Congress shall make no law to regulate,
tax, sequester or license atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
The right of the people to freely emit
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from
any source, from any place at any time
in any amount shall not be interfered with.
Section 2
All activity commercial or private within
the United States and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for the purposes
of altering climate is prohibited.
The Congress and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
Add to the amendment that electric grids must be powered by fuels that provide adequate, reliable dispatchable, power at afordable cost.
strativarius
May 19, 2024 2:24 am
Air Heads…
Harry and Meghan Markle flown for free ‘by airline boss who is wanted US fugitive’
Onyema is alleged to have been ‘using his status as a prominent business leader and airline executive to launder more than $20million from Nigeria through US bank accounts’, in the indictment, reported the Mail.
I find it interesting the incumbent in Buck House, so beloved by the extreme left is the very same person they were trying to abolish before his dear departed mother passed away.
So that’s who keeps sending me those emails wanting me to park his $millions in my bank account, as soon as I give him my routing and bank account numbers. 🙂
This afternoon I sent the following email to Dr. Roy Spencer the following email entitled “Climate Science Fraud”
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Please use Google to obtain the essay “Climate Change Reexamined” by
Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free.
In Figure 7 (page 435) is shown the infrared (IR) absorption spectrum of a sample
of Philadelphia city air from 400 to 4,000 wavenumbers (WNS). Integration of the spectrum determined that water absorbed 92% of the IR light and carbon dioxide
only 8% of the IR light. The wavenumber scale is linear in energy and spans an
order of magnitude in energy. Thus, water is absorbing much more IR energy
than carbon dioxide.
Below 1,000 WNS, water and carbon dioxide are absorbing IR emanating from the
earth’s surface. Above 1,250 WNS, water and carbon dioxide are absorbing IR from
incoming sunlight. About 40% of sunlight is IR light. It is the absorption of this IR light
that cause heating of the air and global warming. In deserts there is very low humidity and this allows most all of the IR light to strike the surface which under goes rapid heating to high temperature.
In 1999, the concentration of carbon dioxide at the MLO was 367 ppmv for dry air
or 0.721 grams per cubic meter of air. At 28 deg. C and 76% RH, the concentration
of water was 29,549 ppmv or 23.7 grams per cubic meter in the city air. Assume
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the city air was about 367 ppmv. Then the
ratio of water molecules to carbon dioxide molecules would then be 80.5 to 1.
Water is the major greenhouse gas by far and carbon dioxide is a very minor
greenhouse gas. Consequently, we don’t have to worry about carbon dioxide.
On the basis of Kauffman’s essay and the above analysis, I have concluded that
there is coterie of climate scientists who have been perpetrating a great scientific
fraud for decades by claiming that carbon dioxide is the cause of recent global
warming. Their motive is “easy” money for their reasearch on global warming and
climate change. There just too little carbon dioxide in the air to cause global warming.
In 1972, The Clean Air Act was passed in the US. Since then there has been a substantial reduction in air pollution. The catalytic converter has greatly reduced air pollution from cars. Since the air is now much cleaner, more sunlight can reach the earth’s surface and cause warming of air.
Why on earth (no pun intended) should we worry about water vapour? It warms the planet, helps to keep plants alive, and AFIAK there is absolutely nothing that it does which is harmful to plants, animals or humans.
I am seriously worried about an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus landing their UFOs in Washington DC and demanding to see our leader. When we claim Joe Bribe’em is our leader, they will get angry and destroy our planet with a death ray. Or even worse, Joe Bribe’em will get reelected in November.
Trump would try to make a deal with them. Maybe a golf course on Uranus? Of course Trump wouldn’t know that Uranus isn’t a great place for golf course. Maybe a new Trump Tower? 🙂
No, the vertical temperature profile (lapse rate) of the troposphere is such that any additional water vapor humans add to the atmosphere simply condenses at higher altitudes along with water vapor from natural evaporation, and insignificantly adds to the rainfall that already occurs.
Your statement reminds me. One of the short comings of the human cooling system is easily explained by the AAT. However, AAT is eschewed by most evolutionists. I happen to like the theory.
In 1972, The Clean Air Act was passed in the US. Since then there has been a substantial reduction in air pollution. The catalytic converter has greatly reduced air pollution from cars. Since the air is now much cleaner, more sunlight can reach the earth’s surface and cause warming of air.
This has always been in my thoughts.
Some, if not all, warming has to be due to less air pollution worldwide, not just in the USA.
CO2 is the control knob of climate, not some hair brained idea that a simple thing as catalytic converters or electro static scrubbers in coal fired power plants or some other minor factors. Here’s a quote for you:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
It’s going to take wind turbines, solar panels and carbon sequestering programs to remedy the “Climate Crisis” that is growing day by day
The fact that CO2 was not a direct cause of climate change for 4.5 billion years (before manmade COI2 emissions), when CO2 was only a feedback, is used as propaganda by conservative Nutters.
They claim CO2 is only a feedback, and that factoid is “proof” that manmade CO2 emissions can not cause global warming (not a climate forcing).
There are many conservative climate science Nutters, spouting a variety of climate myths: I called them Mixed Nutters.
So what? If that is even true rather than an artifact of temporal resolution limits on ice core data, warming as well as atmospheric CO2 are both beneficial to human flourishing.
CO2 is doing today what it has always done. It generates a minor positive feedback which is resisted by emergent negative feedback(s).
Just because we have, over the course of centuries, managed to artificially enhance CO2 by about 0.014%, doesn’t change much of anything.
Empirical analysis (Curry and Lewis for example) puts this minor effect at a beneficial ~2°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.
We don’t have enough economically extractable fossil fuel remaining to conceivably redouble CO2, yet the putative 4°C of warming from such an impossible scenario would almost certainly continue to be wholly beneficial.
So why was it again that we are dismantling our civilization over this?
Mr. Greene apparently doesn’t like CO2. According to the IPCC, CO2 is the weakest of all greenhouse gases. They assign “1” to it. All other greenhouse gases have a higher GWP. And two major greenhouse gases, water vapor and ozone, don’t even appear in GWP definitions. Leaving water vapor out is complete nonsense–it’s our number-one GHG.
CO2 is no “control knob” of climate because there is too little of it in the air. How often do I have to repeat this before your understand that water the major greenhouse gas.
Which reminds me of one my favorite YouTube channels- “Lost in the Pond” about a Brit who moves to the American Midwest and comments about the differences between the UK and America. In a funny way.
I switched to Brave Search and search results are quite a bit better, although there is so much disinformation regarding CO2 on the internet. The internet is getting worse and worse because more and more misinformation is being uploaded to it and the search engines can’t manage it.
Hmm. I just now used Brave Search to look for search engines allowing the use of the search proximity operator and got the following AI answer:
“Some web search engines that support proximity search via an explicit proximity operator in their query language include:
Walhello
Exalead
Yandex
Yahoo!
Altavista
Bing
Additionally, Google allows proximity searching using the “AROUND” operator, which specifies the maximum number of words that can appear between two search terms.”
I then used Brave Search again to find Altavista, and the first hit was from Wikipedia:
“AltaVista – Wikipedia
5 days ago – AltaVista was a Web search engine established in 1995. It became one of the most-used early search engines, but lost ground to Google and was purchased by Yahoo! in 2003, which retained the brand, but based all AltaVista searches on its own search engine. On July 8, 2013, the service was shut …”
At 1000X today’s concentration it would be a problem. How would people breath if what they had available to inhale was equal to what they are exhaling? At 100X today’s concentration there would most likely be little difference in the world to notice. Would forest fires burn less rapidly?
Transmission effects are huge, 60’s 80’s and 90’s Agung, El-Chichon, Pinatubo mired with volcanics. El-Chichon canceled 2 El-Nino’s. Pinatubo likely canceled the effects of a strong solar max. Transmission had been trending u, until the Australian brushfires in 2019 – 2020.
The biggest mystery to me is why during the mid / late 70’s climate shift, why did Transmission reach a record high?
Those dam catalytic converters- there are 2 on my Toyota Tacoma- and when they fail, they are extremely expensive to replace. Many are stolen.
Funny, sort of, saw a YouTube video- a criminal was trying to steal one from a car that he thought had nobody in it. The driver was asleep and sunk below visibility. He heard a noise under his car, started the engine, and drove off- running over the thief.
It is not just the physical WV to CO2 molecule ratio, but also WV molecules have more windows that are wider than CO2 molecules.
CO2 molecules mainly absorb 15 micron photons, which are only 7% of all photons.
The other windows of CO2 are at shorter wavelengths, but IR photons at those wavelengths are only a fraction of a percent of all photons
. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
. Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
Photons are packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f = h x c/λ
h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant; c, 3 x 10^8 meter, speed of light in vacuum; λ, wavelength
wavenumber = cm/15 μm wavelength = 10000 x 10^-6 /15 x 10^-6 = 666.7
E of 15 μm IR photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule
1 J = 1/(1.325 x 10^-20 photons)
E of 0.55 μm green photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(0.55 x 10^-6) = 36.136 x 10^-20 J
1 J = (1/(36.136 x 10^-20 photons)
Photons of the green color have 15/0.55 = 27.27 times more energy than 15 micron photons . Molecules, Photons, Total Extinction
Excerpt from article by Dr. Cyril Huijsmans, a Dutch Research Scientist Retired from Shell https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution . C.7.1, CO2
Radiation, E, emitted by the earth at 15 μm wavelength, and line width of 2 μm, is 0.0042 W/cm2 C.6.3
Photon energy, per Planck is E = hc/λ C.7.1
E = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule
Photons emitted is 0.0042/(1.325 x 10^-20) = 3.17 x 10^17 per cm^2, per second.
At sea level, at 288 K, air density at 1.223 kg/m^3, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1.012 x 10^22 per m^3
.
Dr. Heinz Hug performed absorption measurements of IR at 15 μm in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% (26000 ppm) WV, and air. See URL
Hug calculated a total absorption distance of about 10 meter
Time frame for absorption is 10/(3 x 10^8) = 3.333 x 10^-8 second, or 0.0333 microsecond.
In such a timeframe, emitted photons is 3.17 x 10^17 x 0.0333 x 10 ^-6 = 1.0556 x 10^10
In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 m high, for extinction, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1 x 10^19
CO2 molecule to photon ratio, for extinction, is (1 x 10^19)/(1.0556 x 10^10) = 9.47 x 10^8
.
In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 80 km high, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 8.28 x 10^21
Fraction of CO2 molecules participating in extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(8.28 x 10^21) = 0.0012, or 0.12%
This is independent of the way the excitation energy is dissipated, be-it by collisions or by radiation.
IR photons, with all wavelengths, collide with all molecules and cloud particulates, except photons, with appropriate wavelengths, are absorbed in every collision with WV and CO2 molecules. The photon energy is converted to heat. The warmed WV and CO2 molecules re-emit the photon energy as thermal radiation.
, C.7.2, WV
WV is the most dominant greenhouse gas.
Above about 10 km, WV ppm is near zero.
Average concentration of WV in the TS is about 0.4% volume, or 4000 ppm.
With average WV density of 0.6 kg/m^3, in a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 km high, WV molecules is (volume x density/mol wgt.) x number of Avogadro x concentration, or 600 kg/29 x (6 x 10^23) x (4000 x 10^-6) = 4.96 x 10^22 molecules
.
In 150 m there is full extinction of BB radiation. It sets a time frame of 0.5 microsecond
A column of air, 1 cm^3 and 150 m high, at 288 K, at 10^5 Pa, at ρ = 1.223 kg/m3, contains 0.0183 kg air.
Air molecules is (18.3/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 3.79 x 10^23 C.1 and C.2
At 4000 ppm, within 150 m, WV molecules is (4000 x 10^-6) x (3.79 x 10^23) = 1.516 x 10^21
WV molecules participating in full extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(4.96 x 10^22) = 0.305 x 10^-1 = 0.0305, or 3%.
.
Average wavelength in BB radiation is about 15.4 μm
Energy of average photon is E = hc/λ = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15.4 x 10^-6) = 1.291 x 10^-20 Joule
Total BB radiation is 0.0459 W/cm^2 C.6.6
Photon flux is 0.0459/(1.291 x 10^-20) = 3.56 x 10^18 per cm^2, per second
Photon extinction, within 150 m, timeframe 0.5 microsecond, is (0.5 x 10^-6) x (3.56 x 10^18) = 1.78 x 10^12 photons
WV molecule to photon ratio, for extinction, is (1.516 x 10^21)/(1.78 x 10^12) = 8.51 x 10^8 http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Quite simple is correct, except you overstate the CO2 role by about 10 times
Based on retained energy in the atmosphere the CO2 role was about 0.51% in 1900, and 0.68% in 2023.
. Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water.
Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.
The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact.
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years. . NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax. https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
. 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, enthalpy of moist air, at 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
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at 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
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor. . CO2
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air. . RE In 2023; 16 C; 421 ppm CO2; 4028 ppm WV World: (16.10 + 6.33 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 116,262 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.3%, 28% and 0.68% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 41.1 Tropics: (27.16 + 43.36 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,765 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.4%, 61.4% and 0.22% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 281.6
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
. RE in 1900; 14.8 C; 296 ppm CO2; 3689 ppm VW World: (14.89 + 5.79 + 0.106) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 106,594 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.5%, 28% and 0.51% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 54.7 The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.091, a 9,668 EJ increase
“Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900,”
The average temperature in 1900 is unknown but was certainly under 15 degrees C. The average temperature now is not 16 degrees C. You are making up numbers for hypothetical claptrap.
Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2
At the bottom of the WUWT header page it says the average of 67,000 weather stations across the world was 14.62 C only a few minutes ago. This average should be biased high because of the rather few stations in polar regions. So why would one assume 14.8 C in 1900 and 16 C today ? How many and where were the stations such a claim is based on ? Wilpost making stuff up, and RG just being argumentative ?
I will be 80 years old on Aug. 1. My chemical intuition tells me that there is something not quite right about all this global warming and climate change claims by the scientist.
50 years working in forests in Wokeachusetts tells me there is NO climate emergency- yet that’s what the state preaches every day by every single state agency- all agencies must incorporate the cult
“Dr. Heinz Hug performed absorption measurements of IR at 15 μm in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% (26000 ppm) WV, and air.”
The percentage of water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C (-44 °F) to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F).
Water vapor is a condensing gas, so can not build up in the atmosphere. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere has a residence time averaging about two weeks before the extra water falls back to earth as rain and snow/
When CO2 causes atmospheric warming, the percentage of water vapor the atmosphere holds rises and amplifies the warming effect of CO2 alone. There is much debate and a HUGE range of guesses about that water vapor positive feedback. Obviously, no one knows the right answer.
In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapor than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. The term greenhouse was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
Which makes it the main working fluid maintaining thermal stasis around whatever set point the Earth’s climate system is currently operating. (Note, your refrigerator or similar heat transporting appliances wouldn’t work very well if their refrigerants didn’t condense.)
’…so can not build up in the atmosphere.’
I’d be willing to bet that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies considerably between the ‘icehouse’ and ‘greenhouse’ states of the Earth’s climate system.
BTW, CO2 is also a condensing gas, just not under conditions that are commonly found on Earth. It does play a role in radiant heat transport, but the extent of that role was effectively maxed out at concentrations well below pre-industrial levels.
“It (CO2) does play a role in radiant heat transport, but the extent of that role was effectively maxed out at concentrations well below pre-industrial levels.”
The CO2 is saturated myth is total BS. I had to write an article on the subject for my blog because there were so many CO2 is Saturated Nutters.
Absolute water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing for 40 years but the measurements are very rough.
Countering that, OLR is also increasing and evaporation is increasing (causing more water vapor in the atmosphere.)
There appears to be a positive water vapor feedback but it obviously has limits.
Possible offsets are more OLR, more evaporation and more clouds. There is some evidence that these offsets lag the warming from higher absolute (aka specific) water vapor.
Once again your view is based on an incomplete picture. Water vapor low in the atmosphere is saturated (there’s that important word again). Doesn’t matter how much it increases. High in the troposphere is where it is no longer saturated and also where the humidity is dropping.
Thank you for your link. You have confirmed my suspicions: you don’t really understand the science you presume to write about. I think that the problem is that you only understand at a qualitative level, lacking the quantitative understanding. You cite the logarithmic relationship, but obviously don’t understand that the absorption limitation is determined by that, and that alone. That is, once there is negligible transmission of out-going IR, there is a negligible impact and even doubling the CO2 concentration will not allow absorption of what isn’t present.
My article explained the science that you do not know and will never know.
A common conservative Nutter belief is 3that CO2 above 300pp, or 250ppm, has n more warming effect.
Lab measurements since 1896 do not show that.
Happer and Lindzen do not claim that.
There is no grand worldwide conspiracy of scientists since 1896 covering up the factoid that CO2 has no warming effect above 350 ppm. Yet that is what CO2 Saturation Nutters imply.
CO2 does have a continually increasing ability to absorb IR via pressure broadening. But that’s not all. It also drives evaporation which leads to cooling. After about ~100 ppm the two processes are about equal.
Water vapor is a condensing gas, so can not build up in the atmosphere.
However, it is continually being replenished by evaporation, transpiration, and even sublimation, meaning that its impact never disappears. Furthermore, as it warms, the amount that the atmosphere can hold increases, contributing to more warming.
In a similar manner, CO2 is extracted by dissolving in water as the atmospheric partial pressure increases, and also contributes to greening, which further buffers the increase with more vegetation.
The forcing variables can’t be handled in isolation. They have to be handled as an interacting, complex, dynamic system.
Settled science is the hoax along with the claim of being able to predict the climate in 100 years, and also claiming the climate can only get worse, never better.
Recently I read a paper, a scientific publication paper, not an article about the work. The person measured IR absorption by CO2 in two bands relevant to greenhouse theory under Earth conditions. If I understood well enough, the equipment consisted of the IR source and an IR detector to measure IR transmission relative to the IR source. In between the two was a vessel of some material (some glass, I think) transparent to the relevant IR frequencies. Measurements were made with various amounts of CO2 in the vessel.
Basically the results showed that as CO2 amount increased, IR transmission reduced but that was only at low concentrations of CO2. On both bands the rate of absorption (known in IR minus measured out IR) quickly flat lined. Adding more CO2 no longer reduced IR out. This appears to validate the saturated absorption hypothesis.
Of course the experiment needs to be evaluated by people who understand enough to detect flaws, if any, in the reasoning, and needs to be replicated by unbiased repetition and possibly other types of measurement. However, my main concern at the moment is that I cannot find the paper. I was certain I had book marked or downloaded it but it seems I was mistaken. It seems to me I read this within the most recent month but it could have been a little longer. However, while not my impression, it is possible that the paper was significantly older. Can anyone provide a link?
What you are describing sounds just like the IR spectroscope gas cells that I used many years ago. It was a split beam spectroscope that passed the beams through parallel paths in which the cells were placed. One was the reference cell, and the other was flushed with the gas of interest. The cells had largely IR transparent windows made from CaF2 salt and a path length of about 6 inches. There was a large triangular salt crystal that was rotated by a stepper motor, which swept through the spectrum from 3-15 μ. The reference cell could be evacuated.
But you can also refer to the work of Wijngaarden and Happer (or earlier work by e.g. Herman Harde at less resolution) which calculates what should happen for any given gas composition, temperature and pressure, and then assembles the overall picture for a given atmospheric column from sea level to the top of the atmosphere layer by layer.
“I have concluded that there is coterie of climate scientists who have been perpetrating a great scientific fraud for decades by claiming that carbon dioxide is THE cause of recent global warming.”
It is not a fraud to claim CO2 emissions are ONE cause of global warming after 1975
It is a fraud to claim CO2 is THE cause.
The fact that water vapor is the primary source of the greenhouse effect is known by anyone interested in climate science. Clouds are number two. But water vapor is a dependent variable — a feedback correlated with the average temperature of the troposphere.
It is claimed that a CO2 warmed troposphere will hold more water vapor and have fewer clouds, which seems like a contradiction.
Measurements of global annual average water vapor and the amount of sunlight blocked by clouds do not exist.
That the changes in water vapor as a feedback and changes of cloudiness are a mystery.
The alleged feedbacks could make a big difference.
The warming effect of CO2 alone does not get much debate and does not need much debate.
You seem to be missing the fact that water vapor changed are NOT a direct cause of warming — they are a feedback.
The reduction of air pollution is not a good explanation for the majority of warming, which is TMIN (typically at or just after dawn).
In the past 127 years there has been zero evidence that lab infrared spectroscopy measurements of CO2 were deceptive as a proxy for the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The predictions of rising global average temperatures since the 1970s have come true.
The 1979 consensus claim of +0.3 degrees C. per decade global warming, called catastrophic by many people, actually started in 2007.
The stratosphere cooled, the opposite of the effect from increased solar energy
Top of the atmosphere solar energy declined slightly since the late 1970s which can not cause any global warming.
Most of Antarctica got cooler, a symptom of rising greenhouse gases, causing a negative greenhouse effect when there is a permanent temperature inversion.
The Arctic warming was only in the coldest six months of the year, with little sunshine.
The warming was mainly TMIN rather than TMAX
The warming was mainly in colder nations rather than in the tropics
The pattern and timing of mst warming after 1975 resembled greenhouse gas warming rather than solar energy warming.
Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia as the poster child of post-1975 greenhouse warming.
There is evidence of more solar energy reaching the ground. That would most affect TMAX temperatures. One cause is a reduction of manmade SO2 emissions (air pollution) Another possible cause is a small decline in the percentage of cloudiness (but not large enough to be statistically significant for the very rough estimate)
The two choices for causes of warming after 1975 are:
(1) Manmade, and
(2) Natural
Most of the evidence supports manmade causes rather than natural causes.
If you are undecided, that means you are dismissing the evidence available.
That is not as bad as a denier, who claims science can’t prove AGW, therefore AGW is a hoax.
Science does not prove anything
Science collects evidence
There is zero evidence that changes of the sun itself have had any measurable effect (not even 0.1 degree C.) on the global average temperature in recent centuries.
The claim of AGW from manmade CO2 emissions is not only from lab measurements.
Those measurement do help estimate the modest warming effect of CO2 doubling in the atmosphere.
But they are far from being the only evidence that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. And that adding manmade CO2 emissions to the atmosphere will result in a warmer climate.
The LIA averaged no more than a -0.5 degree reduction of the average estimated global temperature versus 1990. That is based on an average of LOCAL proxies which are far from an accurate global average.
I explained in a prior comment that CO2 was only a feedback for 4.5 billion years, never a climate forcing.
CO2 changes were NOT a climate forcing before significant manmade CO2 emissions.
The CO2 OMLY as a climate feedback period would include the LIA.
CO2 increases from manmade CO2 emissions before the 1960s were too small to be observed in the global average temperature
Read posts more carefully before making comments
Are you an AGW denier, based on the fact that climate changes were 100% natural for 4.5 billion years, therefore you believe climate change now must be 100% natural? If so, you are a There is No AGW Nutter, a disease that has infected a few people here.
Once again, why is it that much larger concentrations of CO2 in the past did not lead to significant warming? While no one was around to observe or measure, the best evidence is that CO2 concentration changes markedly lagged temperature temperature changes and that during one of the 5 previous ice ages (not recent glacial cycles) occurred during much higher concentrations of CO2 that today’s atmospheric amount.
I stand by what I stated. There is a massive climate science fraud being perpetrated
by the white-coated con men who are raking in many millions of easy research dollars.
I live in British Columbia. The carbon tax is $80 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent.
There has been large increase the cost of food, for example, compared to several
years ago. Gasoline is about $7.50 a gallon.
The fraud is by the government and their completely unnecessary overreaction to CO2 emissions: aka Nut Zero.
You’ll find that most climate scientists work for the government or are supported by government grants.
Their science that CO2 emissions cause global warming is not a fraud.
Their wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis are the fraud financed by governments.
They are a fraud because long term climate predictions are not science and have never been accurate.
In 1979, the consensus claim was +0.3 degrees C. per decade global warming from CO2 emission for hundreds of years in the future.
The warming was slower at first but has been +0.3 degrees C. per decade since 2007. We can no longer claim the +0.3 degrees C. per decade prediction was fraud.
Blaming all the post-1975 warming on CO2 is not justified.
Claiming to know the climate in 100 years is the real fraud. The secondary fraud is the claim that global warming is bad news. Certainly not for Canada or for Michigan where I live.
The white-coated con men have convinced just about everybody and especially the governments of most countries that carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming. This is the outright fraud.
A substantial fraction of humans live in poverty and cannot cause AGW. Many people now live in cities and suburbs and experience the urban heat island effect. To them this seems like global warming.
Yes. Also we live in climate controlled homes, work in climate controlled offices and travel in climate controlled vehicles. Small wonder we think it’s hot out.
Contrast this with the world we grew up in. No A/C in our cars. No central air in our homes or workplaces. A remember classmates who spoke of sleeping outdoors in the summers to escape the heat.
UHI increases from economic growth ARE AGW global warming.
It also seems warmer as you age and your body mass increases: More blubber. I call that the Blubber Effect.
If you spend a lot of summertime indoors with air conditioned cool air, going outdoors in the heat seems hotter than for people who live and/or work without AC.
The easiest climate change to notice is warmer winters.
“UHI increases from economic growth ARE AGW global warming.”
But absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
And no, urban effects ARE NOT global, because they actually represent only a small percentage of the land area…. they just happen to be where most land surface measurements are made.
The best reason is that as Earth gets warmer, it emits more outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to cool itself.
I would like to believe that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, and more water vapor leads to more clouds blocking more sunlight, but have no data to prove that.
Outgoing LW radiation (OLR) initially decreases because of enhanced LW absorption by higher GHG levels; as energy accumulates in the climate system, global temperature rises and OLR increases until the TOA energy balance is restored—when OLR once again balances the net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
That’s one reason the percentage of cloudiness may be a poor proxy for the solar energy blocked by clouds. Thick clouds at noon block a lot of sunlight while clouds at night keep the planet warmer.
Not dissing Krishna, just taking the opportunity to comment on the “ high cirrus causes warming” meme….
High cirrus clouds block more LW than if they WEREN’T THERE and the LW could just get to -3 K outer space.
Saying those Cirrus clouds cause “warming”as a result is in the eye of the beholder. It’s more correct to say they provide less cooling than a view of outer space would.
We do not have a global annual average troposphere water vapor troposphere statistic based on measurements with several decades of data to spot a trend.
It is said that the global average water vapor content of the atmosphere is between one and three percent and that it varies between two and four percent.
Does that sound like a precise global annul average percentage to you?
Present a chart of global average annual absolute water vapor percentage in the troposphere for several decades, Hairy Krishna, or stop flapping your gums.
If that is too difficult, tell us the troposphere global annual average absolute water vapor percentage for 2022 in tenths of a degree C. Just two numbers separated by one decimal point. Provide a link to your source too.
Since the saturation vapor pressure of air increases with increasing temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, enhancing the moisture-holding capacity of air, the absolute humidity of air tends to increases with increasing temperature, thereby enhancing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
Any increases in surface water vapor (absolute humidity) will lead to greater warming aloft due to latent heating effects upon condensation.
We do not have any global annual average of solar energy blocked by clouds. The percentage of cloudiness measurement is a very rough proxy but does not measure the types of clouds, height of clouds and timing of clouds.
There are measurements of absolute humidity increasing in the past 40 years (and relative humidity decreasing, which was not supposed to happen)
These measurements are very rough
The main problem is the near surface humidity measurements are worse than the surface temperature measurements: The heights satellites can not measure are poorly sampled.
The dataset uses observations of temperature and humidity from ships over oceans and weather stations over land.
The Southern Hemisphere is poorly covered, especially over the oceans.
The Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS) used for direct measurements have declined significantly since a peak of around 7,700 in the 1980s to only 4,000 currently.
Surface and near surface humidity is not something that can be easily measured by satellites or drifting buoys,
In general, the H2O mixing ratio is higher over the tropics than over polar areas, higher in summer than in winter, higher over farmlands and forests than over deserts, and higher near the surface than further away from the surface; these phenomena reflect the facts that H2O evaporates faster at higher temperatures.
The water vapor positive feedback remains a mystery without an accurate annual average absolute global water vapor percentage for at least several decades.
Does atmospheric water vapor really increase 6% to 7% per each +1 degree C. of warming or is that just a theory? That would not be the first theory to bite the dust.
According to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, atmospheric water content increases by between 6 and 7% per 1 °C.
According to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, atmospheric water content increases by between 6 and 7% per 1 °C.
It has the potential to increase that amount, but there have to be sources to supply the water. Again, you are demonstrating your poor understanding of the quantitative aspects of the problem.
That’s a good analysis and a fair statement of the situation, RG. It seems from the downvotes that maybe people aren’t reading it in depth.
I would add that the IPPC stated Radiative Forcing of CO2 which is 5.35 Ln (C/Co) is a reasonably correct number from also reasonably good research…so 3.5 watts per doubling of CO2 since Ln(2)=.693. However the surface emits about 5.4 watts more IR per single degree of temp increase. Even if you multiply the 3.5 by 340/240 which is the current ratio of TOA/Ground level IR, to include for GHE, you still get a number of around 5 watts or 1 degree surface temp increase per doubling of CO2.
Extending this 1 degree to 1.2 is feasible by adding some other plausible reasons, 1.7 starts getting pretty iffy, and the 4.5 or 6.0 C scenarios, sometimes stated, are science fiction.
Skeptic scientists tend to have a range of +0.7 to +1.5 degrees C.
Consensus scientists are generally from +2.5 to +5.0 degrees C. Except the Russians at about +1.8 or +1.9 degrees C..
Climate science could be more credible if more scientists said: “we don’t know”, stopped guessing the climate in 100 years and stopped claiming global warming is bad news.
I would also like to read more funny predictions, like “Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog and Shrink Man’s Favorite Organ”
I recommend conservative climate and energy articles on my blog. If an article claims an ECS of +2.0 or more I reject it.
If CO2 emissions are what you say then why does Teledyne FLIR say this about detecting CO2?
”Because OGI cameras visualize gas as a lack of infrared energy, they can only image gases that absorb infrared radiation in the filtered bandpass: gases that don’t absorb IR in the filtered bandpass won’t be visible. For instance, noble gases such as helium, oxygen, and nitrogen cannot be directly imaged.”
Dr. Spencer will be delighted to receive another piece of “Flat Earth Science”. Not just are these considerations wrong, but then there is the very question, why anyone should take the time to explain to you how they are wrong. Essentially you ask for private coaching, without signalling you were willing to pay for it.
Your post is interesting, and accurate, but really much ado about very little. Earth is the watery planet, and its energy balance depends on, you might say is controlled by, the isothermal phase changes of water. Changing water to WV requires 540 times as much energy per gram as does changing the temperature of that gram one degree. WV is lighter than air, therefore it rises, and cools. When it reaches the local dew point, it dumps that energy, hundreds of times more than it could have absorbed on the way up, by condensing to water – or even more to ice-isothermally. Most of this energy is radiated away from Earth (space being the ideal sink.) It is unfortunate that the IPCC has focused so much attention on Temperature, particularly changes in temperature, and especially the ridiculous GAT, when so much of the earth’s climate is determined by energy flows. Temperature on the “water planet” is an inadequate measure of energy flows.
“Then the ratio of water molecules to carbon dioxide molecules would then be 80.5 to 1.”
Well Harold, at the top of the troposphere, a mere 11 km up, CO2 is 400 ppm, while water vapor is only 5 ppm. That’s 1/80, not the 80.5:1 ground level number. Reaching the right conclusion by the wrong methodology isn’t really a good debating strategy…
Better to use my debating tactic of insulting the opponent by comparing his post to a tall steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products and then comparing his ancestors with various farm animals. Followed by a Bronx Cheer.
I would note that the catalytic converter works by converting unburned hydrocarbons which include polycyclic organic matter (POM) and other hazardous air pollutants (HAP) into benign water and carbon dioxide. It may only be a matter of time before the evo-wackos demand banning catalytic converters. Of course outlawing ICEs is their first choice.
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
Cut out wind speeds are usually of the order of 25m/sec, although to avoid hysteresis in strong gusty winds there is usually a spread of speeds employed in modern wind farms to make the loss of output more gradual, and likewise its increase when the wind drops back. That’s 56mph, or Storm Force, Violent Storm Force and Hurricane . Even with a hurricane blowing through the size of the wind field that shuts down turbines is measured roughly by the 50 knot contour of the wind swath. Here’s a sample from Hurricane Idalia.
In the real world it is likely that wind farms will curtail when major storms and hurricanes blow through, simply because until they need to curtail for safety they will all be producing fairly close to maximum output, which is likely to exceed what the grid can absorb. Downed power lines are likely to reduce effective demand still further, and perhaps affect wind farm connections.
Wikipedia (no reason to doubt this) says TfL has about 50-50 diesel and diesel hybrid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emission_buses_in_London It says all the diesel have been retrofitted, but no indication that Li-ion batteries were involved.
How common is a spontaneous fire in a diesel vehicle?
It was a diesel bus but two other buses crashed that day. tt was a bad day for buses. If it was an EV bus the onlookers would not be allowed so close, Battery fire fumes are toxic. The who;e bock would have been cleared.
Batteries for buses and trailer trucks are only something only leftist politicians would want.
I talked with some electrical engineers working on auto EVs in late 2022.
They speculated on what the worst possible uses for batteries would be, even worse than an electric Ford Lightening pickup truck.
A bus on a very cold day
With a lot of passengers (weight) and
With the need for a lot of heating, especially if the doors opened frequently and let in cold air and cold passengers.
The worst location would be a hilly city like Sann Francisco.
I don’t know why that annoys the piss out of me so much.
Probably seeing such arrogance combined with such cluelessness.
strativarius
May 19, 2024 3:42 am
The scramble for Antarctica’s black gold
While Junior Minister David Rutley told the scrutinising committee that Russia has ‘repeatedly given assurances’ last week that it was only conducting science in the region, experts lambasted the idea that states like China or Russia could be trusted.
Hmm. Oil in Antarctica….we aren’t going to run out of oil anytime soon…But the cost to find it and extract and process it are going to render it uneconomic within 50 years compared to synthetic fuels, biofuels, batteries, or whatever. And at about 4-5 times the inflation adjusted present cost per km of gasoline or diesel.
Present government strategy is simply to tax it while the taxing is good, and make the economics last as long as possible with “emissions regulations”.
“Writing in The Energy Advocate, and repeated on the SEPP website, AMO physicist Howard Hayden discusses why Trenberth’s new position and those of other “popular” commentators on climate science are inconsistent with ongoing physical research. Hayden writes [emphasis in original]:
“The mission of the CERES satellite system, begun in 1997, is to measure the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) (equivalent to Trenberth’s “heating”). The project involves enormous amounts of high-precision data.
Unlike the usual reports coming from Trenberth, Schmidt, the IPCC and others, Norman Loeb’s CERES report makes no reference to CO2 whatsoever. The really important fact found in the Conclusions is:
The EEI trend is primarily associated with an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) partially offset by an increase in OLR [Outgoing longwave radiation). … Large ASR trend primarily driven by reductions in low and middle clouds.
Let us emphasize this point. The increase in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI; Trenberth’s “heating”) is due primarily to the increase in absorbed solar radiation—the difference between the sunlight incident upon the earth and the amount of reflected sunlight. Further, the solar irradiance (incident sunlight averaged over the spherical shape of the earth) increased only very slightly—from 340.14 W/m2 for 2000 to 2010 to 340.17 W/m2 for 2013-2023. The Loeb report clarifies that the change is due to the decrease in low and middle clouds. [Boldface added]
In other words, the increase in EEI is due to a decrease in albedo (less reflected sunlight), contrary to IPCC’s calculations that always show an increase in albedo.
In yet other words, the heating of our planet that we’re seeing is not due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. This conclusion of the CERES project, which was designed expressly to determine the heat imbalance of the earth and its causes, has been ignored by “climate scientists,” investigative journalists, and politicians, and will continue to be ignored.
Still, this one fact rings the death knell of the “climate crisis.” Unequivocally, it says that the worries about CO2, “carbon pollution,” “carbon emissions,” and so forth are entirely misplaced. The one fact that the warming we are experiencing is due to changing albedo—NOT CO2—means that the UN’s COPs (Conferences of Parties), the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, the restrictions on coal, oil, and natural gas, and the belief that we help “save the climate” by killing our cattle are all based on sham science.”
end excerpt
So does everyone agree this data “rings the death knell of the “climate crisis”? That the current warming is due to sunlight and clouds, and not from CO2?
If all the current warming can be attributed to cloud cover, as this CERES data says, then there is no room for CO2 warming, which must be so small as to be undetectable.
So what causes an increase or decrease in cloud cover?
I saw this quote in another article (lost the attribution):
“The inevitable increase in jet stream meridionality results in more clouds which reduces solar input to the oceans and skews the ENSO balance towards more La Ninas.The opposite when the sun is more active.”
Perhaps something like this is controlling the increase or decrease in cloud cover.
Whatever it is has to be cyclical because the Earth’s climate is cyclical and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Since that time we have had a warming into the 1880’s, a cooling into the 1910’s, a warming into the 1930’s, a cooling into the 1970’s, and a warming up to today.
So how does cloud cover do that?
It looks like it’s “Game Over!” for CO2 warming, and a CO2-based climate crisis.
I recall that a decade, or so, ago there was some discussion that “cosmic rays” influenced cloud formation by helping create nuclei for water droplet formation. If so, it seems conceivable that magnetic fields associated with sunspot activity might have a cloud formation effect on albedo that is greater than actual solar energy changes.
CERES does not claim to know exactly what causes the warming. Several possible causes are more CO2, less SO2, more water vapor and changes in cloudiness.
CERES can not determine how much mire sunlight reaches Earth’s surface is from reduced cloudiness rather than reduced air pollution
CERES can not explain how fewer clouds would cause more night warming than day warming. The expected pattern from a lower percentage of clouds would be the opposite.
The capability for deriving a reliable 3D cloud field from passive satellite measurements is limited.
Percentage of cloudiness, even if perfectly accurate, does not tell us the exact effect of cloudiness changes on incoming solar energy or outgoing radiation.
So does everyone agree this data “rings the death knell of the “climate crisis”? That the current warming is due to sunlight and clouds, and not from CO2?
I have published the included chart before on WUWT. It is based on the CERES data. It shows the sunlight has increased across most latitudes except just north of the Equator and over a small portion of Antarctica: ?ssl=1
The cause of the increase in reflected sunlight north of the equator is the more important aspect because it highlights the self-regulating nature of the temperature. The overall warming is due to gradual shift in peak solar northward that started 500 years ago and the dominance of land in the NH, which responds more to sunlight than oceans. NH oceans will get a lot warmer before the snowfall overtakes the snow melt.
The consequence of added CO2 at present level is unmeasurable. There are too many people with income dependent on the crisis for it to end until they are dead and replaced by people who benefit from calling out the nonsense like Governor DeSantis. Even if Trump wins the next presidency, he is not going to change the situation in 4 years.
“The overall warming is due to gradual shift in peak solar northward that started 500 years ago and the dominance of land in the NH, which responds more to sunlight than oceans.”
This doesn’t account for the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate since the end of the Little Ice Age. There were significant cooling periods which “gradual shift in peak solar” does not account for.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that your timeframe is too long to account for short-term changes. A gradual increase in solar energy does not tell us how decades of cooling occured since the Little Ice Age..
Columbia was overrun by anti Jewish thugs why would I accept anything from a university that is unable to tell good from evil or enforce its own policies.
News flash — antinuclear guy reposts junk studies against more nuclear power, uses fossil fueled powered electronics to post pro-renewables propaganda.
This is a classic Marxist propaganda methodology; post junk on the internet then use said junk to support a fabricated theory, post theory enough times using said posted junk then pretty soon no one cares because it meets the 97% fabrication.
You know, it would be great if articles like this would actually articulate the temperatures which are causing the “problem”, much less quantify the change.
The all change is bad mentality is just plain worn out: https://phys.org/news/2024-05-affecting-arctic-phytoplankton.amp
In the Arctic region, due to a decrease from extreme high levels of sea ice, sea life is rebounding very fast.
Phytoplackton is increasing rapidly , allowing sea creatures to return that haven’t been seen since the start of the cooling into the LIA.
Life up there does not need extreme amounts of sea ice..
Levels are still in the top 5% or so of the last 10,000 years.
iflyjetzzz
May 20, 2024 5:56 am
I like that I’m seeing more articles and comments on the silliness of the concept that the Earth is too warm. The Earth is in an Ice Age (interglacial period).
Our temperature records go back only around 145 years. The Earth is 4.543 billion years old. If one were to adjust the Earth’s age to 100 years (putting it in terms of human lifespan), the last 145 years would equate to a little less than 2 seconds. That is a laughably short time to determine what is ‘normal’ temperature for the Earth.
The Earth’s temperature for the last 150+ years is below its long term average temperature, so anything stating the Earth is getting too warm is ignoring science
I thought it might be interesting to look at how the GB grid performed hour by hour in 2023. The charts that follow display a month at a time at hourly resolution and include all metered sources except grid batteries, interconnector flows and pumped storage. These charts display the data in descending day ahead price order for the month, rather than in chronological sequence. This allows operational configurations to be seen more clearly, and the impact of price on output and of demand on price. They help offer insights to the future as the attempts to increase renewables are pursued.
Start with Jan 2023. Click on chart for enlarged version. At the left hand end we see the highest prices, reaching up to £250/MWh, with output dominated by CCGT, demand a fairly high levels (albeit not quite the highest), some reduction in nuclear output, but biomass and coal running around capacity, next to no solar and little wind. Exports are confined to small amounts to Ireland, which would be facing a similar predicament. Imports are variable, but clearly typically less than in slightly less stressed market conditions. Pumped storage helps meet demand peaks.
At the other end of the chart the picture is dominated by wind and low demand. Not shown (because I do not have the data at this resolution) is that there is also quite extensive curtailment. At the lower prices exports replace imports (even Norwegian hydro gets backed out) and biomass cuts back to only the most heavily subsidised units while coal shuts down. CCGT runs are sharply lower, mainly to help provide grid stability which is also aided by pumping for grid storage taking advantage of low prices.
As overall demand starts to drop across Europe in March imports become more persistent, reducing CCGT output. Solar also starts to eat into CCGT runs. However, wind still requires extensive backup.
Amendment 28
Section 1
Congress shall make no law to regulate,
tax, sequester or license atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
The right of the people to freely emit
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from
any source, from any place at any time
in any amount shall not be interfered with.
Section 2
All activity commercial or private within
the United States and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for the purposes
of altering climate is prohibited.
The Congress and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
Hold on. John Kerry says that we must curtail agriculture otherwise up to 600 million will starve.
Thank you the reminder, I’ll have to somehow ad Nitrous Oxide N2O to the 28th amendment.
I think he exempted tomatoes, though.
Add to the amendment that electric grids must be powered by fuels that provide adequate, reliable dispatchable, power at afordable cost.
Air Heads…
Harry and Meghan Markle flown for free ‘by airline boss who is wanted US fugitive’
Onyema is alleged to have been ‘using his status as a prominent business leader and airline executive to launder more than $20million from Nigeria through US bank accounts’, in the indictment, reported the Mail.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-markle-flown-free-32842132
If it’s free they’ll be there.
Ah! “Entitlement syndrome”.
You’re being too kind
I find it interesting the incumbent in Buck House, so beloved by the extreme left is the very same person they were trying to abolish before his dear departed mother passed away.
If only Anne had gotten a chance.
So that’s who keeps sending me those emails wanting me to park his $millions in my bank account, as soon as I give him my routing and bank account numbers. 🙂
This afternoon I sent the following email to Dr. Roy Spencer the following email entitled “Climate Science Fraud”
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Please use Google to obtain the essay “Climate Change Reexamined” by
Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free.
In Figure 7 (page 435) is shown the infrared (IR) absorption spectrum of a sample
of Philadelphia city air from 400 to 4,000 wavenumbers (WNS). Integration of the spectrum determined that water absorbed 92% of the IR light and carbon dioxide
only 8% of the IR light. The wavenumber scale is linear in energy and spans an
order of magnitude in energy. Thus, water is absorbing much more IR energy
than carbon dioxide.
Below 1,000 WNS, water and carbon dioxide are absorbing IR emanating from the
earth’s surface. Above 1,250 WNS, water and carbon dioxide are absorbing IR from
incoming sunlight. About 40% of sunlight is IR light. It is the absorption of this IR light
that cause heating of the air and global warming. In deserts there is very low humidity and this allows most all of the IR light to strike the surface which under goes rapid heating to high temperature.
In 1999, the concentration of carbon dioxide at the MLO was 367 ppmv for dry air
or 0.721 grams per cubic meter of air. At 28 deg. C and 76% RH, the concentration
of water was 29,549 ppmv or 23.7 grams per cubic meter in the city air. Assume
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the city air was about 367 ppmv. Then the
ratio of water molecules to carbon dioxide molecules would then be 80.5 to 1.
Water is the major greenhouse gas by far and carbon dioxide is a very minor
greenhouse gas. Consequently, we don’t have to worry about carbon dioxide.
On the basis of Kauffman’s essay and the above analysis, I have concluded that
there is coterie of climate scientists who have been perpetrating a great scientific
fraud for decades by claiming that carbon dioxide is the cause of recent global
warming. Their motive is “easy” money for their reasearch on global warming and
climate change. There just too little carbon dioxide in the air to cause global warming.
In 1972, The Clean Air Act was passed in the US. Since then there has been a substantial reduction in air pollution. The catalytic converter has greatly reduced air pollution from cars. Since the air is now much cleaner, more sunlight can reach the earth’s surface and cause warming of air.
Sincerely Yours,
Harold D. Pierce, Jr. B.Sc.(Hon), Ph.D.
P.S.: I am a retired organic chemist.
Should we be worrying about water vapour and what could we do about it?
Nah
We need to talk about water – and the fact that the world is running out of it
George Monbiot.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/water-world-run-out-planet-hotter-looming-crisis
Why on earth (no pun intended) should we worry about water vapour? It warms the planet, helps to keep plants alive, and AFIAK there is absolutely nothing that it does which is harmful to plants, animals or humans.
I am seriously worried about an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus landing their UFOs in Washington DC and demanding to see our leader. When we claim Joe Bribe’em is our leader, they will get angry and destroy our planet with a death ray. Or even worse, Joe Bribe’em will get reelected in November.
Trump would try to make a deal with them. Maybe a golf course on Uranus? Of course Trump wouldn’t know that Uranus isn’t a great place for golf course. Maybe a new Trump Tower? 🙂
We don’t worry about water vapor. Rain storms are what we worry about especially if they can cause flooding.
No, the vertical temperature profile (lapse rate) of the troposphere is such that any additional water vapor humans add to the atmosphere simply condenses at higher altitudes along with water vapor from natural evaporation, and insignificantly adds to the rainfall that already occurs.
more water vapor in the atmosphere reduces cooling effectiveness of human body’s main cooling mechanism.
Your statement reminds me. One of the short comings of the human cooling system is easily explained by the AAT. However, AAT is eschewed by most evolutionists. I happen to like the theory.
the AAT is too obscure to be found by any simple search engine.
Aquatic Ape Theory.
no wonder it is so obscure
They used to teach the “Savanna Theory of Bipedalism” which turns out to be complete fantasy.
This has always been in my thoughts.
Some, if not all, warming has to be due to less air pollution worldwide, not just in the USA.
CO2 is the control knob of climate, not some hair brained idea that a simple thing as catalytic converters or electro static scrubbers in coal fired power plants or some other minor factors. Here’s a quote for you:
For every complex problem there is an answer that
is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
It’s going to take wind turbines, solar panels and carbon sequestering programs to remedy the “Climate Crisis” that is growing day by day
/s
You had me there for a brief moment, mate.
Yuh, I envisioned some oil company bought him. 🙂
The fact that CO2 was not a direct cause of climate change for 4.5 billion years (before manmade COI2 emissions), when CO2 was only a feedback, is used as propaganda by conservative Nutters.
They claim CO2 is only a feedback, and that factoid is “proof” that manmade CO2 emissions can not cause global warming (not a climate forcing).
There are many conservative climate science Nutters, spouting a variety of climate myths: I called them Mixed Nutters.
speaking of nutters . . .
The fact that CO2 did not do something for 4.5 billion years does not mean that it didn’t suddenly start doing it in the last century…
Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for 4.5 billion years.
The last 50 years is the first time that sequestered underground oil / gas / coal carbon was recycled nack into the atmosphere.
The warming rate since 1975 is among the fastest warming rates for 50 year periods in the 800,000 year ice core era.
So what? If that is even true rather than an artifact of temporal resolution limits on ice core data, warming as well as atmospheric CO2 are both beneficial to human flourishing.
The decay rate of your brain is increasing exponentially.
Here, have another nut.
CO2 is doing today what it has always done. It generates a minor positive feedback which is resisted by emergent negative feedback(s).
Just because we have, over the course of centuries, managed to artificially enhance CO2 by about 0.014%, doesn’t change much of anything.
Empirical analysis (Curry and Lewis for example) puts this minor effect at a beneficial ~2°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.
We don’t have enough economically extractable fossil fuel remaining to conceivably redouble CO2, yet the putative 4°C of warming from such an impossible scenario would almost certainly continue to be wholly beneficial.
So why was it again that we are dismantling our civilization over this?
Oh dear.. !! Imagination run rife again !!
Mr. Greene apparently doesn’t like CO2. According to the IPCC, CO2 is the weakest of all greenhouse gases. They assign “1” to it. All other greenhouse gases have a higher GWP. And two major greenhouse gases, water vapor and ozone, don’t even appear in GWP definitions. Leaving water vapor out is complete nonsense–it’s our number-one GHG.
I missed the /s. Nice.
Attn: Steve Case
CO2 is no “control knob” of climate because there is too little of it in the air. How often do I have to repeat this before your understand that water the major greenhouse gas.
reread Steve’s post
Here’s a YouTube of Dr. Richard B. Alley telling us that CO2 is the biggest control knob in Earths history. It came up on a short Google search on:
“Why is CO2 the control knob for climate change”
Professor Alley has a very animated but annoying speaking style. I’m sure you will enjoy it (-:
There are enough climate control knobs in academia
No climate knobs in academia,
just climate screws, nuts and bolts.
“There are enough climate control
knobssnobs in academia”fixed it
In the UK “knob” is a slang name for part of the male anatomy.
Which reminds me of one my favorite YouTube channels- “Lost in the Pond” about a Brit who moves to the American Midwest and comments about the differences between the UK and America. In a funny way.
I switched to Brave Search and search results are quite a bit better, although there is so much disinformation regarding CO2 on the internet. The internet is getting worse and worse because more and more misinformation is being uploaded to it and the search engines can’t manage it.
Hmm. I just now used Brave Search to look for search engines allowing the use of the search proximity operator and got the following AI answer:
“Some web search engines that support proximity search via an explicit proximity operator in their query language include:
Additionally, Google allows proximity searching using the “AROUND” operator, which specifies the maximum number of words that can appear between two search terms.”
I then used Brave Search again to find Altavista, and the first hit was from Wikipedia:
“AltaVista – Wikipedia
5 days ago – AltaVista was a Web search engine established in 1995. It became one of the most-used early search engines, but lost ground to Google and was purchased by Yahoo! in 2003, which retained the brand, but based all AltaVista searches on its own search engine. On July 8, 2013, the service was shut …”
And pay special attention to the bottom center. If you don’t know what “/s” means, ask.
Thanks, I missed it.
At 1000X today’s concentration it would be a problem. How would people breath if what they had available to inhale was equal to what they are exhaling? At 100X today’s concentration there would most likely be little difference in the world to notice. Would forest fires burn less rapidly?
Forest fires produce lots of CO2. There was record number of fires in the US
and Canada last year. In BC, where I live, 5 million acres were burned.
This year in BC, there are 121 forest fires so far.
Yes, everyone except government climate bureaucrats know that forest fires produce CO2 but that has nothing to do with my question.
How does CPR work if there’s no oxygen in what we exhale?
Transmission effects are huge, 60’s 80’s and 90’s Agung, El-Chichon, Pinatubo mired with volcanics. El-Chichon canceled 2 El-Nino’s. Pinatubo likely canceled the effects of a strong solar max. Transmission had been trending u, until the Australian brushfires in 2019 – 2020.
The biggest mystery to me is why during the mid / late 70’s climate shift, why did Transmission reach a record high?
Transmission of decent quality comedy programs or something else?
Those dam catalytic converters- there are 2 on my Toyota Tacoma- and when they fail, they are extremely expensive to replace. Many are stolen.
Funny, sort of, saw a YouTube video- a criminal was trying to steal one from a car that he thought had nobody in it. The driver was asleep and sunk below visibility. He heard a noise under his car, started the engine, and drove off- running over the thief.
Harold,
It is not just the physical WV to CO2 molecule ratio, but also WV molecules have more windows that are wider than CO2 molecules.
CO2 molecules mainly absorb 15 micron photons, which are only 7% of all photons.
The other windows of CO2 are at shorter wavelengths, but IR photons at those wavelengths are only a fraction of a percent of all photons
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
Photons are packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f = h x c/λ
h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant; c, 3 x 10^8 meter, speed of light in vacuum; λ, wavelength
wavenumber = cm/15 μm wavelength = 10000 x 10^-6 /15 x 10^-6 = 666.7
E of 15 μm IR photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule
1 J = 1/(1.325 x 10^-20 photons)
E of 0.55 μm green photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(0.55 x 10^-6) = 36.136 x 10^-20 J
1 J = (1/(36.136 x 10^-20 photons)
Photons of the green color have 15/0.55 = 27.27 times more energy than 15 micron photons
.
Molecules, Photons, Total Extinction
Excerpt from article by Dr. Cyril Huijsmans, a Dutch Research Scientist Retired from Shell
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
.
C.7.1, CO2
Radiation, E, emitted by the earth at 15 μm wavelength, and line width of 2 μm, is 0.0042 W/cm2 C.6.3
Photon energy, per Planck is E = hc/λ C.7.1
E = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule
Photons emitted is 0.0042/(1.325 x 10^-20) = 3.17 x 10^17 per cm^2, per second.
At sea level, at 288 K, air density at 1.223 kg/m^3, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1.012 x 10^22 per m^3
.
Dr. Heinz Hug performed absorption measurements of IR at 15 μm in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% (26000 ppm) WV, and air. See URL
Hug calculated a total absorption distance of about 10 meter
Time frame for absorption is 10/(3 x 10^8) = 3.333 x 10^-8 second, or 0.0333 microsecond.
In such a timeframe, emitted photons is 3.17 x 10^17 x 0.0333 x 10 ^-6 = 1.0556 x 10^10
In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 m high, for extinction, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1 x 10^19
CO2 molecule to photon ratio, for extinction, is (1 x 10^19)/(1.0556 x 10^10) = 9.47 x 10^8
.
In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 80 km high, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 8.28 x 10^21
Fraction of CO2 molecules participating in extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(8.28 x 10^21) = 0.0012, or 0.12%
This is independent of the way the excitation energy is dissipated, be-it by collisions or by radiation.
IR photons, with all wavelengths, collide with all molecules and cloud particulates, except photons, with appropriate wavelengths, are absorbed in every collision with WV and CO2 molecules. The photon energy is converted to heat. The warmed WV and CO2 molecules re-emit the photon energy as thermal radiation.
,
C.7.2, WV
WV is the most dominant greenhouse gas.
Above about 10 km, WV ppm is near zero.
Average concentration of WV in the TS is about 0.4% volume, or 4000 ppm.
With average WV density of 0.6 kg/m^3, in a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 km high, WV molecules is (volume x density/mol wgt.) x number of Avogadro x concentration, or 600 kg/29 x (6 x 10^23) x (4000 x 10^-6) = 4.96 x 10^22 molecules
.
In 150 m there is full extinction of BB radiation. It sets a time frame of 0.5 microsecond
A column of air, 1 cm^3 and 150 m high, at 288 K, at 10^5 Pa, at ρ = 1.223 kg/m3, contains 0.0183 kg air.
Air molecules is (18.3/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 3.79 x 10^23 C.1 and C.2
At 4000 ppm, within 150 m, WV molecules is (4000 x 10^-6) x (3.79 x 10^23) = 1.516 x 10^21
WV molecules participating in full extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(4.96 x 10^22) = 0.305 x 10^-1 = 0.0305, or 3%.
.
Average wavelength in BB radiation is about 15.4 μm
Energy of average photon is E = hc/λ = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15.4 x 10^-6) = 1.291 x 10^-20 Joule
Total BB radiation is 0.0459 W/cm^2 C.6.6
Photon flux is 0.0459/(1.291 x 10^-20) = 3.56 x 10^18 per cm^2, per second
Photon extinction, within 150 m, timeframe 0.5 microsecond, is (0.5 x 10^-6) x (3.56 x 10^18) = 1.78 x 10^12 photons
WV molecule to photon ratio, for extinction, is (1.516 x 10^21)/(1.78 x 10^12) = 8.51 x 10^8
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
My message is quite simple. Water is the major greenhouse gas and CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas, and we don’t have to worry about it’
Quite simple is correct, except you overstate the CO2 role by about 10 times
Based on retained energy in the atmosphere the CO2 role was about 0.51% in 1900, and 0.68% in 2023.
.
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water.
Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.
The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact.
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax.
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
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, enthalpy of moist air, at 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
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at 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
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air.
.
RE In 2023; 16 C; 421 ppm CO2; 4028 ppm WV
World: (16.10 + 6.33 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 116,262 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.3%, 28% and 0.68% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 41.1
Tropics: (27.16 + 43.36 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,765 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.4%, 61.4% and 0.22% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 281.6
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
.
RE in 1900; 14.8 C; 296 ppm CO2; 3689 ppm VW
World: (14.89 + 5.79 + 0.106) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 106,594 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.5%, 28% and 0.51% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 54.7
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.091, a 9,668 EJ increase
“Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900,”
The average temperature in 1900 is unknown but was certainly under 15 degrees C. The average temperature now is not 16 degrees C. You are making up numbers for hypothetical claptrap.
Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2
At the bottom of the WUWT header page it says the average of 67,000 weather stations across the world was 14.62 C only a few minutes ago. This average should be biased high because of the rather few stations in polar regions. So why would one assume 14.8 C in 1900 and 16 C today ? How many and where were the stations such a claim is based on ? Wilpost making stuff up, and RG just being argumentative ?
“average of 67,000 weather stations across the world was 14.62 C only a few minutes ago.”
This is a nonsense number.
They are all and weather stations
Earth is 71% water
And they are not properly gridded so are not even an accurate global land average.
Attn: Will Post
Are a you a chemist or physicist? Did you download and read Kauffman’s essay?
I dabbled in energy and economics aspects of engineering and physics since 1963
I will be 80 years old on Aug. 1. My chemical intuition tells me that there is something not quite right about all this global warming and climate change claims by the scientist.
50 years working in forests in Wokeachusetts tells me there is NO climate emergency- yet that’s what the state preaches every day by every single state agency- all agencies must incorporate the cult
“Dr. Heinz Hug performed absorption measurements of IR at 15 μm in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% (26000 ppm) WV, and air.”
The percentage of water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C (-44 °F) to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F).
Water vapor is a condensing gas, so can not build up in the atmosphere. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere has a residence time averaging about two weeks before the extra water falls back to earth as rain and snow/
When CO2 causes atmospheric warming, the percentage of water vapor the atmosphere holds rises and amplifies the warming effect of CO2 alone. There is much debate and a HUGE range of guesses about that water vapor positive feedback. Obviously, no one knows the right answer.
In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapor than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. The term greenhouse was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.
However,. I like Heinz ketchup.
‘Water vapor is a condensing gas…’
Which makes it the main working fluid maintaining thermal stasis around whatever set point the Earth’s climate system is currently operating. (Note, your refrigerator or similar heat transporting appliances wouldn’t work very well if their refrigerants didn’t condense.)
’…so can not build up in the atmosphere.’
I’d be willing to bet that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies considerably between the ‘icehouse’ and ‘greenhouse’ states of the Earth’s climate system.
BTW, CO2 is also a condensing gas, just not under conditions that are commonly found on Earth. It does play a role in radiant heat transport, but the extent of that role was effectively maxed out at concentrations well below pre-industrial levels.
“It (CO2) does play a role in radiant heat transport, but the extent of that role was effectively maxed out at concentrations well below pre-industrial levels.”
The CO2 is saturated myth is total BS.
I had to write an article on the subject for my blog because there were so many CO2 is Saturated Nutters.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: The Greenhouse Effect: The CO2 is Saturated Myth
I said ‘effectively’, Richard. The net feedbacks have to be negative, otherwise none of us would be here.
Absolute water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing for 40 years but the measurements are very rough.
Countering that, OLR is also increasing and evaporation is increasing (causing more water vapor in the atmosphere.)
There appears to be a positive water vapor feedback but it obviously has limits.
Possible offsets are more OLR, more evaporation and more clouds. There is some evidence that these offsets lag the warming from higher absolute (aka specific) water vapor.
There is no positive water vapor feedback. If there were, there would be a runaway greenhouse effect.
Once again your view is based on an incomplete picture. Water vapor low in the atmosphere is saturated (there’s that important word again). Doesn’t matter how much it increases. High in the troposphere is where it is no longer saturated and also where the humidity is dropping.
That’s why WV is cooling the planet.
More water vapor AND increasing OLR? Doesn’t sound too much like ‘enhanced’ greenhouse, does it?
Thank you for your link. You have confirmed my suspicions: you don’t really understand the science you presume to write about. I think that the problem is that you only understand at a qualitative level, lacking the quantitative understanding. You cite the logarithmic relationship, but obviously don’t understand that the absorption limitation is determined by that, and that alone. That is, once there is negligible transmission of out-going IR, there is a negligible impact and even doubling the CO2 concentration will not allow absorption of what isn’t present.
My article explained the science that you do not know and will never know.
A common conservative Nutter belief is 3that CO2 above 300pp, or 250ppm, has n more warming effect.
Lab measurements since 1896 do not show that.
Happer and Lindzen do not claim that.
There is no grand worldwide conspiracy of scientists since 1896 covering up the factoid that CO2 has no warming effect above 350 ppm. Yet that is what CO2 Saturation Nutters imply.
CO2 does have a continually increasing ability to absorb IR via pressure broadening. But that’s not all. It also drives evaporation which leads to cooling. After about ~100 ppm the two processes are about equal.
So, now you are claiming the ability to predict the future. That sure isn’t science. You don’t even understand when you are being illogical.
Great to know you’re smarter than Prof. Happer. 🙂
His insufferable arrogance makes him “thinks” he is smarter…
… but RG thinks many things that just are not so. !
Has been asked many times to produce empirical evidence of CO2 warming.. but has failed every time.
The warming effect of increased CO2, if there is any, is so small that it has never been observed or measured, anywhere on the planet.
It is totally swamped by WV, cloud effects and by many other causes of warming.
BeStupid as usual
So, no counter and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
How expected. !
Happer and Lindzen publish estimates of the e warming effects (AGW) of CO2 doubling
They do not deny AGW.
They have low estimates of the effects of CO2 doubling (not zero) but that does not make them right.
There estimate is based on radiative theory only.
And it is so tiny that it would be immeasurable vs normal temperature variability and solar warming and El Nino events etc etc..
Still waiting for your empirical evidence… and waiting… and waiting.
So, writing an article about something you don’t understand is going to convince people your view is correct??? LOL
BTW, your explanation was simple and wrong. Why? Because the flow of energy is more complex than you realize.
However, it is continually being replenished by evaporation, transpiration, and even sublimation, meaning that its impact never disappears. Furthermore, as it warms, the amount that the atmosphere can hold increases, contributing to more warming.
In a similar manner, CO2 is extracted by dissolving in water as the atmospheric partial pressure increases, and also contributes to greening, which further buffers the increase with more vegetation.
The forcing variables can’t be handled in isolation. They have to be handled as an interacting, complex, dynamic system.
“Obviously, no one knows the right answer.”
But… but… they scream “the science is settled”.
Settled science is the hoax along with the claim of being able to predict the climate in 100 years, and also claiming the climate can only get worse, never better.
Recently I read a paper, a scientific publication paper, not an article about the work. The person measured IR absorption by CO2 in two bands relevant to greenhouse theory under Earth conditions. If I understood well enough, the equipment consisted of the IR source and an IR detector to measure IR transmission relative to the IR source. In between the two was a vessel of some material (some glass, I think) transparent to the relevant IR frequencies. Measurements were made with various amounts of CO2 in the vessel.
Basically the results showed that as CO2 amount increased, IR transmission reduced but that was only at low concentrations of CO2. On both bands the rate of absorption (known in IR minus measured out IR) quickly flat lined. Adding more CO2 no longer reduced IR out. This appears to validate the saturated absorption hypothesis.
Of course the experiment needs to be evaluated by people who understand enough to detect flaws, if any, in the reasoning, and needs to be replicated by unbiased repetition and possibly other types of measurement. However, my main concern at the moment is that I cannot find the paper. I was certain I had book marked or downloaded it but it seems I was mistaken. It seems to me I read this within the most recent month but it could have been a little longer. However, while not my impression, it is possible that the paper was significantly older. Can anyone provide a link?
What you are describing sounds just like the IR spectroscope gas cells that I used many years ago. It was a split beam spectroscope that passed the beams through parallel paths in which the cells were placed. One was the reference cell, and the other was flushed with the gas of interest. The cells had largely IR transparent windows made from CaF2 salt and a path length of about 6 inches. There was a large triangular salt crystal that was rotated by a stepper motor, which swept through the spectrum from 3-15 μ. The reference cell could be evacuated.
But you can also refer to the work of Wijngaarden and Happer (or earlier work by e.g. Herman Harde at less resolution) which calculates what should happen for any given gas composition, temperature and pressure, and then assembles the overall picture for a given atmospheric column from sea level to the top of the atmosphere layer by layer.
“I have concluded that
there is coterie of climate scientists who have been perpetrating a great scientific fraud for decades by claiming that carbon dioxide is THE cause of recent global warming.”
It is not a fraud to claim CO2 emissions are ONE cause of global warming after 1975
It is a fraud to claim CO2 is THE cause.
The fact that water vapor is the primary source of the greenhouse effect is known by anyone interested in climate science. Clouds are number two. But water vapor is a dependent variable — a feedback correlated with the average temperature of the troposphere.
It is claimed that a CO2 warmed troposphere will hold more water vapor and have fewer clouds, which seems like a contradiction.
Measurements of global annual average water vapor and the amount of sunlight blocked by clouds do not exist.
That the changes in water vapor as a feedback and changes of cloudiness are a mystery.
The alleged feedbacks could make a big difference.
The warming effect of CO2 alone does not get much debate and does not need much debate.
You seem to be missing the fact that water vapor changed are NOT a direct cause of warming — they are a feedback.
The reduction of air pollution is not a good explanation for the majority of warming, which is TMIN (typically at or just after dawn).
In the past 127 years there has been zero evidence that lab infrared spectroscopy measurements of CO2 were deceptive as a proxy for the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The predictions of rising global average temperatures since the 1970s have come true.
The 1979 consensus claim of +0.3 degrees C. per decade global warming, called catastrophic by many people, actually started in 2007.
The stratosphere cooled, the opposite of the effect from increased solar energy
Top of the atmosphere solar energy declined slightly since the late 1970s which can not cause any global warming.
Most of Antarctica got cooler, a symptom of rising greenhouse gases, causing a negative greenhouse effect when there is a permanent temperature inversion.
The Arctic warming was only in the coldest six months of the year, with little sunshine.
The warming was mainly TMIN rather than TMAX
The warming was mainly in colder nations rather than in the tropics
The pattern and timing of mst warming after 1975 resembled greenhouse gas warming rather than solar energy warming.
Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia as the poster child of post-1975 greenhouse warming.
There is evidence of more solar energy reaching the ground. That would most affect TMAX temperatures. One cause is a reduction of manmade SO2 emissions (air pollution) Another possible cause is a small decline in the percentage of cloudiness (but not large enough to be statistically significant for the very rough estimate)
The two choices for causes of warming after 1975 are:
(1) Manmade, and
(2) Natural
Most of the evidence supports manmade causes rather than natural causes.
If you are undecided, that means you are dismissing the evidence available.
That is not as bad as a denier, who claims science can’t prove AGW, therefore AGW is a hoax.
Science does not prove anything
Science collects evidence
There is zero evidence that changes of the sun itself have had any measurable effect (not even 0.1 degree C.) on the global average temperature in recent centuries.
The claim of AGW from manmade CO2 emissions is not only from lab measurements.
Those measurement do help estimate the modest warming effect of CO2 doubling in the atmosphere.
But they are far from being the only evidence that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. And that adding manmade CO2 emissions to the atmosphere will result in a warmer climate.
The LIA was caused by a sudden decline in CO2. Then CO2 came back and the world warmed for the next 300+ years. Right?
The LIA averaged no more than a -0.5 degree reduction of the average estimated global temperature versus 1990. That is based on an average of LOCAL proxies which are far from an accurate global average.
I explained in a prior comment that CO2 was only a feedback for 4.5 billion years, never a climate forcing.
CO2 changes were NOT a climate forcing before significant manmade CO2 emissions.
The CO2 OMLY as a climate feedback period would include the LIA.
CO2 increases from manmade CO2 emissions before the 1960s were too small to be observed in the global average temperature
Read posts more carefully before making comments
Are you an AGW denier, based on the fact that climate changes were 100% natural for 4.5 billion years, therefore you believe climate change now must be 100% natural? If so, you are a There is No AGW Nutter, a disease that has infected a few people here.
That isn’t what the climate alarmists claim. In particular, they point to events like the PETM as being a result of a sudden surge of CO2.
Humans are natural.
Yet somehow significantly different than every other know natural thing.
True, the ultimate mystery.
“CO2 changes were NOT a climate forcing before significant manmade CO2 emissions.”
And yet, “unadjusted” temperature data shows a very strong warming up to 1940.
Fail !
Once again, why is it that much larger concentrations of CO2 in the past did not lead to significant warming? While no one was around to observe or measure, the best evidence is that CO2 concentration changes markedly lagged temperature temperature changes and that during one of the 5 previous ice ages (not recent glacial cycles) occurred during much higher concentrations of CO2 that today’s atmospheric amount.
And in the Vostok cores, peak CO2 was ALWAYS just after the start of cooling trends.
Peak CO2 could not maintain the temperature.
I stand by what I stated. There is a massive climate science fraud being perpetrated
by the white-coated con men who are raking in many millions of easy research dollars.
I live in British Columbia. The carbon tax is $80 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent.
There has been large increase the cost of food, for example, compared to several
years ago. Gasoline is about $7.50 a gallon.
The fraud is by the government and their completely unnecessary overreaction to CO2 emissions: aka Nut Zero.
You’ll find that most climate scientists work for the government or are supported by government grants.
Their science that CO2 emissions cause global warming is not a fraud.
Their wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis are the fraud financed by governments.
They are a fraud because long term climate predictions are not science and have never been accurate.
In 1979, the consensus claim was +0.3 degrees C. per decade global warming from CO2 emission for hundreds of years in the future.
The warming was slower at first but has been +0.3 degrees C. per decade since 2007. We can no longer claim the +0.3 degrees C. per decade prediction was fraud.
Blaming all the post-1975 warming on CO2 is not justified.
Claiming to know the climate in 100 years is the real fraud. The secondary fraud is the claim that global warming is bad news. Certainly not for Canada or for Michigan where I live.
Fidel TrueDope is bad news for Cubanada.
Global warming is great news for Canada.
“Their science that CO2 emissions cause global warming is not a fraud.”
It’s a fraud when they imply it’s the main cause.
The white-coated con men have convinced just about everybody and especially the governments of most countries that carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming. This is the outright fraud.
A substantial fraction of humans live in poverty and cannot cause AGW. Many people now live in cities and suburbs and experience the urban heat island effect. To them this seems like global warming.
Yes. Also we live in climate controlled homes, work in climate controlled offices and travel in climate controlled vehicles. Small wonder we think it’s hot out.
Contrast this with the world we grew up in. No A/C in our cars. No central air in our homes or workplaces. A remember classmates who spoke of sleeping outdoors in the summers to escape the heat.
You must be an old guy like me. I remember all of that.
UHI increases from economic growth ARE AGW global warming.
It also seems warmer as you age and your body mass increases: More blubber. I call that the Blubber Effect.
If you spend a lot of summertime indoors with air conditioned cool air, going outdoors in the heat seems hotter than for people who live and/or work without AC.
The easiest climate change to notice is warmer winters.
“The easiest climate change to notice is warmer winters.”
Surely nothing to panic over- something to like, in fact.
“UHI increases from economic growth ARE AGW global warming.”
But absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
And no, urban effects ARE NOT global, because they actually represent only a small percentage of the land area…. they just happen to be where most land surface measurements are made.
How do UHI changes affect 71% of the planet that is oceans measured from satellites?
They don’t.
Solar warming does.
Oceans have only warmed at El Nino events.
Even you aren’t stupid enough to think human CO2 can warm the oceans and cause EL Nino events……. or are you !!
UHI only effects the small percentage of land surface that is urban. (just happens to be most of the land surface data).
About 70% the earth is covered with water, but there is no runaway greenhouse effect. Do you no why?
The best reason is that as Earth gets warmer, it emits more outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to cool itself.
I would like to believe that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, and more water vapor leads to more clouds blocking more sunlight, but have no data to prove that.
Outgoing LW radiation (OLR) initially decreases because of enhanced LW absorption by higher GHG levels; as energy accumulates in the climate system, global temperature rises and OLR increases until the TOA energy balance is restored—when OLR once again balances the net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
You know there are a lot of different clouds at different hights, not all block sunlight, frozen cirrus block LW radiaton, f.e.
That’s one reason the percentage of cloudiness may be a poor proxy for the solar energy blocked by clouds. Thick clouds at noon block a lot of sunlight while clouds at night keep the planet warmer.
may be.. RG speculation…….. in fact, it almost certainly is.
Not dissing Krishna, just taking the opportunity to comment on the “ high cirrus causes warming” meme….
High cirrus clouds block more LW than if they WEREN’T THERE and the LW could just get to -3 K outer space.
Saying those Cirrus clouds cause “warming”as a result is in the eye of the beholder. It’s more correct to say they provide less cooling than a view of outer space would.
Measurements of global annual average water vapor and the amount of sunlight blocked by clouds do not exist.
Rel. Humidity at 300mb measurements exist.
Spec. Humidity at 300mb measurements exist, both timeseries start in Jan, 48 !
What are you telling ?
We do not have a global annual average troposphere water vapor troposphere statistic based on measurements with several decades of data to spot a trend.
It is said that the global average water vapor content of the atmosphere is between one and three percent and that it varies between two and four percent.
Does that sound like a precise global annul average percentage to you?
Present a chart of global average annual absolute water vapor percentage in the troposphere for several decades, Hairy Krishna, or stop flapping your gums.
If that is too difficult, tell us the troposphere global annual average absolute water vapor percentage for 2022 in tenths of a degree C. Just two numbers separated by one decimal point. Provide a link to your source too.
Since the saturation vapor pressure of air increases with increasing temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, enhancing the moisture-holding capacity of air, the absolute humidity of air tends to increases with increasing temperature, thereby enhancing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
Any increases in surface water vapor (absolute humidity) will lead to greater warming aloft due to latent heating effects upon condensation.
We do not have any global annual average of solar energy blocked by clouds. The percentage of cloudiness measurement is a very rough proxy but does not measure the types of clouds, height of clouds and timing of clouds.
I gave you 2 links for rel. and spec. humidity at 300mb. You may or may not have a look.
Spec. Hum.
And rel.hum.
There are measurements of absolute humidity increasing in the past 40 years (and relative humidity decreasing, which was not supposed to happen)
These measurements are very rough
The main problem is the near surface humidity measurements are worse than the surface temperature measurements: The heights satellites can not measure are poorly sampled.
The dataset uses observations of temperature and humidity from ships over oceans and weather stations over land.
The Southern Hemisphere is poorly covered, especially over the oceans.
The Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS) used for direct measurements have declined significantly since a peak of around 7,700 in the 1980s to only 4,000 currently.
Surface and near surface humidity is not something that can be easily measured by satellites or drifting buoys,
In general, the H2O mixing ratio is higher over the tropics than over polar areas, higher in summer than in winter, higher over farmlands and forests than over deserts, and higher near the surface than further away from the surface; these phenomena reflect the facts that H2O evaporates faster at higher temperatures.
The water vapor positive feedback remains a mystery without an accurate annual average absolute global water vapor percentage for at least several decades.
Does atmospheric water vapor really increase 6% to 7% per each +1 degree C. of warming or is that just a theory? That would not be the first theory to bite the dust.
According to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, atmospheric water content increases by between 6 and 7% per 1 °C.
They totally trump any measurement you have NEVER produced.
Heh, heh, heh!
A lot of BS as answer to be proven wrong with you statement of not existing measurements of humidity
It has the potential to increase that amount, but there have to be sources to supply the water. Again, you are demonstrating your poor understanding of the quantitative aspects of the problem.
That’s a good analysis and a fair statement of the situation, RG. It seems from the downvotes that maybe people aren’t reading it in depth.
I would add that the IPPC stated Radiative Forcing of CO2 which is 5.35 Ln (C/Co) is a reasonably correct number from also reasonably good research…so 3.5 watts per doubling of CO2 since Ln(2)=.693. However the surface emits about 5.4 watts more IR per single degree of temp increase. Even if you multiply the 3.5 by 340/240 which is the current ratio of TOA/Ground level IR, to include for GHE, you still get a number of around 5 watts or 1 degree surface temp increase per doubling of CO2.
Extending this 1 degree to 1.2 is feasible by adding some other plausible reasons, 1.7 starts getting pretty iffy, and the 4.5 or 6.0 C scenarios, sometimes stated, are science fiction.
Skeptic scientists tend to have a range of +0.7 to +1.5 degrees C.
Consensus scientists are generally from +2.5 to +5.0 degrees C. Except the Russians at about +1.8 or +1.9 degrees C..
Climate science could be more credible if more scientists said: “we don’t know”, stopped guessing the climate in 100 years and stopped claiming global warming is bad news.
I would also like to read more funny predictions, like “Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog and Shrink Man’s Favorite Organ”
I recommend conservative climate and energy articles on my blog. If an article claims an ECS of +2.0 or more I reject it.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
You think it is ‘scientific’ to subjectively censor studies that you don’t agree with?
By far the main, if not only, atmospheric warming in UAH data comes at major El Nino events.
Please provide evidence of human CO2 causation for these El Nino events.
There are no laboratory that simulated CO2 in an open atmosphere… perhaps you would like to produce one.
The main land surface warming since the 1970’s has been from massive urbanisation effects and really bad measurement and fabrication practices.
There is absolutely no way you can concoct a CO2 warming effect using the land surface data.
We await your other “evidence”
I await your retirement from this website
You can of course produce scientific evidence to back up your mindless rants.. can’t you ??
You obviously agree with everything I just said.. having produced zero counter.
Do you still DENY warming at El Nino events?
Do you still DENY that UHI is a very major cause of land surface measurement warming ?
We STILL await you “other” evidence… with zero expectation.
So your “scientific” counter argument is to rid the website of your critics? Tsk, tsk, tsk!
Mr. Greene: Nice projection, but YOU are the one who retired from the website. Remember??
It is fraud when the impact is unmeasurable and then claim there is next to no natural variation.
Explain how CO2 has increased the SWR just north of the equator in concert with OLR reducing. Explain how CO2 has donee the opposite elsewhere.
?ssl=1
If CO2 emissions are what you say then why does Teledyne FLIR say this about detecting CO2?
”Because OGI cameras visualize gas as a lack of infrared energy, they can only image gases that absorb infrared radiation in the filtered bandpass: gases that don’t absorb IR in the filtered bandpass won’t be visible. For instance, noble gases such as helium, oxygen, and nitrogen cannot be directly imaged.”
Dr. Spencer will be delighted to receive another piece of “Flat Earth Science”. Not just are these considerations wrong, but then there is the very question, why anyone should take the time to explain to you how they are wrong. Essentially you ask for private coaching, without signalling you were willing to pay for it.
Explain to me why I am wrong.
Your post is interesting, and accurate, but really much ado about very little. Earth is the watery planet, and its energy balance depends on, you might say is controlled by, the isothermal phase changes of water. Changing water to WV requires 540 times as much energy per gram as does changing the temperature of that gram one degree. WV is lighter than air, therefore it rises, and cools. When it reaches the local dew point, it dumps that energy, hundreds of times more than it could have absorbed on the way up, by condensing to water – or even more to ice-isothermally. Most of this energy is radiated away from Earth (space being the ideal sink.) It is unfortunate that the IPCC has focused so much attention on Temperature, particularly changes in temperature, and especially the ridiculous GAT, when so much of the earth’s climate is determined by energy flows. Temperature on the “water planet” is an inadequate measure of energy flows.
“Then the
ratio of water molecules to carbon dioxide molecules would then be 80.5 to 1.”
Well Harold, at the top of the troposphere, a mere 11 km up, CO2 is 400 ppm, while water vapor is only 5 ppm. That’s 1/80, not the 80.5:1 ground level number. Reaching the right conclusion by the wrong methodology isn’t really a good debating strategy…
Better to use my debating tactic of insulting the opponent by comparing his post to a tall steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products and then comparing his ancestors with various farm animals. Followed by a Bronx Cheer.
The only effect your tantrum-style posts has is to make people laugh at you.
Seriously!
Mr. Greene: Unmedicated mental issues are NOT a “debate tactic.”
I would note that the catalytic converter works by converting unburned hydrocarbons which include polycyclic organic matter (POM) and other hazardous air pollutants (HAP) into benign water and carbon dioxide. It may only be a matter of time before the evo-wackos demand banning catalytic converters. Of course outlawing ICEs is their first choice.
EXCERPT from
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
L iar’s
C ost
O f
E nergy
100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
Cut out wind speeds are usually of the order of 25m/sec, although to avoid hysteresis in strong gusty winds there is usually a spread of speeds employed in modern wind farms to make the loss of output more gradual, and likewise its increase when the wind drops back. That’s 56mph, or Storm Force, Violent Storm Force and Hurricane . Even with a hurricane blowing through the size of the wind field that shuts down turbines is measured roughly by the 50 knot contour of the wind swath. Here’s a sample from Hurricane Idalia.
In the real world it is likely that wind farms will curtail when major storms and hurricanes blow through, simply because until they need to curtail for safety they will all be producing fairly close to maximum output, which is likely to exceed what the grid can absorb. Downed power lines are likely to reduce effective demand still further, and perhaps affect wind farm connections.
Story tip: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-69033322
Interesting that the BBC doesn’t mention how the vehicle is powered, though it sure looks like an electric bus to me!
Amusing, too, that they refer to it as a “single storey” bus, rather than as a “single-deck” one. Such ignorance!
London buses are hybrid diesel or fully electric
They only mention the diesel bit….
Wikipedia (no reason to doubt this) says TfL has about 50-50 diesel and diesel hybrid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emission_buses_in_London It says all the diesel have been retrofitted, but no indication that Li-ion batteries were involved.
How common is a spontaneous fire in a diesel vehicle?
It supposedly started in the diesel engine cooling fan in this case.
The spate of recent fires is a fault in the air-conditioning system.
It was a diesel bus but two other buses crashed that day. tt was a bad day for buses. If it was an EV bus the onlookers would not be allowed so close, Battery fire fumes are toxic. The who;e bock would have been cleared.
Batteries for buses and trailer trucks are only something only leftist politicians would want.
I talked with some electrical engineers working on auto EVs in late 2022.
They speculated on what the worst possible uses for batteries would be, even worse than an electric Ford Lightening pickup truck.
A bus on a very cold day
With a lot of passengers (weight) and
With the need for a lot of heating, especially if the doors opened frequently and let in cold air and cold passengers.
The worst location would be a hilly city like Sann Francisco.
Not a great day for London’s buses: Three are wrecked, with one bursting into flames, a second crashing into a house and a third hitting a bus stop | Daily Mail Online
Lightning L.I.G.H.T.N.I.N.G!
Not LightEning
I don’t know why that annoys the piss out of me so much.
Probably seeing such arrogance combined with such cluelessness.
The scramble for Antarctica’s black gold
While Junior Minister David Rutley told the scrutinising committee that Russia has ‘repeatedly given assurances’ last week that it was only conducting science in the region, experts lambasted the idea that states like China or Russia could be trusted.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13429229/The-scramble-Antarcticas-black-gold-Russian-discovery-huge-oil-reserves-UK-territory-Falkland-Islands-worlds-valuable-real-estate-Putin-Xi-eyeing-treasure-frozen-seas.html
Hmm. Oil in Antarctica….we aren’t going to run out of oil anytime soon…But the cost to find it and extract and process it are going to render it uneconomic within 50 years compared to synthetic fuels, biofuels, batteries, or whatever. And at about 4-5 times the inflation adjusted present cost per km of gasoline or diesel.
Present government strategy is simply to tax it while the taxing is good, and make the economics last as long as possible with “emissions regulations”.
Eroi of fossil fuels going down, and the ones of renewables go up. So nothing new here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/13/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-598/
“Writing in The Energy Advocate, and repeated on the SEPP website, AMO physicist Howard Hayden discusses why Trenberth’s new position and those of other “popular” commentators on climate science are inconsistent with ongoing physical research. Hayden writes [emphasis in original]:
“The mission of the CERES satellite system, begun in 1997, is to measure the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) (equivalent to Trenberth’s “heating”). The project involves enormous amounts of high-precision data.
Unlike the usual reports coming from Trenberth, Schmidt, the IPCC and others, Norman Loeb’s CERES report makes no reference to CO2 whatsoever. The really important fact found in the Conclusions is:
The EEI trend is primarily associated with an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) partially offset by an increase in OLR [Outgoing longwave radiation). … Large ASR trend primarily driven by reductions in low and middle clouds.
Let us emphasize this point. The increase in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI; Trenberth’s “heating”) is due primarily to the increase in absorbed solar radiation—the difference between the sunlight incident upon the earth and the amount of reflected sunlight. Further, the solar irradiance (incident sunlight averaged over the spherical shape of the earth) increased only very slightly—from 340.14 W/m2 for 2000 to 2010 to 340.17 W/m2 for 2013-2023. The Loeb report clarifies that the change is due to the decrease in low and middle clouds. [Boldface added]
In other words, the increase in EEI is due to a decrease in albedo (less reflected sunlight), contrary to IPCC’s calculations that always show an increase in albedo.
In yet other words, the heating of our planet that we’re seeing is not due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. This conclusion of the CERES project, which was designed expressly to determine the heat imbalance of the earth and its causes, has been ignored by “climate scientists,” investigative journalists, and politicians, and will continue to be ignored.
Still, this one fact rings the death knell of the “climate crisis.” Unequivocally, it says that the worries about CO2, “carbon pollution,” “carbon emissions,” and so forth are entirely misplaced. The one fact that the warming we are experiencing is due to changing albedo—NOT CO2—means that the UN’s COPs (Conferences of Parties), the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, the restrictions on coal, oil, and natural gas, and the belief that we help “save the climate” by killing our cattle are all based on sham science.”
end excerpt
So does everyone agree this data “rings the death knell of the “climate crisis”? That the current warming is due to sunlight and clouds, and not from CO2?
If all the current warming can be attributed to cloud cover, as this CERES data says, then there is no room for CO2 warming, which must be so small as to be undetectable.
So what causes an increase or decrease in cloud cover?
I saw this quote in another article (lost the attribution):
“The inevitable increase in jet stream meridionality results in more clouds which reduces solar input to the oceans and skews the ENSO balance towards more La Ninas.The opposite when the sun is more active.”
Perhaps something like this is controlling the increase or decrease in cloud cover.
Whatever it is has to be cyclical because the Earth’s climate is cyclical and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Since that time we have had a warming into the 1880’s, a cooling into the 1910’s, a warming into the 1930’s, a cooling into the 1970’s, and a warming up to today.
So how does cloud cover do that?
It looks like it’s “Game Over!” for CO2 warming, and a CO2-based climate crisis.
I recall that a decade, or so, ago there was some discussion that “cosmic rays” influenced cloud formation by helping create nuclei for water droplet formation. If so, it seems conceivable that magnetic fields associated with sunspot activity might have a cloud formation effect on albedo that is greater than actual solar energy changes.
CERES does not claim to know exactly what causes the warming. Several possible causes are more CO2, less SO2, more water vapor and changes in cloudiness.
CERES can not determine how much mire sunlight reaches Earth’s surface is from reduced cloudiness rather than reduced air pollution
CERES can not explain how fewer clouds would cause more night warming than day warming. The expected pattern from a lower percentage of clouds would be the opposite.
The capability for deriving a reliable 3D cloud field from passive satellite measurements is limited.
Percentage of cloudiness, even if perfectly accurate, does not tell us the exact effect of cloudiness changes on incoming solar energy or outgoing radiation.
But you know what albedo is and how it works ?
Only place you have measurements that show warmer nights is in URBAN areas.
More solar energy continues to be absorbed due to the drop in cloud cover…
… and as most surface thermometers tend to be in urban areas, this will lead to appearance of warmer evenings… that is what urban warming does.
It is nothing to do with CO2 concentration…
… and given your total lack of evidence that it is…
…. I assume you must agree… unless you follow AGW-mantra instead of actual science.
I have published the included chart before on WUWT. It is based on the CERES data. It shows the sunlight has increased across most latitudes except just north of the Equator and over a small portion of Antarctica:
?ssl=1
The cause of the increase in reflected sunlight north of the equator is the more important aspect because it highlights the self-regulating nature of the temperature. The overall warming is due to gradual shift in peak solar northward that started 500 years ago and the dominance of land in the NH, which responds more to sunlight than oceans. NH oceans will get a lot warmer before the snowfall overtakes the snow melt.
The consequence of added CO2 at present level is unmeasurable. There are too many people with income dependent on the crisis for it to end until they are dead and replaced by people who benefit from calling out the nonsense like Governor DeSantis. Even if Trump wins the next presidency, he is not going to change the situation in 4 years.
“The overall warming is due to gradual shift in peak solar northward that started 500 years ago and the dominance of land in the NH, which responds more to sunlight than oceans.”
This doesn’t account for the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate since the end of the Little Ice Age. There were significant cooling periods which “gradual shift in peak solar” does not account for.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that your timeframe is too long to account for short-term changes. A gradual increase in solar energy does not tell us how decades of cooling occured since the Little Ice Age..
Sunday charts!
Nuclear sucks up massive R&D funding, only to get outperformed by wind and solar which received far less R&D spending
https://imgur.com/a/nuclear-sucks-up-massive-r-d-funding-only-to-get-outperformed-by-wind-solar-which-received-far-less-r-d-spending-Y0ZYnli
Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric
Vehicles
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change
Columbia was overrun by anti Jewish thugs why would I accept anything from a university that is unable to tell good from evil or enforce its own policies.
If I may make a modest suggestion, don’t feed the troll.
Don’t be taken in by such rubbish:
Source Installed Actual
Hydroelectric 1.87GW 0.20GW
Wind 30.00GW 4.85GW
Solar 14.40GW 2.24GW
We’d need to blanket the UK in windmills and panels to get anywhere near their supposed output
Sunday Chart!
“The Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law develops legal techniques to fight climate change”
“No party should act or rely on any information in this report without first seeking the advice of an attorney”
Direct quotes from your source 🙂
Big money in litigation to be made with sales of Chinese EVs.
News flash — antinuclear guy reposts junk studies against more nuclear power, uses fossil fueled powered electronics to post pro-renewables propaganda.
No surprises there.
Reality makes it easy posting anti-nuclear stuff.
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/nuclear-more-than-6-times-the-cost-of-renewables-report
See?
And my electronics are powered by more than 80% renewables. Same with my transportation.
Easy if you use stuff from Oz where they hate nuclear religiously.
Just downvote the troll and move on people.
Big difference, is that nuclear can provide 24/7 at or near rated power capacity
Wind and solar are erratic parasites on any grid.
Your electronics are made totally and completely by fossil fuels.
I take it you are in small a country which runs mainly on hydro, because there is nowhere in the world that can run 80% on wind and solar.
Standard rubbish from a bunch of lawyers getting rich on climate litigation – make up a claim that they then refute.
For example:
Claim #1:
Electromagnetic fields from solar farms are harmful to human health.
Quotation to prove their point:
“The EMF (electromagnetic field) from solar farms poses serious health risks especially to those who have electromagnetic hypersensitivity.” 29
Reference 29:
NO TO SOLAR, supra note 7.
But no link to where this quote came from. A quick Google only leads to the ”Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles”
You should read the article and check the references for yourself(in this case a non-proven reference), before posting such complete and utter tripe.
Now go away and do your homework.
I know people here will do it in-depth just to prove me wrong.
You are wrong 100% of the time.. provably so
So let’s ignore Lusername
So basically you don’t understand what you are posting.
You just post whatever BS you’re told to think without checking the basic facts.
Do you work for BBC Verify by any chance?
“In-depth?” Proving you wrong is easy.
This is a classic Marxist propaganda methodology; post junk on the internet then use said junk to support a fabricated theory, post theory enough times using said posted junk then pretty soon no one cares because it meets the 97% fabrication.
Forbes almost gets the lack of CO2 problem in our atmosphere:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2024/05/11/despite-global-climate-change-earth-is-surprisingly-carbon-poor
Ahh, Climate activists is there no punishment they aren’t willing to risk:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/climate-activists-glue-munich-airport-protest-pollution-caused-110359748
You know, it would be great if articles like this would actually articulate the temperatures which are causing the “problem”, much less quantify the change.
The all change is bad mentality is just plain worn out:
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-affecting-arctic-phytoplankton.amp
In the Arctic region, due to a decrease from extreme high levels of sea ice, sea life is rebounding very fast.
Phytoplackton is increasing rapidly , allowing sea creatures to return that haven’t been seen since the start of the cooling into the LIA.
Life up there does not need extreme amounts of sea ice..
Levels are still in the top 5% or so of the last 10,000 years.
I like that I’m seeing more articles and comments on the silliness of the concept that the Earth is too warm. The Earth is in an Ice Age (interglacial period).
Our temperature records go back only around 145 years. The Earth is 4.543 billion years old. If one were to adjust the Earth’s age to 100 years (putting it in terms of human lifespan), the last 145 years would equate to a little less than 2 seconds. That is a laughably short time to determine what is ‘normal’ temperature for the Earth.
The Earth’s temperature for the last 150+ years is below its long term average temperature, so anything stating the Earth is getting too warm is ignoring science
Europe says goodbye to natural gas for good: the superturbine that will use a new energy
https://www.ecoticias.com/en/europe-natural-gas-energy/2130/
Europe has a superturbine to accelerate hydrogen deployment
I thought it might be interesting to look at how the GB grid performed hour by hour in 2023. The charts that follow display a month at a time at hourly resolution and include all metered sources except grid batteries, interconnector flows and pumped storage. These charts display the data in descending day ahead price order for the month, rather than in chronological sequence. This allows operational configurations to be seen more clearly, and the impact of price on output and of demand on price. They help offer insights to the future as the attempts to increase renewables are pursued.
Start with Jan 2023. Click on chart for enlarged version. At the left hand end we see the highest prices, reaching up to £250/MWh, with output dominated by CCGT, demand a fairly high levels (albeit not quite the highest), some reduction in nuclear output, but biomass and coal running around capacity, next to no solar and little wind. Exports are confined to small amounts to Ireland, which would be facing a similar predicament. Imports are variable, but clearly typically less than in slightly less stressed market conditions. Pumped storage helps meet demand peaks.
At the other end of the chart the picture is dominated by wind and low demand. Not shown (because I do not have the data at this resolution) is that there is also quite extensive curtailment. At the lower prices exports replace imports (even Norwegian hydro gets backed out) and biomass cuts back to only the most heavily subsidised units while coal shuts down. CCGT runs are sharply lower, mainly to help provide grid stability which is also aided by pumping for grid storage taking advantage of low prices.
February follows a largely similar pattern to January, save that there are fewer hours of very high wind output at lower prices.
As overall demand starts to drop across Europe in March imports become more persistent, reducing CCGT output. Solar also starts to eat into CCGT runs. However, wind still requires extensive backup.