and eruptions, on land and under water, which occur world wide, and especially in the Circle of Fire, have been downplayed by the IPCC, which blames everything on CO2.
This article helps clear up confusion
DEEP OCEAN VOLCANOS CAUSE INCREASED GLOBAL WARMING BY PERIODIC EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
EXCERPT
COP28: the Climate Church in Conclave
.
During 2023, global warming was never out of the mainstream Media spotlight. This warming was eagerly highlighted at COP28 in Dubai.
The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, scare-mongered about a “boiling earth”.
Such pronouncements are relentlessly magnified by the IPCC, associated entities and mainstream Media.
They are colluding to keep people misinformed.
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, yachts, staying at 5-star hotels, etc.
They spouted a pseudo-science, based on subjective air temperature models for a non-existent problem.
The image of the temperature models is a distortion of reality, as seen through the lens of biased observers
The essential shortcoming of the IPCC-sanctioned climate models is, they do not reflect the reality of objective data, such as measured by satellites since 1979.
The divergence between subjective, IPCC-sanctioned models and satellite reality is mind boggling. See image 1
Open URL to read more….
DEEP OCEAN VOLCANOS CAUSE INCREASED GLOBAL WARMING BY PERIODIC EL NINOs
Give us a break, Volcano El Nino Nutter.
You have no data on global annual average heat releases from underseas volcanoes
You look at El Ninos and ignore La Ninas. They offset each other over long periods of time and are temperature neutral.
You have a claptrap theory not backed by data. While science requires data for conclusions. You have nothing but a climate fantasy.
It wasn’t a WUWT idea 😀
ITCZ shift and extratropical teleconnections drive ENSO response to volcanic eruptions
AbstractThe mechanisms through which volcanic eruptions affect the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) state are still controversial. Previous studies have invoked direct radiative forcing, an ocean dynamical thermostat (ODT) mechanism, and shifts of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), among others, to explain the ENSO response to tropical eruptions. Here, these mechanisms are tested using ensemble simulations with an Earth system model in which volcanic aerosols from a Tambora-like eruption are confined either in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. We show that the primary drivers of the ENSO response are the shifts of the ITCZ together with extratropical circulation changes, which affect the tropics; the ODT mechanism does not operate in our simulations. Our study highlights the importance of initial conditions in the ENSO response to tropical volcanic eruptions and provides explanations for the predominance of posteruption El Niño events and for the occasional posteruption La Niña in observations and reconstructions.
No measurements
No data
No science
We are all aware but we (mostly) tolerate you anyway.
Also:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103991
You have nothing but a climate fantasy.
You have not even that 😀
No science, no facts, no truth.
But bullying all the time.
The last thing conservatives need is data free theories about underseas volcanoes heat releases and blaming El Ninos for long term global warming trends while ignoring La Ninas.
Junk science theories here do not deserve any more respect than predictions of climate doom from leftists.
Conclusions without data are not science. They do not deserve respect. It’s long past time for these conservative El Nino Volcano Nutters, There is No AGW Nutters, There is No Greenhouse Effect Nutters and 97% of CO2 is Natural Nutters, to be told they are fools. Someone has to do it.
Because they make all conservatives look like fools…even when we present good arguments against CAGW scaremongering.
There is a greenhouse effect
Manmade CO2 adds to it
The results range from neutral to beneficial, depending on where you live.
There is AGW
There is no CAGW
There is no climate emergency
There is no climate problem
Nut Zero is a waste of money
If you think conservatives can stop Nut Zero with bizarre theories such as claiming global warming is really caused by underseas volcanoes and El Ninos, the propaganda battle is lost. But we will give leftists a good laugh.
Last thing reality needs is a gormless, arrogant, scientifically-illiterate fool that..
Denies El Nino effects,
Denies solar effects,
Denies Urban warming
Still “believes” in the fallacy of CO2 warming the atmosphere, despite not having a single piece of evidence.
Who makes up his conclusions based on his “feeling”, unbacked by any science.
But that is who and what dickie-greenie is.
Basically just a used AGW sock-puppet. !
Yu are a useful idiot for the CO2 Does Nothing Nutter crowd.
You repeatedly lie abouy my positions because honesty is not something you value
I do not deny El Nino effects on the climate
You are a liar
I do not deny La Nina effects on the climate either, as El Nino Nutters do
I do not deny UHI effects
You are a liar
I do not deny solar effects on the climate
You are a liar.
I do not base any climate opinions on feelings
You are a liar
I do not claiim CO2 causes global warming with no evidence
You are a liar
With all your practice lying, about my positions, you could get a job in the Biden administration … perhaps as a bathroom attendent,
Poor dickie, you really don’t like been shown how WRONG you are, do you..
But what a turnaround !!!
Great that you now accept the ONLY warming in the satellite temperature comes from El Ninos.
toddler step, dickie.. all we can expect..
Also now admitting UH effect on surface data.
Another toddler step.
Even accepting that El Ninos are charged by solar energy…
…. that’s three little toddler steps.. well done.
Still no evidence of CO2 warming….
You are a liar when you say you have evidence..
…. because you know that you don’t..
Do you still heat your water from above?.. or are you going to change your wrongness about seismic activity as well. ?
Wow, somebody pissed in RG’s cheerios this morning.
He’s even more erratic and irascible than usual.
Tell me, do you check for conservatives under your bed each night before going to sleep?
How about diluting your bile with some data that supports your assertions?
The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 180’s0 and the warming effect of CO2 was too. You must have been sleeping.
Almost 100% of climate scientists who have ever lived on our planet believe there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions are part of it.
Including Richard Lindzen
and William Happer, sciece Ph.D.’s.
If you won’t listen to any pf them, and think you know better, you certainly won’t listen to me. A closed mn will never change.
WRONG, what was discovered in the 1800s is that CO2 is a radiatively active gas.
There is still no empirical scientific evidence that enhanced levels in the atmosphere cause warming.
If there was, you might be able to find it and produce it.
But you never have.. you remain 150% empty
And now you attempt the AGW.scammers “consensus” meme.
You really are far worse than a lukewarmer..
You are a died-in-the-wool AGW apostle. !
Your mind is EMPTY, and closed…. all we get from you are the crazy echos..
The angry old fool launches yet another science free BURST of verbal flatulence.
Almost 100% of climate scientific studies support the greenhouse effect and CO2 part in it
Hire someone to read one to you.
So.. STILL unable to produce a single bit of evidence.
Just pointless bluster !!
Pity you don’t have any scientific education…
.. you might understand the difference between a conjecture, a hypothesis…
… and ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
In his mind, he’s right, that means he doesn’t have to produce any evidence.
RG, are you trying to make a mockery of yourself? If so, you are succeeding.
Your response is like someone looking casually at an early steam engine and remarking that it will never see widespread adoption because it will tear itself apart. That same pundit either missed the speed governor, or if he did see it, didn’t understand the purpose.
You can’t look at a complex, interactive system and single-out part of it and predict the behavior on just that single element. One has to evaluate the system as a whole, considering all the feedbacks. It is not unlike people who want to ban certain potential medicines based on the fact that in large quantities the drug is toxic. They don’t understand that everything can be toxic in sufficient quantities — even water and the trace elements that are essential to all living organisms.
By focusing narrowly on just one aspect of a complex system, you will never understand the system. It is the tradeoffs and compromises in life that make things work.
Thank you for suggesting that I have the wisdom of someone born in the 1800s. However, I’m not quite that old. You, unfortunately, come across as someone who was born yesterday.
I do not focus on one topic
Neither do I arbitrarily eliminate CO2 as a cause of global warming.
That is called an open mind
The CO2 Does Nothing Nutters here have closed minds
Or for bNasty2000, no mind
My list of potential causes of climate change, first published in 2016
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation, ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol and SO2 emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, clear cutting forests, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Random variations and feedbacks of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
Errors in temperature measurements could create an artificial trend
Richard,
Almost 100% of all scientists will acknowlege that the geologic activity adds energy to the surface system. (The earth is not a sink, it is a source).
Geologic activity produces quite a lot of energy that happens 24/7/365, not just day and night, and has been ongoing for many millions of years
It often comes in big pulses that cause temperature highs in the lower-atmosphere, as shown by the red cones lining up with the highs. See images in article
These energy pulses upset established weather patterns over large areas of the Earth, as did the El Niño that peaked in late 2023, which was augmented by the very large Hunga Tonga eruption, and which originated in the same area of the Pacific Ocean as the El Niño
The IPCC, and affiliated entities, and main stream Media assign all those weather disturbances, in a scare-mongering manner, to CO2, which is off-the-charts absurd, yet the public is so brainwashed, it, like docile sheep, accepts black as white.
There are signs, some people are fighting back against the nonsense, such as farmers in the Netherlands, Germany, France, etc., and truck drivers in Canada.
The end of those woke idiots is near, because they have run out of spending other people’s money.
“The end of those woke idiots is near, because they have run out of spending other people’s money.” Not quite yet, I’m sorry to say… and do not forget the new, 20-40 thousand IRS storm troopers unleashed in the USA. So, more $$$ coming to the waste basket.
Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
H2O molecules are at least 4000/423 = 9.5 times more abundant than CO2 molecules
.
H2O molecules have several broad frequency windows to absorb infrared radiation photons with many frequencies, which causes vibration and rotation, i.e., high frequency off excitement.
.
H2O molecules are more frequently excited than CO2 molecules, because CO2 molecules have several narrow frequency windows to absorb infrared radiation photons with relatively few frequencies, i.e., low frequency of excitement.
.
As a result, only about 8% of the available infrared radiation photons get absorbed by CO2
.
H2O molecules absorb a significant percentage of the remaining 92% of photons, with most of the rest returning to space at the speed of light.
H2O molecules are at least 2 times more prone to excitement than CO2 molecules, regarding absorption of infrared radiation photons
H2O contributes, on average, at least 9.5 x 2 = 19 times more to global warming than CO2.
.
Water vapor plays a huge role in world climates.
Without its existence, the Earth would be at a very uncomfortable -10 C, or worse.
Water can be ice, snow, hail, rain, water vapor, clouds, etc.
.
CO2 ppm is gradually increasing in the lower-atmosphere.
Any warming by CO2 will increase lower-atmosphere temperature, increase evaporation, increase the water vapor warming effect, increase cloud formation.
Countering the increased water vapor and CO2 would require increased tree planting to promote flora growth
.
The variations of the sun’s output of solar energy have cyclic warming and cooling effects.
The volcanic venting and eruptions, on land and ocean floors, add, on average, a steady supply of heat and water vapor. The venting and eruptions are amplified by the moon’s orbit around the earth, which pulls tectonic plates back and forth
See dark areas regarding infra-red absorption in Image 11A
You are just flapping your gums with no data
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a dependent variable with the long term perentage correlating with troposphere temperatures
Water vapor does not directly change the climate. Changes requires something else to happen first. Something that maes the troposphere warmer.
‘
Something else could be CO2, SO2, clouds or sunlight reaching earths surface.
The amount if solar energy measured at the top of the atmosphere has not increased since the 1970s so could NOT have caused any of the global warming since 1975
Speaking of flapping gums with no data, here comes RG.
I see you still don’t know the difference between theory and fact.
Where are the heat released numbers?
Where are the data?
What is the trend?
All you have is opinions
The same can be said of your posts.
The amount of heat added is unknown
The trend of heat added is unknown
The CO2 releases is unknown
Modern scientists believe 99% of the energy received on our planet’s surface is from the sun
Meaning volcanoes are not important
STILL NO EVIDENCE OF CO2 WARMING, have you, dickie boy
You are just flapping your gums with no data.
It is all you are capable of.
And 100% of geologists will tell you that the amount of energy added to the climate by the earth itself is miniscule compared to the energy added by the sun.
Self awareness is lost on the left. As is spelling.
“temperatures will rise uniformly.”.. dickie-greenie fact denier nutter.
Still displaying your abject ignorance about El Nino and La Nina
Your tiny nil-educated mind lives in a fact free zone, still brain-washed by the ignorance of all the AGW memes.
As you say, YOU have no data, no measurements, and absolutely NO SCIENCE
Everyone not immune, gets DUMBER from reading your idiotic comments.
yet another in a long series of science free Don Rickles style insult posts from a lunatic who should be sedated and given a lobotomy in a mental asylum, The first lobotomy did not work.
Proving YET AGAIN.. that you are incapable of producing any actual evidence
Thanks 🙂
You still don’t understand El Nino and La Nina
You STILL have no data, no measurements, and absolutely NO SCIENCE.
Your pathetic arrogant bluster only highlights those facts. 🙂
I’m guessing you have never read any of your posts.
Richard,
What he has is a premise. You can call it a claptrap theory if you want to (why do you want to do that?), but that doesn’t mean it is not something that warrants further consideration.
Interesting. My question is what generates the la Nina.
Now that is the best question so far and the range of answers is very intriguing.
One way of looking at it is that the La Nina is the baseline condition and El Ninos are generated when there is excess heat that needs to be dissipated.
Read my article
How much snow the Northeast has lost to climate changeA new study shows for the first time that human-driven climate change is responsible for snow loss. Scientists say the Northeast, including New Hampshire, is hurtling towards winters dominated by rain, rather than snow.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/10/metro/how-much-snow-weve-lost-climate-change/
“the timber industry that has historically used frozen ground to safely maneuver heavy machinery”
As usual, people who comment on forestry NEVER talk to foresters and loggers. Sure, loggers prefer frozen ground for that heavy machinery, but they also prefer snow not too deep. Frozen ground with 6″ of snow is ideal. We have about that much now in Wokeachusetts. They don’t like very deep snow because log skidders will slip and slide on it just like your car, especially on hilly terrain. I’ve had loggers pull off jobs when the snow got more than 3′ deep. But really good loggers learn how to deal with any weather conditions. Modern “feller- bunchers” with tracks (like an army tank) do well on ground not frozen in winter. In winter, even with little snow, and relatively warm temperatures, the ground will freeze at night, then thaw in the day. So, loggers will work in the morning and quit when the ground thaws. They’ll often back drag the trails to smooth them out and remove much of the snow- then what frost does occur will get deeper into the ground.
And, with warmer summers- the ground is often dry enough to work in areas that would otherwise be too wet- even swamps. So, winter logging has become a bit more difficult and summer logging easier. Though loggers have always hated “bad weather”- what they really hate is excessive burro-ocracy and enviros who’d love to end all logging. Currently, here in Wokeachusetts, the state is trying to lock up most of the forests to “save the planet”.
What’s a “feller-buncher” Joe? Sounds like some kind of LGBTQIA+ get together thing.
It’s a big machine- like an excavator but designed to cut and remove trees. No more using a chainsaw and risking it falling on you. The first time I saw one on a job it was like seeing Superman as a logger. It can cut and remove timber orders of magnitude faster than a guy with a chainsaw. I’ve attached a photo of one. I made a YouTube video of my first project where the timber buyer used one (back around ’08): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&t=296s
(that was my first video- with a cheap camcorder and zero experience/knowledge of how to do it)
They’ve been around for decades elsewhere in North America but not common in southern New England until maybe 15-20 years ago. A new one goes for about $400K.
““We were able to really unambiguously identify a human fingerprint on long-term snowpack trends across the Northern Hemisphere,” said Alex Gottlieb, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth and lead author of the paper.”
Unambiguously, said the PhD candidate- hoping that his climate lunacy will ensure getting his doctorate and eventually the easy life of tenure.
In the Ivy league, where everything is anti-patriarchal, unambiguous means full of shit.
A Penn state professor is suing the university after being forced to attend CRA seminar in which he was ridiculed for being white, told that White professors were the problem and that the English language is an example of white supremacy.
When he complained to HR, he was written up for bullying.
A judge that was appointed by Obama is letting the case go forward stating that calling racism, anti-racism, doesn’t make it acceptable.
All they have been able to do is find a statistically significant change. They just assume that it must have been caused by CO2.
After all, good climate scientists know that nothing ever changes climate wise, unless man caused it.
“Mankin hopes that
clearly showing thatclimate change is responsible for snow loss…”What he meant. His PhD depends on it.
“Scientists are still investigating how this will affect the ecosystem, where less snow can lead to more pests and blight.”
Blight? WTF?
“From the link: “We were able to really unambiguously identify a human fingerprint on long-term snowpack trends across the Northern Hemisphere,” said Alex Gottlieb, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth and lead author of the paper.”
So what they are saying is warming, caused by humans, is the cause of less snow pack. The problem with their theory is they cannot establish that the warming is caused by human beings, or CO2. Correlation is not necessarily causation. They are making unsubstantiated assertions about human beings, CO2, and the snow pack.
What was the snowpack like back in the 1930’s? It, no doubt, was similar to today since the warming was similar back then. That warming was not caused by human beings or CO2.
Can you use the wave equation to substantiate that? Is causation at the quantum level really unidirectional?
Translation, if anything has changed, CO2 must be the cause.
Can they prove that CO2 is the cause of the loss of snow? No.
Can they prove that there have been no previous changes in the amount of snow fall? No.
They don’t have to, they are climate scientists.
UK posters keep a eye out for when the MET Office release the data for mean temps for January.
As the higher daytime temps that AWS’s record over that of a glass thermometer during the coming milder spell of weather will be used to “average up” the mean temp for January up to the average or higher.
Funny you should mention that
“”Scientists Are Already Bracing for Record-Breaking Heat in 2024””https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/scientists-are-already-bracing-for-record-breaking-heat-in-2024
I’ve lost count of the number of warnings the MO has been throwing out and nothing happened
Yes my current research on this topic has been a real eye opener.
As its shown that AWS’s can record daytime temps as much as 2.5C higher over the reading from my glass thermometer. Also interestly l have noted that AWS’s nearly always record higher daytime temps then my glass thermometer.
lts because l have learned about the weather the old school way is what lead me to have doubt’s in the first place. Sadly in today’s world most people are totally dependent on AWS’s and the MSM for there weather data. Which allows the state to treat them like mushrooms.
Those scientists…always bracing
Bracing for bohic perhaps?
And how do they know that this year is going to be hotter than 2023? My guess is because the data has already been recorded.
Taxed, the reason it will probably end up average or slightly above, in the CET at least, is because it wasn’t that cold or long lived. It started off incredibly warm, went a bit chilly for a week, then the rest of the month is forecast as mild, up to 15C! Did we get minus teens in the south, or 10 days without the temperature getting above zero? No; But that’s what a cold January looks like.
UK posters keep a eye out for when the MET Office release the data for mean temps for January.
As the higher daytime temps that AWS’s record over that of a glass thermometer during the coming milder spell of weather will be used to “average up” the mean temp for January so it ends up going above average.
I’m thinking of starting a new personal project on the history of the development of Equilibrium Climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (and, of course, its magnitude and progression thereof).
I thought this would be a great forum to ask the following question, to get me started:
Can anyone please point me to the origin of ECS, its initial definition in serious papers, and who were the authors of the initial concept?
I’m pretty certain that it would be too much to ask for it to be phrased as a falsifiable hypothesis.
I’m thinking of it being a long-term side project, and I’ll be happy to give back to this community the data (links, figures, tables, etc.) that I amass where appropriate on threads about ECS.
It’s actually pretty easy to calculate the ECS. Note that the sun’s luminosity varies, over an 11 year period, by about 0.3 W/m2. This is roughly the effect of 15 years of CO2 emissions. Look at the energy imbalance and see the effect this 11 year signal has. Run a fourier transform on the EEI data to pull out the 11 year contribution. If the IPCC is right and the change in downwelling radiation is amplified by about 3, you would see a cycle that is ~1 W/m2. What’s interesting is there is no 11 year cycle in the EEI even though there is an 11 year cycle in downwelling radiation, indicating that the earth’s system suppresses, rather than amplifies, the change in downwelling radiation.
scientist Svante Arrhenius
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Who was the scientist who discovered global warming?
The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
What did Eunice Foote discover?
Eunice Newton Foote, who discovered the greenhouse effect and was a pivotal figure in women’s rights movements. They named the fig newton cookie after her.
physicist John Tyndall
Instead of Foote’s story, the historical record holds that, in 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered the warming effect of the sun’s rays on carbon dioxide and water vapor, better known as the greenhouse gas effect. Tyndall made the discovery three years after Foote, and yet he’s received the credit.
Arrhenius couldn’t even get his equations dimensionally correct ! (see equation 4 of his paper)
He did absolutely no experiments of atmospheric CO2, and his conclusions were based on erroneous conjecture.
You still seem extremely confused and ignorant about what was actually “discovered”
ie the radiative properties of CO2, H2O
All else was pure conjecture, which remain unproven.
Radiation only models show the theoretical possibility of CO2 warming, but when it comes to energy movement within the atmosphere radiation is just one of many energy balancing mechanisms.
Balloon data analysis proves that the gas laws are the over-riding control of that energy movement, and CO2 is just another gas in the atmosphere.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
But since you lack any real scientific education, and just “believe” all the brain-washing the AGW has given you over the years, it is understandable you are so gullibly ignorant…
… and such an AGW apostle
Waiting for you to produce scientific evidence, dickie….
… once you figure out what “scientific” means.
Waiting for you to hire a ghostwriter, the only possible way to have an intelligent post under your byline.
Still NO EVIDENCE
The dickie-green meme. !!
I find it fascinating how you continuously whine about offenses that you are also guilty of.
You are a Greenhouse denier and a CO2 denier
Claims almost 100% of real climate scientists are all wrong
bNasty2000 is a legend in his own mind, at least what is left of it.
I previously thought you were just another ordinary Nutter
Now I realize you are a Special Nutter
A special needs Nutter who went to school on the shirt bus and learned to chew gum and tie his shoes at the same time, all by himself
Another hilarious TANTRUM, because dickie KNOWS HE HAS NO EVIDENCE
Despite it being all dickie can muster…
… blustering tantrums ARE NOT EVIDENCE. !!
Definitions
real climate scientist: Anyone who agrees with me.
climate denier: Anyone who disagrees with me.
“discovered the warming effect of the sun’s rays…. blah, blah…. “
Well call me amazed….. The SUN warms things. WOW !!!
Hint: dickie-boy, people have known that for as long as they have been.
But never mind..
…. you have just shown that you are TOTALLY CLUELESS as to what the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” supposedly is.
Another no intelligence comment from the dimwit of the website
So you admit you don’t understand the Greenhouse effect.
Goes along with your NO EVIDENCE for CO2 warming
You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. If you try hard, I’m sure you will be able to sound intelligent. Just find someone else to give you your opinions.
Basically if you do the reverse of Richard Greene’s trawling of wikipedia pages for propaganda, you’ll be on a better track. Svante Arrhenius corrected his badly wrong first paper with a second – you should read the second paper with or without reading the first. Eunice Newton Foote and John Tyndall were the first two scientists to establish the absorption/emission spectra of CO2 under laboratory conditions but had nothing to do with greenhouse theory which was proposed in 1901 by Nils Gustaf Ekholm. Look at the work of Syukuru Manabe and Richard Wetharald (1967) as well as Jule Charney and James Hansen (1979) for the established Climate Sensitivity calculations.
There are no “established” climate sensitivity to CO2 calculations. You know nothing
In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapor than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide.
The discovery of the greenhouse effect is often attributed to physicist John Tyndall, who carried out a series of experiments in 1859 looking at how heat affected air.
Who was the first scientist to realize the effects of CO2?
Svante Arrhenius
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.
The term greenhouse was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils
Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
Naming the greenhouse effect does not mean discovering the greenhouse effect.
Again, no measurements,
Making ambit claims and conjectures IS NOT EVIDENCE. !
You, never having studied any actual science, don’t seem to realise the difference.
Thanks for the answers so far, but I know all about Arrhenius and have read his carbonic acid paper on numerous occasions (and his follow-ups, and Einstein’s demolition paper). (BTW, I suspect that carbon dioxide got mangled into carbonic acid by the Swedish to English translator in the 1896 paper, but I might be wrong). Also, back then, I don’t think there was a distinction between Transient and Equilibrium CS. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
What I was looking for exactly was the first time ever that the concept of ECS specifically was introduced, and who it was introduced by. Was it IPCC, usual suspects or anyone practicing credible science?
You can now see where I’m going with this but, just because it’s “climate” I don’t want to start with the conclusion and the usual climate science “will it go round in circles” routine. I want to find the exact origin of ECS, it’s original definition, if one exists, and, quite frankly, if ECS even actually exists in reality.
Come on team, a round of beers, for the first commenters to give me a paper with a date that has ECS in it. A round of beers to commenters who can go further back, and so on and so forth …..
I think I already did. 1967 – Manabe and Wetherald. Theirs was the first paper to set out a value for Climate Sensitivity although I’m not sure if Ekholm mentioned anything like it in 1901 when he looks at a greenhouse effect. Honestly, didn’t you follow up on any of those nuggets I gave you or are you waiting with your mouth open to be spoon-fed every little bit? I was expecting more from you, to be honest.
Yeah sorry, I was a bit rushed when I responded earlier and got a bit dyslexic skimming through the answers too quickly but yes, you are also correct that I was indeed asking to be spoon fed a bit. I’ll check out the references for sure. I’m trying to understand the history of whenTCS started getting morphed into ECS. It seems to me that the mathematics of defining, for example, when equilibrium is reached would be beyond the usual suspects, so I’ve always been suspicious of the morph into ECS.
Let me know which bar or pub to send payment for your round of beer !!!
Excellent – not paywalled. Gonna be a heavy read, but likely worthwhile as it isn’t Mannian science. pdf even:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
PS Looking back, I think I was also a bit distracted by the fight that broke out on the thread.
Bnice and Greene do that on pretty much every post, on thread after thread. You get so that you tune most of it out and just challenge Greene’s most egregious propaganda posts.
I post science
I only respond with insults AFTER bNasty insults my comment with a zero science insult.
I’m sure you would be happier if I did not respond.
But then I would get insulted with every post by the angry lunatic who hides n the moniker bNasty2000
And now you have demonstrated your poor character by insulting me with no attempt to even try to refute one science related sentence in any comment I left here.
The conservatives here want this to be an anti-government anti-climate consensus echo chamber
Any bizarre theory gets three cheers and everyone sings Kumbaya.
A safety zone.
And when someone upsets your safety zone, you resort to insults. because that’s all you have.
“I post science”
NO , YOU DON’T
You post arrogant self-opinionated tripe.
You have not posted any science whatsoever, anywhere.
You forget the mantra of climate science.
It’s only science when they agree with it.
You post what you have been instructed to believe is science.
Too bad whoever is giving you your opinions is so ignorant.
A few years ago, someone was trying to get some traction for his questioning of the accepted value of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks. He finally got a response from the person who produced that value (in the early 1960s, I believe) , and put it into a blog reply. Unfortunately I have no memory of names or location. This is the gist of what I understood:
When we were working on the question, there wasn’t enough computing power in the world to actually calculate the values. There still isn’t. 1.2 C is a first order approximation that only applies at sea level. It is the maximum. Because of several factors (listed in the reply), one of which is the increasing distance between molecules as altitude increases and density decreases, this 1.2 C value varies with altitude and these other factors. However, I gave up trying to get that information acknowledged quite some time ago. “Climate scientists” were only interested in having something to plug into their models. They wanted no distractions with the complexities of reality.
Thank you Andy. I’ve obviously made a very erratic start to my “project” and with hindsight, it’s by trying to beat around the bush, and not explaining my goal well.
Your last two sentences are on-point to what I’m trying to get to – to retrace the scientific history of the development of ECS, such that its inventors have names. Was there a point in time where a committee at a conference, for example, proposed ECS as a new way forward, or was it proposed in a “peer-reviewed” paper, either or both with some kind of definition of what it was? It could then be judged for its likely/certain defects with a more accurate understanding of parameters that weren’t even considered at the time.
The Paris Agreement, for example, would have to have a number, which I think is most probably ECS for their simple a X b = 1.5 degrees, where either a or b is ECS.
I believe you misunderstand the 1.5C figure. It is not about ECS, it is a pulled out of the hat number for an amount of warming above that existing at the time the number was imagined. It is the amount of warming from Paris COP conditions that will supposedly destroy much of the biosphere.
That 1.5 C change is, in principal, independent of any particular amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is just the degree of warming from whatever amount of GHG produces that temperature rise.
“The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
From my orior comment
This was the first known experiment with doubling and halving of CO2
Why is it so important who came up with the name ECS?
In a nutshell, because I think it is possibly fraud. I think the definition is more important in determining that though, and if it was deliberate, since TCS wasn’t doing it for them. They needed a new shiny object, far away in the distant future that coincided with (their) pensions, and could still use “the already baked-into the system” scary line.
I’m already getting a sense that there may not have ever been a definition, so thanks.
To paraphrase my response to AndyHce – was the Paris Agreement’s hard number based on simple maths with one parameter that was neither defined nor known by those scientific legends of science, who are also unknown to the people, for example, paying for the Paris Agreement, etc.
As I stated above, it is an amount of warming, from any cause whatever.
Military interests are pushing new nuclear power – and the UK government has finally admitted it
https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118
Right Lusername because the military always avoids expensive technology and they could never build and operate a reactor to produce plutonium on their own. And we’d know right away if they had.
<blockquote>With renewables and storage significantly cheaper
</blockqute>
You really believe fairy tales like this I am sure.
That’s you griff, right?
Oh of course, mylittlepony, how stupid of us not to see that because civilian reactors are so useful for military use. Oh, wait – no they’re not.
Of course nuclear power is bad! The author, Andy Stirling, is a spokesperson for Greenpeace.
Why is it that you have the bad luck to base every comment you make on profound and deep-seated ignorance !?
No, once may be bad luck, twice may be sheer coincidence but more than three times is enemy action, right?
Just think where’d we be now in our understanding of nuclear power if this toy hadn’t been pulled from the shelves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory
First off, the conversation only publishes stuff pushed by the lunatic left. (Assuming that isn’t redundant).
Secondly, the government has done nothing of the sort.
1. The authorised indications
You state that based on the authorised indications, the vaccines ‘should only be administered to individuals who seek personal protection, and they are not authori sed for the purpose of reducing transmission or infection rates (transmission control)’. You also state that the authorised indication does not align with uses promoted by ‘pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and health professionals’.
You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only.
The product information for COVID-19 vaccines clearly states that the vaccines are for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19. In addition, EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility.EMA will continue to be transparent about the approved uses of COVID -19 vaccines and identify areas where we need to tackle misconceptions.
2023/10/18 Letter to MEP Marcel de Graaff Request
The EMA documents from Pfizer only say the vaccines reduce symptoms
Read them
I did
I believe that claim to be a gross exaggeration or a lie.
Or you could have been one of the many who opted to take hydroxychloroquine and be one of the estimated 17000 who lost their lives because they believed the snake oil salesman of the time. Very sad in the end.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X
The tests where overdosed from Gilead meds.
They used the dose of Hydroxyquinoline of 2400mg, not able to google correctly.
When you decide to make stuff up, you swing for the bleachers.
This is their estimate based on a dubious increase of death rate claim.
At the time, the initial idea behind them was to reduce symptoms and prevent the need for hospitalisations, thus reducing the strain on health services.
Bollocks. The idea was to come up with something…. anything…. that would mean people didn’t have to take the “leftist” vaccines. People were so desperate to convince themselves that covid was a communist plot to overthrow the Trump government they believed and took anything, except the vaccine, which was the one thing that really could help them.
Right. Whatever is going on in your head, kindly keep it there, will you – I was replying to Richard Greene’s post, not yours.
I live in the UK and this is what I understood the mrna vaccines were developed for, to reduce the strain on health services.
I hope you are still up to date with all your prescribed boosters. Junkie like arms etc…
It has already caused irreversible mental damage… so you are now safe !!
Of course I am, that’s how the vaccines work? Have the flu shot every year too. Now Mr “make it up.” Show me one peer reviewed study that backs up your claim that the covid vaccines cause “irreversible mental damage.” I’ll look forward to your answer (which we both know will never come because you … well… “made it up” didn’t you). Or perhaps you read it on some looney site, either way it is bollocks, like 99% of what you write. El Nino anyone?
Look in the mirror.
You are walking/staggering proof of mental damage., !
Still DENYING that El Ninos cause warming even after the 2023 El Nino.
That really is incredibly DUMB and IGNORANT of you. !!
But we expect nothing different.
Oh.. btw.
Neurological Complications Following COVID-19 Vaccination – PMC (nih.gov)
Covid: Vaccine study links virus to rare neurological illness – BBC News
Bet you are PROUD to take the risk.. pity it backfired on you. 😉
I see Trump is still living in your head.
Are you also going to inform us that ivermectin was never meant for human consumption and was dangerous too? Some of us have actually had prescriptions for that one, but somehow media seemed to think that the extensive research put into its discovery was for veterinary use…
But the told story was save your grand parents and get the vacc, save your friends and get the vacc, get the vacc to stop the spread, get the vacc to break the transmission line.
Who ever was asked, health ministers, official meds and politicians told about the act of solidarity that the vacc were.
That was the way of the lies from the beginning.
Now, I admit to being an old, white, heterosexual retired ME, but here is my two cents worth about this so-called Global Warming, (or whatever you call it): Correlation and causation. Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any way related to temperature? Is this a syllogism? If ‘A’ then ‘B’? From what I have read, mostly here at WUWT, there is no geological evidence of correlation, let alone causation. Global warming is a scam. Game, set and match.
The eco angst of climate crazies all rests on whether the increase in temperature of the orange line is caused by CO2 and whether it is a problem….graph courtesy of Dr. Lindzen’s article here 1 day ago.
Global warming is real
CO2 causes warming by impeding cooling
No one has been harmed
Our planet benefits from more CO2 and warming
You have a lot to learn.
Suck eggs
You sound like a true scientist
“You sound like a true scientist”
You don’t… not even in your most arrogant/egotistical dreams.
I would like to follow you if I will be able to read only one post typed by your fingers that shows at least one, only one scientific argument.
Unfortunately you haven’t, never ever, you only are able to bully unscientific BS without any serious background and want to be taken as a serious commenter. But you are so faaaar away…
Did you study Insults 101 with bNasty2000?
Did you study emptymess under dickie-greenie?
It’s more scientific than anything you have ever posted.
“CO2 causes warming by impeding cooling“
You have been shown several time that is not the case.
You have your AGW brain-washing held solidly in place, and no reality or science is allowed into your closed, empty mind..
Did you know there is absolutely no evidence of any human causation in the slight, El Nino forced atmospheric warming since 1979 !
You and your AGW comrades, fungal, bellboy, and the simpleton, have never been able to produce any.
The EL Nino Nutter always forgetting the offsetting La Ninas. Convenient “forgetting”
Every time I post you reply with insults that demonstrate how stupid you are
Again, proving you do not understand EL Nino and La Nina.
That’s ok.. we expect nothing from you… and you constantly deliver.
It’s a matter of scale and potency.
A fart in an elevator is much more noticeable, lingers longer than a fart on a golf course,
I never studied fart science
You see to be an expert
Yet it is all you seem to be able to produce. odd that !!
Richard,
Are you are still unable to utilize the words ‘significant’ & insignificant’.
(Your dependance on intentionally poor communication to ilict some form of human contact is sad, very sad)
I wrote and sold the ECONOMIC LOGIC newsletter to hundreds of subscribers for 43 years. My writing needs no improvement. Your thinking does.
Richard,
*
Global warming is real(First, define ‘Global Warming’; then realize that temperatures have increased (on average) over the last 150 years, but the correlation with atmospheric CO2 is not there.)*
CO2 causes warming by impeding cooling(CO2 retains energy … to a point, then releases said energy. The theory that, in an open system, atmospheric temperature increases relative to atmospheric CO2 concentration may be correct … up to a point, but historic data shows CO2 lagging temperature increases.)*No one has been harmed (significantly, or provably; and it is not likely that anyone will be harmed. Fires, Sea surface levels, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Rain, Lack of Rain, Etc. are not caused by or even indirectly linked to atmospheric CO2 levels)
*
Our planet benefits from more CO2 and warming(From a human perspective, the planet is a better place when it is warmer; and plants grow better (not just faster) when the CO2 concentration is higher)*You have a lot to learn (is, often as not, a statement made by individuals that think that they are already there, and they already know everything they need to know. Those type of people alienate others, but can’t quite grasp why they are so lonely.)
There is no significant correlation between temperature and CO2.
Your logic on climate is totally incoherent though. !
Hundreds of subscribers.
And you believe that proves something?
Millions of people believe in communism, despite the fact that it has failed every time it has been tried.
“CO2 causes warming by impeding cooling”
Organize a demonstration in open atmosphere and we might start to believe you.
I don’t care if you believe me or almost 100% of the climate scientists in the world. You are entitled to your own opinion, even if it is ignorant.
Consensus is NOT SCIENCE.
Stop displaying your ignorance and arrogance.. you make a target of yourself..
100% of climate scientists will say whatever they need to say in order to protect their paychecks.
“You have a lot to learn.”
dickie-boy… listening to you, will only make him DUMBER. !
I just typed the word “ignorant” and bNasty2000 showed up
I typed DUMBER.. and dickies tries for DUMBEST. !
I have demonstrated that there is not even a correlation between CO2 and temperature, short-term:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
There is anti-correlation between the two at the resolution of seasonal variations.
Intermediate-term, there is low correlation between temperature and CO2, but causation is indeterminable.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
There seems to be no obvious correlation between the two at geological time scales.
The Law Dome (Antarctica) ice cores speak to the issue of causation. They appear to show that temperature changes occur about 800 years before CO2 changes.
We should strive for the simplest explanation possible. Millions of pages of statistics won’t convince Alarmists. Will anything? I guess not – little Dickie Green proves that. He is not even literate. No correlation, no causation.
The simple explanation of the changing average temperature since 1940 is increased SO2 emissions after 1940, followed by increased CO2 emissions after 1975 and reduced SO2 emissions after 1980′.
That explanation meets the definition of Occam’s razor
Simplicity does not make an explanation correct but this explanation is a contender, unless you have an anti-government closed mind.
‘That explanation meets the definition of Occam’s razor’
No it doesn’t, since the Earth has been repeatedly warming and cooling over geologic time, including repeated episodes throughout the Holocene.
Yes, Richard, CO2 is a GHG and there is a GHE, but as Clyde pointed out above, there is no evidence form ice cores that it has does anything but lag temperature during the Pleistocene glaciations, nor is there any evidence from ocean cores that it has affected temperatures over the last 65 my+ despite repeated doublings and halvings.
In short, there is no evidence that our emissions of CO2 have had any effect on temperature.
“In short, there is no evidence that our emissions of CO2 have had any effect on temperature.”
And dickie-boy has continued to produce that “no evidence”.
fyi, dickie… yapping, snarling, blustering and whinging… is not scientific evidence.
Forrest Gump of climate science speaks
CO2 in the atmosphere is a feedback to changes in ocean temperatures. This a small slow process
CO2 is alsi a forcing that chages surface temperatures by impeding cooling. This is a modest but relatively fast process
Both processes happen at the same time
CO2 emissions are far higher than ocean CO2 outgassing. I fact oceans are net CO2 absorbers even as they wrm because atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly.
The claim the CO2 lags ocean temperatures in the past is true but that is a stupid argument because there were no offsetting manmade CO2 emissions in the 100,000 year CO2 cycles in the Antarctica ice core proxies.
Peak to trough changes in CO2 concentration from the ice cores are consistently about 100 ppm over periods on the order of 41 to 100 ky. (Actually much less, since the warming phase is always substantially much shorter than the cooling phase). The commensurate change in temperatures, which consistently lead CO2, are on the order of 10C. Geologically speaking, these are neither small nor slow changes.
Our supposed anthropogenic warming of the industrial era is estimated at about 1C over a period less than 200 years, during which CO2 also increased by about 100 ppm. If nothing else, this should inform you that there is a huge disconnect between physical reality and the CO2 control know narrative of the alarmists.
Just regurgitated AGW mantra. Mostly just plain wrong…
Not evidence of anything.
Simplicity is all you are capable of.
Understanding, learning and comprehension….. not so much.
You always ask for data, where are yours ???
Can’t see any ! Never !
😀
But always the mouth wide open,
so laughable…
😀
Your sulfate hypothesis is only anecdotal, at best. We don’t have measurements going back far enough in time to establish that it is a general process, versus a one-time event. Therefore, Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply. You are essentially creating a special explanation for something that may have a simpler explanation, such as geothermal heating from spreading centers and volcanoes at subduction zones.
The fact that nobody has a solid read on how much SO2 was emitted over that time period is completely lost on you.
Beyond that, the areas where the largest amount of SO2 emitted showed the least cooling is also a problem for the belief that SO2 explains the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Those who disagree with you are anti-government?
Really, have you ever seen a psychiatrist about these bouts of paranoia you are afflicted with?
“Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any way related to temperature?”
As a fellow retired ME, I offer an answer based on the relatively well-understood dynamics of compressible fluids, which is the basis of numerical weather prediction models. One cannot distinguish “warming” from “expansion” and “acceleration” as the IR absorbing power of the clear atmosphere is slightly increased by incremental CO2. Said another way, the climate response of incremental CO2 cannot be isolated for reliable attribution. Neither should one expect heat energy to accumulate to a detectable extent on land or in the oceans from incremental CO2. More here at this Youtube video. Please read the full explanation in the description box.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
We are currently seeing an “atmospheric river” over the UK. There will be an unusually high amount of water with high temperatures.
A very interesting video
Did it happen in the past?
That surely messes up the weather and has nothing to with CO2 gradually increasing
It did happen in the past, about one day in the past.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I should just like to take this opportunity to thank the person or people responsible behind the scenes at WUWT for bringing back the edit function (as well as a few more useful extra’s).
👏👏👏 take a bow, you have more than earned it.
Now lets just see if we can all remember how to use it!
Thanks, hadn’t noticed ! 🙂
You know what, now I’m beginning to think we need a ‘facepalm’ button.
I noticed “Edit” worked again recently.
As I recall from comments and answers back when it stopped working, it took A LOT of time and work behind the scenes to get it fixed.
Whoever put the time and work into it, THANK YOU!!
(I don’t sound so dumb now! 😎
ditto.. WELL DONE !
I still do not see the edit function as before
Just an edit test
Positive
I’m not sure what you mean.
The little “gear” for edit doesn’t show until you hover the cursor over the right spot.
Move it to right of the comment box on the same line as the “reply” icon. (or just above the “link” icon.)
Thx a lot !
Yea
Ron Desantis has dropped out of the Republican presidential race and has endorsed Trump for president.
He would be a very handy vice-president . 😉
A Trump – DeSantis card would really hurt the Dumbo-crats.
I’m guessing Trump will pick U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina (who endorsed Trump a couple of days ago) or Kristi Noem, the current governor of South Dakota as his running mate. Both would be excellent choices.
Nikki will soon be next.
She is being propped up by Democrat spoiler money, and lapdog mainstream Media, but does not have what it takes
It will be interesting to see the New Hampshire vote tomorrow. There are a lot of unaffiliated voters who can vote in the Republican primary. The pundits seem to think those votes will go to Haley, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.
I think Haley will be done after the New Hampshire election. Next up is Nevada where Trump said last night that he was winning by 100 percent, although there are some legal questions about the way Nevada picks its nominee, and Haley is trailing Trump badly in her home State of South Carolina whose voting takes place in about three weeks.
I don’t see how Haley can stay in the race if she loses the next three elections and it looks like she will lose all three.
Haley says controversy surrounds Trump and therefore one shouldn’t vote for him. Haley apparently doesn’t understand that the controversy is around the leader of the Republian Party, not Trump per se.
If Haley were the leader of the Republican Party, then controversy would be surrounding her because that’s the way the Leftwing Media operates. They trash the one they fear the most. Haley or any other Republican would get the same treatment as Trump if they were the leader. Thinking controvery will disappear if Trump disappears is wishful, flawed thinking. Haley won’t be an improvement over Trump in this area.
I’m not sure they would attack Haley quite so much. They would still get most of their agenda if she were President.
The only reason they wouldn’t attack Haley so much is because she wouldn’t fight back, the way Trump does, where he hits them back every time they criticize him.
If Haley were to hit back in the same way, the Leftwing Media would stay on her case just like they do Trump.
So do we want a docile Nikki, or do we want one that fights back against the Leftwing Media’s constant lying, which undermines the nation and our society?
I don’t know that Haley would not fight back against the Leftwing Media, but I don’t know that she would, either. She might turn into a George W. Bush, and allow the Leftwing Media to lie about her without pushback. I know what Trump would do in this case, and I like it and want it. Somebody has to beat these radical Democrats over the head and Trump is just the guy to do it.
The Leftwing Media hates Trump because Trump tells the truth about the Radical Left/Democrats. They can’t stand to hear the truth. Which makes sense because the truth makes Radical Democrats look very bad.
Man Convicted of Starting 14 Canadian Forest Fires Media Blamed on ‘Climate Change’
A Quebec man has just been found guilty of starting fourteen forest fires in Canada last year.
Brian Paré, 38, pleaded guilty to starting the fires which the corporate media and green agenda advocates blamed on “climate change.”
At a courthouse in central Quebec, Paré pleaded guilty to 13 counts of arson and one count of arson with disregard for human life, according to CBC.
The woke crowd likely will appoint him fire warden
Guilty of 14 and suspected of 5 more iirc. A despicable climate activist and irresponsible a-hole.
And only for last year. How many years has this clown been at it?
I am always surprised that more isn’t made of the current receding glaciers and the tree stumps they expose as they shrink. The fact that tree stumps, often with roots going deep into the earth are proof that temperatures must have been equivalent to today’s, and the earth was warm enough to allow roots to penetrate so there could have been no year-round frost layer for the hundreds of years it took for the trees to grow. These tree remnants are sometimes found and heights that they don’t grow at currently. If there was no “Grand Extinction” at the time of the tree’s existence, .why is there any worry about a climate crisis today. No math, computer models or atmospheric measures of CO2 concentrations are necessary to show that life existed and flourished at temperatures equivalent of higher than todays
Yes and if the media wasn’t supressing facts that run counter to their narrative then more would’ve been made of it.
The media, as is also the case with most so-called intellectuals, is highly incentivized to support narratives / suppress evidence that favors / disfavors the establishment and maintenance of a powerful central government, aka, the ‘State’. Specifically, there’s a huge difference in the lifestyle afforded a ‘journalist’ between hosting a national cable news program to discuss the Federal policy impacts of ‘climate change’ and standing on top of a snow drift with a tape measure on the local 11pm news.
There are still some AGW stooges who also think peat bogs grow in permafrost ! 🙂
Also evidence of large herds of animals in the north of Siberia etc… only a couple of thousand years ago.
No possibility of that now.
Heavy rainfall in California, may cause local flooding.
UK coal import history: is it really a potential alternative with secure, diverse supply? Asian markets have taken away several sources, Russia is off limits, and the USA is not a reliable source because of varying export economics and regulatory impediments.
Is there something different about open threads that they don’t send out notifications to subscribers? I did not receive an email notification to this or the previous one.
Happened to see from 10 years ago: “An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim.”
Isn’t there a bigger Oopsie?
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
What does “contributing factor” mean to a scientist?
“Contributing Factor. An event or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of an undesired outcome, but if eliminated or modified, would not on its own have prevented the occurrence.”
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8621_001D_&page_name=AppendixA
But now NASA says: 97% of scientist agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Story Tip:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/stranded-ev-midnight-progressives-want-know-nightmare
Here is my drive-by plug for this YouTube fellow, Dr, John Robson. His channel is CDN – Climate Discussion Nexus. I think he is pretty clear in his presentations, and entertaining – he finds the irony.
https://youtu.be/D1grlapMZjY?si=fvZsdSMu4-23841c
In recent discussion, I have run into and issue I haven’t seen talked about before. It is a question.
What is the uncertainty of the global CO2 measurements from the Mauna Loa, Hawaii systems?