You need to differentiate between the leftist plan on paper and reality.
When you are a leftist everything works on paper.
If you write it, you think the peons will make it happen.
Never mind engineering, science and economics.
The peons will figure that out.
Leftists just write vision statements.
No actual detailed plans needed to analyze feasibility cost and critical path timing.
If there was such a detailed plan the scientists and engineers would tear it apart. So no plan.
That’s for the peons to do.
The leftist vision statement to ruin electric grids is done.
Now leftists are deciding what they want to ruin next.
UK readers will be aware that not all leftists declare themselves. The Tories have been left-of-centre for some time. And they certainly think a vision statement is all they need to get us to their “sunny uplands”.
It so happens that every political party is left of centre. They are all political unions as in collectives built to garner more than their entitled power.
Fortunately, Biden is losing in just about all the polls now.
Now, if we can just keep ole Joe from cheating and stealing the election again. Trump seems to be putting a lot of effort into preventing a repeat of the illegal voting that took place in 2020.
Four more years of Joe Biden and this country is done. Let’s hope Trump is successful. That means we will all be successful. If Biden wins, we all lose.
The only reason that Biden and the Dems aren’t polling at ‘zero’ is because continuing mountains of deficit spending are keeping the economy out of recession, at least as defined by regime economists.
If Trump wins and takes the Dems punch bowl away, he’d better take a meat cleaver to the regulatory state lest the economy slip into the worst recession of my life time. If he doesn’t, we’ll be looking at someone much worse than FDR in 2028 and well beyond.
“The only reason that Biden and the Dems aren’t polling at ‘zero’ is because continuing mountains of deficit spending are keeping the economy out of recession, at least as defined by regime economists.“
You do know that Trump had extreme levels spending don’t you, adding vast amounts to the national debt? How do you explain that? Or is that OK because it was under Trump.
‘You do know that Trump had extreme levels spending don’t you, adding vast amounts to the national debt?’
He did, for the sole reason that he got rolled by the bureaucracy into mounting a massive and unnecessary response to a fraudulent COVID ‘pandemic’. I’m hoping that a second term will find a wizened DJT ready to make amends, including putting the kibosh on climate alarmism.
“He did, for the sole reason that he got rolled by the bureaucracy into mounting a massive and unnecessary response to a fraudulent COVID ‘pandemic’. “ Nope…. his spending before the pandemic was at extreme levels.
Trump had to do *necessary* spending like rebuilding the U.S. military after Obama and Biden had neglected it so badly (Trump’s Secretary of Defense came to him on Trump’s first day in office and told him the U.S. military was “critically short” of ammunition), and he had to spend money to keep tens of thousands of businesses operating, who employed millions of people, during the Covid pandemic shutdowns.
Trump did increase the deficit, but it was a small portion compared to what Biden has spent since he has been in office, and Biden’s spending was not essential to keeping the U.S. economy going, like his climate change spending, which was laugingly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act.
And if Trump gets elected again, he will have to spend a lot of money to rebuild the U.S. miliary again after another period of neglect by Joe Biden. So get ready for it.
‘Trump did increase the deficit, but it was a small portion compared to what Biden has spent since he has been in office, ‘ That is not true Tom. Trump increased it by 33.1% (8 Trillion) Biden by 8.8% so far around 3 trillion.
I think there is a economic slowdown going on all over the world and it may get to the point of throwing us into recession.
Our financial system needs serious reform. Which can only happen with a Repubican president and a Republican House and Senate.
If Trump gets elected he will turn the U.S. economy loose by sealing up the border and reducing taxes and regulations and “drill, baby, drill!”, and these things will help the economic situation.
But we still need economic reform. The Republican House has forced a change to the way spending bills come up for a vote. Before, the Powerbrokers in the U.S. Senate and House would send up an “omnibus” bill containing thousands of pages of text and then requiring a vote within a matter of a few days.
Now, the Republican House is insisting on separate spending bills where the details can be teased out much more easily and pork barrel spending can be indentified.
The Democrats are no help at all. They are the problem. Don’t vote for any of them.
Tom. I wonder whether you are getting as worried about Trumps cognitive decline as I am. Just this week he has made some major gaffs. It seems he still thinks Obama is the president, and it is not the first time. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-biden-obama-b2506194.html
And he is really struggling to get full sentences out now. These are not AI generated, they are real clips. And OK I know this one is by a left leaning channel… but like I say, the mistakes are real and you can’t hide them any more.
Well true or not, it seems to be working. Low unemployment, inflation coming down, the stock market surging. The country is doing far better than any other major economy…. so keep it up I say.
Are you saying the country is not doing well on the international stage? If so, I say you are wrong. You can check for yourself. Google is your friend.
Talking about law breakers…. When Trump said they are letting rapists and criminals over the boarder all those years ago, who would have known he was actually in a prophetic way talking about himself?
What slimon doesn’t understand about Trump is that he will often use little slips like this to emphasize something, and to trigger idiot marxist-leftists like slimon here. The clowns in the Fake News bite the hook and the few viewers they have remaining (like slimon) swallow it all the way down.
“What slimon doesn’t understand about Trump is that he will often use little slips like this to emphasize something,” If you believe that…..you really are a gullible man.
Simon, I listen to Trump once or twice a week now as he holds political rallies around the nation in front of tens of thousands of people, where he can stand there and talk steadily for hours about substantive things that mean something to the average person, and I have not noticed Trump losing any of his mental capabilities. He is as sharp as ever, depite the wishful thinking of those on the Left.
Trump has made a couple of minor gaffs, which anyone could do, and the Left blows it all up out of proportion, as they always do when it comes to Trump or conservatives. Plus, the Left is trying to equate Biden’s mental problems with Trump. It’s not even a close race for who is the most mentally competent. But you couldn’t tell that listening to those on the Left. That’s the problem with listening to the Left: You never get the truth from those people. They always have an agenda that requires they lie to people. The truth is not in them.
Thinking that Obama is still the president and not just once but on a few occasions now, is an indicator that he is not just gaffing, but is genuinely losing a grip with reality. It can’t just be brushed aside as a mistake when it happens repeatedly.
“That’s the problem with listening to the Left: You never get the truth from those people. They always have an agenda that requires they lie to people.”
I think you are kidding yourself if you think it is only the left who lie. The whole Biden impeachment thing has been built on a lie by a Russian agent that was swallowed and pushed by the right.
then there is George Santos. And the whole elections stolen lie. the list goes on…..
Well, be specific man/boy, so we can have an adult discussion. What did I lie about? Coz I say it is true the republicans believed an unsubstantiated report about Biden that turned out to be a lie and the guy telling it a Russian asset. You know Russia don’t you KM? Total humiliation for them and olympic level dishonesty.
“$20,000,000 to the family verified.” Nonsense, bollocks, rubbish. You need proof that Joe Biden got any money. So do you have any? I am guessing no…….
The fall in electricity prices across Spain and Portugal has nothing whatsoever to do with renewables. Rather it is due to the “Iberian exception” a series of draconian price caps aimed at keeping prices low for households. It’s had a disastrous effect on business users, with businesses closing faster than anywhere else in Europe.
The “Iberian exception” puts a price cap on wholesale prices, not as a pricecap primarily just for households. After the introduction, France started buying huge amounts of Spanish energy through the interconnectors as it became cheaper than the French wholesale price for electricity. There were complaints that Spain was subsidising France at that point. Basically Spanish pay a much lower wholesale price plus a % of adjustments which still comes out cheaper than before it was introduced. There is a reason why it has impacted medium and large businesses adversely but I couldn’t find the information when I looked. Perhaps if you’d bothered to look it up first, this would have saved you the bother of posting.
Oh I know – I looked at the same as you but I dug a bit deeper. Rather than quoting me out of context and making a foolish assumption you should have noticed that I couldn’t find the information on why the Iberian exception was adversely affecting medium and large sized businesses while working as expected for households and small businesses as expected. I think it has something to do with the way business energy contracts are worked out but I could be wrong – just don’t quote me out of context on that again.
Germany will still need another 5 to 6 years to get by with wind & solar?
That will mean they’ve been trying to get this fantasy to work for about 50 years now.
I reckon their renewable energy indulgence is just a cover for their devotion to masochism as an Arian right.
“…without renewables it would have been far worse.”
You are being sarcastic, right?
The IEA that posits the EU saved $100B over 2021-23 due to renewables ignores the costs of those renewables and that electricity prices have been rising in Europe long before Putin invaded Ukraine.
Germany is the poster-child for “the more renwables, the higher the electricity costs”.
Now imagine that a pre-invasion Ukraine was powered by mostly wind, solar & batteries [yes, an Alarmists wet dream]. They would have frozen to death after Putin’s 2023 winter attempt to destroy their energy grid. Renewables are a national security threat.
[What happened to the button for adding a picture or graph to a comment?]
In a press release dated March 25th 2022 Wind Europe said 38GW of Europe’s onshore wind capacity would reach the end of its normal operational life by 2025.
You mean Aryan with a Y, Mr. Aryanism was a racist theory held by the Nazis that North Europeans descended from Aryan people in India are superior to other races.
Arian refers to the 4th Century heresy of Arius, a North African priest (essentially the denial of the full divinity of Jesus).
So cheap Chinese cars being exported to other countries rather than being sold to Chinese consumers? China seems to have hit the same wall as other countries, that only a small % of consumers will buy them without government intervention. Given that the numbers entering service appear lower than numbers leaving service, presumably there’s growing dissatisfaction within even that small % that they won’t buy replacement EV’s.
Yep. In June 2023 Nio, China’s top EV manufacturer had to cut the price of all its cars by 30,000 yuan ($4,200) to try and move stock. In the same month the Chinese Government had to extend tax breaks for EVs at a cost of £56.9bn ($62.6bn) to 2027.
Other Chinese manufacturers have also had to cut prices to move stock.
they will ALWAYS require nearly 100% back-up via GAS, DIESEL and COAL from Victoria.
They have hedged their bets by convincing NSW to build a higher power interconnector direct to NSW. It would be foolish for anyone to rely on Victoria keeping lights on anywhere. There was a recent outage where 500,000 Victorian customers lost power due to partial grid collapse as a storm front crossed Melbourne causing wind turbines and solar panels to lose output that exceeded the capacity of the coal generators on line.
South Australia set e negative minimum demand in Q4 2023 as rooftops met the entire lunchtime demand and was exporting excess to Victoria.
The sensible thing for householders in Australia is to go off-grid. It is the lower cost option particularly in SA where inept governments pursue a capital intensive power supply network. SA has the most expensive electricity in the world. Partly because a lot of people are already making their own. Ultimately, those who can afford to make their own cause the costs to fall onto a smaller consumer base so the average cost go up.
In respect to non-condensing GHGs, the “forcing + feedback” framing of the expected climate system response is at the core of the manufactured “decarbonization” and “net zero” movements.
Reject the framing, because it has been a misconception all along.
Theorists and modelers knew from the start that the concept of energy conversion is inherent to the general circulation. Lorenz described it. ERA5 explicitly computes it. Please read the full explanation in the details at this Youtube video. https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
The result of the heat engine operation driven by the energy conversion cycle is that the planet is seen, in one part of the IR spectrum relevant to claims of “warming” from incremental CO2, as a highly variable emitter. Clouds and motion. Overturning circulations. Not a passive radiative “trap.” This is a time lapse video of NOAA’s GOES East Band 16 images. Full explanation in the description box. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Connect the dots. We do not have any reason to expect heat energy to accumulate down here because of incremental non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere, certainly not to harmful effect.
This is an important year to stop this slow motion train wreck of “climate” policies based all along on circular reasoning, which started with the “forcing + feedback” framing decades ago, incorrectly applied to CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
This is an important year to stop this slow motion train wreck of “climate” policies based all along on circular reasoning, which started with the “forcing + feedback” framing decades ago, incorrectly applied to CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
I would like to believe that will happen. But having witnessed this “slow motion” movement from global cooling to global warming since the late 1970s, I feel they’ve now become concerned that the hysteria they’re trying to create isn’t getting them the power they want. And I believe they see the masses getting tired of the constant end of the world predictions. I think there are six categories of people they see.
1) Those who are mild believers who will make some changes if they aren’t too inconvenient. 2) Those who don’t believe but cannot defend their positions as they don’t consider it an immediate problem or that it is overblown. 3) Those who are people who’ll believe what they are told by their teachers without question and those who believe the government wouldn’t mislead them or outright lie to them – we see many of them yet today wandering around wearing masks in public. 4) The radicals who have made this into a religion, those are the ones who’ll chain themselves together to block traffic, throw liquids on to paintings or glue themselves to things. They’re the religious left who think that no matter what it takes they’ve got to be able to say they made a difference. They have to believe their lives are meaningful but rather than devoting themselves to the betterment of man or helping mankind, they believe they have the moral high ground to save mankind and the earth. 5) Then this last group that are the most dangerous, people who are at the controls of things. They are those in local, state, federal and world positions of power (or want to be power) that see the power they can attain by implementing the policies they desire to control freedom, people, travel, production and economies. These are the people who, I believe, feel that if they cannot implement this very soon and very quickly they will lose their power. Like any animal trapped in a corner, if they think they are about to lose what they’ve been working toward, they will become very dangerous. 6) Then there are the kind of people like those on WUWT and other climate realist sites that try to get the truth out.
I think the group in #5 above pose the greatest danger to mankind and if they see this world power slipping away they’ll do their best to complete their plans and implementation before the masses of people wake up.
At the recent world economic forum their theme was restoring trust. For some reason they invited the president from the American Enterprise Institute to speak. He naively thought that the theme was about their attempt to restore trust with the public. And that was the context of the speech he provided them. In a later interview he noted how stunned and confused his audience was at his words. It also occurred to him later that their theme was really about their attempts at their power grab and they appeared to be failing. Their theme it turns out was really to get the members to “trust in the plan” and not abandon it now, they may have to postpone it but in the press say that they have abandoned plans to implement their insane zero carbon agenda… until after elections, then they can work to restore them and continue with the “plan.”
Unfortunately I think when you tell the “masses” stories like this, they think you are making it up and until the trap is snapped shut on them they don’t realize it was never a “story” in the first place but a plan. Right now they aren’t eating bugs (not on purpose anyway) so when you tell them the plan is to get rid of meat they think you are hysterical or a conspiracy theorist, even if you show them their documents stating such. I am not so optimistic and I agree, this year may be a pivotal year.
Excellent assessment and would add a subgroup to #5 and that
would be the economic opportunists. There’s a group windmills
in my area and there’s a few in that group that have been frozen for years.
That speaks volumes to me about the nature of the owner(s). Same
for the solar panel owners. Woke up to a half a foot of fresh snow this AM
which will blanket the panels till it warms up..worthless junk but someone
made some serious $ building it
From the view of a bureaucrat….the money they collect is never wasted…it merely goes to someone else and they get to tax it again or it goes to wage earners who spend it all and stimulates the economy or it goes to rich people who put it in the bank and the banks lend it out again….so the more money they flush out the door, the better…only limitation is the rate at which they can collect without causing a taxpayer revolt…something like CC is a great money scam for bureaucrats, big collections justifiable by propagandized altruistic feelings on the part of gullible voters.
The effects if CO2 are backed by over 127 years of science and data, including over 100,000 scientific papers and almost 100% of all scientists,
including the skeptics.
While you have a claptrap theory and are a legend in your own mind.
Always great to know you are still kicking, Richard. But I know there is no point responding to your criticisms. I agree with your bottom-line position that the “climate” movement is misguided and destructive.
Might apply to troll accounts, too. Notice that not far down from the top of the comments here, the “Richard Greene” commenter trashes leftists and Joe Biden, yet in the comment just above he’s entirely on Joe Biden’s and Greenpeace’s side of the climate issue, and as seen in the January 10 WUWT Tucker Carlson-Willie Soon post, he takes the pro-Greenpeace / pro-“ExxonKnew” lawsuits side on accusing Dr Soon of taking Exxon bribes. Myself, I’m not convinced this “Richard Greene” commenter is real, but is instead some kind of troll account designed to do whatever trolls are tasked with doing at non-leftists comment sections.
Mr. Dibbel: He’s a person who admitted he comes here to gaslight commenters, but he’s quite dim. Invites mockery then complains about it. I saw one of the serious science posters here brush Mr. Greene off like dust a couple days ago, a good approach (that worked!). Me, I like to give it to him hard. My best so far is to mistake him for Joe Biden- seems to send him away.
In trying to figure out if the guy is real or not, I ran across his mentions of his blog link along with numerous braggings of its exponentially increasing view count. I looked into the site one single time, and saw what looked like a never-ending visually unappealing conveyor belt of article links with zero commentary about why they were important. No sign of a visitor counter that I could readily find. I arbitrarily clicked on a couple of prior month page collections to see if any were different, but they were not. Scrolled down deep into the one, made an archive link for (for posterity) since it embarrassingly contained “bonus” bimbo photos, something that you wouldn’t see at any blog offering serious conservative viewpoints, and also something the guy might try to delete if caught with it. The whole site made me wonder if it might be instead some kind of lure to bring in visitors and infect them with viruses if they clicked on the links. Look into the guy’s Disqus comment collection elsewhere, and you see the same kind of odd split personality he displays here at WUWT, but with much more quantity. It appears the guy has gotten so far out of control in CFACT comment sections that they might be considering banning him …. or it, or whatever this “Richard Greene” account is pretending to be.
Call it the “CAGW commenter bot industry” for lack of a better term. When I used to use my own Disqus account to drop in occasional comments at the PBS NewsHour’s climate broadcast segments, the fake accounts ultimately ganged up on me and were marking my comments as “spam” which took my comments offline ‘for moderator review.’ When I posted random comments elsewhere, those leftist accounts would show up within minutes to pull the same stunt. The NewsHour website broadcast transcript pages ultimately became so overloaded with leftist comment vitriol that they stopped permitting comment posts altogether. In a roundabout way, that was a successful form of censorship prompted by leftists because the NewsHour no longer faced any public pushback – however small that was in comment sections – directly against their biased reporting.
…But it can be soooo much fun to ridicule them in an open forum, as long we keep to a modicum of decorum! Oh, some days I just miss the swooping drive-by comments deposited in a fecal-like manner by ol’ Griffy-poo…
All in jest,
MCR
It’s okay and honest toi admit that more CO2 impedes earth’s ability to cool itself,
Willam Happer admits that.
Roy Spencer and John Christy admit that.
Richard Lindzen admits that.
Are all these “skeptic” Ph.D. scientists stupid?
Admitting that humans can affect the climate has nothing to do with predictions of CAGW that have been wrong since 1979.
No progress refuting CAGW predictions can be made by claiming that humans can not have any effect on the climate.
The CO2 does nothing Nutters are our enemies. That claim implies nearly 100% of scientists have been fools for the past century. As if the AGW denier knows more.
For the record, I have great respect for the work and the opinions of Happer, Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen. If you read what I have written and posted, you will find I have not taken issue with the concept of a static LW radiative “warming” effect from incremental CO2. I have not said that “humans can not have any effect on the climate.” Certainly they can, especially by changing the SW absorbing characteristics of the surface.
I am specifically calling out the problem with how GHGs have been treated as a “forcing” to which a “feedback” is produced. They do not add energy of their own to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. To say “that more CO2 impedes earth’s ability to cool itself” is sound in the static sense, looking toward space from the surface. But this sense is also the origin of the circular reasoning I am pointing out. It is not accurate to say that it must suppress OLR as a dynamic result.
I know you disagree, having been acquiring your sense of the issue for so long by reading. There is direct evidence of how it works dynamically that is being pointed out here, by which the influence of incremental CO2 can be better evaluated.
In my original comment, I say “We do not have any reason to expect heat energy to accumulate down here because of incremental non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere, certainly not to harmful effect.” Surely you already agree with that last part.
The extra CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect of CO2 on the climate are both good news for plants, animals and humans.
Getting colder would be bad news
Our planet is always getting warmer or colder. There is no thermodynamic equilibrium
Very few people prefer colder.
We’ve had 48 years of global warming since 1975. The effect of warming is not a mystery. The climate gets more moderate and more pleasant. There was no bad news from global warming.
Bad news from warming has been predicted for the future for the past 44 years … reminds me of fusion power, which is always coming in ten years, but never shows up.
Yes, he confuses the existence of a heating effect with the result of applying that heat to a given piece of apparatus.
Its like saying that its incontrovertible that applying a heat to a pan of water will heat it, and concluding that you have proved that the temperature of said water will rise linearly in proportion to the amount of applied heat. Which of course it will not, it will stop rising at 100C.
Richard, if there would be any group of CAGW skeptics who are ‘the enemy’, it would be those who constantly instigate pointless fights with other skeptics, distracting from the mission we should all embrace—to persuade as many people as possible that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
You can not be taken seriously when you claim humans have no effect on the climate. When you claim there is no AGW, pep[le immediately know you are a science denier. You also undermine the “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE
Efforts to refute the coming climate emergency fail when there is AGW denying
There has to be an effort to differentiate between science backed harmless AGW and the imaginary CAGW.
I presume that you meant to say “one cannot be taken seriously” rather than “you” (referring to me personally), because by now I would think that you know that those are not my views.
I agree that those who espouse positions that reject well-established science that eminent skeptics including our esteemed host agree with are, as Charles said, not helping the skeptical cause.
What I have said and will continue to say is that attacking and deriding fellow skeptics over their errors and treating them as ‘the enemy’ is every bit as harmful to persuasion of the persuadable as is misinformation that goes unchallenged.
Being misinformed does not make one the enemy. Being a dick turns people against the truth that you think you’re promoting. Other commenters and readers constantly try to send you that message by down-voting your comments. Why you reject that is a mystery that causes me to wonder if you are actually just trying to disrupt discussion and cause casual visitors to throw up their hands and go away.
“Enemies?” Are you for real? You disagree with someone’s opinion and therefore they become your enemy? You really are the cut-price, low-intelligence Sheldon Cooper, aren’t you?
Is there any effect of increasing CO2 at the margin? After reaching pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm up from the low of the last glacial period of 180, is there any more surface warming potential from additional CO2? It is less than clear to me.
Given that all of Richards ‘evidence’ is from ideal condition laboratory experiments and don’t actually support his claims, there’s still no evidence that increasing CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with increasing temperatures.
I’ve actually read quite a few – there actually aren’t nearly as many as you think. Of those the majority are written on the incorrect assumption that the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature has been proven, which it most certainly hasn’t, and so invalidates the entire paper.
What you were talking about in your post a little way above was the unsupported opinion of people like Happer, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen – nobody has ever been able to prove a causative link between CO2 and temperature in all the decades spent in the attempt. Your feeble attempt to conflate opinion with scientific study by association within the same post is a complete failure – nobody is buying the crap you’re selling. Sorry Richard but you still have absolutely no evidence to back up your unsupported opinion.
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs’ – you were the one making the claim so, please, I invite you to prove it. Asking me to prove a negative is absolute nonsense.
This is getting more and more interesting – and revealing.
Why 1975? Why do you want him to prove 100%?
You want to know what the effect of CO2 rises is, look at the observational studies. What you want to look at is the likely magnitude of the climate sensitivity parameter.
Charles, with respect, it is most definitely not “as clear as the sky is blue.” If it were that clear then there would have been a plethora of studies proving the causative link. That there hasn’t been even one single solitary paper that has been able to do this in the decades of heavily funded research into just that point really proves that it is not clear at all. We must agree to disagree on this point – I remain open to persuasion and if you ever find a paper firmly proving that causative link then that would do it. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to find such a unicorn, however.
That is probably the most stupid and inane post I have ever read on this site and I’ve read posts by Griff, Simon and Richard Greene.
If you turned up to build a house and stated that you’ve seen a few, you know how it works but you’ve got no idea how it all fits together you’d be escorted straight off the site. If you said you could build a radio but you’ve got no idea where all the little wires go you’d get laughed at. So why am I suddenly the bad guy for asking to see how CO2 causes warming? How does one connect with the other, Mr Rotter? I’m not asking for proof of God or the location of the Holy Grail – just show me the evidence that CO2 causes warming. After all – you showed me it can be done, didn’t you? If I burn some petrol, I’ll feel the heat, if I try breathing underwater I’ll choke as there’s nothing to breathe and if I put my hand in a flame it’ll burn. If it’s that easy then show me the proof.
I’ve never seen a causitive link between CO2 and Earth’s temperatures or weather, and I’ve been looking and following the conversation for about 50 years.
There is no causitive link.
CO2-phobes are invited to show a causitive link if they can (they can’t).
Well that’s a theory – and, yes, all ‘proofs’ are simply an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing one way. Even one indisputable piece of evidence would be enough to suggest an answer. Proving beyond any doubt is, as you point out, not possible but proving something on balance of evidence is.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise beyond an insignificant, indiscernable amount, and there is no evidence that CO2 is causing any changes in the Earth’s weather.
Lab spectroscopy suggests a 0.75 degree C, warming for a doubling of CO2 which would take 168 years at the current CO2 rise rate of +2.5ppm a year
There is speculation about a water vapor positive feedback (WVPF) increasing the warming rate but no agreement on whether the feedback is small medium or large. Whatever the WVPF is, it must be limited or else Earth would have overheated long ago.
My guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds, and more clouds block more sunlight.
This is where the you need to catch up. Miskolczi 2023 shows that through mid altitude tropospheric water vapor reductions, the warming effect of CO2 is matched by an equal cooling effect. The paper is just one of many showing water vapor does not work like climate science has assumed.
In effect, CO2 has two forcings. One is absorption of surface IR (warming) and the other is increased evaporation at the surface which drives the mid-troposphere reductions (cooling). The net effect is a small increase in precipitation.
Weingarten and Happer show that more CO2 will have very little effect.
Wallace, Christie and D’Aleo show that the rise in CO2 does not show in the temperature records.
Salby and Harde and Berry show that human emissions are only a small part of the recent rise in CO2.
So —we don’t cause it, it doesn’t do what we are told to fear, and more of it won’t either.
“The effects if CO2 are backed by over 127 years of science and data, including over 100,000 scientific papers and almost 100% of all scientists, including the skeptics.”
What are “the effects of CO2” and what does CO2 affect?
The basic effects of CO2 are that it is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits.
Beyond that, what does CO2 do in the Earth’s atmosphere?
As far as I know, none of those 100,000 scientific papers tell us exactly how CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere interact. They contain a lot of speculation, but no real evidence that CO2 is doing anything discernable to the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s striking that there are so many papers done on CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere over the years and *not one of them* can prove that CO2 has any discernable effect on the atmosphere or the temperatures. Not one. That’s a challenge to any and all climate alarmists. Got any evidence? I didn’t think so.
Well, given its radiative properties it’s reasonable to conclude that CO2 must be having some effect on temperature. But it’s unreasonable to conclude it is the only thing that affects temperature. The real problem is figuring out what the other factors are and how much each contributes to the overall affect. CO2 could easily be a second or third order player. The problem is the uncertainties of all the variables we know of – solar, ocean cycles, clouds, aerosols, etc. – are large and overlapping in terms of how much warming or cooling each causes making it impossible to make accurate attributions.
The effect of CO2 is unmeasurable. If it is contributing mass to the atmosphere, it will increase the temperature. Beyond that, it does nothing.
The solar radiation over global land bottomed in 1537. It has been trending upward since. The accumulated sunlight anomaly over land since the minimum is 70ZJ.
The land does not store this heat but the increasing land temperature reduces the heat advection from ocean to land resulting in the oceans cooling slower. The oceans therefore retain more heat.
The precession cycle and the distribution of land over the globe explains the observed temperature trends. Land has a highly positive response to sunlight with increasing sunlight causing the land to warm up. Ocean response to sunlight is non-linear. It is positive up to average daily intensity of 420W/m^2 but is negative above this value. Adjacent land has significant control over the ocean surface temperature because oceans warm the land. Less need for warming means ocean retain more heat and more ocean surface reaches the 30C limit.
The great delusion is that reducing CO2 is going to stop the land in the NH from warming up. It won’t. The effort to reduce CO2 will be viewed by history as the great delusion of the 21st century. So much misdirected effort and expense.
Your confirmation bias causes to you to dismiss all evidence of greenhouse warming including measurements of increasing ling wave downwelling radiation.
As an alternative present evidence of natural warming that would explain 100% the post 1875 warming. I will not g hold my breath.
RP, Greene is in the right here and you are behaving like a swivel-eyed non-ironic flat earther.
The constant discussion of “back radiation” by everyone overly complicates the situation.
CO2 absorbs some of the emitted Planck radiation that would escape to space otherwise.
Simply by absorbing that radiation the heat has to go somewhere, whether it’s emitted as Planck radiation in all directions or simply warms the atmosphere, or as is extremely likely, both, it will cause some degree of warming.
The simple fact is that less energy (reflected + emitted) is escaping into to space.
Feedbacks, both negative and positive, and the subsequent, likely mild, degree of warming are the real issues.
Wallace, Christie and D’Aleo 2017 show there is no statistical evidence of rising CO2 on 14 different temperature data sets. The obvious energy introduced is not yet obvious in the temperature data.
Completely irrelevant Mr Rotter.
I was commenting on Richards arrogant and condescending assumption of ‘confirmation bias’ whilst stating his own ‘confirmation bias’ with nothing to back it up.
Where I am it is past 10pm – the sky is black Charles.
Thus under no circumstances is the local flow of electro-magnetic energy polydirectional.
The current warming trend is entirely explained by the precession cycle; the distribution of land over the globe and the very different response of land to sunlight compared with ocean.
The land will continue to warm until it accumulates ice again.
The CO2 nonsense has to be called out. It has has no direct influence on Earth’s energy balance. History will prove it to be as silly as a belief in flat earth.
Put on your helmet and flak vest Charles. The Nutters are going to come after you with pitchforks, torches and hoods to hide their faces. They’ll tar and feather you and ride you out of town on a rail.
Why is it so hard for you and Greene to admit there is no human co2 signal and to speculate on ”it should be there because the math says so” is utterly meaningless and continues to feed the climate zombies?
Or is it that you have yet to arrive at that conclusion?
Stop being so overly melodramatic, Richard. If you’d stop this condescending and aggressive attitude to all posts you disagree with we might actually get somewhere. The simple fact is that you and Charles are firmly convinced that CO2 causes some or most of the warming and can see it, ‘clear as the sky is blue’. Nobody else here can – we can’t see that connection and it’s frustrating for both sides of this argument that we can’t. So we need something else, something more that will convince us that you are correct, some evidence of this connection between CO2 and warming. Unfortunately you haven’t been able to show anybody that connection, or anything remotely resembling it. That’s all, nothing to get all bent out of shape over or resort to amateur dramatics for, and certainly no need to resort to calling people ‘nutters’ or ‘deniers’ please.
No Richard, that is not how the process works. As Einstein famously pointed out, one scientist with evidence would be all that is needed. That you feel the need to suggest that the alarmist political consensus is the answer speaks volumes to your stance and lack of credibility. If you cannot offer evidence then you have nothing. Sorry but that’s just the way it is – and that is as clear as the sky is blue.
Here’s some warming that supposedly didn’t include increasing levels of CO2.
It warmed at the same magnitude twice after the Little Ice Age ended in the early 1800’s, and those warmings were equal to the warming we are experiencing today.
So if we have two separate warming periods in the past that warmed just as much as today but without increasing CO2, then it would be logical to assume that the current warming was caused by the same thing that caused the previous two warmings. The previous two warmings did not require CO2. Now, all of a sudden, CO2 is required? I don’t think so. It’s not logical.
As far as I know, none of those 100,000 scientific papers tell us exactly how CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere interact. They contain a lot of speculation, but no real evidence that CO2 is doing anything discernable to the Earth’s atmosphere.
Some people can’t tell the difference between evidence, on one hand, and speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, on the other hand.
Alarmist climate science is made up almost entirely of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.
This same kind of BS (Bad Science) took place in the arguments over Human-caused Global Cooling. I was skeptical then, although not at first, as I assumed the scientists had good reason to claim we might be heading into another ice age, but as time went along I realized that they didn’t really have any evidence for their claims, all they had was speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, and so I became very skeptical. I wish I had had the internet available back then to voice my complaints about what I saw them doing to science. The bastardization of science.
It turns out I was right to be skeptical of those Human-caused Global Cooling people. They were wrong. The temperatures started warming up instead of continuing to cool.
Now comes the Human-caused Global Warming crowd and they have all the same faults as the Human-caused Global Cooling crowd, so naturally I’m skeptical and call for evidence. And, after calling for evidence for decades and recieving no evidence, I come to the conclusion that climate alarmist again do not know what they are talking about.
But this time I have the internet and get to voice my displeasure at what I see these climate alarmist charlatans doing to science.
Nice photo, but all it shows is that shade blocks direct solar warming of the surface. I don’t see any relation to green house gases. I would note that under clear sky conditions frost or dew forms at night when the ground cools below the dew point faster than the air above causing water vapor to condense on the surface. This results in dew or frost forming where the ground is unshaded first and explains why the flowers in our boxes located under the roof eaves don’t freeze, but the ones in the open do.
What do you think are the chances of checking the Keeling Curve given ‘natural’ sources and Asian coal fired power plants? Nil. So back off and shut up and realise a doubling doesn’t matter according to proper ECS science
There is no chance to stop the rise of CO2 with almost 7 billion people living in nations that ignore Nut Zero
Nature does not add CO2 year over year. Only humans do. In the long run nature REDUCES the atmospheric CO2 level.
I have advocated for much more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997 when I started reading C3 plant –CO2 enrichment studies and about the CO2 enrichment one by greenhouse owners
The optimum CO2 level for most plants is from 700 to 1200 ppm per many thousands of scientific studies
What is certain and backed by proper scientific evidence is that CO2 has a forcing effect.
Other things being equal, higher CO2 ppm will result in higher temperatures than lower one. Other things are not equal, however, and the effect of this forcing on the climate of the planet is not “backed by over 127 years of science and data including over 100,000 scientific papers”.
You are confusing the existence of a heating effect with the result of that effect.
A forcing effect does not always result in higher temperatures. It depends on the local physics what effect it has. The climate is a complicated machine with a great many feedbacks. It is an open question whether the forcing due to increased CO2 (or anything else) raises the temperature at all, and if so, by how much.
I raise the heat under a pan of water. Other things being equal this will raise its temperature. Only, they are not equal. At 100C the temperature stops rising and steam results. I fill my car with some gallons of gas. Other things being equal this should give me 100 miles range. Only, they are not equal, this particular route is up and down through the mountains. The engine develops enough power to take me to 100mph on the flat. Only, things are not equal, and the powers that be have imposed governors limiting speeds to 75mph. Or, this particular car over a certain speed has non-linear wind resistance.
You have to do proper experiments on the object of study to establish what the effect of any stimulus applied to it will be. The evidence at the moment seems to favor the existence of a damping effect of some sort which dampens the effect of any applied forcing (not just CO2 forcing) and keeps global temperatures within quite narrow bounds. Fortunately for us all.
Interestingly your last sentence ‘almost 100%’ is reminiscent of a famous paper. Would that ‘almost’ be 97% by any chance?
The Greenhouse model, as is universally presented, appears to be incorrect.
Molecular collisions and convection, rather than re-radiation back to earth, is the energy transfer mechanism.
.
The black body radiation of the earth, after absorption by greenhouse gases, is quickly converted into kinetic energy, and becomes part of the thermal pool of the atmosphere.
.
The atmosphere should not be treated as a black body radiator, as there is no thermodynamic equilibrium. Even for a local thermodynamic equilibrium, one cannot define its boundaries in the sense of the premises of Planck’s law.
.
Furthermore, the maximum possible contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse warming is limited to about 7% of the total warming potential from black body radiation.
This is solely based on the black body energy availability from Planck’s energy distribution in the range of the CO2 absorption wavelengths.
.
To achieve this maximum possible contribution, about 0.15% of the current presence of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere would participate, i.e., less than 1 ppm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
.
Water vapor, WV, is the most important greenhouse gas and contributes about 93% of the greenhouse warming. With the current concentrations of WV and CO2, the black body energy is fully absorbed, i.e., saturated.
. NOTE: These articles have similar results using WV and CO2 ppm in atmosphere.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
. 1 Introduction
.
CO2 is considered by the IPCC and allied entities, as the main contributor of the greenhouse phenomenon.
.
To place this view in perspective, it is important to realize, the earth’s black body, BB, radiation is the source of heat trapped by the greenhouse effect.
.
The model of the greenhouse phenomenon considers absorption of the earth’s BB radiation by CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and subsequently, the greenhouse gases radiate the absorbed energy back to earth, keeping the soil warm and by convection also keeping the atmosphere warm.
.
The most important greenhouse gases are WV and CO2.
There are more greenhouse gases, but their contribution is very small.
.
The earth’s BB radiation ranges between wavelengths 2 – 70 micrometer.
WV is the most important and dominant greenhouse gas, which absorbs heat in the whole range of wavelengths of the earth’s BB radiation, except between 8 – 12 micrometer, and to a lesser extent around 15 micrometer.
.
CO2 absorbs essentially only one wavelength in the range of the earth’s BB radiation, i.e., at 15 micrometer.
.
There are two more wavelength’s of absorption by CO2, but they are at the edge of the earth’s BB curve, and at current temperatures, their contribution is very small, i.e., less than 0.5%.
.
The atmosphere of the earth is transparent to space between 8 – 12 micrometer; WV and CO2 are not absorbing at these frequencies.
.
The potential for CO2 to trap heat around the wavelength of 15 micrometer is about 10.5% of the total heat emitted by the earth’s BB radiation.
.
This is the part of BB energy emitted by the earth of the total BB radiation emitted at 300 K that can be absorbed by CO2, as can be calculated with Planck’s law. See Appendix A
.
The rest of the greenhouse effect is absorbed by WV.
A part of the radiation between 8 – 12 micrometer goes directly into space.
.
Due to the transparent window, and the large share of WV in the absorption of the earth’s BB radiation, including also some absorption around 15 micrometer, the maximum share of CO2 is limited to about 7% of the total greenhouse effect. See Appendix C.6
The IPCC claims water vapor and clouds are the two most important causes of trapping heat. CO2 is number 3.
But changes in CO2 and clouds are the only possible causes of INCREASES of the greenhouse effect. Because water vapor is a dependent variable. A feedback.
Unfortunately the effect of clouds is unknown so the IPCC just blames CO2.
SO2 reductions also cause global warming
There is little evidence of natural causes of the warming since1975.
There is more evidence of manmade causes. But the proportion of each is a guess.,
The burden is on you to present your evidence first. As I mentioned above, the default hypothesis is natural variation, as we already know that nature is quite capable of producing climate change.
The tropics, +23.5 to -23.5, get about 48% of all world solar energy, so if that is increasing at 0.75 W/m2 per decade, that is a big deal.
Some of that energy gets spread throughout the rest of the world.
How does that compare to the 7% greenhouse effect of CO2, as stated in the article I posted?
The entire greenhouse effect is about 0.01 C/decade, plus there are other warming effects, such as changes in albedo, for a total of about 0.012 C/ decade
The surface atmosphere system is stabilizing in the LW because it’s temperature dependent, but not in the SW.
Until anomalous SW input manifests as heat in the surface-atmosphere system, it can result in an energy accumulation. Climatology concedes the TOA imbalance is attributable to SW in exceeding the surface-atmosphere temperature response. This is known as ocean heat uptake.
Agreed. You can tell I am trying to be careful to specify that the issue I see with the “forcing + feedback” framing is in its misapplication to GHGs. An energy accumulation due to trends in absorbed SW, IMO, is correctly understood as a forcing.
well… the hypothesis of LW radiative forcing is somewhat drifting over time as it’s now realized the initial force is exactly compensated by increased emission in the current steady state of things. As a consequence of the atmospheric response to IR active gas, the net energy accumulation is said to be in the SW as a feedback. The result is a somewhat stable greenhouse effect, but accumulation of energy in the SW.
The is incorrect understanding. The oceans are retaining more heat. They are not “uptaking” more heat through the surface. They are not losing heat as fast as they were decades ago.
The anomalous solar input to land since it bottomed in 1537 now amounts to 70ZJ. That energy has not been stored in the land other than some loss of permanent ice cover but it has reduced the demand on oceans to warm the land. Hence the oceans are retaining more heat.
The water cycle during the NH summer is slowing down so the amount of ocean surface reaching the 30C limit in September is trending upward.
All the current warming is explained by the precession cycle: the highly positive temperature response of land to sunlight and the distribution of land over the globe.
The current warming trend will continue until the land accumulates ice again. That will be around 2200.
my understanding is fine, and you are welcome to your hypothesis. The factors of TOA imbalance are thought to be: decreased SW reflection ∼0.7 W m−2 per decade, and all-sky LW ∼−0.3 W m−2 per decade. Much higher SW absorption change than surface-atmosphere LW response.
my understanding is fine, and you are welcome to your hypothesis.
It is not my hypothesis. It is well known that ocean ventilation is of the order of centuries to thousands of years. There is no way that oceans can take in heat from the surface to the abyss below 1500m in a matter of decades. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24648-x#Fig5
About energy conversion in the atmosphere, here is the full text of the description at the first Youtube video I linked to in my original comment. Some here may not be familiar with this concept. Please consider reading this if you have not already done so.
This is important to the idea that the static radiative “warming” effect of incremental CO2 or other non-condensing GHGs does NOT mean that one must expect the dynamic end result to be the accumulation of energy on land and in the oceans. In a nutshell, “warmer” cannot be isolated from “higher” or “faster” as a response to an incremental increase in the radiative absorbing power of the atmosphere.
******************** Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and gross static stability Of the various forms of energy present in the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often received the most attention. Often the total kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded as a measure of its intensity. The only other forms of atmospheric energy which appear to play a major role in the kinetic energy budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere are potential energy, internal energy, and the latent energy of water vapor. Potential and internal energy may be transformed directly into kinetic energy, while latent energy may be transformed directly into internal energy, which is then transformed into kinetic energy. It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic approximation that the changes of the potential energy P and the internal energy l of the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional, so that it is convenient to regard potential and internal energy as constituting a single form of energy. This form has been called total potential energy by Margules (1903). … In the long run, there must be a net depletion of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It follows that there must be an equal net generation of kinetic energy by reversible adiabatic processes; this generation must occur at the expense of total potential energy. It follows in turn that there must be an equal net generation of total potential energy by heating of all kinds. These three steps comprise the basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental characteristic of the general circulation.”
strativarius
March 3, 2024 2:52 am
Over the last week or so, the climate emergency has been relegated mostly to radio. There’s a lot of ‘division’ and ‘unrest’ afoot and now it seems political chickens are beginning to come home to roost.
The so-called climate crisis would not be possible in isolation, it’s adherents and devout believers have a lot of other baffling, illogical ideas. One such idea I saw today reminded me of how insane it’s becoming. And there’s no peak in sight.
Makes sense in a nation that is… 82% white? Then there’s the gender thing.
“”Justin Webb has been wronged by the BBC
The BBC has upheld a ludicrous complaint against the Today programme’s Justin Webb. Back in August, Webb told listeners that trans women were ‘in other words, males’. This basic truth should not be controversial. … But someone complained. They protested that Webb was giving his personal view on a controversial matter. Please! It is only a controversial matter because feelings have been prioritised over facts. Nevertheless, six months later, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit determined that Webb’s comment breached the BBC standards of impartiality. “” https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/justin-webb-has-been-wronged-by-the-bbc/
Impartiality? The BBC? That is ironic.
With issues like the above in mind being a 3C – Climate Change Catastrophist – is relatively easy….
“”Labour must act to save the environment – here’s my three-point plan George Monbiot
“”Bronze Age people working at Flag Fen “lived in harmony with their environment”. “That’s the important thing – they did not abuse the environment,” he said.
“So, yes, they built houses, they felled lots of trees, they grew crops. They did all that sort of thing, but they didn’t pump fumes into the atmosphere. “It was all done in a manageable way – nature could cope with it.” … “I think what we should learn from our prehistoric ancestors is to live in harmony with the Fenland environment as much as we can.” … “That’s what they understood in the Bronze Age, and it’s something we’ve got to understand today.”” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68436888
Bronze age people were about developing, not sitting back; it was a far from idyllic life.
Mr. strativarius: Well, the folks who promote bronze age life are good progressives. They could get 40 a. of fen somewhere and return themselves. Folks would see how great it is to burn wood for heat and live off the land, and it would go viral, no?? Progs will instead write articles like this while living like modern humans (using oil, coal, etc.). If these authors believed their own stuff, they would be writing articles on paper in some fen, showing some sort of “leadership.” But it isn’t.
I once clicked on program about a group of people living a “medieval” life for a year. Of course they had to sleep off site because of health and safety regulations.
I read all the daily headline on The Daily Sceptic and any articles that would interest Americans. In my opinion the UK is wackier (further left) than the US, and we are pretty bad with millions of aliens invading every year and the persecution of Trump.
You’ve got King Chuckles
We have Jumpin’ Joe Bribe’em
I have not visited England since 2004 — UK sounds like a different nation now.
OK I m an old mining engineer. So all this climate thig is at times out of by base understanding.
The first thing I looked at what was this IPCC thing.
Well they say they are The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
That title rings alarm bells straight off.
Intergovernmental – says politics straight off. No, it does not say SCIENCE it says POLITICS.
Then I see all sorts of data based on models!!
Every computer model has basic flaws. Many years ago, I was reading a paper snippet that said the space craft going to the moon had 3 computers . All to cross check the data for landing etc. How many computers on the current aircraft flying? I suspect more than one.
Now as a mining engineer and ventilation engineer I have come across lots of various compute modelling to assess the needed ventilation of an underground mine.
In most cases I have managed to grab the code of these modellings and found them wanting. Simply due to values based on abstract assumptions.
I have more faith in the two legged model as a representation of “something” vs the computer models used in mine ventilation and worse climate change.
Ok the Victoria Secret models look so much better than a huge bunch of code.
Now what I am seeing in our later day saints of the Climate Change Religion is that all things must be renewable. What does reenable actually mean.
Solar panels – seem to have life span at best 15 – 20 years
Wind turbines – about the same
EV batteries – not much different
What when these systems need replacing?
Can they be recycled?
So far, the answer is NO. Thought I feel Het/neyt is more correct as an answer.
It seems that the west is drawing to an economic demise, but at the benefit of Russia, India and definitely China and no doubt a few others.
It appears that Europe, UK and USA all want to go down the path of wind and solar. Add to this bunch of questionable oddities, Australia, with a definite embargo on even discussing nuclear power. But Australia want to have nuclear powered submarines. Go figure.
What I am getting at is none of these nation or conglomerate of nations seem to grasp the need of basic fixed stable base load power. How much of base load power to produce then topped up with the unicorn gas and pixie dust from reenables is debateable.
Basically, base load power is 24/7/365/366, (accounts for leap year).
Using renewables as base load including huge batteries is fundamentally pie in the sky stuff.
(I will admit I did like the various pies described in the TV series ‘Pie in The Sky’ at least they were real. Made some as well. Did take a bit to find the recipe).
So why are we in the collective west trying to kill ourselves economically and also in the agriculturally fields?
End rant>>>>>
Yes, it is all confusing and seems pointless. Climate Change is here but natural.
“I’m an old mining engineer. So all this climate thig is at times out of by base understanding.”
You must have been a good mining engineer because you figured out what is wrong with the climate hoax
I want to add why CO2 is being demonized when more CO2 is actually beneficial in many ways:
Leftists who control your energy control you.
If they can convince most people that CO2 will cause a disaster, more people will demand that their governments “do something”
And that is what leftists want to hear.
Leftists want power and control
CO2 is their boogeyman
Some leftist want socialism
Many want fascism
A few want Marxism
All leftists want to micromanage our lives and we’d better stop this before it is impossible to stop.
You are correct that the IPCC is political. It was established by the UN FCCC, which is a treaty—absolutely political. And something too few people seem to understand is that the IPCC was established to collate the evidence for anthropogenic warming. The reality of AGW is axiomatic in the IPCC because the FCCC already told them so more than 32 years ago.
The IPCC has no role in assessing the truth of the AGW conjecture. In a generous mood I will agree that the IPCC does identify the best evidence for AGW, but that’s just the prosecution identifying the best case against the defendent, which is literally their job, but it doesn’t mean their case is irrefutable nor even to be taken seriously.
“So why are we in the collective west trying to kill ourselves economically and also in the agriculturally fields?”
I think there is a lot of Mass Hysteria associated with human-caused climate change, exascerbated by daily climate change propaganda from the Mass Media.
Technology has given the Political Class a better means to brainwash its citizenry and that’s what they are doing. Not all citizens fall for the climate change brainwashing, but too many do.
Do that on Trump’s watch and they will go to jail.
Quondam
March 3, 2024 4:15 am
Three Telling Sins
Telling a child there is no Santa Claus.
Telling an adult their universe is not geocentric.
Telling an academic there is no Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
Contrary to the fundamental tenets of Climate Science:
Systems in thermodynamic equilibrium in gravitational fields are isothermal.
Temperature is defined for thermodynamic states as an integrating factor making such states exact differentials with path-independent and steady-state solutions.
Dissipation is the defining characteristic of a steady-state. A familiar example is the flux of an electric current between boundaries of fixed potential. Parallel examples are energy fluxes between boundaries of fixed temperature and volume fluxes of fluids between boundaries of fixed pressure. For the first, one early learns D = J * (V1 – V2). The second, less familiar, is the oldest formula of thermodynamics, D = J * (1 – T2/T1).
To describe the troposphere, let J = 240 W/m^2, T1 = 285K, T2=220K. D = 55 W/m^2 is then the steady work required to maintain this flux. Increasing CO2 impedes the flux, reducing D and J. To restore J, we need decrease T2/T1, leaving D a bit greater than before. (For the ALR, T1-T2 is constant)
Radiative-Convective-Equilibrium models, prevalent today, assume thermal gradients are fixed by an isentropic equilibrium function, g/Cp. This notion was originally proposed by Wm. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1862 and named Convective Equilibrium. Soon thereafter, both Maxwell (Kinetic Theory of Gases) and Boltzmann (Statistical Thermodynamics) proved Statement 1 above correct. Equilibrium theories can not explain why the troposphere has a thermal gradient!!! Nevertheless, Thomson’s model has been universally adopted by climate scientists as incontrovertible. Attributions to Thomson or the critiques of Maxwell and Boltzmann are apparently considered misinformation (and not so easily found by Google Scholar).
How might a physical scientist seek a function T(z) should gradients be determined by dissipation? First, express with 1st order differential equations each of three temperature dependent fluxes (+/- radiation, convection) with dissipation described by coefficients times model explicit functions of altitude and temperature. Combine these into a 3rd order differential expression for total flux and seek that T(z) for which this flux is constant. Should T(z) be a variational function with fixed endpoints, total flux is a minimum. Should this flux value be prescribed, repeat varying the dissipation coefficients. In practice, this entire calculation takes but a few desktop PC seconds.
Less cooling means the surface is warmer than it would have been with a weaker greenhouse effect
The cooling of the surface is upwelling radiation less any downwelling radiation (upwelling radiation deflected back from the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor, clouds and CO2)
These radiation flows are measured 365 days a year.
“Systems in thermodynamic equilibrium in gravitational fields are isothermal.”
No, they exhibit a lapse rate, as is easily shown by applying Lagrangian mechanics.
But you are in good company….this confused Bolzmann, Maxwell, Loschmidt and many others and remains a discussion topic in grad student lounges to this day….Fortunately the answer is the same as you get from considering convection expansion work as adiabatic lapse rate derivations from Meteo course textbooks.
Equation 1.18 from Fronsdal paper above says even a tall column of ideal gas would show a lapse rate (some will disagree). And ideal gases aren’t IR absorbers or emitters.
In the real world tall columns of gases absorb heat from the surfaces containing them or some heat source, and exhibit convection and we can’t insulate them well enough to achieve an adiabatic assumption. There is much total crap on this topic on the ‘net. Here’s some that even refers to WUWT in the comments.
Thanks for responding. I don’t have the physics ‘chops’ that many here have, but can see even the pros have differences on this issue. Personally, I found the Wijngaarden and Happer explanation that GHGs are necessary to set up the lapse rate persuasive.
Fronsdal appears to be a physicist marching to the beat of his own drum, adding a Boltzmann thermodynamic term, kT, to a mechanical Hamiltonian and seeking variational solutions (action principles). Quite admirable really. But, if one is going to question Maxwell’s or Boltzmann’s mathematics, it would be best to very carefully critique their work before claiming a different solution. (It took Maxwell three tries just to get the sign right.) As Maxwell has several times pointed out, were it possible to create a fluid volume with an equilibrium thermal gradient, one would have the makings of a perpetual motion II device. There exist well-known action principles for entropy and free energy for systems in isothermal equilibrium.
Your grad student acquaintances might be interested in discussing page 8 of Landau’s textbook, Fluid Mechanics, wherein the physical significance of the adiabatic lapse rate is truly revealed.
“As Maxwell has several times pointed out….. one would have the makings of a perpetual motion II device.” That was Maxwell’s argument regarding Loschmidt’s position…and many since…but you can’t transport “work” across the adiabatic boundaries of your hypothetical tall cylinder either without major redefinition of the problem you think you are solving. So a hypothetical heat engine inside the boundaries will only change the temperature gradient, and produce no external work, and simply be equivalent to a different thermal conductivity for the gas inside the column.
”There exist well-known action principles for entropy and free energy for systems in isothermal equilibrium.” Yes, (nearly) all with a built in assumption that gravity is irrelevant…at least until they have to explain the lapse rate of the atmosphere noting that the gravitational field causes a pressure gradient….hmmm….but if you have a link, pls send…it is an interesting, if arcane, topic.
Lately, I’ve noticed some commenters who apparently decided not to comment and put “…” or something similar indicating an aborted comment, in the reply box.
If you hit the reply button, and write something and you decide you don’t want to post that comment, all you have to do is erase what you wrote in the comment box, and then just hit the reply button again, and the reply box will close and noone will be the wiser that you changed your mind and did not comment. 🙂
Doesn’t exclude the people who put up a full stop or empty quotation marks as an ironic comment on a post. I don’t get it most of the time but they seem to enjoy doing it.
I think sometimes people respond in anger or in error and think better of it after posting, so they use the Edit function to delete the comment, but you can’t edit down to blank once initially posted.
Here is a question. If CO2 warms the surface, is it because of “back radiation” or is it because of the vibrational state set off by reacting with Photons of the appropriate frequencies?
Also, I don’t understand how absorption in the 14.9 nanometer frequency can warm the surface. I
”Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM).”
There are three versions of answers to your question. a. The CO2 molecules emit that energy back to the surface causing it to warm b. The absorbed energy causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate thus passing on the energy to other molecules speeding them up which is warming. c. The CO2 molecules in the upper atmosphere absorb energy and warm which coupled with the lapse rate warms the surface.
Or possibly a combination.
This is short and sweet I hope it helps. Personally I don’t think CO2 can do what is claimed.
A brick of dry ice is about 192K warmer than deep space. Heat flowing via radiation between two bodies is the net of radiation emitted by the warmer body toward the colder minus the radiation emitted by the colder body toward the warmer.
So, if the warmer body is earth and the colder “body” is a frigid layer of atmosphere, there will be less heat radiated away from the surface than if the only inbound radiation were coming from deep space.
It’s a common misunderstanding that radiation somehow is determined by the hotter body “knowing” to emit because it “sees” a colder body and somehow knows what the temperature of the remote body is. That remote body might be a billion light years away and may no longer even exist. All objects radiate based on their temperature. They all do so independently of what any other object is doing. Heat only flows from hot to cold but radiation is not heat. If a warmer body is next to an almost equally warm body, it is the net radiation that determines the small amount of heat that flows to the slightly cooler body. If the same hot body is next to frigid body, much more heat flows because although the hot body still emits the same radiation as before, it now receives far less radiation from the frigid body than it had been receiving from the slightly cooler body.
“The heat radiating off a dry ice..”
If you were an astronaut on a space walk, your spacesuit radiating your 37 C body heat to outer space at -270 C, you might be glad to be working within a -78 C fog of CO2 to reduce your radiation losses.
The best way to conceive of this and not get confused about misleading terms like back-radiation warming the surface is to think of it as interfering with cooling. The only thing that RAISES the surface temperature is the sun. The greenhouse effect merely slows the rate of cooling. If you slow the rate of cooling overnight, then by the time the sun rises the next morning and resumes heating the surface, the starting temperature will be warmer than it would have been with less impeded cooling during the night. That means that by the end of the day it will also be warmer than it would have been. That’s where the warming comes from.
That warming process will level off because a warmer surface will radiate more (proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature). A balance will be struck where the surface temperature won’t rise any more because doing so would drive faster radiative cooling at night.
If water vapor decreases, the greenhouse effect will be reduced. So the rate of nighttime cooling will vary up and down depending on humidity. If non-condensing greenhouse gases gradually increase, the average rate of cooling will gradually decrease.
Rich, something for you to think about.
If all the O2 and N2 molecules obtain their heat via kinetic energy because they do not absorb IR, how then do they cool down at night?
GrumpG
O2 and N2 molecules give up some of their kinetic energy to H2O and CO2 molecules that HAVE RADIATED their heat away to outer space, plus by conduction to the cool ground that HAS RADIATED some of it’s heat away to outer space, often forming a nightime temperature inversion in low wind conditions.
If you believe it is normal for a fire dept. to make 8 trips to an auto production plant in less than a year, please produce your evidence to support this.
Otherwise, this demonstrates one of the numerous problems with lithium-ion battery powered EVs that makes them problematic against ICE’s. EV’s are a solution in search of a problem.
Richard Greene
March 3, 2024 2:10 pm
To slow down the Trump cheerleading: These are also facts about the Trump years:
The slowest four year Real GDP economic growth period (1% average) since Herbert Hoover
Total employment down 2.3 million
Trump grew federal government spending from $4,190 billion in fiscal 2018 to $7,250 in fiscal 2021, up +73% in four years
Trump increased the size of the federal deficit from $779 billion in fiscal 2018 to $2,775 billion in fiscal 2021, up over 256% in four years
Trump’s huge 2020 and 2021 budget deficits were the root cause of the high 2021 and 2022 inflation rate
No Keystone XL pipeline extension — only 8% completed
There was no US energy independence — that was always a conservative myth
CO2 still called a pollutant by the EPA
Not one intelligent Trump speech about climate change since 2015
Grossly excessive Covid scaremongering by Fauci and Birx
Financed a rushed to market vaccine that had zero effect on all cause mortality or excess deaths. Claimed one million live were saved, which is complete nonsense.
No election fraud investigation by Bill Barr
Encouraged a January 6 protest that was too late, and in the wrong place — electoral votes are determined at state capital buildings, not in Washington DC
No end to the war in Afghanistan
The tariffs on China just made US consumers pay more for imports
Trump did not get the Affordable Care Act repealed as promised
Trump said the rich would pay higher taxes but his tax cuts mainly benefitted the rich
Trump said Mexico would pay for his border wall, which did not happen, and there was not much wall built
Trump promised to end the opioid crisis
There were dozens of other broken promises
That’s the Trump record that Trump cheerleaders seem to forget.
A tale of silly games with pollution. On the M4 near Heathrow there have been speed restrictions, ostensibly to cut NO2 emissions. Here’s the overall NO2 emissions for the surrounding area, mapped at 1km grid level. It’s clear that the aircraft are the main source, and that local hotspots that happen to be near the road are in fact caused by sites such as sewage plants and hospitals.
Some highlights I came across this week:
Spain Enjoys Cheap Electricity Amid Record Renewable Energy Output
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Spain-Enjoys-Cheap-Electricity-Amid-Record-Renewable-Energy-Output.html
South Australia fast-tracks 100 pct renewables target to 2027
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-fast-tracks-100-pct-renewables-target-to-2027/
They Didn’t Believe Us When We Said Unaffordable EVs Were A Problem
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/26/they-didnt-believe-us-when-we-said-unaffordable-evs-were-a-problem/
Fast-tracking the impossible! Speeding up to hit the wall harder. Bring it on.
You need to differentiate between the leftist plan on paper and reality.
When you are a leftist everything works on paper.
If you write it, you think the peons will make it happen.
Never mind engineering, science and economics.
The peons will figure that out.
Leftists just write vision statements.
No actual detailed plans needed to analyze feasibility cost and critical path timing.
If there was such a detailed plan the scientists and engineers would tear it apart. So no plan.
That’s for the peons to do.
The leftist vision statement to ruin electric grids is done.
Now leftists are deciding what they want to ruin next.
Maybe farming?
Leftists ruin everything they touch.
UK readers will be aware that not all leftists declare themselves. The Tories have been left-of-centre for some time. And they certainly think a vision statement is all they need to get us to their “sunny uplands”.
It so happens that every political party is left of centre. They are all political unions as in collectives built to garner more than their entitled power.
Yes, Leftists *do* ruin everything they touch.
Joe Biden is the posterboy.
Fortunately, Biden is losing in just about all the polls now.
Now, if we can just keep ole Joe from cheating and stealing the election again. Trump seems to be putting a lot of effort into preventing a repeat of the illegal voting that took place in 2020.
Four more years of Joe Biden and this country is done. Let’s hope Trump is successful. That means we will all be successful. If Biden wins, we all lose.
The only reason that Biden and the Dems aren’t polling at ‘zero’ is because continuing mountains of deficit spending are keeping the economy out of recession, at least as defined by regime economists.
If Trump wins and takes the Dems punch bowl away, he’d better take a meat cleaver to the regulatory state lest the economy slip into the worst recession of my life time. If he doesn’t, we’ll be looking at someone much worse than FDR in 2028 and well beyond.
They can’t reach zero (at least at election time), Frank. There are 10 million ‘newcomers’ and at least that many dead voters.
“and at least that many dead voters.”
Utter unprovable bullshite…..
“The only reason that Biden and the Dems aren’t polling at ‘zero’ is because continuing mountains of deficit spending are keeping the economy out of recession, at least as defined by regime economists.“
You do know that Trump had extreme levels spending don’t you, adding vast amounts to the national debt? How do you explain that? Or is that OK because it was under Trump.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt
‘You do know that Trump had extreme levels spending don’t you, adding vast amounts to the national debt?’
He did, for the sole reason that he got rolled by the bureaucracy into mounting a massive and unnecessary response to a fraudulent COVID ‘pandemic’. I’m hoping that a second term will find a wizened DJT ready to make amends, including putting the kibosh on climate alarmism.
“He did, for the sole reason that he got rolled by the bureaucracy into mounting a massive and unnecessary response to a fraudulent COVID ‘pandemic’. “
Nope…. his spending before the pandemic was at extreme levels.
Trump had to do *necessary* spending like rebuilding the U.S. military after Obama and Biden had neglected it so badly (Trump’s Secretary of Defense came to him on Trump’s first day in office and told him the U.S. military was “critically short” of ammunition), and he had to spend money to keep tens of thousands of businesses operating, who employed millions of people, during the Covid pandemic shutdowns.
Trump did increase the deficit, but it was a small portion compared to what Biden has spent since he has been in office, and Biden’s spending was not essential to keeping the U.S. economy going, like his climate change spending, which was laugingly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act.
And if Trump gets elected again, he will have to spend a lot of money to rebuild the U.S. miliary again after another period of neglect by Joe Biden. So get ready for it.
‘Trump did increase the deficit, but it was a small portion compared to what Biden has spent since he has been in office, ‘
That is not true Tom. Trump increased it by 33.1% (8 Trillion) Biden by 8.8% so far around 3 trillion.
A looming recession is a possibility.
I think there is a economic slowdown going on all over the world and it may get to the point of throwing us into recession.
Our financial system needs serious reform. Which can only happen with a Repubican president and a Republican House and Senate.
If Trump gets elected he will turn the U.S. economy loose by sealing up the border and reducing taxes and regulations and “drill, baby, drill!”, and these things will help the economic situation.
But we still need economic reform. The Republican House has forced a change to the way spending bills come up for a vote. Before, the Powerbrokers in the U.S. Senate and House would send up an “omnibus” bill containing thousands of pages of text and then requiring a vote within a matter of a few days.
Now, the Republican House is insisting on separate spending bills where the details can be teased out much more easily and pork barrel spending can be indentified.
The Democrats are no help at all. They are the problem. Don’t vote for any of them.
Yes, Leftists *do* ruin everything they touch. Joe Biden is the poster boy.
Junpin’ Joe Bribe’em also
(1) Talks gibberish at times
(2) Falls down at times
He is multi-talented.
take a look at the speech I just posted and tell me Trump is not loosing it.
Tom. I wonder whether you are getting as worried about Trumps cognitive decline as I am. Just this week he has made some major gaffs. It seems he still thinks Obama is the president, and it is not the first time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-biden-obama-b2506194.html
And he is really struggling to get full sentences out now. These are not AI generated, they are real clips. And OK I know this one is by a left leaning channel… but like I say, the mistakes are real and you can’t hide them any more.
Barry may as well be.
His cabal of advisors and infiltrators are running Joe’s administration, that’s obvious.
Well true or not, it seems to be working. Low unemployment, inflation coming down, the stock market surging. The country is doing far better than any other major economy…. so keep it up I say.
“Well true or not, it seems to be working.”
Go stand in front of mirror and say, out loud, ‘Laken Riley’.
(as a secondary test of your hypocritical outlook, go back to the mirror an hour later and say ‘george floyd’.)
Are you saying the country is not doing well on the international stage? If so, I say you are wrong. You can check for yourself. Google is your friend.
Obviously you didn’t take my suggestion.
I didn’t reference any international economic comparisons.
(when will a continued 1,000 unemployable illegals per day begin to make an impact? … Answer: See above comment.
Talking about law breakers…. When Trump said they are letting rapists and criminals over the boarder all those years ago, who would have known he was actually in a prophetic way talking about himself?
What slimon doesn’t understand about Trump is that he will often use little slips like this to emphasize something, and to trigger idiot marxist-leftists like slimon here. The clowns in the Fake News bite the hook and the few viewers they have remaining (like slimon) swallow it all the way down.
“What slimon doesn’t understand about Trump is that he will often use little slips like this to emphasize something,”
If you believe that…..you really are a gullible man.
Those hooks are in there pretty deep, they gotta hurt…
What Simon doesn’t understand about Trump could fill about 17 large volumes with small print.
Indeed, this is the dood who still thinks the Russia Russia Russia Hoax was real and not a fabrication of the DNC and FBI.
But it would be the same three words over and over. “I am the greatest.”
Simon, I listen to Trump once or twice a week now as he holds political rallies around the nation in front of tens of thousands of people, where he can stand there and talk steadily for hours about substantive things that mean something to the average person, and I have not noticed Trump losing any of his mental capabilities. He is as sharp as ever, depite the wishful thinking of those on the Left.
Trump has made a couple of minor gaffs, which anyone could do, and the Left blows it all up out of proportion, as they always do when it comes to Trump or conservatives. Plus, the Left is trying to equate Biden’s mental problems with Trump. It’s not even a close race for who is the most mentally competent. But you couldn’t tell that listening to those on the Left. That’s the problem with listening to the Left: You never get the truth from those people. They always have an agenda that requires they lie to people. The truth is not in them.
Thinking that Obama is still the president and not just once but on a few occasions now, is an indicator that he is not just gaffing, but is genuinely losing a grip with reality. It can’t just be brushed aside as a mistake when it happens repeatedly.
“That’s the problem with listening to the Left: You never get the truth from those people. They always have an agenda that requires they lie to people.”
I think you are kidding yourself if you think it is only the left who lie. The whole Biden impeachment thing has been built on a lie by a Russian agent that was swallowed and pushed by the right.
then there is George Santos. And the whole elections stolen lie. the list goes on…..
The liars here are you and the Fake News you regurgitate.
Well, be specific man/boy, so we can have an adult discussion. What did I lie about? Coz I say it is true the republicans believed an unsubstantiated report about Biden that turned out to be a lie and the guy telling it a Russian asset. You know Russia don’t you KM? Total humiliation for them and olympic level dishonesty.
$20,000,000 to the family verified.
One claim unverified and defined as a lie by the FBI (which has lied continuously for the last 9 years).
“$20,000,000 to the family verified.”
Nonsense, bollocks, rubbish. You need proof that Joe Biden got any money. So do you have any? I am guessing no…….
Are there really actual people (apart from Trump) who believe the election was corrupt? Amazing !!
The fall in electricity prices across Spain and Portugal has nothing whatsoever to do with renewables. Rather it is due to the “Iberian exception” a series of draconian price caps aimed at keeping prices low for households. It’s had a disastrous effect on business users, with businesses closing faster than anywhere else in Europe.
The article talks about wholesale prices. This has nothing to do with pricecaps for households.
The “Iberian exception” puts a price cap on wholesale prices, not as a pricecap primarily just for households. After the introduction, France started buying huge amounts of Spanish energy through the interconnectors as it became cheaper than the French wholesale price for electricity. There were complaints that Spain was subsidising France at that point. Basically Spanish pay a much lower wholesale price plus a % of adjustments which still comes out cheaper than before it was introduced. There is a reason why it has impacted medium and large businesses adversely but I couldn’t find the information when I looked. Perhaps if you’d bothered to look it up first, this would have saved you the bother of posting.
Sorry that I thought you know what you write about here.
The pricecap is for gas generated electricity, and is caped at around 49€ per MWh.
To quote the article:
Far below the cap – again this has nothing to do with the “Iberian exception”.
Googling “Iberian exception” gives you the gas price cap I quoted – but I guess you’ve found your sources now?
Oh I know – I looked at the same as you but I dug a bit deeper. Rather than quoting me out of context and making a foolish assumption you should have noticed that I couldn’t find the information on why the Iberian exception was adversely affecting medium and large sized businesses while working as expected for households and small businesses as expected. I think it has something to do with the way business energy contracts are worked out but I could be wrong – just don’t quote me out of context on that again.
You missed this one –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/02/germanys-unstable-power-grid-coal-plants-will-be-needed-for-a-very-long-time/#comments
Thanks, but I already commented on it. The next five to six years wil show how wrong the prediction was.
But I found this one:
More Affordable Electric Cars Are Starting To Arrive In More Places Around The World
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/02/more-affordable-electric-cars-are-starting-to-arrive-in-more-places-around-the-world/
Germany will still need another 5 to 6 years to get by with wind & solar?
That will mean they’ve been trying to get this fantasy to work for about 50 years now.
I reckon their renewable energy indulgence is just a cover for their devotion to masochism as an Arian right.
In 5-6 years, Germany will still be using large amounts coal fired power.
Many of their earlier wind turbines will have ceased to operate, and the green energy idiocy will have driven them nearly to third-world status.
There industrial base is barely limping from day to day as companies close or relocate because of extreme energy prices.
The energy prices are fossil fuel related. There was something about russia and a war,remember? And without renewables it would have been far worse
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables
That’s why my electric bill went 80% up when renewables came. You seem to be very young, maybe 4 years?
“…without renewables it would have been far worse.”
You are being sarcastic, right?
The IEA that posits the EU saved $100B over 2021-23 due to renewables ignores the costs of those renewables and that electricity prices have been rising in Europe long before Putin invaded Ukraine.
Germany is the poster-child for “the more renwables, the higher the electricity costs”.
Now imagine that a pre-invasion Ukraine was powered by mostly wind, solar & batteries [yes, an Alarmists wet dream]. They would have frozen to death after Putin’s 2023 winter attempt to destroy their energy grid. Renewables are a national security threat.
[What happened to the button for adding a picture or graph to a comment?]
I see the button for adding a picture down in the lower right of this comment box.
Missing here also — there is only the Post Comment button, a Notify in email button, and a spoiler button [+] on the right hand side.
I’d post a screenshot but there is no button to do so.
In a press release dated March 25th 2022 Wind Europe said 38GW of Europe’s onshore wind capacity would reach the end of its normal operational life by 2025.
Given the state of the wind energy industry at the moment, I can’t see much of that getting replaced without huge government incentives.
Ouch.
You mean Aryan with a Y, Mr. Aryanism was a racist theory held by the Nazis that North Europeans descended from Aryan people in India are superior to other races.
Arian refers to the 4th Century heresy of Arius, a North African priest (essentially the denial of the full divinity of Jesus).
Consider me schooled.
😊
I only try to help the good guys, Mr.
So cheap Chinese cars being exported to other countries rather than being sold to Chinese consumers? China seems to have hit the same wall as other countries, that only a small % of consumers will buy them without government intervention. Given that the numbers entering service appear lower than numbers leaving service, presumably there’s growing dissatisfaction within even that small % that they won’t buy replacement EV’s.
Yep. In June 2023 Nio, China’s top EV manufacturer had to cut the price of all its cars by 30,000 yuan ($4,200) to try and move stock. In the same month the Chinese Government had to extend tax breaks for EVs at a cost of £56.9bn ($62.6bn) to 2027.
Other Chinese manufacturers have also had to cut prices to move stock.
Wow… you really are in a total La-La fantasy land, aren’t you, fungal. !
fungal?
Yeah that confused me too – bnice seems to be either confusing you with TFN (The Final Nail) or inferring you are TFN’s sockpuppet.
Cheap cars made in China using fossil fuel electricity. and possibly slave labour Hmmmmm.
South Australia uses very little electricity.. they are a minnow.
Yes, occasionally they will have 100%, or close to, wind and solar…
….. but like the other day, they will ALWAYS require nearly 100% back-up via GAS, DIESEL and COAL from Victoria.
They have hedged their bets by convincing NSW to build a higher power interconnector direct to NSW. It would be foolish for anyone to rely on Victoria keeping lights on anywhere. There was a recent outage where 500,000 Victorian customers lost power due to partial grid collapse as a storm front crossed Melbourne causing wind turbines and solar panels to lose output that exceeded the capacity of the coal generators on line.
South Australia set e negative minimum demand in Q4 2023 as rooftops met the entire lunchtime demand and was exporting excess to Victoria.
The sensible thing for householders in Australia is to go off-grid. It is the lower cost option particularly in SA where inept governments pursue a capital intensive power supply network. SA has the most expensive electricity in the world. Partly because a lot of people are already making their own. Ultimately, those who can afford to make their own cause the costs to fall onto a smaller consumer base so the average cost go up.
In respect to non-condensing GHGs, the “forcing + feedback” framing of the expected climate system response is at the core of the manufactured “decarbonization” and “net zero” movements.
Reject the framing, because it has been a misconception all along.
What, then?
The atmosphere is the working fluid of its own heat engine circulation(s) at all scales, local to regional to global.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
Theorists and modelers knew from the start that the concept of energy conversion is inherent to the general circulation. Lorenz described it. ERA5 explicitly computes it. Please read the full explanation in the details at this Youtube video.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
The result of the heat engine operation driven by the energy conversion cycle is that the planet is seen, in one part of the IR spectrum relevant to claims of “warming” from incremental CO2, as a highly variable emitter. Clouds and motion. Overturning circulations. Not a passive radiative “trap.” This is a time lapse video of NOAA’s GOES East Band 16 images. Full explanation in the description box.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Connect the dots. We do not have any reason to expect heat energy to accumulate down here because of incremental non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere, certainly not to harmful effect.
This is an important year to stop this slow motion train wreck of “climate” policies based all along on circular reasoning, which started with the “forcing + feedback” framing decades ago, incorrectly applied to CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
Thank you for listening.
This is an important year to stop this slow motion train wreck of “climate” policies based all along on circular reasoning, which started with the “forcing + feedback” framing decades ago, incorrectly applied to CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
I would like to believe that will happen. But having witnessed this “slow motion” movement from global cooling to global warming since the late 1970s, I feel they’ve now become concerned that the hysteria they’re trying to create isn’t getting them the power they want. And I believe they see the masses getting tired of the constant end of the world predictions.
I think there are six categories of people they see.
1) Those who are mild believers who will make some changes if they aren’t too inconvenient.
2) Those who don’t believe but cannot defend their positions as they don’t consider it an immediate problem or that it is overblown.
3) Those who are people who’ll believe what they are told by their teachers without question and those who believe the government wouldn’t mislead them or outright lie to them – we see many of them yet today wandering around wearing masks in public.
4) The radicals who have made this into a religion, those are the ones who’ll chain themselves together to block traffic, throw liquids on to paintings or glue themselves to things. They’re the religious left who think that no matter what it takes they’ve got to be able to say they made a difference. They have to believe their lives are meaningful but rather than devoting themselves to the betterment of man or helping mankind, they believe they have the moral high ground to save mankind and the earth.
5) Then this last group that are the most dangerous, people who are at the controls of things. They are those in local, state, federal and world positions of power (or want to be power) that see the power they can attain by implementing the policies they desire to control freedom, people, travel, production and economies. These are the people who, I believe, feel that if they cannot implement this very soon and very quickly they will lose their power. Like any animal trapped in a corner, if they think they are about to lose what they’ve been working toward, they will become very dangerous.
6) Then there are the kind of people like those on WUWT and other climate realist sites that try to get the truth out.
I think the group in #5 above pose the greatest danger to mankind and if they see this world power slipping away they’ll do their best to complete their plans and implementation before the masses of people wake up.
Thank you for this well-composed reply. Let’s hope “the masses of people wake up” soon. Now. This year.
At the recent world economic forum their theme was restoring trust. For some reason they invited the president from the American Enterprise Institute to speak. He naively thought that the theme was about their attempt to restore trust with the public. And that was the context of the speech he provided them. In a later interview he noted how stunned and confused his audience was at his words. It also occurred to him later that their theme was really about their attempts at their power grab and they appeared to be failing. Their theme it turns out was really to get the members to “trust in the plan” and not abandon it now, they may have to postpone it but in the press say that they have abandoned plans to implement their insane zero carbon agenda… until after elections, then they can work to restore them and continue with the “plan.”
Unfortunately I think when you tell the “masses” stories like this, they think you are making it up and until the trap is snapped shut on them they don’t realize it was never a “story” in the first place but a plan. Right now they aren’t eating bugs (not on purpose anyway) so when you tell them the plan is to get rid of meat they think you are hysterical or a conspiracy theorist, even if you show them their documents stating such. I am not so optimistic and I agree, this year may be a pivotal year.
Excellent assessment and would add a subgroup to #5 and that
would be the economic opportunists. There’s a group windmills
in my area and there’s a few in that group that have been frozen for years.
That speaks volumes to me about the nature of the owner(s). Same
for the solar panel owners. Woke up to a half a foot of fresh snow this AM
which will blanket the panels till it warms up..worthless junk but someone
made some serious $ building it
From the view of a bureaucrat….the money they collect is never wasted…it merely goes to someone else and they get to tax it again or it goes to wage earners who spend it all and stimulates the economy or it goes to rich people who put it in the bank and the banks lend it out again….so the more money they flush out the door, the better…only limitation is the rate at which they can collect without causing a taxpayer revolt…something like CC is a great money scam for bureaucrats, big collections justifiable by propagandized altruistic feelings on the part of gullible voters.
The effects if CO2 are backed by over 127 years of science and data, including over 100,000 scientific papers and almost 100% of all scientists,
including the skeptics.
While you have a claptrap theory and are a legend in your own mind.
Always great to know you are still kicking, Richard. But I know there is no point responding to your criticisms. I agree with your bottom-line position that the “climate” movement is misguided and destructive.
No point in arguing with a ‘true believer’ at all, they are zealots!
Might apply to troll accounts, too. Notice that not far down from the top of the comments here, the “Richard Greene” commenter trashes leftists and Joe Biden, yet in the comment just above he’s entirely on Joe Biden’s and Greenpeace’s side of the climate issue, and as seen in the January 10 WUWT Tucker Carlson-Willie Soon post, he takes the pro-Greenpeace / pro-“ExxonKnew” lawsuits side on accusing Dr Soon of taking Exxon bribes. Myself, I’m not convinced this “Richard Greene” commenter is real, but is instead some kind of troll account designed to do whatever trolls are tasked with doing at non-leftists comment sections.
Richard does have his own blog, so he’s probably a real person. Although for a while he was abstaining from WUWT, and I thought he might have kicked the bucket. His reappearance within the last few months ruled that out though.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/03/global-warming-and-co2-levels-in-one.html
Mr. Dibbel: He’s a person who admitted he comes here to gaslight commenters, but he’s quite dim. Invites mockery then complains about it. I saw one of the serious science posters here brush Mr. Greene off like dust a couple days ago, a good approach (that worked!). Me, I like to give it to him hard. My best so far is to mistake him for Joe Biden- seems to send him away.
In trying to figure out if the guy is real or not, I ran across his mentions of his blog link along with numerous braggings of its exponentially increasing view count. I looked into the site one single time, and saw what looked like a never-ending visually unappealing conveyor belt of article links with zero commentary about why they were important. No sign of a visitor counter that I could readily find. I arbitrarily clicked on a couple of prior month page collections to see if any were different, but they were not. Scrolled down deep into the one, made an archive link for (for posterity) since it embarrassingly contained “bonus” bimbo photos, something that you wouldn’t see at any blog offering serious conservative viewpoints, and also something the guy might try to delete if caught with it. The whole site made me wonder if it might be instead some kind of lure to bring in visitors and infect them with viruses if they clicked on the links. Look into the guy’s Disqus comment collection elsewhere, and you see the same kind of odd split personality he displays here at WUWT, but with much more quantity. It appears the guy has gotten so far out of control in CFACT comment sections that they might be considering banning him …. or it, or whatever this “Richard Greene” account is pretending to be.
Interesting.
Call it the “CAGW commenter bot industry” for lack of a better term. When I used to use my own Disqus account to drop in occasional comments at the PBS NewsHour’s climate broadcast segments, the fake accounts ultimately ganged up on me and were marking my comments as “spam” which took my comments offline ‘for moderator review.’ When I posted random comments elsewhere, those leftist accounts would show up within minutes to pull the same stunt. The NewsHour website broadcast transcript pages ultimately became so overloaded with leftist comment vitriol that they stopped permitting comment posts altogether. In a roundabout way, that was a successful form of censorship prompted by leftists because the NewsHour no longer faced any public pushback – however small that was in comment sections – directly against their biased reporting.
He does have a talent for being on all sides of any issue, at the same time.
Its not worth the time trying to figure out where he’s coming from so I normally just skip past what he writes.
Maybe. I credited him with being an antagonist or devil’s advocate on some topics. Perhaps I was just giving him too much credit.
…But it can be soooo much fun to ridicule them in an open forum, as long we keep to a modicum of decorum! Oh, some days I just miss the swooping drive-by comments deposited in a fecal-like manner by ol’ Griffy-poo…
All in jest,
MCR
It’s okay and honest toi admit that more CO2 impedes earth’s ability to cool itself,
Willam Happer admits that.
Roy Spencer and John Christy admit that.
Richard Lindzen admits that.
Are all these “skeptic” Ph.D. scientists stupid?
Admitting that humans can affect the climate has nothing to do with predictions of CAGW that have been wrong since 1979.
No progress refuting CAGW predictions can be made by claiming that humans can not have any effect on the climate.
The CO2 does nothing Nutters are our enemies. That claim implies nearly 100% of scientists have been fools for the past century. As if the AGW denier knows more.
For the record, I have great respect for the work and the opinions of Happer, Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen. If you read what I have written and posted, you will find I have not taken issue with the concept of a static LW radiative “warming” effect from incremental CO2. I have not said that “humans can not have any effect on the climate.” Certainly they can, especially by changing the SW absorbing characteristics of the surface.
I am specifically calling out the problem with how GHGs have been treated as a “forcing” to which a “feedback” is produced. They do not add energy of their own to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. To say “that more CO2 impedes earth’s ability to cool itself” is sound in the static sense, looking toward space from the surface. But this sense is also the origin of the circular reasoning I am pointing out. It is not accurate to say that it must suppress OLR as a dynamic result.
I know you disagree, having been acquiring your sense of the issue for so long by reading. There is direct evidence of how it works dynamically that is being pointed out here, by which the influence of incremental CO2 can be better evaluated.
In my original comment, I say “We do not have any reason to expect heat energy to accumulate down here because of incremental non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere, certainly not to harmful effect.” Surely you already agree with that last part.
Be well.
The extra CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect of CO2 on the climate are both good news for plants, animals and humans.
Getting colder would be bad news
Our planet is always getting warmer or colder. There is no thermodynamic equilibrium
Very few people prefer colder.
We’ve had 48 years of global warming since 1975. The effect of warming is not a mystery. The climate gets more moderate and more pleasant. There was no bad news from global warming.
Bad news from warming has been predicted for the future for the past 44 years … reminds me of fusion power, which is always coming in ten years, but never shows up.
Yes, he confuses the existence of a heating effect with the result of applying that heat to a given piece of apparatus.
Its like saying that its incontrovertible that applying a heat to a pan of water will heat it, and concluding that you have proved that the temperature of said water will rise linearly in proportion to the amount of applied heat. Which of course it will not, it will stop rising at 100C.
Yet you STILL haven’t produce one tiny bit of evidence to back up your naive, anti-science AGW-cult-nutter rantings. !
Just the mindless calls to “authority” and 100% consensus.
It really is making you into a total joke, dickie. !
Over 100,000 scientific studies
Hire someone to read one to you
You would never listen to me anyway.
What a big load of manure you have there!
Where is the evidence that there are 100,000 scientific studies? Is there a paper somewhere that has found this? Could you give a link to it?
And what exactly is the proposition that these 100,000 studies are supposedly confirming?
His evidence is the same as every other believer. …..co2 up, ”getting warmer” …..our fault.
Richard, if there would be any group of CAGW skeptics who are ‘the enemy’, it would be those who constantly instigate pointless fights with other skeptics, distracting from the mission we should all embrace—to persuade as many people as possible that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
Stop being an enemy!
You can not be taken seriously when you claim humans have no effect on the climate. When you claim there is no AGW, pep[le immediately know you are a science denier. You also undermine the “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE
Efforts to refute the coming climate emergency fail when there is AGW denying
There has to be an effort to differentiate between science backed harmless AGW and the imaginary CAGW.
I presume that you meant to say “one cannot be taken seriously” rather than “you” (referring to me personally), because by now I would think that you know that those are not my views.
I agree that those who espouse positions that reject well-established science that eminent skeptics including our esteemed host agree with are, as Charles said, not helping the skeptical cause.
What I have said and will continue to say is that attacking and deriding fellow skeptics over their errors and treating them as ‘the enemy’ is every bit as harmful to persuasion of the persuadable as is misinformation that goes unchallenged.
Being misinformed does not make one the enemy. Being a dick turns people against the truth that you think you’re promoting. Other commenters and readers constantly try to send you that message by down-voting your comments. Why you reject that is a mystery that causes me to wonder if you are actually just trying to disrupt discussion and cause casual visitors to throw up their hands and go away.
You need to show it not just claim it. What part of that don’t you get?
“Enemies?” Are you for real? You disagree with someone’s opinion and therefore they become your enemy? You really are the cut-price, low-intelligence Sheldon Cooper, aren’t you?
Is there any effect of increasing CO2 at the margin? After reaching pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm up from the low of the last glacial period of 180, is there any more surface warming potential from additional CO2? It is less than clear to me.
Given that all of Richards ‘evidence’ is from ideal condition laboratory experiments and don’t actually support his claims, there’s still no evidence that increasing CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with increasing temperatures.
There are over 100,000 scientific papers supporting AGW with evidence
Hire someone to read you one or two of them.
I’ve actually read quite a few – there actually aren’t nearly as many as you think. Of those the majority are written on the incorrect assumption that the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature has been proven, which it most certainly hasn’t, and so invalidates the entire paper.
What you were talking about in your post a little way above was the unsupported opinion of people like Happer, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen – nobody has ever been able to prove a causative link between CO2 and temperature in all the decades spent in the attempt. Your feeble attempt to conflate opinion with scientific study by association within the same post is a complete failure – nobody is buying the crap you’re selling. Sorry Richard but you still have absolutely no evidence to back up your unsupported opinion.
It is easy to be critical and difficult to be correct
Provide YOUR evidence that the warming since 1975 was 100% natural
Put up, or shut up\
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs’ – you were the one making the claim so, please, I invite you to prove it. Asking me to prove a negative is absolute nonsense.
Still unfamiliar with an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
YOU put up or shut up. For Christ sake.
This is getting more and more interesting – and revealing.
Why 1975? Why do you want him to prove 100%?
You want to know what the effect of CO2 rises is, look at the observational studies. What you want to look at is the likely magnitude of the climate sensitivity parameter.
Yep
Well produce just one that shows evidence that human CO2 causes atmospheric warming
You are batting well in the, “I don’t have any” category at the moment.
A complete and utter failure.
Richard, you are splitting hairs over the agw conjecture.
I gave up years ago trying to settle on a “side” about whether or manmade CO2 emissions can affect climates.
Bottom line is, even if technically there’s a plausible argument that they can, the end effects are imperceptible if not benign.
Which I think is kinda what you yourself have written here on a few occasions.
Where does that number of 100,000 come from? And what exactly is the ‘AGW’ proposition that they support?
One feels that the curtain has inadvertently slipped and the machinery behind the illusion has come into view.
You are screaming for evidence about something as clear as the sky is blue.
You are not doing skeptics of alarmism any good.
Kinda like this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
A lot like that. CO2 does a lot.
If it as “clear as blue sky” …
Why is he incapable of producing one even one single piece of evidence ?
It would be so simple for him to shut us down… just produce that paper…
… surely it can’t be that hard. !!
The sky is blue.
I used to think that when I lived in New York, When I moved to Michigan the sky was white.
Charles, with respect, it is most definitely not “as clear as the sky is blue.” If it were that clear then there would have been a plethora of studies proving the causative link. That there hasn’t been even one single solitary paper that has been able to do this in the decades of heavily funded research into just that point really proves that it is not clear at all. We must agree to disagree on this point – I remain open to persuasion and if you ever find a paper firmly proving that causative link then that would do it. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to find such a unicorn, however.
Show me a paper that burning gasoline releases heat.
Show me a paper that humans require oxygen to survive.
Show me a paper that proves if you put your hand in a fire you will hurt yourself.
This is literally how you sound.
That is probably the most stupid and inane post I have ever read on this site and I’ve read posts by Griff, Simon and Richard Greene.
If you turned up to build a house and stated that you’ve seen a few, you know how it works but you’ve got no idea how it all fits together you’d be escorted straight off the site. If you said you could build a radio but you’ve got no idea where all the little wires go you’d get laughed at. So why am I suddenly the bad guy for asking to see how CO2 causes warming? How does one connect with the other, Mr Rotter? I’m not asking for proof of God or the location of the Holy Grail – just show me the evidence that CO2 causes warming. After all – you showed me it can be done, didn’t you? If I burn some petrol, I’ll feel the heat, if I try breathing underwater I’ll choke as there’s nothing to breathe and if I put my hand in a flame it’ll burn. If it’s that easy then show me the proof.
Agreed.
If only you had an idea how you sound Charles,
I’ve never seen a causitive link between CO2 and Earth’s temperatures or weather, and I’ve been looking and following the conversation for about 50 years.
There is no causitive link.
CO2-phobes are invited to show a causitive link if they can (they can’t).
The problem is science does not prove or disprove anything
Scientists collect evidence to support a theory and hopefully other scientists are skeptical and question everything
My own theory is that it is impossible to prove anything.
But I can’t prove it.
Well that’s a theory – and, yes, all ‘proofs’ are simply an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing one way. Even one indisputable piece of evidence would be enough to suggest an answer. Proving beyond any doubt is, as you point out, not possible but proving something on balance of evidence is.
Evidence proves or disproves something.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise beyond an insignificant, indiscernable amount, and there is no evidence that CO2 is causing any changes in the Earth’s weather.
No evidence. That’s a fact.
Nonsense.
Lab spectroscopy suggests a 0.75 degree C, warming for a doubling of CO2 which would take 168 years at the current CO2 rise rate of +2.5ppm a year
There is speculation about a water vapor positive feedback (WVPF) increasing the warming rate but no agreement on whether the feedback is small medium or large. Whatever the WVPF is, it must be limited or else Earth would have overheated long ago.
My guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds, and more clouds block more sunlight.
This is where the you need to catch up. Miskolczi 2023 shows that through mid altitude tropospheric water vapor reductions, the warming effect of CO2 is matched by an equal cooling effect. The paper is just one of many showing water vapor does not work like climate science has assumed.
In effect, CO2 has two forcings. One is absorption of surface IR (warming) and the other is increased evaporation at the surface which drives the mid-troposphere reductions (cooling). The net effect is a small increase in precipitation.
Weingarten and Happer show that more CO2 will have very little effect.
Wallace, Christie and D’Aleo show that the rise in CO2 does not show in the temperature records.
Salby and Harde and Berry show that human emissions are only a small part of the recent rise in CO2.
So —we don’t cause it, it doesn’t do what we are told to fear, and more of it won’t either.
“Weingarten and Happer show that more CO2 will have very little effect.”
And that is under an assumption that radiation is the only mover of energy in the atmosphere… So it is not the real atmosphere.
“Salby and Harde and Berry show that human emissions are only a small part of the recent rise in CO2.:
TOTAL BS
They are The Three Stooges of climate science. Science frauds, Climate buffoons.
100% of the CO2 rise since 1850 was from manmade CO2 emissions
Nature reduces CO2 in the long run — atmospheric CO2 has been in a downtrend for 4.5 billion years.
The CO2 that was once in the atmosphere is now mainly sequestered as carbon in rocks, shells, oil, gas and coal.
CO2 was getting dangerously low for C3 plants 20,000 years ago (at 180ppm). Humans have fixed that problem but get no credit.
“The effects if CO2 are backed by over 127 years of science and data, including over 100,000 scientific papers and almost 100% of all scientists, including the skeptics.”
What are “the effects of CO2” and what does CO2 affect?
The basic effects of CO2 are that it is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits.
Beyond that, what does CO2 do in the Earth’s atmosphere?
As far as I know, none of those 100,000 scientific papers tell us exactly how CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere interact. They contain a lot of speculation, but no real evidence that CO2 is doing anything discernable to the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s striking that there are so many papers done on CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere over the years and *not one of them* can prove that CO2 has any discernable effect on the atmosphere or the temperatures. Not one. That’s a challenge to any and all climate alarmists. Got any evidence? I didn’t think so.
Well, given its radiative properties it’s reasonable to conclude that CO2 must be having some effect on temperature. But it’s unreasonable to conclude it is the only thing that affects temperature. The real problem is figuring out what the other factors are and how much each contributes to the overall affect. CO2 could easily be a second or third order player. The problem is the uncertainties of all the variables we know of – solar, ocean cycles, clouds, aerosols, etc. – are large and overlapping in terms of how much warming or cooling each causes making it impossible to make accurate attributions.
The effect of CO2 is unmeasurable. If it is contributing mass to the atmosphere, it will increase the temperature. Beyond that, it does nothing.
The solar radiation over global land bottomed in 1537. It has been trending upward since. The accumulated sunlight anomaly over land since the minimum is 70ZJ.
The land does not store this heat but the increasing land temperature reduces the heat advection from ocean to land resulting in the oceans cooling slower. The oceans therefore retain more heat.
The precession cycle and the distribution of land over the globe explains the observed temperature trends. Land has a highly positive response to sunlight with increasing sunlight causing the land to warm up. Ocean response to sunlight is non-linear. It is positive up to average daily intensity of 420W/m^2 but is negative above this value. Adjacent land has significant control over the ocean surface temperature because oceans warm the land. Less need for warming means ocean retain more heat and more ocean surface reaches the 30C limit.
The great delusion is that reducing CO2 is going to stop the land in the NH from warming up. It won’t. The effort to reduce CO2 will be viewed by history as the great delusion of the 21st century. So much misdirected effort and expense.
“The effort to reduce CO2 will be viewed by history as the great delusion of the 21st century.”
I think so, too.
Your confirmation bias causes to you to dismiss all evidence of greenhouse warming including measurements of increasing ling wave downwelling radiation.
As an alternative present evidence of natural warming that would explain 100% the post 1875 warming. I will not g hold my breath.
Stop being such an arrogant prat, stop being so bloody condescending and admit that you cannot support your argument with evidence.
RP, Greene is in the right here and you are behaving like a swivel-eyed non-ironic flat earther.
The constant discussion of “back radiation” by everyone overly complicates the situation.
CO2 absorbs some of the emitted Planck radiation that would escape to space otherwise.
Simply by absorbing that radiation the heat has to go somewhere, whether it’s emitted as Planck radiation in all directions or simply warms the atmosphere, or as is extremely likely, both, it will cause some degree of warming.
The simple fact is that less energy (reflected + emitted) is escaping into to space.
Feedbacks, both negative and positive, and the subsequent, likely mild, degree of warming are the real issues.
The sky is blue.
“The simple fact is that less energy (reflected + emitted) is escaping into to space.”
No.. It has been shown by measurements that the slight drop in the CO2 band is compensated for by an increase in the atmospheric window.
OLR is also increasing….
OLR is increasing because the planet’s surface is warming.
OLR means OUTgoing
IPCC…”We cannot detect the expected (human co2 warming) signal” Lol!
Wallace, Christie and D’Aleo 2017 show there is no statistical evidence of rising CO2 on 14 different temperature data sets. The obvious energy introduced is not yet obvious in the temperature data.
Completely irrelevant Mr Rotter.
I was commenting on Richards arrogant and condescending assumption of ‘confirmation bias’ whilst stating his own ‘confirmation bias’ with nothing to back it up.
Where I am it is past 10pm – the sky is black Charles.
No he’s not. He resorts to back radiation. No such thing exists. EMR does not flow against the potential. From a renowned GISS physicist:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03b/2b493f57e13d3c3e2b58d17c9656d2dee978.pdf
The current warming trend is entirely explained by the precession cycle; the distribution of land over the globe and the very different response of land to sunlight compared with ocean.
The land will continue to warm until it accumulates ice again.
The CO2 nonsense has to be called out. It has has no direct influence on Earth’s energy balance. History will prove it to be as silly as a belief in flat earth.
Put on your helmet and flak vest Charles. The Nutters are going to come after you with pitchforks, torches and hoods to hide their faces. They’ll tar and feather you and ride you out of town on a rail.
And that’s if you are lucky
I just like making the pretty pictures. This one was on the cutting room floor for this open thread
Why is it so hard for you and Greene to admit there is no human co2 signal and to speculate on ”it should be there because the math says so” is utterly meaningless and continues to feed the climate zombies?
Or is it that you have yet to arrive at that conclusion?
Stop being so overly melodramatic, Richard. If you’d stop this condescending and aggressive attitude to all posts you disagree with we might actually get somewhere. The simple fact is that you and Charles are firmly convinced that CO2 causes some or most of the warming and can see it, ‘clear as the sky is blue’. Nobody else here can – we can’t see that connection and it’s frustrating for both sides of this argument that we can’t. So we need something else, something more that will convince us that you are correct, some evidence of this connection between CO2 and warming. Unfortunately you haven’t been able to show anybody that connection, or anything remotely resembling it. That’s all, nothing to get all bent out of shape over or resort to amateur dramatics for, and certainly no need to resort to calling people ‘nutters’ or ‘deniers’ please.
“Feedbacks, both negative and positive, and the subsequent, likely mild, degree of warming are the real issues.”
Those are the issues for me.
The burden should be on you to explain why CO2 can cause global warming. The default hypothesis is natural variability.
So nearly 100% of scientists in the world could not convince you that AGW exists but you need me to change your mind?
An appeal to consensus is never a strong argument. I assume you are aware of John Cook and his work?
He is aware of his own thoughts only.
No one has seen it yet. Is it under here? maybe it’s over there? Looking, looking.
No Richard, that is not how the process works. As Einstein famously pointed out, one scientist with evidence would be all that is needed. That you feel the need to suggest that the alarmist political consensus is the answer speaks volumes to your stance and lack of credibility. If you cannot offer evidence then you have nothing. Sorry but that’s just the way it is – and that is as clear as the sky is blue.
Correct.
Yes, it’s Mother Nature until proven otherwise, and it hasn’t been proven otherwise to date.
Take a deep breath.
Here’s some warming that supposedly didn’t include increasing levels of CO2.
It warmed at the same magnitude twice after the Little Ice Age ended in the early 1800’s, and those warmings were equal to the warming we are experiencing today.
So if we have two separate warming periods in the past that warmed just as much as today but without increasing CO2, then it would be logical to assume that the current warming was caused by the same thing that caused the previous two warmings. The previous two warmings did not require CO2. Now, all of a sudden, CO2 is required? I don’t think so. It’s not logical.
That FACT does not compute to Greene et al.
Apparently not.
Some people can’t tell the difference between evidence, on one hand, and speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, on the other hand.
Alarmist climate science is made up almost entirely of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.
This same kind of BS (Bad Science) took place in the arguments over Human-caused Global Cooling. I was skeptical then, although not at first, as I assumed the scientists had good reason to claim we might be heading into another ice age, but as time went along I realized that they didn’t really have any evidence for their claims, all they had was speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, and so I became very skeptical. I wish I had had the internet available back then to voice my complaints about what I saw them doing to science. The bastardization of science.
It turns out I was right to be skeptical of those Human-caused Global Cooling people. They were wrong. The temperatures started warming up instead of continuing to cool.
Now comes the Human-caused Global Warming crowd and they have all the same faults as the Human-caused Global Cooling crowd, so naturally I’m skeptical and call for evidence. And, after calling for evidence for decades and recieving no evidence, I come to the conclusion that climate alarmist again do not know what they are talking about.
But this time I have the internet and get to voice my displeasure at what I see these climate alarmist charlatans doing to science.
And a good healthy dose of handling Fake Data with bad statistics.
I think this photo shows that I am correct and you are incorrect about CO2 ability for warming.
Nice photo, but all it shows is that shade blocks direct solar warming of the surface. I don’t see any relation to green house gases. I would note that under clear sky conditions frost or dew forms at night when the ground cools below the dew point faster than the air above causing water vapor to condense on the surface. This results in dew or frost forming where the ground is unshaded first and explains why the flowers in our boxes located under the roof eaves don’t freeze, but the ones in the open do.
What do you think are the chances of checking the Keeling Curve given ‘natural’ sources and Asian coal fired power plants? Nil. So back off and shut up and realise a doubling doesn’t matter according to proper ECS science
There is no chance to stop the rise of CO2 with almost 7 billion people living in nations that ignore Nut Zero
Nature does not add CO2 year over year. Only humans do. In the long run nature REDUCES the atmospheric CO2 level.
I have advocated for much more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997 when I started reading C3 plant –CO2 enrichment studies and about the CO2 enrichment one by greenhouse owners
The optimum CO2 level for most plants is from 700 to 1200 ppm per many thousands of scientific studies
What is certain and backed by proper scientific evidence is that CO2 has a forcing effect.
Other things being equal, higher CO2 ppm will result in higher temperatures than lower one. Other things are not equal, however, and the effect of this forcing on the climate of the planet is not “backed by over 127 years of science and data including over 100,000 scientific papers”.
You are confusing the existence of a heating effect with the result of that effect.
A forcing effect does not always result in higher temperatures. It depends on the local physics what effect it has. The climate is a complicated machine with a great many feedbacks. It is an open question whether the forcing due to increased CO2 (or anything else) raises the temperature at all, and if so, by how much.
I raise the heat under a pan of water. Other things being equal this will raise its temperature. Only, they are not equal. At 100C the temperature stops rising and steam results. I fill my car with some gallons of gas. Other things being equal this should give me 100 miles range. Only, they are not equal, this particular route is up and down through the mountains. The engine develops enough power to take me to 100mph on the flat. Only, things are not equal, and the powers that be have imposed governors limiting speeds to 75mph. Or, this particular car over a certain speed has non-linear wind resistance.
You have to do proper experiments on the object of study to establish what the effect of any stimulus applied to it will be. The evidence at the moment seems to favor the existence of a damping effect of some sort which dampens the effect of any applied forcing (not just CO2 forcing) and keeps global temperatures within quite narrow bounds. Fortunately for us all.
Interestingly your last sentence ‘almost 100%’ is reminiscent of a famous paper. Would that ‘almost’ be 97% by any chance?
I think Richard was aiming for 97% but knew if he put that he’d get howls of laughter aimed straight at him.
The Greenhouse Model and CO2 Contribution
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
Dr. Cyril Huijsmans, a Dutch Research Scientist Retired from Shell
.
EXCERPT
The Greenhouse model, as is universally presented, appears to be incorrect.
Molecular collisions and convection, rather than re-radiation back to earth, is the energy transfer mechanism.
.
The black body radiation of the earth, after absorption by greenhouse gases, is quickly converted into kinetic energy, and becomes part of the thermal pool of the atmosphere.
.
The atmosphere should not be treated as a black body radiator, as there is no thermodynamic equilibrium. Even for a local thermodynamic equilibrium, one cannot define its boundaries in the sense of the premises of Planck’s law.
.
Furthermore, the maximum possible contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse warming is limited to about 7% of the total warming potential from black body radiation.
This is solely based on the black body energy availability from Planck’s energy distribution in the range of the CO2 absorption wavelengths.
.
To achieve this maximum possible contribution, about 0.15% of the current presence of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere would participate, i.e., less than 1 ppm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
.
Water vapor, WV, is the most important greenhouse gas and contributes about 93% of the greenhouse warming. With the current concentrations of WV and CO2, the black body energy is fully absorbed, i.e., saturated.
.
NOTE: These articles have similar results using WV and CO2 ppm in atmosphere.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
1 Introduction
.
CO2 is considered by the IPCC and allied entities, as the main contributor of the greenhouse phenomenon.
.
To place this view in perspective, it is important to realize, the earth’s black body, BB, radiation is the source of heat trapped by the greenhouse effect.
.
The model of the greenhouse phenomenon considers absorption of the earth’s BB radiation by CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and subsequently, the greenhouse gases radiate the absorbed energy back to earth, keeping the soil warm and by convection also keeping the atmosphere warm.
.
The most important greenhouse gases are WV and CO2.
There are more greenhouse gases, but their contribution is very small.
.
The earth’s BB radiation ranges between wavelengths 2 – 70 micrometer.
WV is the most important and dominant greenhouse gas, which absorbs heat in the whole range of wavelengths of the earth’s BB radiation, except between 8 – 12 micrometer, and to a lesser extent around 15 micrometer.
.
CO2 absorbs essentially only one wavelength in the range of the earth’s BB radiation, i.e., at 15 micrometer.
.
There are two more wavelength’s of absorption by CO2, but they are at the edge of the earth’s BB curve, and at current temperatures, their contribution is very small, i.e., less than 0.5%.
.
The atmosphere of the earth is transparent to space between 8 – 12 micrometer; WV and CO2 are not absorbing at these frequencies.
.
The potential for CO2 to trap heat around the wavelength of 15 micrometer is about 10.5% of the total heat emitted by the earth’s BB radiation.
.
This is the part of BB energy emitted by the earth of the total BB radiation emitted at 300 K that can be absorbed by CO2, as can be calculated with Planck’s law. See Appendix A
.
The rest of the greenhouse effect is absorbed by WV.
A part of the radiation between 8 – 12 micrometer goes directly into space.
.
Due to the transparent window, and the large share of WV in the absorption of the earth’s BB radiation, including also some absorption around 15 micrometer, the maximum share of CO2 is limited to about 7% of the total greenhouse effect. See Appendix C.6
Read more by opening URLs
A big pile of you know what
The IPCC claims water vapor and clouds are the two most important causes of trapping heat. CO2 is number 3.
But changes in CO2 and clouds are the only possible causes of INCREASES of the greenhouse effect. Because water vapor is a dependent variable. A feedback.
Unfortunately the effect of clouds is unknown so the IPCC just blames CO2.
SO2 reductions also cause global warming
There is little evidence of natural causes of the warming since1975.
There is more evidence of manmade causes. But the proportion of each is a guess.,
Present your evidence for this statement.
Present your evidence for natural climate changes since 1975
The burden is on you to present your evidence first. As I mentioned above, the default hypothesis is natural variation, as we already know that nature is quite capable of producing climate change.
We KNOW that climate naturally changes all the time. We DO NOT understand how, why or when. We HAVE NOT seen human global warming.
You’re welcome. 🙂
Crickets…
A big pile of you know what”
Self-titling your comments again, dickie ??
We already know follows your name !
Because of the drop in tropical cloud cover, more solar radiation is being absorbed…
AGW, according to the IPCC means warming by human CO2, otherwise all the Nut-Zero crap would not exist.
You have yet to present any evidence of warming by human CO2
Present your evidence for natural climate changes since 1975
Present your evidence for no natural climate changes since 1975
The tropics, +23.5 to -23.5, get about 48% of all world solar energy, so if that is increasing at 0.75 W/m2 per decade, that is a big deal.
Some of that energy gets spread throughout the rest of the world.
How does that compare to the 7% greenhouse effect of CO2, as stated in the article I posted?
The entire greenhouse effect is about 0.01 C/decade, plus there are other warming effects, such as changes in albedo, for a total of about 0.012 C/ decade
The surface atmosphere system is stabilizing in the LW because it’s temperature dependent, but not in the SW.
Until anomalous SW input manifests as heat in the surface-atmosphere system, it can result in an energy accumulation. Climatology concedes the TOA imbalance is attributable to SW in exceeding the surface-atmosphere temperature response. This is known as ocean heat uptake.
Agreed. You can tell I am trying to be careful to specify that the issue I see with the “forcing + feedback” framing is in its misapplication to GHGs. An energy accumulation due to trends in absorbed SW, IMO, is correctly understood as a forcing.
well… the hypothesis of LW radiative forcing is somewhat drifting over time as it’s now realized the initial force is exactly compensated by increased emission in the current steady state of things. As a consequence of the atmospheric response to IR active gas, the net energy accumulation is said to be in the SW as a feedback. The result is a somewhat stable greenhouse effect, but accumulation of energy in the SW.
The is incorrect understanding. The oceans are retaining more heat. They are not “uptaking” more heat through the surface. They are not losing heat as fast as they were decades ago.
The anomalous solar input to land since it bottomed in 1537 now amounts to 70ZJ. That energy has not been stored in the land other than some loss of permanent ice cover but it has reduced the demand on oceans to warm the land. Hence the oceans are retaining more heat.
The water cycle during the NH summer is slowing down so the amount of ocean surface reaching the 30C limit in September is trending upward.
All the current warming is explained by the precession cycle: the highly positive temperature response of land to sunlight and the distribution of land over the globe.
The current warming trend will continue until the land accumulates ice again. That will be around 2200.
my understanding is fine, and you are welcome to your hypothesis. The factors of TOA imbalance are thought to be: decreased SW reflection ∼0.7 W m−2 per decade, and all-sky LW ∼−0.3 W m−2 per decade. Much higher SW absorption change than surface-atmosphere LW response.
It is not my hypothesis. It is well known that ocean ventilation is of the order of centuries to thousands of years. There is no way that oceans can take in heat from the surface to the abyss below 1500m in a matter of decades.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24648-x#Fig5
About energy conversion in the atmosphere, here is the full text of the description at the first Youtube video I linked to in my original comment. Some here may not be familiar with this concept. Please consider reading this if you have not already done so.
This is important to the idea that the static radiative “warming” effect of incremental CO2 or other non-condensing GHGs does NOT mean that one must expect the dynamic end result to be the accumulation of energy on land and in the oceans. In a nutshell, “warmer” cannot be isolated from “higher” or “faster” as a response to an incremental increase in the radiative absorbing power of the atmosphere.
********************
Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”
Over the last week or so, the climate emergency has been relegated mostly to radio. There’s a lot of ‘division’ and ‘unrest’ afoot and now it seems political chickens are beginning to come home to roost.
The so-called climate crisis would not be possible in isolation, it’s adherents and devout believers have a lot of other baffling, illogical ideas. One such idea I saw today reminded me of how insane it’s becoming. And there’s no peak in sight.
Church of England: Anti-Racism Practice Officer (Deconstructing Whiteness), Regional Racial Justice
https://www.cofebirmingham.com/anti-racism-practice-officer-deconstructing-whiteness-regional-racial-justice.php
Makes sense in a nation that is… 82% white? Then there’s the gender thing.
“”Justin Webb has been wronged by the BBC
The BBC has upheld a ludicrous complaint against the Today programme’s Justin Webb. Back in August, Webb told listeners that trans women were ‘in other words, males’. This basic truth should not be controversial.
…
But someone complained. They protested that Webb was giving his personal view on a controversial matter. Please! It is only a controversial matter because feelings have been prioritised over facts. Nevertheless, six months later, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit determined that Webb’s comment breached the BBC standards of impartiality. “”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/justin-webb-has-been-wronged-by-the-bbc/
Impartiality? The BBC? That is ironic.
With issues like the above in mind being a 3C – Climate Change Catastrophist – is relatively easy….
“”Labour must act to save the environment – here’s my three-point plan
George Monbiot
…replacing GDP with a wellbeing index””
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/20/labour-environment-carbon-budgets-gdp-wellbeing-labour-manifesto
Wellbeing?
“”Bronze Age people working at Flag Fen “lived in harmony with their environment”. “That’s the important thing – they did not abuse the environment,” he said.
“So, yes, they built houses, they felled lots of trees, they grew crops. They did all that sort of thing, but they didn’t pump fumes into the atmosphere. “It was all done in a manageable way – nature could cope with it.”
…
“I think what we should learn from our prehistoric ancestors is to live in harmony with the Fenland environment as much as we can.”
…
“That’s what they understood in the Bronze Age, and it’s something we’ve got to understand today.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68436888
Bronze age people were about developing, not sitting back; it was a far from idyllic life.
Luxury and loony beliefs are all the rage.
And quite possibly more environmental change per person than today.
Mr. strativarius: Well, the folks who promote bronze age life are good progressives. They could get 40 a. of fen somewhere and return themselves. Folks would see how great it is to burn wood for heat and live off the land, and it would go viral, no?? Progs will instead write articles like this while living like modern humans (using oil, coal, etc.). If these authors believed their own stuff, they would be writing articles on paper in some fen, showing some sort of “leadership.” But it isn’t.
It’s the closest we’ll get to having ‘indigenous ways of knowing’ even though nobody alive today knows how the megalithic structures were built.
Edward Leedskalnin understood, but he took the secret with him.
I wonder how the massive stones were quarried. It’s not too difficult to imagine how they could be assembled.
Easter Island can give some good examples of how determined people with low tech tools can quarry big lumps of stone.
I once clicked on program about a group of people living a “medieval” life for a year. Of course they had to sleep off site because of health and safety regulations.
I read all the daily headline on The Daily Sceptic and any articles that would interest Americans. In my opinion the UK is wackier (further left) than the US, and we are pretty bad with millions of aliens invading every year and the persecution of Trump.
You’ve got King Chuckles
We have Jumpin’ Joe Bribe’em
I have not visited England since 2004 — UK sounds like a different nation now.
We didn’t invent your damaging credi of PC, woke, CRT, trans et etc
You only need visit a local university
Big rant and possibly meaningless>>>>>>>
OK I m an old mining engineer. So all this climate thig is at times out of by base understanding.
The first thing I looked at what was this IPCC thing.
Well they say they are The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
That title rings alarm bells straight off.
Intergovernmental – says politics straight off. No, it does not say SCIENCE it says POLITICS.
Then I see all sorts of data based on models!!
Every computer model has basic flaws. Many years ago, I was reading a paper snippet that said the space craft going to the moon had 3 computers . All to cross check the data for landing etc. How many computers on the current aircraft flying? I suspect more than one.
Now as a mining engineer and ventilation engineer I have come across lots of various compute modelling to assess the needed ventilation of an underground mine.
In most cases I have managed to grab the code of these modellings and found them wanting. Simply due to values based on abstract assumptions.
I have more faith in the two legged model as a representation of “something” vs the computer models used in mine ventilation and worse climate change.
Ok the Victoria Secret models look so much better than a huge bunch of code.
Now what I am seeing in our later day saints of the Climate Change Religion is that all things must be renewable. What does reenable actually mean.
Solar panels – seem to have life span at best 15 – 20 years
Wind turbines – about the same
EV batteries – not much different
What when these systems need replacing?
Can they be recycled?
So far, the answer is NO. Thought I feel Het/neyt is more correct as an answer.
It seems that the west is drawing to an economic demise, but at the benefit of Russia, India and definitely China and no doubt a few others.
It appears that Europe, UK and USA all want to go down the path of wind and solar. Add to this bunch of questionable oddities, Australia, with a definite embargo on even discussing nuclear power. But Australia want to have nuclear powered submarines. Go figure.
What I am getting at is none of these nation or conglomerate of nations seem to grasp the need of basic fixed stable base load power. How much of base load power to produce then topped up with the unicorn gas and pixie dust from reenables is debateable.
Basically, base load power is 24/7/365/366, (accounts for leap year).
Using renewables as base load including huge batteries is fundamentally pie in the sky stuff.
(I will admit I did like the various pies described in the TV series ‘Pie in The Sky’ at least they were real. Made some as well. Did take a bit to find the recipe).
So why are we in the collective west trying to kill ourselves economically and also in the agriculturally fields?
End rant>>>>>
Yes, it is all confusing and seems pointless. Climate Change is here but natural.
“I’m an old mining engineer. So all this climate thig is at times out of by base understanding.”
You must have been a good mining engineer because you figured out what is wrong with the climate hoax
I want to add why CO2 is being demonized when more CO2 is actually beneficial in many ways:
Leftists who control your energy control you.
If they can convince most people that CO2 will cause a disaster, more people will demand that their governments “do something”
And that is what leftists want to hear.
Leftists want power and control
CO2 is their boogeyman
Some leftist want socialism
Many want fascism
A few want Marxism
All leftists want to micromanage our lives and we’d better stop this before it is impossible to stop.
You are correct that the IPCC is political. It was established by the UN FCCC, which is a treaty—absolutely political. And something too few people seem to understand is that the IPCC was established to collate the evidence for anthropogenic warming. The reality of AGW is axiomatic in the IPCC because the FCCC already told them so more than 32 years ago.
The IPCC has no role in assessing the truth of the AGW conjecture. In a generous mood I will agree that the IPCC does identify the best evidence for AGW, but that’s just the prosecution identifying the best case against the defendent, which is literally their job, but it doesn’t mean their case is irrefutable nor even to be taken seriously.
That’s right. The IPCC starts out assuming that human CO2 is warming the Earth’s climate and causing the weather to become more extreme.
They now say 100 percent of the current warming is caused by CO2. What a surprise! They claim they found what they were looking for!
Now, on to dictating to the world!
“So why are we in the collective west trying to kill ourselves economically and also in the agriculturally fields?”
I think there is a lot of Mass Hysteria associated with human-caused climate change, exascerbated by daily climate change propaganda from the Mass Media.
Technology has given the Political Class a better means to brainwash its citizenry and that’s what they are doing. Not all citizens fall for the climate change brainwashing, but too many do.
Pretty wild:
https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/02/normalizing-eco-terror/
Yikes. Buckle up.
Normalising seems synonymous with being allowed to get away with it – and even with some encouragement.
Do that on Trump’s watch and they will go to jail.
Three Telling Sins
Contrary to the fundamental tenets of Climate Science:
Radiative-Convective-Equilibrium models, prevalent today, assume thermal gradients are fixed by an isentropic equilibrium function, g/Cp. This notion was originally proposed by Wm. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1862 and named Convective Equilibrium. Soon thereafter, both Maxwell (Kinetic Theory of Gases) and Boltzmann (Statistical Thermodynamics) proved Statement 1 above correct. Equilibrium theories can not explain why the troposphere has a thermal gradient!!! Nevertheless, Thomson’s model has been universally adopted by climate scientists as incontrovertible. Attributions to Thomson or the critiques of Maxwell and Boltzmann are apparently considered misinformation (and not so easily found by Google Scholar).
How might a physical scientist seek a function T(z) should gradients be determined by dissipation? First, express with 1st order differential equations each of three temperature dependent fluxes (+/- radiation, convection) with dissipation described by coefficients times model explicit functions of altitude and temperature. Combine these into a 3rd order differential expression for total flux and seek that T(z) for which this flux is constant. Should T(z) be a variational function with fixed endpoints, total flux is a minimum. Should this flux value be prescribed, repeat varying the dissipation coefficients. In practice, this entire calculation takes but a few desktop PC seconds.
Trying to baffle people with BS?
CO2 impedes earth’s ability to cool itself
More CO2 means less cooling
Those are facts with measurements.
Nothing you wrote changes those facts.
No thermodynamic laws are violated.
Does less cooling make the surface warmer? This is a serious question.
Less cooling means the surface is warmer than it would have been with a weaker greenhouse effect
The cooling of the surface is upwelling radiation less any downwelling radiation (upwelling radiation deflected back from the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor, clouds and CO2)
These radiation flows are measured 365 days a year.
Hahahaha. Oh you do make me laugh Richard – I’m so glad you post here for our amusement!
So says the dumb Richard,
Glad I make you laugh
You do absolutely nothing but make me laugh. But then I am a bit twisted – I enjoy mocking the afflicted.
One more fairy elbows it’s way onto the pin head.
No, they exhibit a lapse rate, as is easily shown by applying Lagrangian mechanics.
But you are in good company….this confused Bolzmann, Maxwell, Loschmidt and many others and remains a discussion topic in grad student lounges to this day….Fortunately the answer is the same as you get from considering convection expansion work as adiabatic lapse rate derivations from Meteo course textbooks.
See page 9
https://www.physics.ucla.edu/~fronsdal/Heat%20I%20web.pdf
Looks very scientific. Quick question, though – if Earth’s atmosphere did not contain GHGs, would it be isothermal or would it exhibit a lapse rate?
Equation 1.18 from Fronsdal paper above says even a tall column of ideal gas would show a lapse rate (some will disagree). And ideal gases aren’t IR absorbers or emitters.
In the real world tall columns of gases absorb heat from the surfaces containing them or some heat source, and exhibit convection and we can’t insulate them well enough to achieve an adiabatic assumption. There is much total crap on this topic on the ‘net. Here’s some that even refers to WUWT in the comments.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/gravity-induced-atmospheric-temperature-gradient-new-developments/
Thanks for responding. I don’t have the physics ‘chops’ that many here have, but can see even the pros have differences on this issue. Personally, I found the Wijngaarden and Happer explanation that GHGs are necessary to set up the lapse rate persuasive.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00808.pdf
Fronsdal appears to be a physicist marching to the beat of his own drum, adding a Boltzmann thermodynamic term, kT, to a mechanical Hamiltonian and seeking variational solutions (action principles). Quite admirable really. But, if one is going to question Maxwell’s or Boltzmann’s mathematics, it would be best to very carefully critique their work before claiming a different solution. (It took Maxwell three tries just to get the sign right.) As Maxwell has several times pointed out, were it possible to create a fluid volume with an equilibrium thermal gradient, one would have the makings of a perpetual motion II device. There exist well-known action principles for entropy and free energy for systems in isothermal equilibrium.
Your grad student acquaintances might be interested in discussing page 8 of Landau’s textbook, Fluid Mechanics, wherein the physical significance of the adiabatic lapse rate is truly revealed.
“As Maxwell has several times pointed out….. one would have the makings of a perpetual motion II device.”
That was Maxwell’s argument regarding Loschmidt’s position…and many since…but you can’t transport “work” across the adiabatic boundaries of your hypothetical tall cylinder either without major redefinition of the problem you think you are solving. So a hypothetical heat engine inside the boundaries will only change the temperature gradient, and produce no external work, and simply be equivalent to a different thermal conductivity for the gas inside the column.
”There exist well-known action principles for entropy and free energy for systems in isothermal equilibrium.” Yes, (nearly) all with a built in assumption that gravity is irrelevant…at least until they have to explain the lapse rate of the atmosphere noting that the gravitational field causes a pressure gradient….hmmm….but if you have a link, pls send…it is an interesting, if arcane, topic.
Lately, I’ve noticed some commenters who apparently decided not to comment and put “…” or something similar indicating an aborted comment, in the reply box.
If you hit the reply button, and write something and you decide you don’t want to post that comment, all you have to do is erase what you wrote in the comment box, and then just hit the reply button again, and the reply box will close and noone will be the wiser that you changed your mind and did not comment. 🙂
Doesn’t exclude the people who put up a full stop or empty quotation marks as an ironic comment on a post. I don’t get it most of the time but they seem to enjoy doing it.
I think sometimes people respond in anger or in error and think better of it after posting, so they use the Edit function to delete the comment, but you can’t edit down to blank once initially posted.
Can it be done with just a sticky-space (option-space)?
Yes, I write comments that I end up erasing, for one reason or another.
Here is a question. If CO2 warms the surface, is it because of “back radiation” or is it because of the vibrational state set off by reacting with Photons of the appropriate frequencies?
Also, I don’t understand how absorption in the 14.9 nanometer frequency can warm the surface. I
14.9 micrometer wavelength
”Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM).”
There are three versions of answers to your question.
a. The CO2 molecules emit that energy back to the surface causing it to warm
b. The absorbed energy causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate thus passing on the energy to other molecules speeding them up which is warming.
c. The CO2 molecules in the upper atmosphere absorb energy and warm which coupled with the lapse rate warms the surface.
Or possibly a combination.
This is short and sweet I hope it helps. Personally I don’t think CO2 can do what is claimed.
Of black bodies that emit at 15µ, a brick of dry ice
would be a good example
a. The CO2 molecules emit that energy back to the surface causing it to warm.
__________________________________________________
The heat radiating off of brick of dry ice isn’t going to warm anything.
Steve I was just trying to give the guy an honest short answer to his question. I agree with you on that.
A brick of dry ice is about 192K warmer than deep space. Heat flowing via radiation between two bodies is the net of radiation emitted by the warmer body toward the colder minus the radiation emitted by the colder body toward the warmer.
So, if the warmer body is earth and the colder “body” is a frigid layer of atmosphere, there will be less heat radiated away from the surface than if the only inbound radiation were coming from deep space.
It’s a common misunderstanding that radiation somehow is determined by the hotter body “knowing” to emit because it “sees” a colder body and somehow knows what the temperature of the remote body is. That remote body might be a billion light years away and may no longer even exist. All objects radiate based on their temperature. They all do so independently of what any other object is doing. Heat only flows from hot to cold but radiation is not heat. If a warmer body is next to an almost equally warm body, it is the net radiation that determines the small amount of heat that flows to the slightly cooler body. If the same hot body is next to frigid body, much more heat flows because although the hot body still emits the same radiation as before, it now receives far less radiation from the frigid body than it had been receiving from the slightly cooler body.
“The heat radiating off a dry ice..”
If you were an astronaut on a space walk, your spacesuit radiating your 37 C body heat to outer space at -270 C, you might be glad to be working within a -78 C fog of CO2 to reduce your radiation losses.
It doesn’t directly, so any response is fantasy. The question is in the domain of the number of fairies dancing on a pin head.
The best way to conceive of this and not get confused about misleading terms like back-radiation warming the surface is to think of it as interfering with cooling. The only thing that RAISES the surface temperature is the sun. The greenhouse effect merely slows the rate of cooling. If you slow the rate of cooling overnight, then by the time the sun rises the next morning and resumes heating the surface, the starting temperature will be warmer than it would have been with less impeded cooling during the night. That means that by the end of the day it will also be warmer than it would have been. That’s where the warming comes from.
That warming process will level off because a warmer surface will radiate more (proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature). A balance will be struck where the surface temperature won’t rise any more because doing so would drive faster radiative cooling at night.
If water vapor decreases, the greenhouse effect will be reduced. So the rate of nighttime cooling will vary up and down depending on humidity. If non-condensing greenhouse gases gradually increase, the average rate of cooling will gradually decrease.
Rich, something for you to think about.
If all the O2 and N2 molecules obtain their heat via kinetic energy because they do not absorb IR, how then do they cool down at night?
GrumpG
O2 and N2 molecules give up some of their kinetic energy to H2O and CO2 molecules that HAVE RADIATED their heat away to outer space, plus by conduction to the cool ground that HAS RADIATED some of it’s heat away to outer space, often forming a nightime temperature inversion in low wind conditions.
Climate Depot
Republican Officials Demand Answers On BlackRock’s ‘Woke’ Climate Agenda
To think that Public Transit workers have anything in common with Climate activists makes one think the Transit workers don’t actually want to work:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/26/public-transport-workers-join-climate-activists-for-week-of-strikes-across-germany
And then there is the Deindustrialization of Germany:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/once-global-ideal-germanys-economy-062845919.html
An interesting development ?
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/local/helium-confirmed-at-drill-site-near-babbitt
about 30 times more concentrated than usual .
In Detroit….
Fires at GM EV plant have fire officials demanding changes – YouTube
Detroit FD says it has been responded to 8 calls from the plant since last summer (GM says it is standard protocol).
It is not obvious that more than 1 of 8 fire department calls was related to a lithium battery fire
The one known battery fire was a battery back not yet installed in a vehicle, which is rare type of fire.
Detroit wants GM to make safety upgrades at Factory Zero after fires (freep.com)
Richard–
If you believe it is normal for a fire dept. to make 8 trips to an auto production plant in less than a year, please produce your evidence to support this.
Otherwise, this demonstrates one of the numerous problems with lithium-ion battery powered EVs that makes them problematic against ICE’s. EV’s are a solution in search of a problem.
To slow down the Trump cheerleading: These are also facts about the Trump years:
The slowest four year Real GDP economic growth period (1% average) since Herbert Hoover
Total employment down 2.3 million
Trump grew federal government spending from $4,190 billion in fiscal 2018 to $7,250 in fiscal 2021, up +73% in four years
Trump increased the size of the federal deficit from $779 billion in fiscal 2018 to $2,775 billion in fiscal 2021, up over 256% in four years
Trump’s huge 2020 and 2021 budget deficits were the root cause of the high 2021 and 2022 inflation rate
No Keystone XL pipeline extension — only 8% completed
There was no US energy independence — that was always a conservative myth
CO2 still called a pollutant by the EPA
Not one intelligent Trump speech about climate change since 2015
Grossly excessive Covid scaremongering by Fauci and Birx
Financed a rushed to market vaccine that had zero effect on all cause mortality or excess deaths. Claimed one million live were saved, which is complete nonsense.
No election fraud investigation by Bill Barr
Encouraged a January 6 protest that was too late, and in the wrong place — electoral votes are determined at state capital buildings, not in Washington DC
No end to the war in Afghanistan
The tariffs on China just made US consumers pay more for imports
Trump did not get the Affordable Care Act repealed as promised
Trump said the rich would pay higher taxes but his tax cuts mainly benefitted the rich
Trump said Mexico would pay for his border wall, which did not happen, and there was not much wall built
Trump promised to end the opioid crisis
There were dozens of other broken promises
That’s the Trump record that Trump cheerleaders seem to forget.
You just keep proving that your only real purpose is to rile people up
I try to pfresent facts, data and logic
They are often responded to with insults
Rarely does anyone even try to refute what I have written.
If it makes you less riled up, Biden is worse than Trump.
I voted for Trump in 2020 and would vote for him again.
He was far from the best president in American history. Biden is among the worst.
Because you aren’t worth the necessary time investment.
I refute your comments … with proportional logic, facts and data;
Nope.
Yep.
Finally Exxon tells it like it is and riles the usual suspects-
Fury after Exxon chief says public to blame for climate failures (msn.com)
Consumers rule OK
Story tip.
A tale of silly games with pollution. On the M4 near Heathrow there have been speed restrictions, ostensibly to cut NO2 emissions. Here’s the overall NO2 emissions for the surrounding area, mapped at 1km grid level. It’s clear that the aircraft are the main source, and that local hotspots that happen to be near the road are in fact caused by sites such as sewage plants and hospitals.
Here’s the calculated contribution from transport on major roads: