5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
134 Comments
April 21, 2024 2:38 am
Drive-by linking time 😀
Banks Unwilling To Finance $5 Trillion Global Nuclear Development
https://energycentral.com/news/banks-unwilling-finance-5-trillion-global-nuclear-development
Status Quo – One Year Since Germany’s Nuclear Exit: Renewable Capacity Expands, Electricity from Fossil Fuels Significantly Reduced
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/status-quo-one-year-since-germanys-nuclear-exit-renewable-capacity-expands-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-significantly-reduced.html
How we know the energy transition is here
https://ciphernews.com/articles/how-we-know-the-energy-transition-is-here/
And get on your bikes:
European cities are improving cycling for citizens
https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/european-cities-are-improving-cycling-citizens
But at least we can cheer that NY keeps getting stuck in the past.
In principle it could have been. But it is becoming clear our native British appetite for regulation and bureaucracy and micromanagement is more than a match for Brussels’.
I have a sick feeling the next government will soon have us regretting we don’t have the EU putting the brakes on. Actually the current lot are already having that effect on me. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill just had its first reading. The EU would not have allowed it. (A product that is legal in any state has to be legal in all. That’s why absinthe is back on sale everywhere. I hate the stuff but I love that I’m trusted to make my own decisions. Ditto tobacco.)
Are blue passports and infantilising adults what we got out of Europe for?
Ask our Baerbock about feminist foreign policy than you may have enough entertainement.
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/baerbock-guidelines-ffp/2586412
You must follow her free speaches in German without subtitles and try to understand. It’s not far away from sleepy Brandon. Pur entertainement and comedy show.
Your goal is to always be the first commenter at the of these Open Threads now, with links at the ready the first second it is open to gather as many downvotes on whatever agenda items you post? This might have some mild amusement factor for us, but ultimately, the conclusion will be the same every time: you need to get a life.
Or is somebody paying you to do this?
You sidedstepped my question up there, didn’t you? Me, I’m not paid anything for my posts, a self-mandated obligation if you want to call that an activity we share. For me, ‘fun’ is not the first descriptive word I’d attach to what I do, though:
“The Be-All / End-All “Chicken Little” Advertorial: When It’s All You Got, You. Still. Have. Nothing.”
Bet you can’t dispute a word in that, can you?
Step to the back of the line behind that other “Warren Beeton” WUWT commenter guy when it comes to the delusional idea that folks can deliver some kind of beatdown on me about whatever their guess is concerning donations offsetting my expenses. What’s the very first word in all caps directly under my name over at the nice bio page Heartland created for me, and the 5th word in the main text there? Read them for yourself. I fully disclose what the actual reality is on donations here. You? Not so much. You don’t even have the courage to identify yourself with your name. Me, I defend anybody your side falsely accuses of accepting corrupt money payments via the most elemental of challenges: stand and deliver on the evidence for that. You could pose that same challenge yourself as a devil’s advocate position. Imagine what happens to you if you challenge your dear leaders with it.
Meanwhile, we all saw what you did, you didn’t answer the question of whether you are paid to do what you do here. On top of that, just like the pathetic folks at Desmogblog, you can’t even lift a finger to dispute what I say in my blog posts or my guest posts here at WUWT. All show and no go, you are, with enviro-left propaganda links the rest of us could easily find ourselves.
I’ll suggest to you as I do with all the other folks I joust with – ask yourself why you are mandated to repeat talking points fed to you, where if you dare to question any angle of them, you will find yourself labeled as a wavering untrustworthy person, and will be cast aside as the lockstep marchers carry on. Embrace critical thinking — why did one of the top leaders of your side feel compelled to commit resumé fraud to bolster his position? Why does one of your other dear leaders look like she fabricated her story on how she got into this issue? What happens to you if you bring these up as problems that’s ammo handed on a silver platter to our side, and ask how many other inconvenient truths on your side need to be covered up?
I don’t have a side, I see how renewables are the way forward, same with reduction on car dependency. So I advocate for them. Neither my english nor my time allow me to write large blog posts, so links that do so for me will have to do.
Sadly you may find the links, but drawing conclusions is not your strength. Or you are unwilling to do so. Or you are just caught up in a silly your-side-my-side game.
It’s not just Germany but EU wide.
“Electricity demand in the EU’s industrial sector fell by an estimated 6% in 2022 and again in 2023”
“Prices of electricity for energy intensive industry in the EU in 2023 were almost double those in the US and China and the gap has widened putting EU energy intensive industry competitiveness under pressure”
IEA ‘Electricity 2024 Analysis and forecast to 2026’
German, UK folks, and all other CO2-reduction/phobia fanatics have wasted many $trillions on hare-brained wind/solar/battery/EV/Heat Pump, etc., schemes
They have impoverished tens of millions of people in the process, because they are spreading THE TRUE FAITH, based on their science, to save the world
The elites have made oodles of $billions in the process, FOR DECADES.
You will NEVER hear of a halt for building private planes and yachts!!
Excerpts from:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Retained Energy in Atmosphere
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = (1.006T) + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
About 16.1 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 6.3 kJ/kg by WV
.
2) Tropics, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
About 27.2 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 43.3 kJ/kg by WV
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
.
Worldwide, determine enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29 = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x
241 kJ/kg CO2) @ 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.
.
Retained energy, world: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air) x 1000j/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
.
Retained energy, Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1,448 x 10^4 EJ.
.
The Tropics is a giant energy storage area, almost all of it by evaporating water.
CO2 plays a 100 x (0.155/70.655) = 0.219% role.
About 35% of the Tropics energy is transferred, 24/7/365, to latitudes north and south of the 37 parallels, which do not get enough incoming solar energy.
Humans consumed 604/365 = 1.65 EJ/d, in 2022
America is so large and diverse- that it manages to survive despite a huge rust belt running across its northern states
This is only due to our energy impendence, food independence, mineral independence (if allowed by the government, read EPA and Endangered Species Act) and the fact the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency.
If then US government could no longer print their way out of problems via the Federal Reserve and other countries holding dollars and investing in the US stock market, we would be facing all the same problems the EU is.
There is one final difference. The US is a wholly defensible nation. Canada, although apparently one step from totalitarian, some could argue Trudopes actions against the truckers already were totalitarian, is no military threat to the US and is actually a large buffer from foreign invasion.
Mexico along the southern boarder is no threat and the majority of the southern boarder is desert and easily defended.
The US still has the most effective navy in the world, by FAR. It is a true blue water navy that would protect the coasts far out to sea.
So defensible and and self sustainable, for now.
It appears that the ballistic missile threats get smaller and smaller as our ability to shoot these vehicles down gets better. We are at the point now where if we have enough ammunition, we can shoot all incoming ballistic missiles down. And we haven’t even started talking about the new laser weapons being developed to use against anything flying.
I remember when experts were claiming it was impossible to shoot down a ballistic missile. They laughed at Ronald Reagan’s ballistic missile defense vision and called it “Star Wars”.
They are not laughing any more, nor are they saying it is impossible to shoot down a ballistic missile anymore, either.
It looks like the Congress may have fixed the ammunition shortage, or at least have taken steps to increase production of ammunition with the passage of the bills to fund Ukraine and Israel.
About $60 billion for Ukraine, with about $10 billion of that as economic aid, and about $12 billion to Ukraine for the war effort, and $38 billion of that will be spent in the United States ramping up U.S. supply lines and ammunition manufacturing, and some of the money in the Israeli package stays here in the U.S. for manufacturing ammunition for their and our missiles defenses.
Taiwan also got around $9 billion.
And it looks like one of Trump’s ideas was incorporated in this bill with part of the money going to Ukraine being in the form of a long-term loan to be repaid when Ukraine is able.
And what’s the deal with Israel’s bizarre response to the attack by the Mad Mullahs of Iran? They (so far) have refrained from destroying Irans nuclear weapons-making facilities, even though Irans is said to be possibly weeks away from having enough material to make a nuclear weapon.
Instead, the Israelis strike an Iranian airbase near the nuclear facility, and that’s all they do.
All the western analysts are on the narrative that this is somehow significant, claiming this demonstrates Israel can strike anywhere in Iran that they want.
But so what? We knew Israel could do this. It’s no secret. So what does demonstrating it do? Does this deter the Mad Mullahs?
The Israelis should be taking out the Iranian centrifuges that are enriching the uranium, but they do not.
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, an Iranian Mushroom Cloud may appear over Tel Aviv, and some Israelis will say, “We should have knocked them out when we had the chance.”
How can you let a bunch of religious fanatics acquire nuclear weapons aimed at you? Insanity!
China understands. They equip their military with vast numbers of drones and missiles which they can launch simultaneously. But only a relatively small percentage will have warheads, so China will save on cost while maximising cost to those they attack. Does the USA have an effective response? I hope so.
I am happy that Ukraine, and Israel and Taiwan were finally supported.
I’m very unhappy with shorsighted, Isolationist Republicans who think they represent a majority of conservatives and use budget matters as a means to hide their fears of dictators. They are appeasers, just like Joe Biden. Appeasers encourage dictators to do their worst.
Look at the world today. The dictators think they have free reign because they see Biden’s weakness, and this encourages them to push their envelopes which results in the deaths of many innocent people.,
I’m a conservative. I support Ukraine. By supporting Ukraine, I keep American troops from having to go to Europe to fight off Putin. If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there.
Why should he? But the next place he attacks will be a NATO nation and then American troops will be involved. Our shortsighted Isolationist Republicans can’t see this.
I also support Trump’s efforts (should he get elected) to get the Europeans to pay their fair share of the costs.
What I don’t get is why some republicans seem to endorse Putin and Russia. They peddle and promote this lie that Ukraine is full of Nazis. They are even calling MTG “Moscow Margorie.” If you go back just a few years (Reagan’s time) it was the Republicans who were hard line anti Russia. What has happened.
Ok so almost everything you said is false.
The conservative Republicans wanted did for several months, and still do, to hold Ukraine aid until the law included measures to CLOSE THE SOUTHERN US BORDER.
The Republican congress sent an Israel funding bill to the Democrat/communist controlled US Senate MONTHS ago. That bill never got a vote. If Johnson had any balls, he would have just told Schumer to vote on THAT bill or nothing would be brought to the floor on the house.
Did Russia ever attack a NATO nation since 1945?
As BRISC countries become more numerous, Europe will have less access to low-cost, reliable fossil fuels,
BRISC countries will use more fossil fuels for their fast-growing economies.
Europe is dismantling their high-energy industries, as the US did after the Kennedy Round of import duty cuts in the early 1960s; Europe loved Kennedy
Since the proliferation of nuclear weapons, just look up the list of nations that have them, that is a problem for every country. The big advantage for the US is, excepting the few countries that have missile submarines, there is some time from launch to landing of ballistic missiles. AND the US has a blue water Navy that has the ability of limiting other nations subs getting too close the the NA continent.
Now I am pretty sure if enough missiles are launched one or more will land in North America but as shown by the Israeli attack on Iran, the cruise or other missiles used hit specific targets without even being detected, so the US response could be massively more damaging.
The problem with US bases in Iraq, etc. is that there is no separation.
Just like in Ukraine. They can’t stop them all.
- Limited to biking’s gonna be rough on old folks.
- Europe’s carbon footprint has decreased very little——it’s just moved to China, where Europe’s consumed goods are manufactured.
- Meanwhile, Europe is becoming increasingly irrelevant, including on the issue of climate.
- But I have got to admit: Nobody does smugness like a good European.
April 21, 2024 3:37 am
“If you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs does …”
One of the charming mysteries of Climate Science is how the Illuminati have succeeded in convincing the Illiterati their atmosphere is a system in Radiative Convective Equilibrium. Dissipation is the thermodynamic antithesis of equilibrium and I’ve yet to see the term applied to atmospheric calculation. Given a black-box dissipation problem, 5 amperes flowing between contacts at 10 and 20 volts, all hands would be raised enthusiastically waving save for a plaintive, “But, you haven’t said what’s in the box”. Suppose the problem were paraphrased as 240 watts flowing between contacts of 220K and 285K. A show of hands, please? Anyone?
In the electrical case, W = J * (V1-V2). In the thermal case, W = (J / T1) * (T1-T2). These equations are exact for two contacts and can be generalized to closed-surface functions. J/T1 is the entropy flux entering at T1 (if anyone understands what entropy flux is). As a first approximation, one might assume ohmic or linear behavior, with J proportional to V1-V2 and dV1/dJ = 2 volt/amp. The equivalent approximation for the thermal case, J/T1 is proportional to T1-T2, T1^2 – T2*T1 = 77.1875*J and dT1 /dJ = 0.220536 K/Watt. To increase flux 3.7W, raise T1 0.816K.
This result is based on just three numbers 240W, 220K, 285K and some middle-school algebra. No reference to convection, radiation, lapse rates, greenhouse gases, etc. Previous calculation based on solutions to a third-order, inhomogeneous differential equation for several dozen models described by hypothetical nonlinear dissipative radiative and convective fluxes within the box yielded values ranging 0.222 ± 0.007 K/Watt (https://pdquondam.net/Adiabatic_Lapse_Rate.pdf).
Linear approximation implies dissipation increasing quadratically from an equilibrium null value when T1 = T2. A temperature difference of 65K within a range of 285K is not a small perturbation. (Perhaps 5.2% for a quadratic function?) What might one learn from gedanken-experiments adding empirical quartic or higher terms? RR THE WORLD WONDERS
That eight page essay of yours is a nice contribution. Thanks for offering it. I especially liked the quotation from Sommerfeld in the introduction because I often worry about my own understanding of thermodynamics. It will take a couple of readings of your work to make me feel that I grasp it all clearly. I have to translate others’ work into my own internal models first.
Last Autumn there was a brief summary of a sort of primer on atmospheric physics by Happer and Wijngaarten (H&W) with a link to their original paper.
This caused quite a bit of discussion. I was surprised to have some people give the effort a grade of “C+” and as usual Nick Stokes had all sorts criticism, mainly centered around the fact that while H&W claimed a convection dominated troposphere, “we know” the atmosphere is actually radiation dominated. He was basically implying that H&W didn’t know what they were writing about.
Four months ago or so I offered an essay, published here at WUWT where I tried to explain why “we know” no such thing as Nick claims and that W&H was more informative than people recognized. My argument in this essay was, and has been stated in a number of other commentary here, that what is missing from innumerable controversies about climate change, dangerous surface temperature rise, etc. is that so much is bound to the idea of equilibrium, whereas, all distributions of material properties in the atmosphere are the result of transport (non-equilibrium) phenomena. In particular W&H never provided an important piece of context in the form of the “energy equation” aumented by whatever other equations are required (navier-stokes, for example) to actually solve for temperature distribution.
In brief, we can’t look at the measured temperature versus height relationship and determine relative contribution of the two mechanisms (radiation and convection). Other information is needed. I think you are saying the same thing in this quotation from your paper
What’s most surprising about Case I, however, is not that the warming lies well outside doomsday scenarios, but the insensitivity to internal details, implying global warming is primarily a boundary value problem. One of the more extreme profiles explored was strongly biased towards convection in the lower troposphere, lapse rates varying dramatically, yet the plot of altitude vs. temperature appears close enough to linear to elude radiosonde detection.
A related observation is that entropy generated in non-equilibrium heat transport through solid materials by conduction is entirely a boundary phenomenon. Thanks again for your link and comment.
This caused quite a bit of discussion. I was surprised to have some people give the effort a grade of “C+” and as usual Nick Stokes had all sorts criticism, mainly centered around the fact that while H&W claimed a convection dominated troposphere, “we know” the atmosphere is actually radiation dominated. He was basically implying that H&W didn’t know what they were writing about.
I think Nick was misreading W&H. For the energy flux emitted by the surface within the IR attenuation bands of various atmospheric gases, heat transfer will indeed by dominated by convection and/or phase change of water. Conversely, in the atmospheric IR windows, there will be no radiative heat transfer taking place within the atmosphere, absent clouds, dust or aerosols. Note that the “size” of the window will be greatly affected by water vapor.
The crowning piece of the W&H paper was making predictions of what the IR emissions as a function of wavelength for several spots around the earth and showing satellite measurements that closely matched their predictions.
Yes, the agreement between theory and observation was very gratifying; yet there were some other useful insights, one being that without greenhouse gasses the steady state solution is also an isothermal equilibrium atmosphere.
I agree that maybe Nick was simply misreading. However, in one exchange Nick pointed to the Rosseland model of temperature distribution during heat transport, a model which includes only a term for diffusion of radiation in an optically deep atmosphere, and because it contains no term for other heat transport mechanisms, must be silent about convective contribution. This is a bit more than just misreading H&W because H&W never broached this model.
One thing I really liked about Quondam’s linked-to paper is his focus on entropy balance. I’ve talked here before about this balance without doing anything with it, in fact. Pointing out that entropy evolution is (or can be) entirely a matter of what goes on at the boundaries is helpfully insightful. I should kick myself for not recognizing such earlier, but as I said in my closing paragraph above, a person can go about calculating entropy increase for every little nit in the domain of a problem, but the easier path, an example is heat conduction in a solid, is to set a control volume, calculate entropy out minus entropy in and what one gets in result is entropy generated within a control volume without hacking away at all the messy details. Make control volumes small enough and one has a distribution of entropy generation — might be very useful, especially if one finds places where entropy generation appears not positive!
Thanks for your comment, Erik.
Kevin, thanks for the read. Believe I once added a brief comment to the W&H discussion. Most of my notebook files referenced have been relocated with links now at pdquondam.net. They span a decade of interest in thermodynamic dissipation after realizing W=J*V was the solution for nonlinear electric steady states and the Carnot Eq. was that for thermal ones – but not everyone knew they already knew that. Mostly math and not particularly transparent for those seeking rhetorical exposition.
I have begun to work my way through your efforts. It will take a while, but be well worth the effort as it will re-acquaint me with things I once knew a bit about.
In graduate school I took a course in statistical mechanics and the text we used, or maybe one of the texts, was Morse’s “Thermal Physics”. Peter Gibbs, who was one of Henry Eyring’s graduate students taught the course and had a tendency to wander off topic. Wandering off-topic is one of the best parts of graduate education.
I got a taste of irreversible processes through examining coupled flows — then used what I had learned to write a paper in the European Journal “Geophysics” to explain the physical basis for what geophysicists at the time called “self-potential”, and which many/most of them felt was akin to magical thinking. That paper, though I haven’t read it again in 40 years, was apparently well cited enough to be republished and included in a special issue in 2006.
As I said before I could kick myself for not pondering the possibility that radiation and convection might be a pair of coupled flows amenable to such analysis. Nice insight on your part.
Best to you.
April 21, 2024 3:39 am
St Christopher’s travels.
Chris Packham the would be, but he can’t…, eco warrior and loyal lieutenant to Attenburghee at Population Matters, was made chairman or chairperson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – RSPCA.
Unsurprisingly, the organisation has since taken a mighty turn wokewards, and they were warned.
“The BBC’s Chris Packham is facing a backlash after the outspoken eco-warrior was appointed as the RSPCA’s new chief.
…
Packham and the RSPCA have now come under fire for the move, branded ‘strange’ and ‘controversial’.
…Countryside Alliance chief executive Tim Bonner told MailOnline: ‘This is a strange decision from an organisation which has done so much to rebuild its reputation over recent years.’
Calling Packham ‘a controversial figure’, he added: ‘By linking itself to Mr Packham the RSPCA will be alienating many people who have an important role in protecting the welfare of both domestic and wild animals.
…
A spokesperson for the RSPCA told MailOnline: ‘We work with a huge range of individuals and organisations to improve animal welfare. We are really excited to welcome Chris Packham as President of the RSPCA.
‘Chris is much loved and a well respected voice for all animals who speaks to a wide range of society.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chris-packham-faces-backlash-after-he-is-appointed-rspca-president/ar-AA1bCUj2
And the result? Here is a pre Packham advert and below that the post Packham effort. The difference is night and day.
April 21, 2024 3:42 am
Find the climate crisis here.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Steps:
Click on the link above.
Deselect 2012.
Select 2023.
Select 2007.
Don’t you see that humans are causing a warming crisis?
Neither do I.
It is a manufactured illusion at a huge scale.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
page 224 of the document, page 272 of the pdf.
Fig 7.20a
The amount of ice is never “stable”. Here’s a physical example from the early 20th century.
The open season at the coal port in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from three months of the year before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s.
Nobody started panicking about it, rather it was welcomed.
First, sea ice volume is unimportant. It is already displacing its mass as it floats. If all the sea ice disappears, no significant sea level change follows
Second, 90% of global land ice is at the South Pole. It is so cold there that even massive global warming by tens of degrees would just begin to melt it.
Third, most of the rest of the ice is on Greenland and a mix of lesser sites. Again substantially melting of the Greenland Ice will not easily happen—-check the year round temps——even if Summer melt begins to exceed Winter freezing, it will be centuries before it could matter.
So melting ice is not a near term concern
Change in ice over centuries would be easy to adapt so long as we do not hamstring Mankind with economy-destroying Green mandates.
“So we just ignore all other years… blah , blah…”
You mean all the other year of the last 10,000 or so..
… when Arctic sea ice was MUCH LESS than it currently is ??
It is a real pity that the recovery from the extreme high extents of 1979 has stalled.
The Arctic sea creatures and all people living up there could do with less sea ice for most of the year.
April 21, 2024 4:09 am
The Sunday Funny
“As we grow increasingly reliant on variable wind and solar, we need to ensure we keep the lights on all the time — even when it’s not windy or daytime. Efforts are underway…”
https://ciphernews.com/articles/how-we-know-the-energy-transition-is-here/ (h/t UN)
None of it – “As we grow increasingly reliant on variable wind and solar” – is in the least bit necessary. It’s more a case of collective and massive self-harm, while mentally abberational.
Efforts are always under way. That’s progress, well, it was until the greens showed up.
April 21, 2024 5:23 am
I posted this recently but in case you missed it- worth watching.
With Tree Rings On Their Fingers
There’s a lot of apparently confident talk about how current temperatures compare with those in the past, including claims of 2023 being the “hottest year ever” or at least in the last 125,000. But how do we actually know, and how much do we actually know, about historic and prehistoric temperatures? In this Climate Discussion Nexus “Backgrounder” video John Robson examines the uses, and abuses, of various temperature proxies.
April 21, 2024 6:57 am
How does the increase in atmospheric CO2 cause the oceans to warm? I am aware of the theory that CO2 “traps” some outgoing heat in a small wavelength band from the land, and either re-emits the energy as infrared or transfers the energy to O or N molecules by hitting them. As water is opaque to this band of infrared energy, how does the re-emitted energy warm the ocean? Does the slightly warmer atmosphere warm the ocean by convection? I’m a civil engineer who built bridges for a living, so don’t understand all the heat transfer science.
‘How does the increase in atmospheric CO2 cause the oceans to warm?’
I don’t think it’s a significant factor, per the attached article:
At a macrophysics level it’s the 1st law of thermodynamics. ΔE = Ein – Eout. The DWIR increases Ein thus ΔE > 0. Then using the heat capacity equation ΔT = ΔE / (m*c) we can see that ΔT > 0 when ΔE > 0. It’s not unlike how IR lamps warm food in kitchens. [Wong & Minette 2018] provided a detailed explanation at the microphysical level.
April 21, 2024 7:32 am
Story tip!
More global warming doom and gloom from PIK (Potsdam). IPCC RCP8.5 models say so…
– – – – – – – – –
Climate Change to Cause $38 Trillion a Year in Damages by 2049
The world economy will suffer less financial damage if global warming is limited to 2C, according to researchers.
Climate change will inflict losses to the global economy worth an annual $38 trillion by 2049, as extreme weather ravages agricultural yields, harms labor productivity and destroys infrastructure, according to researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
– – – – – – – – –
The economic commitment of climate change
Global projections of macroeconomic climate-change damages typically consider impacts from average annual and national temperatures over long time horizons. Here we use recent empirical findings from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over the past 40 years to project sub-national damages from temperature and precipitation, including daily variability and extremes.
(20 pages. IPCC RCP8.5 models & tipping points)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0.pdf
Fun with math. World GDP is around $105 trillion. If it compounds at 2% growth for the next 25 years, that would be $172 trillion. If Climate Change ™ reduces it by $38 trillion then it will only be $29 trillion higher than today.
And anyway the whole premise is absurd. Agriculture will continue to benefit from higher CO2 and any slight warming that may expand arable land area and lengthen growing seasons.
The eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 was the second biggest eruption at the time and it caused about a 0.5C cooling of the temperatures for about 18 months.
So the Ruang volcanic eruption won’t throw the world into a New Ice Age.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
The Cataclysmic 1991 Eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines
The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991. The eruption produced high-speed avalanches of hot ash and gas, giant mudflows, and a cloud of volcanic ash hundreds of miles across.
April 21, 2024 9:40 am
Record-breaking ocean heat triggers massive coral reef bleaching
Scientists issued a warning due to record-breaking temperatures in 2023 which accelerated the speed of the second-largest mass coral bleaching event across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Nearly a quarter of all ocean species rely on the reefs. William Brangham discussed the global situation and what’s at stake with Julia Baum, a marine ecologist and coral reefs researcher.
Oh, well, looks like the entire ocean will be dead in a few years. 🙂
April 21, 2024 10:13 am
The BBC’s biggest climate lie yet.
“Without action, nearly all reefs could die off in the next 20-30 years.”
Sunday evening they are brainwashing us Brits with this.
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2024/17/our-changing-planet-restoring-our-reefs
Who would have known bird choppers are hard to assemble:
https://www.13abc.com/2024/04/04/company-determines-what-caused-wind-turbine-blade-fall-off-findlay/
Even JP Morgan thinks the Fossil Fuel phase out can’t be done quickly:
https://www.ft.com/content/352b38a7-f298-4b54-adc2-f4cc1b17444b
Not all re-examination of data leads to a grim future:
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-ice-age-climate-analysis-worst.amp
Could India really have saved over 700k lives with cleaner fossil fueled power generation:
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/19/clean-up-indian-coal-fired-power-plants-could-saved-lives
Ice cover in Yellowstone lakes isn’t cooperating with Climate Change:
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-yellowstone-lake-ice-unchanged-climate.amp
Even Nature is willing to admit additional CO2 helps trees:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01973-9
Even CNN and the Biding Time administration appears to think overly restrictive power generation regulations aren’t good:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/18/climate/biden-epa-power-plant-rules-hydrogen-climate
Bird choppers leak oil over the landscape, that can’t be good for plant growth:
https://kfor.com/news/kay-county-family-frustrated-by-wind-turbine-leak/amp/
Not sure how, but Nature seems hopeful with miniscule drop in CO2 emissions:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00532-2
I don’t believe this – The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) misused their research to underestimate the potential of reduced meat intake to cut agricultural emissions:
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/19/un-livestock-emissions-report-seriously-distorted-our-work-say-experts
Evidently Britain doesn’t have a plan or even land for their gigafactory:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britishvolt-gigafactory-sold-off-electric-180033913.html
April 21, 2024 6:46 pm
A while ago, there was a paper published on a ~70 year cycle within the Earth’s inner core. (example press coverage: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/10/making-heads-spin-scientists-say-earths-inner-core-has-changed-its-rotation)
I’m curious, could there be any relationship between this and the AMO/PDO cycles? Obviously, the AMO/PDO cycles wouldn’t be causing the cycle within the Earth’s core, but perhaps the other way around, or perhaps both could be caused by a third external force (Solar or planetary orbits for example)? The latter seeming to be the most likely scenario.
I haven’t seen any research that looks at both the inner core cycle and other cycles with similar periods. It would seem highly unlikely that such significant phenomena would have such similar periods merely by chance.
April 22, 2024 1:27 am
Can the light rooves idea to save the global warmening-
Homeowner loses $40,000 in neighbourhood dispute over shiny roof (9news.com.au)
Your heat-trapping dark roof costs almost $700 extra a year in electricity. Why are they still so common? – ABC News
Roofs in SE Michigan get ugly black algae (gloeocapsa magma) streaks / stains on the north side.
We tried a “cool” white shingle roof one time.
Could not get rid of those black stains with the strongest chemical available, even at 3x recommended strength.
We switched to a black roof next, with a zinc strip across the top on the north side, just below the ridge vent to prevent the problem.
The home next door just sold for $515,000 and needs a new roof. I hope to warn the new neighbors when I meet them about the roof staining problem if they use any roof color other than black shingles. It only takes one year for the black stains to show.
