El Niños and the Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Volcanic Eruption https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Refer to this URL to see images https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
. Water Vapor and CO2 Vertical Profiles
.
Water vapor is about 20,000 ppm near the surface. It rapidly decreases to about 10 ppm at about 12 km, due to condensing on particles and cloud formation. See image
CO2 is about 423 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 230 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
Almost all available IR photons are near the surface, where the WV/CO2 molecule ratio is 20,000/423 = 47
Near the surface, WV molecules can absorb 92% of the available IR photons, because of more windows with wide absorption bands, whereas CO2 molecules can absorb only about 8%, because of only a few windows with narrow absorption bands. See Image 11A
Near the surface, WV absorption is 47 greater than CO2 absorption
If WV molecules were 10% more potent than CO2 molecules, due to absorption of higher energy IR photons, the 47 ratio would be even greater
Whereas CO2 molecules are much more abundant than WV molecules at higher elevations, the remaining IR photons is very little, plus the molecules are much further apart, due to lower air density, which reduces collisions.
. https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12375270077?profile=RESIZE_710x.
Water Vapor Compared With CO2 in the Atmosphere
.
CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
. Water vapor, worldwide basis: Water vapor is highly variable between locations, from 10 ppm in the coldest air, such as the Antarctic to 50,000 ppm (5%), such as in the hot, humid areas of the Tropics.
Water vapor in atmosphere, worldwide average, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 1016 kg, or 7.1667 x 10^14 moles
Atmosphere weight, dry, is about 5.148 x 10^18 kg, or 1.7752 x 10^17 moles
Water vapor percent, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 10^16 / 5.148 x 10^18 = 0.002506, or 0.2506%
Water vapor fraction, mole basis, is about 7.1667 x 10^14 / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.004037, or 0.4037%, or 4037 ppm
Water vapor molecules, worldwide average, are about 4037/423 = 9.54 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
. Water vapor in temperate zones, north and south of the equator, where most of the world’s population lives, is more prevalent, than the worldwide average of 4037 ppm.
Water vapor, in temperate zones, is about 9022 ppm, at 16 C and 50% humidity. See Note
Water vapor molecules, in temperate zones, are about 9022/423 = 21.33 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
. Water vapor in the Tropics, with high temperatures and high humidity, is much higher than elsewhere. As huge quantities of water vapor, produced near the equator travels toward Earth’s poles, it transports energy and creates weather. Variations in the Earth topography of different regions result in different weather outcomes. See video in URL https://nhpbs.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nves.sci.earth.vapor/monitoring-earths-water-vapor/
Water vapor, in the Tropics, is about 29806 ppm, at 30 C and 70% humidity
Water vapor molecules, in the Tropics, are about 29806/423 = 70.46 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
. NOTE: At 16 C and 50% humidity, water vapor in air is 0.0056 lb H2O/ lb dry air, or 2.5424 g H2O/ 454 g dry air After converting to moles, 0.009022 mole H2O/mole dry air, or 9022 ppm.
A mole of water vapor is 18 g, a mole dry air is 29 g https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html . Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
.
Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They can be found on many websites.
They were determined in a laboratory by relatively few people
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.
They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use subjectivemodels of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.
So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.
I have been unable to find the calculations and or measurements that yielded these values https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html ;
H2O molecules, as water vapor, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
Water vapor and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
All other GHGs, 5 to 9% http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf
. Allocating Available IR photons
.
We assume, for simplicity, H2O and CO2 molecules have equal global warming capacity.
About 22% of IR photons escape to space through an atmospheric window, per Image 11A, blue part. . Worldwide basis: H2O molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules 9.5%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2 . Temperate zone basis: H2O molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5% . Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 29806/(29806 + 423) = 98.6%, and CO2 molecules 1.4%
It appears, CO2 has almost no global warming role to play in the Tropics, where huge quantities of water vapor is heated, that is distributed to the rest of the earth, by normal circulation processes.
If H2O molecules had greater global warming capacity than CO2 molecules, the CO2 role regarding global warming would be even less. . Atmospheric Window. See Image 11A
The window exists, primarily due to the reduced absorption of IR photons by water vapor.
The window varies from 15 to 30%, primarily due to changes in water vapor ppm and cloud cover
The wide IR photon absorption spectrum of H2O, from 20 to 70 micrometers, almost entirely limits the right side of the blue part, plus the wide spectrum, from 4 to 10 micrometers, almost entirely limits and reduces the left side of the blue part
The narrow IR photon absorption spectrum of CO2, centered on 14.9 micrometers, also limits and reduces the right side of the blue part.
Water vapor molecules play the dominant role absorbing IR photons, because they have much wider absorption bands of wavelengths than CO2, plus H2O molecules are 9.54 more prevalent than CO2 molecules, on worldwide average, as above calculated. Image 11A
The temp of the atmosphere has increased about 1 C since 1900, due to an increase of 145 ppm in CO2, if we attribute the temp increase only to CO2
But, that is not the case, because the 1 C, increased WV by about 7%, which contributed far more than CO2 ever could, because its ppm is so low, and it can absorb only up to 8% of all available IR photons
WV, by itself, contributes 33 C to global warming to maintain a comfortable 15 C instead of a disastrous -18 C, if WV were absent
Prior to 1900, any increase of the atmosphere temp was due to exiting the LIA
There was insignificant added CO2
Any CO2 ppm was natural, not human
Should read: If we attribute the increase only to increased natural and human CO2
There likely was an increase of natural CO2, due to increased flora and outgassing of tundras, etc.
There is not enough fossil fuel left to add significant human CO2 to the atmosphere
Annual anthropogenic emissions are equivalent in quantity to about 4 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. The Keeling curve shows an annual atmospheric increase of about 2 ppm, indicating that the oceans and global greening are absorbing about half of our emissions.
Our emissions are only about 5% of the total annual carbon cycle, but atmospheric content has increased from about 280 ppm to 410 ppm since the invention of the Orsat analyzer in 1873, which I defy any chemist to get consistent results for atmospheric CO2 from.
We really have little calculable evidence whether the carbon cycle would level off at some new higher steady value at some future date or not. IPC pathways are based on various assumed fossil fuels consumptions by humanity. Then the temp increases are based on an ensemble Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that IPCC “knows” to be somewhere between .8 and 6.0 degrees per CO2 doubling with a confidence level based on the number of selected published papers stating a calculated ECP. So they use about 3.0 C per 2x CO2, which is on the high side, with half their models predicting something less….
Its a bit of a tower made of champagne glasses at a champagne socialist convention on job creation and modern-broken-window-causes-economic-stimulation theory.
That 2 ppm increase p/y is from human and all other sources
About 90% of stored CO2 entered oceans, where the CO2 becomes part of numerous chemical compounds, which aids skeleton development of water life.
The remaining “free” CO2 has very low concentration, much less than the ppm in the atmosphere
wilpost,
solar input to the planet is 240 W/sq.M. on average allowing for albedo. This is also the amount leaving the planet to outer space. This corresponds to an radiative emissions temp of 255 K. The surface temperature is 288 K corresponds to 390 W/Sq.M.
That’s the 33 degrees of greenhouse effect. So it isn’t just WV as you have stated, but includes WV, other GHG, clouds, name-whatever-you-can-think-of….
I added the latest CO2 vertical profile image, i could find, to the article, and corrected the verbiage
CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 383 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
You seem to be unintentionally parroting the IPCC, which claims the water vapor positive feedback increases a modest amount of warming from CO2 alone by 2x to 4x in the long run.
The increase of CO2 before 1975 was too small to cause much warming, having increased from in 316ppm in 1959 to 331ppm in 1975, which is only a +4.7% increase spread over 16 years.
Any small warming effect from +4.7% CO2 was easily offset by the increase of air pollution, which peaked in 1980 for SO2 emissions.
There is no way to know what percentage of the post 1975 warming was caused by CO2 and a positive water vapor feedback.
We know the CO2 increase was +27% from 1975 to 2023, and lab spectroscopy suggests what that extra CO2 would do in the atmosphere.
But we have no global average atmospheric water vapor statistic to know exactly how much the water vapor increased.
The warming after 1975 could be explained with CO2 increases and SO2 decreases as the only two variables. An Occam’s Razor explanation.
But that would leave out the unknown effects of global average cloudiness and global average water vapor.
Without knowing the effect of clouds, the IPCC’s claim that post 1975 warming was manmade is meaningless.
False claims that added CO2 was natural, or perhaps 97% natural, is what we hears from climate science frauds and fools.
Manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 were almost double the increase of atmospheric CO2.
Nature (oceans, land and plants) absorbed up to half of the manmade CO2 increase.
The CO2 is Natural Nutters, and you appear to be one, are fools on the source of added atmospheric CO2 since 1850.
For many years I have asked the CO2 is Natural Nutters to explain where the manmade CO2 emissions went, if not into the atmosphere, and exactly where the extra natural CO2 emissions came from
They rarely respond.
Sometimes they respond with insults.
A few times they ignored the manmade CO2 emissions question, and turned into babbling fools, claiming the CO2 came from underseas volcanoes. When asked to provide data (there are none) they resorted to insults or they stopped responding.
There are at least a few CO2 is All Natural, El Ninos Cause All Global Warming, From Underseas Volcanoes Heat Releases Nutters here. They are the Forrest Gump’s of climate science.
And then we have the leftists predicting doom from global warming, after 44 years of WRONG predictions of doom from global warming … while the actual climate became more moderate and more pleasant.
The majority of people who comment on the climate are those who claim CO2 does everything and others who claim CO2 does little or nothing.
“We don’t know” what the future climate will be is rarely stated.
The only important question is ignored:
Do you prefer warming or cooling? (because those are the only two choices for our planet)
When asked to provide data (there are none) they resorted to insults or they stopped responding.
That is like seeing someone come into your house, obviously soaked with rain, and dismissing their claim that it is raining outside because they can’t tell you the rate of rainfall. You are much too impressed with yourself.
Water vapor varies with the temperature of the atmosphere. If more CO2 causes warming, then mre water vapor amplifies that warming
This is where you have followed the climate alarmists down the wrong path. The historic data shows it is more complex.
The upper Troposphere humidity drops. This is where water vapor’s GHE is most important. This is also the data used in Miskolczi 2023 where he shows this reduction reduces the water vapor GHE at the same rate the CO2 GHE is increasing. The overall GHE stays constant. See figure 10.
There are no measurements available to derive an annual average atmospheric water vapor statistic.
That’s why scientists most often claim water vapor averages 2% to 3% — there is no accurate global average statistic.
“The upper Troposphere humidity drops. This is where water vapor’s GHE is most important”
More BS
Inside the troposphere, the temperature drops approximately linearly at a rate of 6.5 Celsius degrees per km, from a global mean of 288 Kelvin (15 Celsius) on the ground to 220 K (-53 Celsius). At higher altitudes, up to 20 km, the temperature is approximately constant; this layer is called the tropopause.
The water vapor amount decreases with altitude because temperature decreases with height.
The troposphere and tropopause together consist of ~99% of the atmospheric CO2.
Inside the troposphere, the CO2 drops with altitude approximately exponentially, with a typical length of 6.3 km; this means that the density at height y is approximately proportional to exp(-y/6.3 km), and it goes down to 37% at 6.3 km, and to 17% at 11 km.
Higher through the tropopause, density continues dropping exponentially, albeit faster, with a typical length of 4.2 km.
I showed you the data. Did you even bother to look at the nice graph? No? Typical science denier.
Science is more than just the general rules which you quoted. You told me nothing I didn’t already know. None of it is relative to what the data actually shows. General rules do not apply directly across a spherical planet. Circulation patterns affect everything.
You can try to understand more detailed science or you ignore it. You’ve chosen the latter.
I can’t read your charts. But you claimed most of the greenhouse effect is in the upper troposphere, which is wrong. So why should I trust “your” charts?
I didn’t develop the chart and it is pretty clearly labeled. You couldn’t have put in any effort at all. CTL+ works well on PCs to enlarge text.
I didn’t say “most of the greenhouse effect is in the upper troposphere“. I said that’s where it is important.
Do you not realize the GHE for water vapor is saturated low in the atmosphere (for CO2 as well). Do you even understand what that means? The fact you don’t pretty much disqualifies anything you have to say on the subject.
It isn’t saying there’s no energy absorption low in the atmosphere. It’s telling us that all the energy which can be absorbed is already being absorbed. Hence, the GHE can’t increase. That’s not true as you move higher in the atmosphere because of the lower density. That means this is the only place where the GHE can increase (or possibly decrease).
Clearly, your knowledge level of the science is minimal. Maybe you should try listening for a change.
Back radiation does not cause warming. In fact, it causes evaporative cooling at the surface. Yes, I know you will deny it because you’ve never studied the physics of the boundary layer.
The GHE is a delay in the energy loss to space. It has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works.
Personally, I don’t have “a team”. I look at the science and see who follows the laws of physics.
Doesn’t take long to see that “climate science” has it completely wrong. And, I doubt anyone part of that team will dare speak out. They would quickly be excommunicated. The field is now on the same level as priests in any other religion.
Amazing that you think you are smarter than almost 100% of the world’s scientists who defend AGW while you deny it exists. You must be a legend, in your own mind.
AGW and CAGW are not the same
I know you are confused about that.
Believe it or not, I often agree with Mr Greene on his assessment of science. There are lots of pet theories that he tries ineffectively to counter by ad hominem “nutter” claims where I would prefer to just say “I disagree because…” or ignore altogether.
If Richard were motivated by the desire to persuade as many people as possible that there is no climate emergency he would certainly find ways to disagree politely with skeptics who espouse apparently wrong views. Yet he never does that. It’s dangerous to practice psychology without a license on people you’ve never met, but what the hell…
I think Richard is a person who loves a good knock-down drag-out agreement. A person who craves being right over being an effective communicator. It is more vital to him that someone else is seen to be wrong about something than to find common ground.
There is no common ground for most people. Either you trust the government 100% or you claim the government is wrong 100% of the time.
The moderate approach is that AGW exists and CAGW is imaginary.
Data free theories about
El Ninos,
Underseas Volcanoes
CO2 is 97% natural,
CO2 does nothing above 350ppm and
The greenhouse effect can’t increase
Are all false claims that make conservatives look like fools rather than climate realists.
These false claims are easily fact checked by leftists since they are either not based on data or ignore relevant data.
We conservatives are LOSING the climate propaganda battle. And we will never win by inventing new bizarre theories of climate. Conservatives who do this get all of us called science deniers FOR A GOOD REASONs/
The best scientists ON OUR SUDE, including Richard Lindzen and William Happer, never spout any of these false theories
They support AGW
They deny CAGW.
That is my position
Let’s say for the sake of argument that individual skeptics holding such views somehow undermine our ability to persuade the general public that there’s no climate emergency.
Has your approach toward changing their opinions been effective in your estimation?
Does effective communication and persuasion matter to you?
It all has an air of angels dancing on the head of a pin to me.
By their own flawed science, calibrated by actual observations, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Alarmists must increasingly invent more and more implausible scenarios to keep up the doom-mongering, such as melting 7 times the ice on Greenland to stop the AMOC and calling that an imminent threat when it would maybe happen 1700 years in the future except that the ice doesn’t exist.
The way I see it, you can choose two plays. In one you win $150 by guessing the exact right answer out of 1000 possibilities, but you pay $50 if you guess incorrectly. In the other play you win $145 by correctly identifying any answer that is within +/- 50% and there’s no penalty for error.
You, bnice2000 reject the obvious second play. You mistake the tactic of accepting for the sake of argument and showing that it’s still a ‘so-what?’ for caving on a sacred principle.
The reality is that you can’t overcome the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that there’s a correlation between warming and CO2 emissions by rejecting all mainstream hypotheses on the basis of not being fully ‘proven’.
Your approach is every bit as ineffective as Richard Greene’s approach of alienating skeptics who hold any probably-mistaken hypothesis.
Everyone who agrees that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY must agree to disagree amicably and work together toward derailing the Nut Zero suicide pact.
Richard, the amount of water vapor in the local atmosphere is only partially related to air temperature. A very large effect is the path that the local air has taken in the atmosphere since the last time it was in contact with a source of humidity. Air that has undergone a wet adiabatic lift with precipitation on a frontal surface or in a convective storm returns toward Earth surface very dry, but can be quite warm — hot in fact. Think of the subtropics.
There is too much emphasis on processes that humidify the atmosphere, and way too little appreciation of how the water cycle dries out the atmosphere and opens it to direct radiative transport from low elevations to space.
“Give me enough dry atmophere and I shall cool the world.” (apologies to Achimedes)
Right on Kevin….it’s interesting that a big cell of falling dry air, forced down by moist air rising somewhere else, has a higher lapse rate, so will warm more than “average” as it falls. Then at night, its “dryness” will allow more surface IR to escape to outer space. I’m talking “over land” here. Over sea surface, the warmer air will tend to cause more evaporation and the start of another rising moist air cell. It’s all quite miraculous.
Kevin is making the distinction between how much water vapor can be held by the atmosphere (100% RH) versus how much is actually being held by the atmosphere (actual RH).
To make matters a bit more complicated, clean humid air can be cooled to the point where RH exceeds 100% due to lack of nucleation sites for condensation. This is the flip side of being able to heat water above the boiling point as in the case of steam explosions when heating water in a microwave (no nucleation site for steam bubbles to form).
“Kevin is making the distinction between how much water vapor can be held by the atmosphere … versus how much is actually being held by the atmosphere … “
The actual global average water vapor is unknown, so Mr. K. can not be making anything but generic speculation.
Kevin appears to have described Lindzen’s “Iris” hypothesis, where precipitation from cumulonimbus results in a lot of dry air being shoved into upper troposphere.
IIRC, there are very good measurements of water vapor concentration over different parts of the globe. Which was one the critical data points that van Wijngarden & Happer needed for their 2023 Primer on “green house gases”.
Wilpost, I don’t recall seeing a vertical profile of CO2 declining as much as you say, “to about 230 ppm at about 12 km,” and I don’t see a reference in your link to support this, though I may have overlooked it. Could you provide a source for that statement?
After googling, I saw a number of images of vertical CO2 ppm vs elevation, km.
I eyeballed an average CO2
If you google, you will find the images.
If you come up with a better number, I will be glad to use it.
Wilpost’s info should be “370 ppm”…..somewhere here I saw someone say the difference between low and high altitude CO2 concentration being the molecular weight of CO2 being 44 versus air of 29. Actually the difference is caused mostly by water droplets “washing” the CO2 down towards the surface, sort of a random-location-very-tall-distillation column…..
I added the latest CO2 vertical profile image i could find to the article, and corrected the verbiage
CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 383 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
Interesting, as far as it goes. But in comparing the GHG effects of H2O vs CO2 Wilpost does not mention that while CO2 absorbs energy (gets warmer), transports that energy (convection) and distributes it by collision (conduction) and radiation, H2O does so much more effectively by incorporating phase change – from liquid to vapor (constant temp), transport, collision and radiation, but then adds in condensation (constant temp) to rain, or even moreso to ice. It’s not merely the molecular count of H2O vs CO2 that makes water vapor the dominant GHG. H2O is MUCH more efficient in absorbing, transporting and distributing energy than CO2.
So well stated!
Condensing gases are refigerants, the cycle is the same in an air conditioner, with an energy source, an evaporator, a condenser, transporting heat from the surface to the atmosphere.
Conspicuously absent from the image with which our children are brainwashed.
“CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.”
CO2 is, as you say, measured in dry air. In fact its ultra dry. Why is it measured in this way? CO2 measured in normal circumstances in the open atmosphere will be appreciably higher. Is that not a better reflection of real world CO2 as we and the planet and our weather systems experience it and not the artificially dried version?
Using dry air, at a standard condition, enables CO2 ppm comparisons.
CO2 at ground level is higher, because it is created near the ground
If from fossil fuels, it can be about 150 C, which will cause it to rapidly rise, despite its high molecular wgt of 44, dry air is only 29.
I think there is an unwarranted emphasis on CO2, due to IPCC shenanigans, with water vapor doing almost all of the “work” of keeping the earth at livable 15 C
Wilpost, thanks for all the data. I was wondering if anyone has already done an FEA model breaking a vertical slice in to modules to actually do the heat transfer and thermo calculations?
No, they’re moaning about in, Ben. Everybody remembers the infamous note the departing New Labour government (Prop. G. Brown) left in 2010….
“”The former chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne’s note was discovered by David Laws, the Liberal Democrat MP who was appointed by the coalition government to succeed Byrne as No 2 at the Treasury.
It is a convention for outgoing ministers to leave a note for their successors with advice on how to settle into the job. But Byrne’s note – which he later said was intended as a private joke – drew attention to Labour’s economic record when it was revealed by Laws at a press conference today.
Laws told reporters: “When I arrived at my desk on the very first day as chief secretary, I found a letter from the previous chief secretary to give me some advice, I assumed, on how I conduct myself over the months ahead.
“Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: ‘Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left,’ which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting.”” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor
Starmer remembers it.
strativarius
February 11, 2024 3:25 am
Alarmism Central is somewhat jittery about political commitment to the cause..
“”…it was hip to be green – being at COP in 2021 was the political equivalent of the fashion week front row. But with Labour shrinking away from its big £28bn commitments this week, and the Conservatives shifting tack and rumoured to be dropping the so-called “boiler tax”, there’s no doubt trends have changed. Sunak took the first steps back in September. He didn’t junk the government’s green commitments but slowed the pace of existing plans.
Some Conservatives were delighted at he was heeding some voters’ concerns about the cost of going green, most notably extending the ultra low emissions zone to outer London. Other Tories were infuriated it sent the message that the environment was less important, and that irritation has festered since then, with former minister Chris Skidmore quitting as an MP.”” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68261445
“”Keir Starmer said Labour would build a gigafactory in the West Midlands, if the party wins the next general election.
Speaking on a visit to Coventry a day after insisting he had no choice but to ditch Labour’s £28bn-a-year green investment pledge, he said one of eight new gigafactories in his scaled back proposals would be in the region. … “I understand the disappointment in relation to the decision that was taken, and I absolutely think that these gigafactories are vitally important for our economy.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c101qd4952vo
More money down the drain and more [real] jobs cut. Brilliant. But the future is very uncertain for Labour. Empty suit Starmer has u-turned on just about everything he stood for – including the kitchen sink, but there is one exception. And Labour’s new imported core vote is far from happy about it.
“”Labour MPs facing wave of independent challengers over stance on Gaza
Dear me! Don’t you Brits even know the name of your own Prime Minister?
Why our brilliant Resident Brandon was recently discussing events of mutual interest with Prime Minister Gladstone oh sorry, it’s Rashi Sanook… … … 🦗🦗🦗 … … anyway … … God save the Queen, man!
Well there you go again, strat! You say it’s Sunak? But the Leader of the Free World ™ says it is Sanook. You know, Dashing Rashi Sanook. The 7-Eleven proprietor. Go figure.
Now please lecture us on how January and February are the busiest months for European farmers and not the best months for a protest using tractors away from the farm,
Without reading any leftist publications, because truth is not a leftist value, I assume the spin will be: The IPCCs prediction of CAGW has been proven in court, and the science deniers lost.
In reality, the Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart Tree Ring Circus made no predictions of CAGW. Mann falsely claimed, by cherry picking weak proxies, that natural causes of climate change in the past 1,000 years were allegedly less important than all other scientists have claimed in the past 50 years.
The probability of accurate reporting on what the Hockey Stink Chart actually claims, and this trial, in leftist publications, is zero.
Welcome to U.S. fascism, where there is only government news, and everything else is claimed to be disinformation, or is censored. People who spread such disinformation get punished.
I think he probably misread what you said, and sedation likely would not help. In any case, I sometimes wonder what you guys are arguing about, but I enjoy it nevertheless.
You copied a quote straight out of Greenpeace in this Jan 11 WUWT comment section to impugn the integrity of Dr Willie Soon. A Republican/ conservative / Trump voter would not do that. In your Disqus account, you routinely trash climate realists – Marc Morano / Dr Judith Curry / Joe Bastardi / CFACT / WUWT guest post contributors / etc – in the exact same manner as environmentalist wackos do. Who can guess what you are up to at your “blog” containing “bonus” bimbo photos / irrelevant music links to click on? It wouldn’t take much programming expertise to create a site that only spits out article links and no other useful info. As for dual personality commenter accounts, I used to joust with what I call “the CB account,” an alleged American woman who swore she was a Native American … who I see to this day still lapses into UK spellings of words on utterly random occasions. You and “the CB account” are on the same page when it comes to Michael Mann’s ‘court victory.’ Sorry, friend, you just don’t pass the smell test with me.
Bastardi is a El Nino Underseas Volcano Nutter with no data to support his conclusions.
Morano goes hyperbolic on Fox and never leaves viewers with any relavant facts or data
Curry is a lukewarmer who writes that global warming is a problem that must be solved but refuses to explain why global warming is a problem
Michael Mann’s court victory was a disgrace and Steyn will probably have to leave the US to avoid paying $1 million.
My wife objected to the fully clothed female photos at the end of my daily blog post so I switched to songs of the day.
— There is more to life than bad news on climate and energy scaremongering … or arguing with angry nitwits like you who post science free insult comments
This is not a world where every liberal is 100% wrong and every conservative is 100% right. I attempt to differentiate. You are an “us or them” guy.
Since you would never believe anything I say, consider the work of almost 100% of all scientists who have lived on this planet in the past century as your guide to why AGW is real, based on evidence, not the imagination.
You are stuck on stupid with no desire to learn from real scientists.
With the mind of a child who screams “Prove it Prove it You can’t prove it” at everyone who disagrees. You are a mental midget with a closed mind.
AGW is real, based on evidence, not the imagination.
AGW is NOT based on evidence unless you define the word evidence by your own ”special” terms. Something cannot be ”real” without empirical evidence. You are talking about conjecture. AGW is based on the imagination at the moment. Especially yours.
No, actually, I’m just not a hypocrite about the climate issue. More and more people cannot figure out what your actual position is. I left out that you don’t much care for Pierre Gosselin, either. Maybe you could compile the whole list of climate realists you think are “nutters.” Meanwhile, still no answer for your use of the Greenpeace disinformation to impugn the work of Dr Willie Soon. I didn’t expect you to come up with one. Bot commenters are just predictable that way.
Over the many years I’ve jousted with leftist commenters who have no other life outside of that activity, among the many hallmarks of theirs was a particularly odd crushing lack of self-esteem, where they were fixated on attaining high upvote counts in order to feel better about themselves. On the Disqus commenter system (used at CFACT’s articles and other places), one commenter went so far as to solicit bot accounts to follow him so that he’d get dozens of automatic upvotes for his comments from the fake account system those bot accounts used. So, when I thought I’d take just a little time to see if you were legit or not, one of the more noticeable search results that came up for you was your multi-repeated claims of how many page views had accumulated at your alleged “blog(s).” 300k / 500k / approaching 700k page views, with no evidence at all where you get those figures. Seems odd, doesn’t it, that your ‘wife’ would just decide out-of-the-blue several weeks back that she did not like your bikini-clad fake bimbo photos?
Claiming that the world had warmed for over 1.5°C for the whole of 2024, the BBC Cassandras feared for the end of the world. Then silence. It is as if the story was never published and no other media (MSM or otherwise) seems to have picked it up.
What happened. As a story tip it might be worth following up.
You’ve picked the wrong prophet of doom I feel.
Cassandra was a Trojan princess who was given the gift of prophesy but cursed that nobody would believe her.
Perhaps William Miller and the Millerites is a better choice, he managed to convince people twice before he was rumbled. But the Adventist Church was created by his (disappointed) followers, that means after nearly 200 years it still survives.
Not quite true. Fiona Harvey in the Grauniad, in an article in response to Labour’s rowback on the £38bn a year policy( 9th Feb), said
“Temperatures for the year from Jan 2023 to the end of last month were 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time , new research has shown.”
But no fuss and hoohaa. Perhaps they are still working on that but attacking Labour was the priority at the moment. By the way her article also included many statements of what was being foregone for which there is no evidence at all. Typical.
The planet just passed a new dangerous warming thresholdBy Sabrina Shankman Globe Staff,Updated February 9, 2024, 1:05 p.m.
The planet’s thermometer has eclipsed a critical boundary,reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above pre-industrial times over a 12-month period, according to the European science agency Copernicus. But all hope isn’t lost.
Earth has been tiptoeing toward this threshold, which represents the lower bound of the 2015 Paris Agreement, a mark that scientists have long warned must be avoided to minimize even more extreme weather events. But experts say that one 12-month stretchof warmth at this level isn’t game over — technically, climate is measured in long-term averages, taken over decades, not in a single year. And with aggressive action, there’s still time to slow the pace of warming and the chaotic impact that can bring.
As the “Global Temperature” is likely to stay above 1.5C for some time to come I’m looking forward to the hyping of Northern Hemisphere weather events during summer 2024, and ignoring of SH weather events during winter 2024.
It’s like end-of-the-world predictions. When they fail, shift the goalposts. We have been told for so long that we have so little time to save the world – never nore than 10 years often a lot less – and now suddenly when the prediction fails (temperature is up 1.5C and the football hasn’t been cancelled) the temperature is “taken over decades”.
So are we now going to get shifting goalposts for the next few decades? What a horrible prospect.
Note for the unfortunately Globe readers: there is no “planet’s thermometer” (singular). It starts with a lie, and doesn’t get any better with this whopper: “technically, climate is measured in long-term averages”. Once again, the GAT is a meaning number that tells nothing about “the climate”.
Psychology study unearths ways to bolster global climate awareness and climate action
Global research team’s work spurs creation of ‘behavioral science’ tool for policymakers and advocacy groupsDate:
February 7, 2024
Source:
New York University
Summary:
An international team of scientists has created a tool that can aid in increasing climate awareness and climate action globally by highlighting messaging themes shown to be effective through experimental research.
Replacing animal-based foods with alternative proteins would unlock land for carbon removal
Date:
February 7, 2024
Source:
Cell Press
Summary:
Researchers report that replacing 50% of animal products with alternative proteins by 2050 could free up enough agricultural land to generate renewable energy equivalent in volume to today’s coal-generated power while simultaneously removing substantial CO2 from the atmosphere.
My Dad lived to 98, never needing nursing home care, with that diet.
Maybe he would have lived to 98 eating kale and tofu, but it would have been 98 miserable years.
My food pyramid is topped by pizza, bacon, salami and hamburgers. Why not die happy BEFORE you get old enough to get dementia? What good is a healthy body if you lose your mind? There’s not much demand for dementia patients in the workplace, except US president.
The Premise, and the utter Stupidity, is endless. I realize ‘they’ have an ‘end goal’, but do ‘they’ even know what Critical Thinking and Common Sense contribute to any discussion?
Education and information can increase the acceptance of climate policies
Date:
January 29, 2024
Source:
University of Gothenburg
Summary:
An important question for policymakers worldwide is how to make climate and environmental policies acceptable among the populations. A new study sheds light on the preferences in five East African countries. The study shows, among others, that education and information about how revenues from carbon taxes are used are important factors.
Sure, all you gotta do is brainwash them, then buy them off- but if their nations aren’t using ff, then where is the carbon taxes gonna come from to produce those revenues? And even if there is some- it’s just going to come from the natives- then spent by burro-crats and much lost of course in theft and corruption producing useless green energy. How to make green policies acceptable? How about by real, high quality science?
CAGW only has two legs to stand on, “settled science” and “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.” To understand how that second leg began getting its lasting, exponential-growing media traction after 1997, you have to deeply examine one of the main promulgators behind the accusation, who now can no longer make amends for the injustice he’s done to skeptic climate scientists.
“CAGW only has two legs to stand on, “settled science” and “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.”
CAGW is not based on any science. It is based on two false beliefs:
(1) Anything scientists say is automatically “science”, and
(2) Scientists are capable of accurate climate predictions.
CAGW is an imaginary climate that has never before happened Therefore, no CAGW data exist. With no CAGW data, there is no CAGW science. Just predictions based on unproven CAGW theories … that have been wrong since 1979. Climate astrology.
The main imagined cause of CAGW is a very strong water vapor positive feedback to amplify the small warming effect of CO2 emissions alone.
That feedback is also imaginary because there are no precise measurements of global average water vapor to track just how much more water vapor a warmer troposphere is holding.
Observations of global warming since 1975, even with a worst case assumption that CO2 caused all the warming, do not suggest more than a small water vapor positive feedback.
And an ECS of CO2 well BELOW the low range of the IPCC’s wild guess range of +2.5 to +4.0 C. … which is what lab spectroscopy has been predicting for many decades: A small amount of harmless warming from CO2 x 2.
Among the other hallmarks of enviro-activists (even when they pretend to be on the skeptic side) is their concept comprehension disability.
“CAGW — as pushed by the IPCC / Al Gore side — only has two legs to stand on, ‘settled science’ and ‘industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.’ ”
Do I really need to explain that to you? They can’t dispute what the skeptic side has to offer (including the skeptics you despise, btw), so they only thing they have to fall back on is accusation-hurling and any other means of character assignation . . . . . which, in case you missed it, is exactly what you do.
My impression is, you have not the mindest idea about your earlier writing, or no idea of the meaning what you are writing about.
Brandon,. is that you ? 😀
The AGW consensus is nearly 100% and has had since 1896 to be refuted. With no success.
Everything that scientists say is not automatically science. I stand by that statement. I also stand by the statement that you are an annoying dingbat.
Back radiation is measured every day. On a cloudless night it can only be caused by water vapor and CO2. And you remain a perpetually confused dingbat.
Doherty talked about the mental health impacts and emotional burden of the storm and of climate-related extreme weather events.
Doherty is one of a small but growing number of psychologists and therapists nationwide who focus on helping people deal with emotions tied to natural disasters and climate change. In 2011, he and a colleague authored a study proposing a then-novel idea: that global warming would have significant psychological impacts. He has since been a strong proponent of environmental psychology, an emerging field that examines human connection to nature.
He has some unexpected pointers on how people can cope with climate anxiety, despair and guilt.
I hope he’s encouraging patients to accept that ‘Nature’ is not a friendly presence to any living organisms on this planet.
‘Nature’ is hell-bent on removing current fauna (including us) by any and all means at its disposal.
So that it can establish the next evolutionary version of every species.
That’s Nature’s job in whole scheme of existence.
Getting close-up with ‘Nature’ is petting the crocodile.
‘Nature’ never changes its own nature.
So homo sapiens sapiens needs to stall its inevitable evolutionary replacement for as long as it can by using whatever resources it can muster to extend its position in the existence stakes.
Coal and oil come to mind as examples of useful resources.
So Dr. Doherty should impress upon his patients that all humanity is in a constant fight with Nature for its very existence, so getting all sookey and maudlin about our lot in life is a real loser attitude.
Toughen up there, soldier!
“ ‘Nature’ is not a friendly presence to any living organisms on this planet.”
Nature is the ever-present, universal source of all that we have and all that we are. We could not exist without Nature, nor could we exist apart from Nature. It is Nature that is sustaining our existence on this planet. How unfriendly is that?
An interesting and (for me) somewhat informative article about “dropsonds” technology being used to assess the intensity of those “atmospheric rivers” that originate around Hawaii and ride the jet stream to pour on to the Pacific North West coasts of the US and BC Canada.
Note that this is another instance of trying to make things sound nastier. As long as I’ve lived here, we’ve called those winter stormy weeks the Pineapple Express. What’s so bad about fresh squeezed juice straight from the islands? Makes our timber grow like mad. The northwest pacific coast up into Alaska is, I think, home to most of the world’s temperate zone rain forest. Cool, right? So, of course, the climate clowns had to come up with an uglier way to say it: “Duck, here comes an atmospheric river.”
Pineapple Express sounds rather yummy, actually, doesn’t it. 🙂
Had a really nice fried pineapple fritter with cinnamon sugar with lunch today 🙂
Coach Springer
February 12, 2024 6:42 am
The Steyn trial as currently configured prior to appeal will open the door to intimidation of opinion in all media whether broadcast or print and extend even to comedy. Steyn’s appeals become increasingly about free speech. And where that speech occurs.
If Steyn and Simberg had published in a science rag as experts claiming scientific fraud, Mann might have yet had a case if he hadn’t committed scientific fraud knowingly manipulating data in order to misrepresent the facts. [E.g., put crap like that in a mutual fund prospectus and see where it gets you.] Since “science” doesn’t have a fraud statute (and would misuse it if it did), Steyn and others like him are the best remedy when pseudo science by fiat is political justification for absolute power.
Here’s another way to look at interconnector electricity trade. The half hour settlement periods are ranked by day ahead price over a year (2023), and then the import and export and net trade volumes are cumulated over the re-ordered data. The chart shows the cumulated totals at 1 percentile intervals, revealing the tendency to export at low prices because of renewables surpluses, and import at high ones because of a lack of renewables and dispatchable capacity.
Question : Does the newly-reinstated “Edit” functionality still “strip out” (some ?) HTML tags ?
Original post with bold text and italic text and underlined text and “struck through” text …
… and combined bold AND underlined text …
_ _ _ _ _ _
Edited (without logging out and back in again, simulates “spotting a spelling / grammar mistake 10ms after posting”).
NB : At this point the original post appears as expected.
Additional text using bold text and italic text and underlined text and “struck through” text …
… and combined bold AND underlined text …
_ _ _ _ _ _
Re-edited, after logging out and back in again (simulates “checking World + Dog can see what I posted” / it’s not been “flagged for human moderation”).
NB : After hitting the “Save” button the complete edited post did appear as expected, including underlining !
On logging out, however, the “underlining” disappeared … but only the underlining !
See if I can introduce “new” (bold and) underlined text or not (probably the latter) …
Extra text using bold text and italic text and ***underlined text*** and “struck through” text …
NB : While there is indeed a “longer Edit delay”, it is not infinite.
On hitting “Save” the second time the comment appeared with underlining in the last two lines.
On logging out the underlining disappeared again.
Conclusions
1) In an initial “Post Comment” case, “u” HTML tags are kept.
2) After editing (or re-editing), however, underlining will appear to be correct after clicking on the “Save” button, but the “u” HTML tags are then (apparently) “stripped out” during the logout procedure.
3) The newly-reinstalled “Edit” function is much (!) appreciated, but still has some odd “bugs”. It should not be re-retired just for the “minor” (even to me !) inconvenience “highlighted” (sic) in these posts.
El Niños and the Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Volcanic Eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Refer to this URL to see images
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
Water Vapor and CO2 Vertical Profiles
.
Water vapor is about 20,000 ppm near the surface. It rapidly decreases to about 10 ppm at about 12 km, due to condensing on particles and cloud formation. See image
CO2 is about 423 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 230 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
Almost all available IR photons are near the surface, where the WV/CO2 molecule ratio is 20,000/423 = 47
Near the surface, WV molecules can absorb 92% of the available IR photons, because of more windows with wide absorption bands, whereas CO2 molecules can absorb only about 8%, because of only a few windows with narrow absorption bands. See Image 11A
Near the surface, WV absorption is 47 greater than CO2 absorption
If WV molecules were 10% more potent than CO2 molecules, due to absorption of higher energy IR photons, the 47 ratio would be even greater
Whereas CO2 molecules are much more abundant than WV molecules at higher elevations, the remaining IR photons is very little, plus the molecules are much further apart, due to lower air density, which reduces collisions.
.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12375270077?profile=RESIZE_710x.
Water Vapor Compared With CO2 in the Atmosphere
.
CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
.
Water vapor, worldwide basis: Water vapor is highly variable between locations, from 10 ppm in the coldest air, such as the Antarctic to 50,000 ppm (5%), such as in the hot, humid areas of the Tropics.
Water vapor in atmosphere, worldwide average, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 1016 kg, or 7.1667 x 10^14 moles
Atmosphere weight, dry, is about 5.148 x 10^18 kg, or 1.7752 x 10^17 moles
Water vapor percent, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 10^16 / 5.148 x 10^18 = 0.002506, or 0.2506%
Water vapor fraction, mole basis, is about 7.1667 x 10^14 / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.004037, or 0.4037%, or 4037 ppm
Water vapor molecules, worldwide average, are about 4037/423 = 9.54 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
.
Water vapor in temperate zones, north and south of the equator, where most of the world’s population lives, is more prevalent, than the worldwide average of 4037 ppm.
Water vapor, in temperate zones, is about 9022 ppm, at 16 C and 50% humidity. See Note
Water vapor molecules, in temperate zones, are about 9022/423 = 21.33 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
.
Water vapor in the Tropics, with high temperatures and high humidity, is much higher than elsewhere. As huge quantities of water vapor, produced near the equator travels toward Earth’s poles, it transports energy and creates weather. Variations in the Earth topography of different regions result in different weather outcomes. See video in URL
https://nhpbs.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nves.sci.earth.vapor/monitoring-earths-water-vapor/
Water vapor, in the Tropics, is about 29806 ppm, at 30 C and 70% humidity
Water vapor molecules, in the Tropics, are about 29806/423 = 70.46 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
.
NOTE: At 16 C and 50% humidity, water vapor in air is 0.0056 lb H2O/ lb dry air, or 2.5424 g H2O/ 454 g dry air After converting to moles, 0.009022 mole H2O/mole dry air, or 9022 ppm.
A mole of water vapor is 18 g, a mole dry air is 29 g
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html
.
Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
.
Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They can be found on many websites.
They were determined in a laboratory by relatively few people
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.
They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use subjective models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.
So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.
I have been unable to find the calculations and or measurements that yielded these values
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html ;
H2O molecules, as water vapor, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
Water vapor and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf
.
Allocating Available IR photons
.
We assume, for simplicity, H2O and CO2 molecules have equal global warming capacity.
About 22% of IR photons escape to space through an atmospheric window, per Image 11A, blue part.
.
Worldwide basis: H2O molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules 9.5%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2
.
Temperate zone basis: H2O molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5%
.
Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 29806/(29806 + 423) = 98.6%, and CO2 molecules 1.4%
It appears, CO2 has almost no global warming role to play in the Tropics, where huge quantities of water vapor is heated, that is distributed to the rest of the earth, by normal circulation processes.
If H2O molecules had greater global warming capacity than CO2 molecules, the CO2 role regarding global warming would be even less.
.
Atmospheric Window. See Image 11A
The window exists, primarily due to the reduced absorption of IR photons by water vapor.
The window varies from 15 to 30%, primarily due to changes in water vapor ppm and cloud cover
The wide IR photon absorption spectrum of H2O, from 20 to 70 micrometers, almost entirely limits the right side of the blue part, plus the wide spectrum, from 4 to 10 micrometers, almost entirely limits and reduces the left side of the blue part
The narrow IR photon absorption spectrum of CO2, centered on 14.9 micrometers, also limits and reduces the right side of the blue part.
Water vapor molecules play the dominant role absorbing IR photons, because they have much wider absorption bands of wavelengths than CO2, plus H2O molecules are 9.54 more prevalent than CO2 molecules, on worldwide average, as above calculated.
Image 11A
What a pile of you know what
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse variable but does not DIECTLY increase or decrease the greenhouse effect.
Water vapor varies with the temperature of the atmosphere. If more CO2 causes warming, then mre water vapor amplifies that warming
You appear to be a CO2 denier and El Nino Nutter.
a CO2 denier and El Nino Nutter.
For a moment I thought Michael E Mann posted that
You show to be a WV nutter at it’s best. Thanks for clarify.
The temp of the atmosphere has increased about 1 C since 1900, due to an increase of 145 ppm in CO2, if we attribute the temp increase only to CO2
But, that is not the case, because the 1 C, increased WV by about 7%, which contributed far more than CO2 ever could, because its ppm is so low, and it can absorb only up to 8% of all available IR photons
WV, by itself, contributes 33 C to global warming to maintain a comfortable 15 C instead of a disastrous -18 C, if WV were absent
Prior to 1900, any increase of the atmosphere temp was due to exiting the LIA
There was insignificant added CO2
Any CO2 ppm was natural, not human
Should read: If we attribute the increase only to increased natural and human CO2
There likely was an increase of natural CO2, due to increased flora and outgassing of tundras, etc.
There is not enough fossil fuel left to add significant human CO2 to the atmosphere
“There is not enough fossil fuel left to add significant human CO2 to the atmosphere”
And what hat did you pull that data free claim out of?
Judith Curry at Climate Etc. has written on the improbability of the RCP 8.5 scenario. You have to keep up. Bravado and insult isn’t sufficient.
Annual anthropogenic emissions are equivalent in quantity to about 4 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. The Keeling curve shows an annual atmospheric increase of about 2 ppm, indicating that the oceans and global greening are absorbing about half of our emissions.
Our emissions are only about 5% of the total annual carbon cycle, but atmospheric content has increased from about 280 ppm to 410 ppm since the invention of the Orsat analyzer in 1873, which I defy any chemist to get consistent results for atmospheric CO2 from.
We really have little calculable evidence whether the carbon cycle would level off at some new higher steady value at some future date or not. IPC pathways are based on various assumed fossil fuels consumptions by humanity. Then the temp increases are based on an ensemble Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that IPCC “knows” to be somewhere between .8 and 6.0 degrees per CO2 doubling with a confidence level based on the number of selected published papers stating a calculated ECP. So they use about 3.0 C per 2x CO2, which is on the high side, with half their models predicting something less….
Its a bit of a tower made of champagne glasses at a champagne socialist convention on job creation and modern-broken-window-causes-economic-stimulation theory.
That 2 ppm increase p/y is from human and all other sources
About 90% of stored CO2 entered oceans, where the CO2 becomes part of numerous chemical compounds, which aids skeleton development of water life.
wilpost,
solar input to the planet is 240 W/sq.M. on average allowing for albedo. This is also the amount leaving the planet to outer space. This corresponds to an radiative emissions temp of 255 K. The surface temperature is 288 K corresponds to 390 W/Sq.M.
That’s the 33 degrees of greenhouse effect. So it isn’t just WV as you have stated, but includes WV, other GHG, clouds, name-whatever-you-can-think-of….
DMac,
I added the latest CO2 vertical profile image, i could find, to the article, and corrected the verbiage
CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 383 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
You seem to be unintentionally parroting the IPCC, which claims the water vapor positive feedback increases a modest amount of warming from CO2 alone by 2x to 4x in the long run.
The increase of CO2 before 1975 was too small to cause much warming, having increased from in 316ppm in 1959 to 331ppm in 1975, which is only a +4.7% increase spread over 16 years.
Any small warming effect from +4.7% CO2 was easily offset by the increase of air pollution, which peaked in 1980 for SO2 emissions.
There is no way to know what percentage of the post 1975 warming was caused by CO2 and a positive water vapor feedback.
We know the CO2 increase was +27% from 1975 to 2023, and lab spectroscopy suggests what that extra CO2 would do in the atmosphere.
But we have no global average atmospheric water vapor statistic to know exactly how much the water vapor increased.
The warming after 1975 could be explained with CO2 increases and SO2 decreases as the only two variables. An Occam’s Razor explanation.
But that would leave out the unknown effects of global average cloudiness and global average water vapor.
Without knowing the effect of clouds, the IPCC’s claim that post 1975 warming was manmade is meaningless.
False claims that added CO2 was natural, or perhaps 97% natural, is what we hears from climate science frauds and fools.
Manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 were almost double the increase of atmospheric CO2.
Nature (oceans, land and plants) absorbed up to half of the manmade CO2 increase.
The CO2 is Natural Nutters, and you appear to be one, are fools on the source of added atmospheric CO2 since 1850.
For many years I have asked the CO2 is Natural Nutters to explain where the manmade CO2 emissions went, if not into the atmosphere, and exactly where the extra natural CO2 emissions came from
They rarely respond.
Sometimes they respond with insults.
A few times they ignored the manmade CO2 emissions question, and turned into babbling fools, claiming the CO2 came from underseas volcanoes. When asked to provide data (there are none) they resorted to insults or they stopped responding.
There are at least a few CO2 is All Natural, El Ninos Cause All Global Warming, From Underseas Volcanoes Heat Releases Nutters here. They are the Forrest Gump’s of climate science.
And then we have the leftists predicting doom from global warming, after 44 years of WRONG predictions of doom from global warming … while the actual climate became more moderate and more pleasant.
The majority of people who comment on the climate are those who claim CO2 does everything and others who claim CO2 does little or nothing.
“We don’t know” what the future climate will be is rarely stated.
The only important question is ignored:
Do you prefer warming or cooling?
(because those are the only two choices for our planet)
That is like seeing someone come into your house, obviously soaked with rain, and dismissing their claim that it is raining outside because they can’t tell you the rate of rainfall. You are much too impressed with yourself.
“You are much too impressed with yourself.”
And for absolutely ZERO reason.
An arrogant ego that his empty anti-science yabbering can’t possible keep up with.
The percentage of your comments that include no science is approaching 100%
Your posts contain FAR more than 100% NON-science
They are constantly in the realm of ANTI-science.
They are truly Billy Madison content !!
When asked how they know underseas volcanoes are causimg all the global warming … they turn into bloviating children “Because I say so”
Does dickie still heat his water by putting dry ice above it. !
Or does he heat it from below. !
Aha ha ha. Sums up Greene perfectly!
Well that was a meaningless evidence-free and science-free rant.
The occasionally correct statement, but mostly just the same anti-science BS blathering you are renowned for.
Now, do you have any scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Not conjecture based on glass jars, not empty blather.. actual evidence.
You are batting well in the negative so far. !
When asked to provide scientific evidence for CO2 warming, YOU resorted to insults or go on another consensus rant.
This is where you have followed the climate alarmists down the wrong path. The historic data shows it is more complex.
The upper Troposphere humidity drops. This is where water vapor’s GHE is most important. This is also the data used in Miskolczi 2023 where he shows this reduction reduces the water vapor GHE at the same rate the CO2 GHE is increasing. The overall GHE stays constant. See figure 10.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
“The overall GHE stays constant”
Total BS
There are no measurements available to derive an annual average atmospheric water vapor statistic.
That’s why scientists most often claim water vapor averages 2% to 3% — there is no accurate global average statistic.
“The upper Troposphere humidity drops. This is where water vapor’s GHE is most important”
More BS
Inside the troposphere, the temperature drops approximately linearly at a rate of 6.5 Celsius degrees per km, from a global mean of 288 Kelvin (15 Celsius) on the ground to 220 K (-53 Celsius). At higher altitudes, up to 20 km, the temperature is approximately constant; this layer is called the tropopause.
The water vapor amount decreases with altitude because temperature decreases with height.
The troposphere and tropopause together consist of ~99% of the atmospheric CO2.
Inside the troposphere, the CO2 drops with altitude approximately exponentially, with a typical length of 6.3 km; this means that the density at height y is approximately proportional to exp(-y/6.3 km), and it goes down to 37% at 6.3 km, and to 17% at 11 km.
Higher through the tropopause, density continues dropping exponentially, albeit faster, with a typical length of 4.2 km.
I showed you the data. Did you even bother to look at the nice graph? No? Typical science denier.
Science is more than just the general rules which you quoted. You told me nothing I didn’t already know. None of it is relative to what the data actually shows. General rules do not apply directly across a spherical planet. Circulation patterns affect everything.
You can try to understand more detailed science or you ignore it. You’ve chosen the latter.
I can’t read your charts. But you claimed most of the greenhouse effect is in the upper troposphere, which is wrong. So why should I trust “your” charts?
I didn’t develop the chart and it is pretty clearly labeled. You couldn’t have put in any effort at all. CTL+ works well on PCs to enlarge text.
I didn’t say “most of the greenhouse effect is in the upper troposphere“. I said that’s where it is important.
Do you not realize the GHE for water vapor is saturated low in the atmosphere (for CO2 as well). Do you even understand what that means? The fact you don’t pretty much disqualifies anything you have to say on the subject.
It isn’t saying there’s no energy absorption low in the atmosphere. It’s telling us that all the energy which can be absorbed is already being absorbed. Hence, the GHE can’t increase. That’s not true as you move higher in the atmosphere because of the lower density. That means this is the only place where the GHE can increase (or possibly decrease).
Clearly, your knowledge level of the science is minimal. Maybe you should try listening for a change.
All dickie can do is put his fingers in his ears. close his mind and have little trantrums
“Hence, the GHE can’t increase.”
The greenhouse effect, aka back radiation, is measured every day and IS increasing
Hence, you are a reality denier
Wrong !
Back radiation does not cause warming. In fact, it causes evaporative cooling at the surface. Yes, I know you will deny it because you’ve never studied the physics of the boundary layer.
The GHE is a delay in the energy loss to space. It has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works.
“I can’t read your charts”
Admitting your incompetence is not a good way to start a post.
“Inside the troposphere, the CO2 drops with altitude approximately exponentially,”
ppm hardly changes at all.
MEDS Richard! MEDS!
Science Richard! Science! is better advice.
science plus some humility
Truth version fiction
The graph above showed you are the one pushing fiction.
Along with almost 100% of climate scientists living on our planet. That’s my team. Your team is science frauds, boozers, losers and village idiots.
Personally, I don’t have “a team”. I look at the science and see who follows the laws of physics.
Doesn’t take long to see that “climate science” has it completely wrong. And, I doubt anyone part of that team will dare speak out. They would quickly be excommunicated. The field is now on the same level as priests in any other religion.
Good luck with your new religion.
Amazing that you think you are smarter than almost 100% of the world’s scientists who defend AGW while you deny it exists. You must be a legend, in your own mind.
AGW and CAGW are not the same
I know you are confused about that.
AGW or CAGW??? The name is irrelevant. What does the science support? is the proper question. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue..
It’s not a matter of me being smarter. It’s a matter of following science. You refuse to even look at it.
It’s hilarious that you will throw up “climate science” as your evidence while still denying it will cause significant warming. Talk about “confused”.
Dickie goes the total loser consensus route again.
HILARIOUS !
Following the money may bring clarity about those “almost 100% of (bought) climate scientists” b.s.
There’s too many Richards going at it here.
Gets confusing.
Which one is really a Dick?
It’s usually The Dickie & Nasty Show
Believe it or not, I often agree with Mr Greene on his assessment of science. There are lots of pet theories that he tries ineffectively to counter by ad hominem “nutter” claims where I would prefer to just say “I disagree because…” or ignore altogether.
If Richard were motivated by the desire to persuade as many people as possible that there is no climate emergency he would certainly find ways to disagree politely with skeptics who espouse apparently wrong views. Yet he never does that. It’s dangerous to practice psychology without a license on people you’ve never met, but what the hell…
I think Richard is a person who loves a good knock-down drag-out agreement. A person who craves being right over being an effective communicator. It is more vital to him that someone else is seen to be wrong about something than to find common ground.
There is no common ground for most people. Either you trust the government 100% or you claim the government is wrong 100% of the time.
The moderate approach is that AGW exists and CAGW is imaginary.
Data free theories about
El Ninos,
Underseas Volcanoes
CO2 is 97% natural,
CO2 does nothing above 350ppm and
The greenhouse effect can’t increase
Are all false claims that make conservatives look like fools rather than climate realists.
These false claims are easily fact checked by leftists since they are either not based on data or ignore relevant data.
We conservatives are LOSING the climate propaganda battle. And we will never win by inventing new bizarre theories of climate. Conservatives who do this get all of us called science deniers FOR A GOOD REASONs/
The best scientists ON OUR SUDE, including Richard Lindzen and William Happer, never spout any of these false theories
They support AGW
They deny CAGW.
That is my position
Yet another data-free dickie-bot comment.
And the anti-science call to consensus.
WOW.. how predictable.
Happer only looks at radiative aspects.
Not even you are dumb enough to think radiation is the only energy transfer in the atmosphere. … are you ???
We are all still waiting for you to produce scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Still a complete failure from you.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that individual skeptics holding such views somehow undermine our ability to persuade the general public that there’s no climate emergency.
Has your approach toward changing their opinions been effective in your estimation?
Does effective communication and persuasion matter to you?
“we will never win by inventing new bizarre theories of climate.“
Realists certainly can’t win by regurgitating all the anti-science of the AGW, which is what you do.
You keep kicking own goals…
…. because your AGW-cultist brain-washing doesn’t allow you to do anything else.
It all has an air of angels dancing on the head of a pin to me.
By their own flawed science, calibrated by actual observations, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Alarmists must increasingly invent more and more implausible scenarios to keep up the doom-mongering, such as melting 7 times the ice on Greenland to stop the AMOC and calling that an imminent threat when it would maybe happen 1700 years in the future except that the ice doesn’t exist.
The way I see it, you can choose two plays. In one you win $150 by guessing the exact right answer out of 1000 possibilities, but you pay $50 if you guess incorrectly. In the other play you win $145 by correctly identifying any answer that is within +/- 50% and there’s no penalty for error.
You, bnice2000 reject the obvious second play. You mistake the tactic of accepting for the sake of argument and showing that it’s still a ‘so-what?’ for caving on a sacred principle.
The reality is that you can’t overcome the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that there’s a correlation between warming and CO2 emissions by rejecting all mainstream hypotheses on the basis of not being fully ‘proven’.
Your approach is every bit as ineffective as Richard Greene’s approach of alienating skeptics who hold any probably-mistaken hypothesis.
Everyone who agrees that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY must agree to disagree amicably and work together toward derailing the Nut Zero suicide pact.
An amazing comment given this is exactly what you have done here today. I provided you “relevant data” and your only response was denial.
The one with the longest posts?
There’s a double entendre somewhere there Sturmudgeon, but its beer o’clock now, so I can’t think about it at the moment 🙂
Richard, the amount of water vapor in the local atmosphere is only partially related to air temperature. A very large effect is the path that the local air has taken in the atmosphere since the last time it was in contact with a source of humidity. Air that has undergone a wet adiabatic lift with precipitation on a frontal surface or in a convective storm returns toward Earth surface very dry, but can be quite warm — hot in fact. Think of the subtropics.
There is too much emphasis on processes that humidify the atmosphere, and way too little appreciation of how the water cycle dries out the atmosphere and opens it to direct radiative transport from low elevations to space.
“Give me enough dry atmophere and I shall cool the world.” (apologies to Achimedes)
Right on Kevin….it’s interesting that a big cell of falling dry air, forced down by moist air rising somewhere else, has a higher lapse rate, so will warm more than “average” as it falls. Then at night, its “dryness” will allow more surface IR to escape to outer space. I’m talking “over land” here. Over sea surface, the warmer air will tend to cause more evaporation and the start of another rising moist air cell. It’s all quite miraculous.
“ It’s all quite miraculous.” Got that right!
Air temperature sets the potential for how much water CAN be in the atmosphere.
Other factors control how much of that potential is realized.
Local water vapor is not global average water vapor. Just like a local temperature is not global average temperature.
Are you claiming that a warmer troposphere will not hold more water vapor, on average?
Kevin is making the distinction between how much water vapor can be held by the atmosphere (100% RH) versus how much is actually being held by the atmosphere (actual RH).
To make matters a bit more complicated, clean humid air can be cooled to the point where RH exceeds 100% due to lack of nucleation sites for condensation. This is the flip side of being able to heat water above the boiling point as in the case of steam explosions when heating water in a microwave (no nucleation site for steam bubbles to form).
“Kevin is making the distinction between how much water vapor can be held by the atmosphere … versus how much is actually being held by the atmosphere … “
The actual global average water vapor is unknown, so Mr. K. can not be making anything but generic speculation.
Kevin appears to have described Lindzen’s “Iris” hypothesis, where precipitation from cumulonimbus results in a lot of dry air being shoved into upper troposphere.
IIRC, there are very good measurements of water vapor concentration over different parts of the globe. Which was one the critical data points that van Wijngarden & Happer needed for their 2023 Primer on “green house gases”.
“What a pile of you know what”
And dickie finds the title of his whole autobiography / blog.
Well done , dickie !
You truly are a manic AGW-cultist nutter.
Belief in CO2 warming with zero evidence.
Denial of the effect of El Ninos.
Rancid baseless belief in all the anti-science of the AGW nutters.
You still need to be sedated … and perhaps another lobotomy too?
Poor dickie.. still totally absent of scientific evidence.
So sad !! 😉
Seems to be time for moderation.
Wilpost, I don’t recall seeing a vertical profile of CO2 declining as much as you say, “to about 230 ppm at about 12 km,” and I don’t see a reference in your link to support this, though I may have overlooked it. Could you provide a source for that statement?
After googling, I saw a number of images of vertical CO2 ppm vs elevation, km.
I eyeballed an average CO2
If you google, you will find the images.
If you come up with a better number, I will be glad to use it.
Wilpost’s info should be “370 ppm”…..somewhere here I saw someone say the difference between low and high altitude CO2 concentration being the molecular weight of CO2 being 44 versus air of 29. Actually the difference is caused mostly by water droplets “washing” the CO2 down towards the surface, sort of a random-location-very-tall-distillation column…..
Thank you.
I added the latest CO2 vertical profile image i could find to the article, and corrected the verbiage
CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 383 ppm at about 12 km, mostly due to its high molecular weight, 44, versus air, 29
Thank you.
Interesting, as far as it goes. But in comparing the GHG effects of H2O vs CO2 Wilpost does not mention that while CO2 absorbs energy (gets warmer), transports that energy (convection) and distributes it by collision (conduction) and radiation, H2O does so much more effectively by incorporating phase change – from liquid to vapor (constant temp), transport, collision and radiation, but then adds in condensation (constant temp) to rain, or even moreso to ice. It’s not merely the molecular count of H2O vs CO2 that makes water vapor the dominant GHG. H2O is MUCH more efficient in absorbing, transporting and distributing energy than CO2.
You are right.
A great comment, which I will weave into my article
So well stated!
Condensing gases are refigerants, the cycle is the same in an air conditioner, with an energy source, an evaporator, a condenser, transporting heat from the surface to the atmosphere.
Conspicuously absent from the image with which our children are brainwashed.
Vitally important since 70%of the surface is water, 70% of the planet is cloud covered
The area of the tropics is 23 degrees north to 23 decrees south times around the equator, a huge area with lots of warm ocean water.
The evaporation, due to IR photons emitted from the ocean surface, is enormous
The transport of heat from the tropics towards the poles is what keeps the rest of the planet warm.
The tropics have high temperatures and high humidity, which leads to high water vapor ppm
“Condensing gases are refigerants,”
And radiative gasses act like a conduit for energy…
“CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.”
CO2 is, as you say, measured in dry air. In fact its ultra dry. Why is it measured in this way? CO2 measured in normal circumstances in the open atmosphere will be appreciably higher. Is that not a better reflection of real world CO2 as we and the planet and our weather systems experience it and not the artificially dried version?
The numbers are from Mauna Loa
Using dry air, at a standard condition, enables CO2 ppm comparisons.
CO2 at ground level is higher, because it is created near the ground
If from fossil fuels, it can be about 150 C, which will cause it to rapidly rise, despite its high molecular wgt of 44, dry air is only 29.
I think there is an unwarranted emphasis on CO2, due to IPCC shenanigans, with water vapor doing almost all of the “work” of keeping the earth at livable 15 C
Wilpost, thanks for all the data. I was wondering if anyone has already done an FEA model breaking a vertical slice in to modules to actually do the heat transfer and thermo calculations?
I don’t know what to make of this on the BBC appears in both Politics and Climate.
Kuenssberg: Are the politics of climate change going out of fashion?
There is a definite sense in industry that politicians are yet to understand fully the scale of the changes that have to be made to reboot the energy system – the “transition”.
Is the BBC actually letting a bit realism creep in? I’m skeptical.
Laura Kuenssberg is a political reporter/journalist on the BBC
No, they’re moaning about in, Ben. Everybody remembers the infamous note the departing New Labour government (Prop. G. Brown) left in 2010….
“”The former chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne’s note was discovered by David Laws, the Liberal Democrat MP who was appointed by the coalition government to succeed Byrne as No 2 at the Treasury.
It is a convention for outgoing ministers to leave a note for their successors with advice on how to settle into the job. But Byrne’s note – which he later said was intended as a private joke – drew attention to Labour’s economic record when it was revealed by Laws at a press conference today.
Laws told reporters: “When I arrived at my desk on the very first day as chief secretary, I found a letter from the previous chief secretary to give me some advice, I assumed, on how I conduct myself over the months ahead.
“Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: ‘Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left,’ which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting.””
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor
Starmer remembers it.
Alarmism Central is somewhat jittery about political commitment to the cause..
“”…it was hip to be green – being at COP in 2021 was the political equivalent of the fashion week front row. But with Labour shrinking away from its big £28bn commitments this week, and the Conservatives shifting tack and rumoured to be dropping the so-called “boiler tax”, there’s no doubt trends have changed. Sunak took the first steps back in September. He didn’t junk the government’s green commitments but slowed the pace of existing plans.
Some Conservatives were delighted at he was heeding some voters’ concerns about the cost of going green, most notably extending the ultra low emissions zone to outer London. Other Tories were infuriated it sent the message that the environment was less important, and that irritation has festered since then, with former minister Chris Skidmore quitting as an MP.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68261445
Recently, there were two disasters
“”British EV maker, once valued at $13 billion, has gone into bankruptcy protection without making any sales—after getting kicked out of Nasdaq””
https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/06/british-ev-maker-valued-13-billion-administration-without-making-sales-nasdaq/
“”Britishvolt: UK battery start-up collapses into administration””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64303149
But fear not…
“”Keir Starmer said Labour would build a gigafactory in the West Midlands, if the party wins the next general election.
Speaking on a visit to Coventry a day after insisting he had no choice but to ditch Labour’s £28bn-a-year green investment pledge, he said one of eight new gigafactories in his scaled back proposals would be in the region.
…
“I understand the disappointment in relation to the decision that was taken, and I absolutely think that these gigafactories are vitally important for our economy.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c101qd4952vo
More money down the drain and more [real] jobs cut. Brilliant. But the future is very uncertain for Labour. Empty suit Starmer has u-turned on just about everything he stood for – including the kitchen sink, but there is one exception. And Labour’s new imported core vote is far from happy about it.
“”Labour MPs facing wave of independent challengers over stance on Gaza
“People are talking to some independent candidates and donating serious amounts of money to help them run against the Labour party,” said one MP. “It’s astonishing – I’ve never known this level of funding and organisation. The anger is off the scale.””
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/10/labour-mps-facing-wave-of-independent-challengers-over-stance-on-gaza
An interesting year coming up.
Dear me! Don’t you Brits even know the name of your own Prime Minister?
Why our brilliant Resident Brandon was recently discussing events of mutual interest with Prime Minister Gladstone oh sorry, it’s Rashi Sanook… … … 🦗🦗🦗 … … anyway … … God save the Queen, man!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qm9IjiwJxAo
“”Sunak took the first steps …””
Yes, we do. Silly question
Well there you go again, strat! You say it’s Sunak? But the Leader of the Free World ™ says it is Sanook. You know, Dashing Rashi Sanook. The 7-Eleven proprietor. Go figure.
The idea that…
…
…
well anyway
Brilliant!
Farmer protests blanket the EU:
https://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjayaraj/2024/02/10/eu-farmers-protest-green-policies-threat-to-greenest-lands-n2635063?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
woohoo!
There was a farmers protest at Dover….
“”Dover: Slow tractor demo as farmers protest over imports””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-68255550
Farmers had nothing better to do in the winter.
They do this every winter?
It’s called a joke, DW
And they may have to do this again next winter.
You need to signal jokes, satire, tongue in cheek, etc.no one got it.
His reputation colors people’s interpretation of what he writes.
That idea is a Green(e) one, you have absolutely no clue about farmers work over the 4 seasons.
Farmwork nutter.
It’s called a joke, Hairy Krishna, like most of your comments. Go buy a sense of humor.
I consider all your comments as joke, in best case, else you are the joke 😀
M.E.D.S.
I suppose we should be used to the fact that…
nearly all your posts are a joke !
Are you claiming to be a farmer?
You claim to know something about science…
… which is very obviously a little self-indulgent fantasy.
Shows how little you know about farming
Now please lecture us on how January and February are the busiest months for European farmers and not the best months for a protest using tractors away from the farm,
Arable or Livestock???
Shows how important the protests are seen
Ignorance of farming, hey dickie boy
Yes, your comments are always a joke
Your ignorance is pathetic since they spend the winter months preparing for the following growing season.
sigh
meds
At this stage, there are simply not enough meds to do the job.
If you believe that, you have never been a farmer.
Rainman made a joke
How little dickie-bot knows about farming
How little dickie-bot knows about ANYTHING !!
Without reading any leftist publications, because truth is not a leftist value, I assume the spin will be: The IPCCs prediction of CAGW has been proven in court, and the science deniers lost.
In reality, the Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart Tree Ring Circus made no predictions of CAGW. Mann falsely claimed, by cherry picking weak proxies, that natural causes of climate change in the past 1,000 years were allegedly less important than all other scientists have claimed in the past 50 years.
The probability of accurate reporting on what the Hockey Stink Chart actually claims, and this trial, in leftist publications, is zero.
Welcome to U.S. fascism, where there is only government news, and everything else is claimed to be disinformation, or is censored. People who spread such disinformation get punished.
“”because truth is not a leftist value””
Yet they have “their truth[s]”, don’t they. What I would describe as “articles of faith”. Take CO2….
So it seems you may be leftist as having problems with truth, at least concerning CO2.
I voted for one Democrat, in 1972, and never voted for any Democrat again. So that makes me a leftist?
You are living in la la land
Virtually every article I recommended on my blog since 2016 was written by a conservative or libertarian author. So that must make me a leftist?
I voted for Trump in 2020 and plan to vite for him again in 2024. Does that make me a leftist?
You need to be sedated
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Shuttup.
He can’t; when it comes to posting shit, he’s incontinent.
I think he probably misread what you said, and sedation likely would not help. In any case, I sometimes wonder what you guys are arguing about, but I enjoy it nevertheless.
Greene argues for the sake of argument … it is only form of emotional human contact.
(maybe the others recognize this and are being nice to him)
Don, you hit the nail on the head with that comment.
“Greene argues for the sake of argument … it is only form of emotional human contact.”
It is only polite to indulge him. ! 🙂
Where would he be without someone to aim his tantrums at.
Hopefully he wouldn’t choose somewhere, where the powers that be limit firearm access.
You copied a quote straight out of Greenpeace in this Jan 11 WUWT comment section to impugn the integrity of Dr Willie Soon. A Republican/ conservative / Trump voter would not do that. In your Disqus account, you routinely trash climate realists – Marc Morano / Dr Judith Curry / Joe Bastardi / CFACT / WUWT guest post contributors / etc – in the exact same manner as environmentalist wackos do. Who can guess what you are up to at your “blog” containing “bonus” bimbo photos / irrelevant music links to click on? It wouldn’t take much programming expertise to create a site that only spits out article links and no other useful info. As for dual personality commenter accounts, I used to joust with what I call “the CB account,” an alleged American woman who swore she was a Native American … who I see to this day still lapses into UK spellings of words on utterly random occasions. You and “the CB account” are on the same page when it comes to Michael Mann’s ‘court victory.’ Sorry, friend, you just don’t pass the smell test with me.
Thanks for the post Russell.
(Is it a smart incompetent shill, or is it an emotionally frustrated/limited wacko? Or maybe a little of both)
The usual science free insult comment.
“The usual science free insult comment.“
That is your domain, dickie-bot !
Correct, no science (psychology isn’t really science).
Prior to having a meaningful discussion with anyone, you need to know if their motivation & biases will get in the way.
(even then, meaningful may not be possible. you are case-in-point)
Anyway, help us out. Which is it?
Bastardi is a El Nino Underseas Volcano Nutter with no data to support his conclusions.
Morano goes hyperbolic on Fox and never leaves viewers with any relavant facts or data
Curry is a lukewarmer who writes that global warming is a problem that must be solved but refuses to explain why global warming is a problem
Michael Mann’s court victory was a disgrace and Steyn will probably have to leave the US to avoid paying $1 million.
My wife objected to the fully clothed female photos at the end of my daily blog post so I switched to songs of the day.
— There is more to life than bad news on climate and energy scaremongering … or arguing with angry nitwits like you who post science free insult comments
This is not a world where every liberal is 100% wrong and every conservative is 100% right. I attempt to differentiate. You are an “us or them” guy.
Dickie is a science-free AGW nutter with no evidence to support anything he yaps about.
Still waiting for that scientific evidence of CO2 warming, dickie.
Please, not the consensus rant again, that would be too stupid even for you.
Since you would never believe anything I say, consider the work of almost 100% of all scientists who have lived on this planet in the past century as your guide to why AGW is real, based on evidence, not the imagination.
You are stuck on stupid with no desire to learn from real scientists.
With the mind of a child who screams “Prove it Prove it You can’t prove it” at everyone who disagrees. You are a mental midget with a closed mind.
Thanks for admitting that the only thing you have is calls to consensus.
And thanks for continually proving me correct, that there is no scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Certainly no-one is going to learn anything from you, except how to be incredibly dumb.
Mr. Greene: 100% includes a certain Mann. Another joke?
AGW is NOT based on evidence unless you define the word evidence by your own ”special” terms. Something cannot be ”real” without empirical evidence. You are talking about conjecture. AGW is based on the imagination at the moment. Especially yours.
Well said Mike.
Dickie-bot only has his little fantasies..
and NEVER produces any actual science to back them up…
… no matter how many times he is given the chance to.
Balls in your court.. where’s the evidence, dickie !!
No, actually, I’m just not a hypocrite about the climate issue. More and more people cannot figure out what your actual position is. I left out that you don’t much care for Pierre Gosselin, either. Maybe you could compile the whole list of climate realists you think are “nutters.” Meanwhile, still no answer for your use of the Greenpeace disinformation to impugn the work of Dr Willie Soon. I didn’t expect you to come up with one. Bot commenters are just predictable that way.
Over the many years I’ve jousted with leftist commenters who have no other life outside of that activity, among the many hallmarks of theirs was a particularly odd crushing lack of self-esteem, where they were fixated on attaining high upvote counts in order to feel better about themselves. On the Disqus commenter system (used at CFACT’s articles and other places), one commenter went so far as to solicit bot accounts to follow him so that he’d get dozens of automatic upvotes for his comments from the fake account system those bot accounts used. So, when I thought I’d take just a little time to see if you were legit or not, one of the more noticeable search results that came up for you was your multi-repeated claims of how many page views had accumulated at your alleged “blog(s).” 300k / 500k / approaching 700k page views, with no evidence at all where you get those figures. Seems odd, doesn’t it, that your ‘wife’ would just decide out-of-the-blue several weeks back that she did not like your bikini-clad fake bimbo photos?
“or arguing with angry nitwits like you who post science free insult comments”
Arguing with YOURSELF is not a good sign for your sanity, dickie-bot…
… and you will always LOSE, because that is what you do.!
Is that dickie not answering and red-thumbing..
… , or is it his mate, fungal ??
So you’ve been a nattering nabob of negativity since you first voted for amnesty, abortion, and acid in ‘72 is that it Richard?
I voted for McGovern to end the losing war in Vietnam as fast as possible. That was my last vote for any Democrat running for any office.
You need to be sedated
The best way to support your comments, but your personal insults give a nice image of your rotten personality.
So according to Haury Kishna I should take all the science free insults directed at me and never fight back? That will never happen.
If you look at this thread, the first science-free insults came directly from you.
Petty and childish from the start.
Mr. Greene: Never? I bet you’re wrong. Although, this could be another of your famed jokes!
Mr. Greene: You do realize that Mr. Mann is one of the “100% of climate scientists” you constantly cite here. Another of your hilarious jokes?
Three days ago every BBC news broadcast (TV, Radio) including the World Service output led with this story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310
Claiming that the world had warmed for over 1.5°C for the whole of 2024, the BBC Cassandras feared for the end of the world. Then silence. It is as if the story was never published and no other media (MSM or otherwise) seems to have picked it up.
What happened. As a story tip it might be worth following up.
It didn’t frighten as intended.
You’ve picked the wrong prophet of doom I feel.
Cassandra was a Trojan princess who was given the gift of prophesy but cursed that nobody would believe her.
Perhaps William Miller and the Millerites is a better choice, he managed to convince people twice before he was rumbled. But the Adventist Church was created by his (disappointed) followers, that means after nearly 200 years it still survives.
Should have gone with Harrabin, Rowlatt etc etc etc etc etc
They should put their money on the line as we are little over a month into 2024.
2024?
Not quite true. Fiona Harvey in the Grauniad, in an article in response to Labour’s rowback on the £38bn a year policy( 9th Feb), said
“Temperatures for the year from Jan 2023 to the end of last month were 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time , new research has shown.”
But no fuss and hoohaa. Perhaps they are still working on that but attacking Labour was the priority at the moment. By the way her article also included many statements of what was being foregone for which there is no evidence at all. Typical.
The planet just passed a new dangerous warming thresholdBy Sabrina Shankman Globe Staff,Updated February 9, 2024, 1:05 p.m.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/09/science/planet-passes-warming-mark/
The Globe’s climate alarm de jour. Nice to know there’s still time to prevent the planet from tipping over. 🙂
As the “Global Temperature” is likely to stay above 1.5C for some time to come I’m looking forward to the hyping of Northern Hemisphere weather events during summer 2024, and ignoring of SH weather events during winter 2024.
You’re right about the likely hyping, but are you really looking forward to it? I guess that’s a good attitude.
In my reality, if the weather were perfect, I wouldn’t have to sit here under my electric blanket drinking hot coffee.
It’s like end-of-the-world predictions. When they fail, shift the goalposts. We have been told for so long that we have so little time to save the world – never nore than 10 years often a lot less – and now suddenly when the prediction fails (temperature is up 1.5C and the football hasn’t been cancelled) the temperature is “taken over decades”.
So are we now going to get shifting goalposts for the next few decades? What a horrible prospect.
If not for fear of the “climate crisis, Sabrina would be out of a job. She should learn to code, if able.
Note for the unfortunately Globe readers: there is no “planet’s thermometer” (singular). It starts with a lie, and doesn’t get any better with this whopper: “technically, climate is measured in long-term averages”. Once again, the GAT is a meaning number that tells nothing about “the climate”.
I’m in favor of tippin er over Joe. Equal treatment for our good mates down under in Oz.
Psychology study unearths ways to bolster global climate awareness and climate action
Global research team’s work spurs creation of ‘behavioral science’ tool for policymakers and advocacy groupsDate:
February 7, 2024
Source:
New York University
Summary:
An international team of scientists has created a tool that can aid in increasing climate awareness and climate action globally by highlighting messaging themes shown to be effective through experimental research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240207195054.htm
messaging themes????
It seems that governments all over the world are intent on assisting us.
Replacing animal-based foods with alternative proteins would unlock land for carbon removal
Date:
February 7, 2024
Source:
Cell Press
Summary:
Researchers report that replacing 50% of animal products with alternative proteins by 2050 could free up enough agricultural land to generate renewable energy equivalent in volume to today’s coal-generated power while simultaneously removing substantial CO2 from the atmosphere.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240207120533.htm
Now in my old age I’m really getting into meat- eating more than ever- even….. bacon! Gotta stop to help save the planet! 🙂
I forgot to put everything above the link in quotes. What’s below it is my words.
The planet is fine; have a full English [fry up] including…. Sausage and Bacon, Beanz, Tomatoes, Fried Bread, Eggs, Mushrooms, Black Pudding Etc Etc
I’m pleased that bacon is among my grandson’s vocabulary, and he’s not even 2 years old.
Teething rings should be bacon flavored. There are million pf dollars to be made with such a product.
Teething rings”
You still using yours ??
Your pathetic sense of humor is worse than your non-existant science knowledge
My Dad lived to 98, never needing nursing home care, with that diet.
Maybe he would have lived to 98 eating kale and tofu, but it would have been 98 miserable years.
My food pyramid is topped by pizza, bacon, salami and hamburgers. Why not die happy BEFORE you get old enough to get dementia? What good is a healthy body if you lose your mind? There’s not much demand for dementia patients in the workplace, except US president.
“if you lose your mind”
At this stage, a bit of introspection would be a good thing for you, dickie. !
Iff your ego will let you see the real you.
Dickie’s got a boy-friend who down-votes.. How sweet 😉
Is it fungal, or the simpleton ?
The Premise, and the utter Stupidity, is endless. I realize ‘they’ have an ‘end goal’, but do ‘they’ even know what Critical Thinking and Common Sense contribute to any discussion?
Education and information can increase the acceptance of climate policies
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240129122352.htm
Sure, all you gotta do is brainwash them, then buy them off- but if their nations aren’t using ff, then where is the carbon taxes gonna come from to produce those revenues? And even if there is some- it’s just going to come from the natives- then spent by burro-crats and much lost of course in theft and corruption producing useless green energy. How to make green policies acceptable? How about by real, high quality science?
Education and information can increase the acceptance of climate policies
Indoctrination and propaganda will increase the acceptance of climate policies…..
Not in this home, by my chinny-chin-chin!
“How to make green policies acceptable?How about by real, high quality science?”
Of course, that’s not possible.
If “green” alternatives provided benefits, such as lower cost and superior performance, no propaganda would be required.
The IEEE Spectrum, For The Technology Insider:
“The February 2024 issue is here!”
“In this issue:”
“Can Flow Batteries Finally Beat Lithium?”
“The Global Project to Make a General Robotic Brain”
“The Case for Nuclear Cargo Ships”
“Fly the Hybrid Skies”
The Search For The Magic Battery[TM] continues, and who wants to volunteer to take a ride through skies with a giant battery?
I keep saying, magic carpets are the way to go.
Arlo Guthrie?
Steppenwolf.
Does IEEE Spectrum ever challenge the climate “emergency”?
Nope, they repeat the standard “1.5C over pre-industrial level” line verbatim, unchallenged.
“Blind support for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”.
Albert Einstein
“Ross Gelbspan, June 1, 1939 – January 27, 2024”
CAGW only has two legs to stand on, “settled science” and “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.” To understand how that second leg began getting its lasting, exponential-growing media traction after 1997, you have to deeply examine one of the main promulgators behind the accusation, who now can no longer make amends for the injustice he’s done to skeptic climate scientists.
“CAGW only has two legs to stand on, “settled science” and “industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.”
CAGW is not based on any science. It is based on two false beliefs:
(1) Anything scientists say is automatically “science”, and
(2) Scientists are capable of accurate climate predictions.
CAGW is an imaginary climate that has never before happened Therefore, no CAGW data exist. With no CAGW data, there is no CAGW science. Just predictions based on unproven CAGW theories … that have been wrong since 1979. Climate astrology.
The main imagined cause of CAGW is a very strong water vapor positive feedback to amplify the small warming effect of CO2 emissions alone.
That feedback is also imaginary because there are no precise measurements of global average water vapor to track just how much more water vapor a warmer troposphere is holding.
Observations of global warming since 1975, even with a worst case assumption that CO2 caused all the warming, do not suggest more than a small water vapor positive feedback.
And an ECS of CO2 well BELOW the low range of the IPCC’s wild guess range of +2.5 to +4.0 C. … which is what lab spectroscopy has been predicting for many decades: A small amount of harmless warming from CO2 x 2.
Among the other hallmarks of enviro-activists (even when they pretend to be on the skeptic side) is their concept comprehension disability.
“CAGW — as pushed by the IPCC / Al Gore side — only has two legs to stand on, ‘settled science’ and ‘industry-paid skeptic climate scientists.’ ”
Do I really need to explain that to you? They can’t dispute what the skeptic side has to offer (including the skeptics you despise, btw), so they only thing they have to fall back on is accusation-hurling and any other means of character assignation . . . . . which, in case you missed it, is exactly what you do.
CAGW predictions could take 50 to 100 years to refute. The CAGW prediction reached a consensus in 1979.
44 years later it appears wrong but we are too far from a doubling of CO2 to be able to prove the prediction was wrong.
There is no science behind CAGW predictions. No CAGW data exists. With no CAGW data there can not be CAGW science. Science requires data
CAGW is an imaginary climate.
CAGW science can not be “settled” because there is no CAGW science.
My impression is, you have not the mindest idea about your earlier writing, or no idea of the meaning what you are writing about.
Brandon,. is that you ? 😀
” It is based on two false beliefs:
(1) Anything scientists say is automatically “science”, and”
And yet you keep going on about a 100% scientist consensus… (as evidence, no less).
Get your story straight, dickie-bot !
You are one confused little AGW-cultist . !
The AGW consensus is nearly 100% and has had since 1896 to be refuted. With no success.
Everything that scientists say is not automatically science. I stand by that statement. I also stand by the statement that you are an annoying dingbat.
“amplify the NEVER OBSERVED AND NEVER MEASURED, MYTHICAL small warming effect of CO2 emissions”
You need to be more precise in what you write dickie. !
Back radiation is measured every day. On a cloudless night it can only be caused by water vapor and CO2. And you remain a perpetually confused dingbat.
Mann, again?, still?
The collapse of NuScale’s project should spell the end for small modular nuclear reactors
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
Please forgive me for this. I’m coping with the guilt for sharing it.
I hope he’s encouraging patients to accept that ‘Nature’ is not a friendly presence to any living organisms on this planet.
‘Nature’ is hell-bent on removing current fauna (including us) by any and all means at its disposal.
So that it can establish the next evolutionary version of every species.
That’s Nature’s job in whole scheme of existence.
Getting close-up with ‘Nature’ is petting the crocodile.
‘Nature’ never changes its own nature.
So homo sapiens sapiens needs to stall its inevitable evolutionary replacement for as long as it can by using whatever resources it can muster to extend its position in the existence stakes.
Coal and oil come to mind as examples of useful resources.
So Dr. Doherty should impress upon his patients that all humanity is in a constant fight with Nature for its very existence, so getting all sookey and maudlin about our lot in life is a real loser attitude.
Toughen up there, soldier!
“ ‘Nature’ is not a friendly presence to any living organisms on this planet.”
Nature is the ever-present, universal source of all that we have and all that we are. We could not exist without Nature, nor could we exist apart from Nature. It is Nature that is sustaining our existence on this planet. How unfriendly is that?
It’s a competition John.
And not a friendly one.
An interesting and (for me) somewhat informative article about “dropsonds” technology being used to assess the intensity of those “atmospheric rivers” that originate around Hawaii and ride the jet stream to pour on to the Pacific North West coasts of the US and BC Canada.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/11/atmospheric-river-pacific-storms-climate-crisis
Seattle – based Prof Cliff Mass from University of Washington (state) writes about these events quite often.
But I’m betting that (unlike Prof. Mass’ “just the facts” approach), the Guardian’s conclusion was –
“It’s worse than we thought!”
I usually find Cliff Mass’ blogs to be a worthwhile read as he makes and effort to stick to the facts and eschew hyperbole.
Note that this is another instance of trying to make things sound nastier. As long as I’ve lived here, we’ve called those winter stormy weeks the Pineapple Express. What’s so bad about fresh squeezed juice straight from the islands? Makes our timber grow like mad. The northwest pacific coast up into Alaska is, I think, home to most of the world’s temperate zone rain forest. Cool, right? So, of course, the climate clowns had to come up with an uglier way to say it: “Duck, here comes an atmospheric river.”
Pineapple Express sounds rather yummy, actually, doesn’t it. 🙂
Had a really nice fried pineapple fritter with cinnamon sugar with lunch today 🙂
The Steyn trial as currently configured prior to appeal will open the door to intimidation of opinion in all media whether broadcast or print and extend even to comedy. Steyn’s appeals become increasingly about free speech. And where that speech occurs.
If Steyn and Simberg had published in a science rag as experts claiming scientific fraud, Mann might have yet had a case if he hadn’t committed scientific fraud knowingly manipulating data in order to misrepresent the facts. [E.g., put crap like that in a mutual fund prospectus and see where it gets you.] Since “science” doesn’t have a fraud statute (and would misuse it if it did), Steyn and others like him are the best remedy when pseudo science by fiat is political justification for absolute power.
Or in posts like this on blogs.
Here’s another way to look at interconnector electricity trade. The half hour settlement periods are ranked by day ahead price over a year (2023), and then the import and export and net trade volumes are cumulated over the re-ordered data. The chart shows the cumulated totals at 1 percentile intervals, revealing the tendency to export at low prices because of renewables surpluses, and import at high ones because of a lack of renewables and dispatchable capacity.
Polar bear study claims negative effects of global warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44682-1?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100105463&CJEVENT=cb65fbd4ca9311ee8332a9410a18b8fa
Test.
Question : Does the newly-reinstated “Edit” functionality still “strip out” (some ?) HTML tags ?
Original post with bold text and italic text and underlined text and
“struck through” text…… and combined bold AND underlined text …
_ _ _ _ _ _
Edited (without logging out and back in again, simulates “spotting a spelling / grammar mistake 10ms after posting”).
NB : At this point the original post appears as expected.
Additional text using bold text and italic text and underlined text and
“struck through” text…… and combined bold AND underlined text …
_ _ _ _ _ _
Re-edited, after logging out and back in again (simulates “checking World + Dog can see what I posted” / it’s not been “flagged for human moderation”).
NB : After hitting the “Save” button the complete edited post did appear as expected, including underlining !
On logging out, however, the “underlining” disappeared … but only the underlining !
See if I can introduce “new” (bold and) underlined text or not (probably the latter) …
Extra text using bold text and italic text and ***underlined text*** and
“struck through” text…NB : While there is indeed a “longer Edit delay”, it is not infinite.
On hitting “Save” the second time the comment appeared with underlining in the last two lines.
On logging out the underlining disappeared again.
Conclusions
1) In an initial “Post Comment” case, “u” HTML tags are kept.
2) After editing (or re-editing), however, underlining will appear to be correct after clicking on the “Save” button, but the “u” HTML tags are then (apparently) “stripped out” during the logout procedure.
3) The newly-reinstalled “Edit” function is much (!) appreciated, but still has some odd “bugs”. It should not be re-retired just for the “minor” (even to me !) inconvenience “highlighted” (sic) in these posts.
I am genuinely baffled by your reaction to my “purely informational” experiments.
Please explain your downvotes.