I say we’re approaching ‘Peak China,’ if we haven’t hit it already.
The economy isn’t growing like it was, the population is aging and declining without enough workers to pay the pensions of those who are retired or soon to be retired.
Meanwhile, China is vocal about its global ambitions. China aims to be the dominant global superpower. It continues its military buildup and its aggressive actions against its neighbors.
‘Peak China’ makes China more dangerous and desperate.
Here is a “kit” of information about Band 16, the “CO2 Longwave IR” band from the imagers aboard the GOES East and West satellites. I have been posting these still images, animations, and time lapse video for a while now, pointing out the revealing nature of the earth’s variable longwave emitter. Clouds, motion, overturning circulation, rapid rise and decay of longwave emission from the land surface under clear skies.
Kevin Kilty recently observed from the video, “Clear sky with dry air radiates quite a lot from the surface — ballistic transport I would call it.”
Ballistic transport. I like it! It shows the importance of the “dehumidifier” aspect of the atmosphere’s heat engine circulations. Watch the time lapse video to appreciate this effect.
7-day time lapse of Band 16 visualizations from GOES East for the full disk of the planet. In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to counter the “basic physics” line of misdirected persuasion. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
**************
Bottom line: We can all “watch” from space to see for ourselves that the minor static radiative “warming” effect of incremental CO2 cannot be isolated for reliable attribution; and that heat energy cannot be “forced” to accumulate on land and in the oceans by what the incremental non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. The dynamic result does NOT depend on the static radiative effect.
Thanks for this video of the 3-7 Aug 1993 time frame. I have been looking at Grand Junction, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona also on Aug 2. The story across the southwest is roughly the same.
Moreover, distortions in the present global energy system in the form of fossil fuel subsidies favour incumbent fuels, making investments in clean energy transitions more challenging. Governments worldwide collectively spent around $620 billion in 2023 subsidising the use of fossil fuels – far more than the $70 billion that was spent on support for consumer-facing clean energy investments, according to the IEA report.
I recall Ozzy telling the New Musical Express or was it Melody Maker, one of them, anyway: The nearest we’ve come to black magic is a box of chocolates…
In the discussions of power sources we’re currently having there is one
historical point that is never mentioned. That being it was the hydro electric
facilities in WA state on the Columbia River that allowed the production of
aluminum during WWII.
The reality was we were able to make aluminum aircraft faster than the
Japanese could shoot them down, which was a major component of why we won.
When I hear the talk on solar/ wind power I always remember the strategic advantage solid power sources such as hydro, natural gas and coal.. Strength comes from power–electrical power. Our country has gotten very weak from
the enviro leftists.
The carbon brief piece is incoherent. Its based on a one month decline. It claims that this decline is due to two things, one being stable power generation emissions. It attributes this (without any evidence) to increased wind and solar. It then goes on to cite the reason for the fall as being due to fall in steel and cement production:
While power-sector emissions stabilised, the largest source of reductions in emissions in March was the continued decline in demand for steel and cement from the construction sector, as illustrated in the figure below.
It is perhaps not surprising that if there is a fall in steel and cement production, power generation emissions do not rise. To prove the lack of increase is due to wind and solar requires a detailed argument which isn’t supplied. And a small one month decline is not a trend.
There is no reason to think Chinese emissions are going to reduce. Its like the long awaited crisis of capitalism that Marxists keep seeing in the tea leaves. The most likely trend for Chinese emissions is up, by whatever amount is necessary to economic growth. The CCP isn’t interested in emissions, doesn’t believe in global warming, and has no interest in reducing them.
Then we have the Guardian piece. The supposed savings occur well in the future, and are almost all due to an assumed cost of CO2. This is nonsense. Its only if you assume that the CO2 emissions are driving global warming that you can get to the cost savings, and the problem is that the US foregone emissions (if you believe them) that are being cited as the source of the savings do not in fact contribute materially to global warming even on the climate activist theory. They are not large enough to do that.
I have never seen a case showing that installing wind and solar actually either reduces emissions or saves money. It would be possible to make such a case, all you have to do is compare two systems, one being a hybrid of wind, solar and rapid start gas, the other a conventional one based on gas and coal. Do a proper LCOE comparison for the two, including all the costs that it takes to produce the same dispatchable power.
The argument is always that the hybrid saves fuel. Which it would if the gas in the hybrid system is consumed with the same efficiency as in the conventional one, but it isn’t, because its rapid start and always going on and off, rather than combined cycle in continuous use. Add in construction costs of duplicate capacity, and there is no way you save money by building the wind and solar, and you probably don’t save materially on emissions.
Then we come to the subsidies argument in your last link. I have not read the piece that claims that “Governments worldwide collectively spent around $620 billion in 2023 subsidising the use of fossil fuels”. What is the derivation of this number? Usually when such numbers are cited its a combination of claims that depreciation allowances are a form of subsidy (which is simple accounting illiteracy) and adding in all kinds of assumed indirect costs which are attributed to oil, gas and coal. And ignoring any taxes on fossil fuel production and use, which in the West are very high.
Show the derivation and we can discuss it. But on the face of it, color me skeptical.
You’re just throwing up headlines without subjecting the claims in the pieces linked to any kind of critical appraisal. In the first two cases they are very defective, and in the third most likely so.
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the “woke again” indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls
Yes, but you need to argue the case on the specifics. Calling people moronic and stupid doesn’t address their arguments or persuade anyone. Rational argument may, in some cases will.
It’s great that you address the moronic claims, but at some point, playing the game on Lusername’s home court all the time, we’re maybe better off just ignoring the repetitive claptrap, no?
The publishing industry has a major dose of the mind virus and is determined to cut its nose off to spite its face…
The campaign by Fossil Free Books (FFB), an activist collective of more than 800 authors and publishing workers, has focused on billions of pounds of investments that the Edinburgh-based firm holds in companies linked to the fossil fuel industry and to Israel. Among some of the seven festivals that remain sponsored by Baillie Gifford, there is fear that the financiers will conclude their involvement is no longer good for either them or the festivals.
It would leave a substantial hole in the budgets of organisations that have survived the pandemic and cost of living crisis partly because of corporate sponsorship.
Only the FF it takes to get published?
(And keep breathing.)
Richard Greene
June 2, 2024 3:52 am
Of over a dozen conservative climate and energy articles I read this morning, one from Canada about TMIN versus TMAX warning was the most interesting. The subject does not get much attention.
A single global average temperature is deceptive. Not to mention a change of less than 1 degree C, is probably meaningless,
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds).
When I reviewed the stations in the Canadian Northwest (Yukon and Northwest Territories) from the GHCN-D database, I noticed that many of them showed winters have been getting colder over the past ~30 years.
This past winter season was another cold one up there.
That’s a ridiculous stance. You don’t have to build a nuclear bomb to show that E=Mc^2 Calculation of the energy absorption bands of CO2 results in a number of about 3 to 4 watts/sq. additional CO2 warming per doubling of CO2. Happer and van Wijngaarden, Harde, run your own Modtran….One degree warmer surface emits 5.4 Watts more IR…so about a degree of warming per doubling…about the same as potential data errors…Why make a scientific fool of yourself when perfectly credible arguments against a thermal crisis are evident ?
The difficulty is confusing two separate things. There is no doubt that increasing CO2 ppm will have a heating effect. That is, as you say, just physics.
The question is the result, if any, of applying that heat to the climate of the planet.
RG regularly confuses these two.
It is quite reasonable to be skeptical that the heating effect from additional CO2 is over time very much reduced or even cancelled by negative feedback mechanisms. That is just a view that the climate of the planet is self regulating to remain within some parameters. But that is not being skeptical about the effect of increased CO2 in itself. Its just taking a different view of the way the climate of the planet works.
Skepticism about whether additional CO2 has a heating effect is absurd. Skepticism about whether this heating effect results in long term warming may or may not be justified, but its not absurd in terms of physics.
The net effect of all the forcings is the temperature of the atmosphere, which has 1) dry air, 2) water, vapor and clouds, 3) CO2 and 4) smidgens of other stuff.
See my below Retained Energy calc.
Comment says:”Skepticism about whether additional CO2 has a heating effect is absurd.”
I disagree. It is right and proper to be skeptical about CO2’s heating ability.
CO2 adds mass and that mass requires more energy to raise increase its temperature. There is some 35 giga tonnes of CO2 added each year. No one has yet shown how CO2 can heat itself with the added mass. What is the emissivity of CO2 at atmospheric temperatures and pressure? If zero then there is no heating by CO2.
CO2 has a heating effect?
That would show up in the atmospheric temperature, which is determined by the retained heat, RE. aka enthalpy.
This summary of analysis show CO2 contributed 0.30% to RE in 1900 and 0.39% in 2023, not much of a “heavy weight”
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves,
Some energy is retained in the atmosphere on a continuing basis
Retained energy, RE, 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, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
Assume WV near the surface at 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) at TS = 16 C for 2023, and 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) at TS = 14.8 C for 1900
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary at higher elevations, specific heat contents vary, and calculations are needed at each elevation, to get a more accurate value RE.
That complex approach would subtract from the 2023 and 1900 REs, however, the RE 2023/1900 ratio likely would be unaffected
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2 . NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
. Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat WV at constant pressure
.
1) World, enthalpy moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.009 kg WV/kg dry air (14,500 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.009 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 38.870 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 16.096 kJ/kg; RE WV is 22.774 kJ/kg
.
2) Tropics, enthalpy moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27,389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.524 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 27.162 kJ/kg; RE WV is 43.362 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 World, enthalpy 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; CO2 421 ppm; World WV 14,500 ppm; Tropics WV 27,389 ppm World: (16.096 + 22.774 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 200,896 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.25%, 58.36% and 0.39% RE roles. RE ratioWV/CO2 = 147.8; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 104.5 . Tropics: (27.160 + 43.360 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,804 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.43%, 61.35% and 0.22% RE roles. RE ratioWV/CO2 = 281.6; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 176.4
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; CO2 296 ppm; World VW 3,689 ppm World: (14.889 + 20.843 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 184,500 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.54%, 58.16% and 0.3% RE roles. RE ratioWV/CO2 = 193.5; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 138.2 .
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089, a 16,395 EJ increase
CO2 RE in 1900 was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ; in 2023 was 0.154/39.024 x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, an increase of 239 EJ
CO2 ppm increase was 421/296 = 42%, and CO2 RE increase was 793/554 = 43%
This is a climate and weather website where people interested in these topics can freely discuss anything without fear of censorship. In today’s world, that’s an incredible feature we should take advantage of.
Skeptics are unique in their diversity of opinions: they offer a much wider range of views compared to CAGW enthusiasts.
Not every post and reply needs to aim at persuading the masses.
Here’s the thing, bnice, you’re the one who fears that admitting reality somehow concedes dangerous heating. I’m the one who says that the effect if any is small and beneficial. Now there’s a clue for you. When I use the phrase “if any”, that should explicitly tell you that I can’t measure a definite effect.
I will never understand your obstinate attachment to a certainty that there can be no effect of CO2 emissions. There is a reasonable argument consistent with data that there is an enhanced greenhouse effect. It’s a good thing. In no way is it harmful. Denying the possibility does NOT weaken alarmist claims. It weakens the effectiveness of climate realist arguments in the eyes of the broader public. For no good reason.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! Deny the emergency, not valid science.
Rich Davis and DMacKenzie and others like to reside in the land of theory – which is all very nice and everything – but in the real world there is no evidence AT ALL of anthropogenic global heating. ALL the current ”heating” can be explained by the sun (depending on who’s data you accept). Lüdecke, H. J., Hempelmann, A., & Weiss, C. O. (2013) found zero evidence of co2 heating in the temp record. Neither did balloon data (Connollys) show any evidence.
The first IPCC report says ”We cannot detect the expected signal.” At what point do we stop arguing that co2 must do ‘something’ and simply start every discussion with – It can’t be measured?
No, the key point is that AGW cannot be measured – let alone validated by experiment – therefore remains in the realm of theory.
That is what should be stressed before any talk of emergencies.
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds) _________________________________________________________
Temperature Extremes… “Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in growing season length.” __________________________________________________
“Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle.”
Dixie Lee Ray
One needs to remind oneself It is still an assumption/ hypothesis. And the GHE needs to be seen in context. The mechanism is clear but we might be splitting hairs.
Yes the reasonable position to take is what Michel posted. It’s possible that negative feedbacks render the real effect insignificant, while acknowledging the valid science.
Mr. Greene says:”A single global average temperature is deceptive. Not to mention a change of less than 1 degree C, is probably meaningless,
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds).”
It seems to me you have contradicted yourself. On one hand you say “global average temperature” is deceptive then turn around a say Tmin and Tmax are signs of GHW. How is something that is deceptive a sign of anything other than deception?
GAT is deceptive because it obscures the differences between TMIN and TMAX warming. It also obscures the lack of warming of Antarctica, negating the sea level rise scaremongering.
The following sentence tells us more [about Post-1975 warming than the GAT:
Warmer winter nights in Siberia.
I do not believe the UAH dataset since 1979 is wrong, but it does not necessarily apply to the local climate where a person lives and works.
There is no way a single GAT would explain how much warmer, with much less snow, our winters are here in SE Michigan. With no obvious summer warming. A single GAT hides those important details. That’s why I say it is deceptive. I don’t believe UAH is wrong.
Given doing a search for this site requires scrolling through pages of alarmists before getting here, any suggestions on how to find good videos and books to combat the indoctrination my kids are already getting in pre school and first grade?
A book that does not give clear answers is a good start. And it depends on how smart/old the children are. Complexity is hard to make simpler. But you can explain complexity in a simple way. You need to involve uncertainty. Or draw lines and explain binary politics in a clear way. I always use courtroom scenarios, prosecution/defense type of situation. And who picks which expert. If you can point out the games in the media they’ll start to see patterns. Just buy a few newspapers and do a word check: denial, tipping point, overwhelming evidence, far/extreme, ultra, radical right. Just ask them to underline each one, then explain the one sidedness of it all..
Ie, make them think
Maybe a little advanced for young kids, but worth bookmarking for future reference. Tom has interviewed dozens of scientists, all agree there is no “climate crisis”. They’re not too young to understand those words.
strativarius
June 2, 2024 4:46 am
On car free cities.
The darker greens fervently believe every city should be car free, because… they say so. Most of us, for very obvious reasons, do not. One could be forgiven for thinking car free cities do not exist at all. But I have some very good news for ItsUsername, there are quite a number of car free cities to choose from, already. Here’s a small selection below, there must be one that suits….
Yes, they would, because no reasonable person argues for total car free cities.
In general, there is a reasonable point of view on cars and transport. Its not to ban cars or ICE vehicles in general. Its also not to leave cities as dominated by cars as they are at present. A reasonable model is some variant of the Dutch one, which tries to place enough restrictions on car use and routes so as to give space to people walking and cycling. But also to recognize that society is now organized substantially around cars, and that is not going to change.
The Dutch model, with segregated bikeways and walkways, was implemented because the rise of cars occurred in a society in which bikes were a standard form of transport, particularly for the young. When car ownership and use rose, the result was a rise in accidents and deaths particularly among the young.
The Dutch decided to do something about this. The default choice in most countries was to do nothing, and the result was a decline in cycling and walking. The different Dutch solution was to build segregated bikeways and walkways all over the country. They also introduced low traffic areas by limiting through traffic in residential areas.
The result is a country where you can drive almost anywhere you want, but you can also get almost anywhere safely by cycling, and you can walk in most places on dedicated walkways without worrying about either cars or bikes. It works.
Notice that whether the cars are EVs or ICE is immaterial to the Dutch model. A kid on a bike hit by a car going at 40 mph does not car what fuel it runs on. Even if you have banned all ICE cars and replaced them with EVs, you still need to make a decision about what sort of transport you want, and the Dutch example shows that some restrictions on car use and substantial protection for biking and walking and from through car traffic increase quality of life.
I hate bicycles. A close friend lost his 21Y/O daughter on a summer trip to Hollannd. I personally know 2 more parents who lost a child in bike accidents, and one with concussion and a broken arm last week. My daughter was is on lifelong steroids due to pituitary damage 15 years ago – a permanent disability pension – despite her helmet.
When my kids lost their bus pass, I gave them tickets to stop them using their bikes.
Yes, bicycles are certainly not accident free. Even in Holland where they have made every effort to supply safe segregated bikeways everywhere. Your catalogue of accidents is very bad – though I think also very unusual. I have lived and worked in Holland and never heard of either deaths or serious injuries among my acquaintance, and my own experience of the bikeways was that they were very safe. This may have changed in the last few years, see below.
But I agree that were bike use to become much more common, bike accidents would probably increase. Its one of the things people who advocate for increased use rarely consider. Though, as a precondition of any material increase, traffic segregation and bikeways would be essential, and this would reduce car-bike and truck-bike accidents which, at least in the UK, are most of the fatal ones.
This is what perplexity.ai says:
Key Points
In 2022, 291 cyclists died on Dutch roads, a staggering 60% increase from 2021’s figure of 182 deaths.
This marks the highest number of cycling fatalities in the Netherlands in the 27 years that records have been kept.
Over half of the cyclist deaths in 2022 (150 out of 291) involved riders aged 75 or older, an 84% increase from the previous year.
The main cause of cyclist deaths is collisions with motor vehicles, accounting for 206 out of the 291 fatalities in 2022, a significant rise from 127 in 2021.
Crashes with private cars or delivery vans were responsible for 141 cyclist deaths in 2022, up 74% from 81 in 2021.
While cycling is popular in the Netherlands, the country’s cycling infrastructure development has not kept pace with the growing number of cyclists, according to cycling advocacy groups.
Contributing Factors
Increased use of electric-assisted bikes, particularly among older riders, may contribute to higher speeds and more severe injuries in crashes.
The low helmet usage rate among Dutch cyclists (only 12% compared to 57% in Denmark) leaves riders more vulnerable to head injuries.
Rising levels of motor vehicle traffic and congestion in the Netherlands have increased the risk of collisions between cyclists and cars.
Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a cycling haven, the recent surge in cyclist fatalities, especially among the elderly, has raised concerns and calls for improved infrastructure, speed limit reductions in urban areas, and efforts to promote helmet use.
It is very strange that in a country with dedicated bikeways car and van accidents have risen so much, according to this.
Rivers are turning orange in Alaska likely due to climate change writes Anumita Kaur, Washington Post. If you read the article, the authors say a warming climate not climate change. Classic spin.
We just noticed something, therefore it has never happened before, and it goes without saying, it’s bad! We’re doomed I tells ya.
Kevin Kilty
June 2, 2024 8:15 am
This thread contains a discussion of Tmin, Tmax and the global mean. People are pointing out the data deficiencies; such as, how independent is Tmax from Tmin, is the data they contain independent, how large are the uncertainties in meansurement, how should we handle the statistics, etc. These are all worthy arguments.
Something I rarely see written about is the problem of non-uniqueness. I ran a geophysical “service” company for years in partnership with the late Arthur Lange, and we performed all sorts of Geophysical measurements and field campaigns in search of client-specified targets. Non-uniqueness is the bane of any such endeavor. This non-uniqueness issue is best explained in this simple analogy. I have a series of numbers — I may know them exactly or not, but I do know each one originates from the sum of a couple of other numbers. What my client wants is the numbers that went into the sum.
There is not enough information to go back and recover the numbers in the sum from the sum itself.
With attribution problems, actually with every single issue in “climate science”, there is this same problem of non-uniqueness because many different factors are involved in temperature, and it is difficult to make an iron-clad argument about what Tmin or Tmax, or SST, or whatever, contains in terms of components.
The problem to state it another way is that there is much more energy needed to raise the temperature of wet soil than dry sand or asphalt. Both the heat capacity and the latent heat effects are what makes it bogus to average temperatures spatially across different climate regions. We should be accounting for total enthalpy changes.
A global average temperature is mathematically valid but is not physically meaningful because you could have a higher average temperature despite lower total enthalpy based on some spiked temperatures in drought regions while at the same time other regions may have only a small temperature decline associated with a large amount of heat lost.
I think of the global average temperature as more of an index. If all the world’s climate regions maintain about their normal rainfall, then a rise or fall in the global average may accurately indicate warming or cooling in terms of total enthalpy. But the all else being equal assumption is rarely valid.
You and I are not in a position to ‘give … any leeway’, mk.
We COULD potentially be in a position to marginally influence persuadable people that climate realism is a more reasonable position than climate alarmism. But if we cling unreasonably to a certainty that there is no possible warming effect or that fossil fuel emissions don’t even increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, then persuadable people are given reasons to dismiss our views as anti-science.
When you talk about people who would destroy our economy, you are talking about the realm of politics and persuasion, not science and evidence.
The only thing that can hope to defeat those people is persuading ordinary people to vote our way. We must present a case that seems reasonable. There is no benefit to asking them to believe something that we are not even able to prove and which doesn’t add to the reality that one way or the other, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
In climate, it’s complicated even more by the fact that A + B separately <> A + B together, and nobody knows what any of those quantities actually are.
SNP calls Labour’s net zero plans ‘extremely dangerous’ A Labour government would be “extremely dangerous” for all of Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has claimed.
On Sky’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, was asked about Labour’s plan to stop renewing oil and gas licences if the party comes into power.
Mr Flynn said: “If we want to talk about energy, it’s not the SNP that’s saying there’s going to be 100,000 job losses as a result of the Labour Party’s policies.
“This is industry investment experts who are saying that, and it’s not just to do with ending new licences, it’s to do with removing investment allowances and it’s to do with extending taxation upon the industry. “If you take away those 100,000 jobs, you are no longer in a position to end net zero… What the Labour Party are proposing is extremely dangerous, not just for the north-east of Scotland, but right across Scotland’s economy.”
Yes, indeed. Extremely dangerous, and not just for Scotland.
But which party was it, that only a few months ago, was in coalition with the Scottish Greens? Why, that was the same SNP, that had in mind equally draconian policies on gas and oil licenses.
But suddenly the woke had a moment of awakening when they realized this was not going to be just talk, this was going to be actual jobs, and after those jobs would come… right, votes! Now votes are serious, especially if you are the SNP at the moment, and the election is a few weeks away and you are tanking in the polls. So you turn on a dime and say Net Zero, say what, who was talking about that?
This is just the start of the awakening in the UK. The next big one will come when Labour comes to power four weeks from now, and starts to realize that actually, to decarbonize electricity generation by 2030 means getting companies to install lots more wind, starting now. And installing lots more storage to go with it, also starting now. And all that is going to require higher bid prices for the next round of wind license auctions. And someone in the Labour Party appears to have promised that this drive to Net Zero will reduce electricity prices for the public. I wonder who can have done that? You say it was Keir Starmer. Well, someone must have misinformed him. I wonder who?
Then we will be in the closing stages of the project, the search for the guilty….
Keir Starmer can easily deliver his promise of cutting energy prices. But there will have to be a lot more taxes to pay the subsidies that cut the energy prices.
Not at all sure he can. Certainly not easily. The Net Zero drive will raise the costs of provision so much that prices will have to rise, and rise a lot.
And as Truss found, the bond markets have a veto on UK fiscal policy now. You can be sure that Starmer and his new Chancellor read marked and inwardly digested the Truss episode. Very doubtful there is enough spending room to both do net zero and lower prices. Or that they will take the chance.
No, what they will do is fire Miliband and express dismay at how misinformed they were, and do a U-turn. Whether it will be on net zero or on prices or maybe both…? Well, it will be interesting to see.
Its getting interesting in other parts of the UK:
A group of Tory MPs including Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg have called for scrapping the 2050 net zero target to be part of the Conservative Party manifesto to avoid electoral “oblivion”.
The Popular Conservatives (PopCon) faction has issued a five-point plan on a Tony Blair-style pledge card for the Tories which they say could stop the party from being “a shadow of itself” after the general election.
The group urges the Conservatives to put scrapping 2050 net zero targets in the manifesto.
Is Reform’s rise in the polls maybe having an effect?
Interesting story. The coming EU Parliament elections are going to be very interesting. Climate and energy policies have the potential to become a flashpoint for the right.
The Spiegel piece on German EV sales was an eye-opener:
The real problem with the global warming mania is not so much the issues with the scientific foundation of the alarmism, its the ridiculous policy measures which have been advocated as a solution. Enough are now in full scale implementation, and its becoming obvious that they just don’t work.
As someone says in the comments to the youtube clip of the Spiegel piece, first you destroy the electricity supply, then you are surprised when cars which depend on it stop selling…
Too many liberal arts graduates and lawyers trying to run things which need engineers.
Yesterday I heard venture capitalist Kevin O’Leary propose that if Trump is elected he open up the Anwar area in Alaska to oil drilling, and Congress should charge a royalty of about five percent on all oil and gas sales from there, and Congress should write into law that this five percent can only be used to reduce the national debt of the United States.
It’s an ok idea I suppose. It could be an effective ploy to free up those energy resources that we urgently need. But it’s just a new tax and a new source of revenue for the swamp critters to spend. Money is fungible. Sure you can pay down old debt with a new revenue, but how does that prevent new borrowing and more deficit spending? Without a balanced budget amendment, the problem can never be solved. Without throwing the bums out, there will never be any amendment to the Constitution.
Also at 5%, $75/bbl, and $34 trillion in debt, there would need to be about 9 trillion barrels of oil extracted to retire our debt. Estimated reserves in ANWR are between 4 and 12 billion barrels. So 12 billion barrels would reduce our debt by around 0.1%.
Speaking of Trump, I’m actually kind of shocked that in the first open thread after the witch hunt found Donald weighs as much as a duck and he turned somebody into a newt, nobody even wants to discuss that.
Carbon dioxide dropped after colonial contact wiped out Native Americans. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/is-a-colonial-era-drop-in-co%e2%82%82-tied-to-regrowing-forests/
Did the massive scale of death in the Americas following colonial contact in the 1500s affect atmospheric CO2 levels? That’s a question scientists have debated over the last 30 years, ever since they noticed a sharp drop in CO2 around the year 1610 in air preserved in Antarctic ice.
That drop in atmospheric CO2 levels is the only significant decline in recent millennia, and scientists suggested that it was caused by reforestation in the Americas, which resulted from their depopulation via pandemics unleashed by early European contact. It is so distinct that it was proposed as a candidate for the marker of the beginning of a new geological epoch—the “Anthropocene.”
… this sort of ends that meme that native americans took care of the land better. scientific proof that indigenous people had a horrific carbon footprint.
Dick Burk
June 4, 2024 4:58 pm
I have been searching for the quote of, maybe, 20 years ago of a ‘scientist’ discussing global warming and saying (paraphrased) “This is important to get people to pay attention we need to exaggerate things and scare them”. Anybody remember that?
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Good news GenZ lefty doomsters. Feeling depressed that your efforts with Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, chucking soup on masterpieces, quiet quitting and gluing yourself to everything isn’t cutting through with the demise of Big Fossil and capitalism? Communism needs YOU!
(4) Nobody in China Wants to Marry or Have Kids! Married People Divorcing, Divorce Queues Last a Month – YouTube
I say we’re approaching ‘Peak China,’ if we haven’t hit it already.
The economy isn’t growing like it was, the population is aging and declining without enough workers to pay the pensions of those who are retired or soon to be retired.
Meanwhile, China is vocal about its global ambitions. China aims to be the dominant global superpower. It continues its military buildup and its aggressive actions against its neighbors.
‘Peak China’ makes China more dangerous and desperate.
Pandas don’t breed well in captivity. Perhaps the same is true of humans.
Here is a “kit” of information about Band 16, the “CO2 Longwave IR” band from the imagers aboard the GOES East and West satellites. I have been posting these still images, animations, and time lapse video for a while now, pointing out the revealing nature of the earth’s variable longwave emitter. Clouds, motion, overturning circulation, rapid rise and decay of longwave emission from the land surface under clear skies.
Kevin Kilty recently observed from the video, “Clear sky with dry air radiates quite a lot from the surface — ballistic transport I would call it.”
Ballistic transport. I like it! It shows the importance of the “dehumidifier” aspect of the atmosphere’s heat engine circulations. Watch the time lapse video to appreciate this effect.
The NOAA site is here. You can select from all the bands for GOES East and West.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus.php?sat=G16
**************
Radiance vs “Brightness Temperature”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=sharing
The significance of Band 16 to the computed incremental static warming effect of 2XCO2.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=sharing
7-day time lapse of Band 16 visualizations from GOES East for the full disk of the planet. In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to counter the “basic physics” line of misdirected persuasion.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
**************
Bottom line: We can all “watch” from space to see for ourselves that the minor static radiative “warming” effect of incremental CO2 cannot be isolated for reliable attribution; and that heat energy cannot be “forced” to accumulate on land and in the oceans by what the incremental non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. The dynamic result does NOT depend on the static radiative effect.
Thanks for this video of the 3-7 Aug 1993 time frame. I have been looking at Grand Junction, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona also on Aug 2. The story across the southwest is roughly the same.
Sunday renewables incoming! And their numbers grow rapidly!
Monthly drop hints that China’s CO2 emissions may have peaked in 2023
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-monthly-drop-hints-that-chinas-co2-emissions-may-have-peaked-in-2023/
Increasing use of renewable energy in US yields billions of dollars of benefits
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/29/renewable-energy-us-financial-benefits
Rapid rollout of clean technologies makes energy cheaper, not more costly
https://www.iea.org/news/rapid-rollout-of-clean-technologies-makes-energy-cheaper-not-more-costly
Your BS input grows rapidly, thanks for nothing 😀
The headlines don’t match the underlying data.
growing exponentially 🙂
My response is: more clear BS, less need to reply. Just let it die in peace.
Amen! to that. Just downvote the troll and move on.
Global primary Energy
2012 92% hydrocarbon fuels
2022 92% hydrocarbon fuels
Excludes biofuels like wood where statistics are inaccurate
Great progress!
If you enjoy wasting money
Maybe I should have used tenths of a percentage point rather than rounding to the nearest whole number, to make the grid ruinables looke better?
Also, 2023 set the record for global energy consumption.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1360031/projected-global-coal-consumption-by-country/
China consumed 4.4 billion metric ton
India almost 1 billion metric ton
Does the green religion have a sabbath day?
Maybe a black sabbath to celebrate death and destruction.
I recall Ozzy telling the New Musical Express or was it Melody Maker, one of them, anyway: The nearest we’ve come to black magic is a box of chocolates…
I accept! When I was a kid, those were a special treat, and my siblings and I went after the toffee one(s) first.
Of course not. The agitprop never rests.
they never rest- to save the planet!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, China is building a whole heap of new coal fired power stations.
Only people that benefit from “unreliables” in the USA are the greenie scammers.
Every country with more than a small % of “erratics”, has skyrocketing electricity prices.
In the discussions of power sources we’re currently having there is one
historical point that is never mentioned. That being it was the hydro electric
facilities in WA state on the Columbia River that allowed the production of
aluminum during WWII.
The reality was we were able to make aluminum aircraft faster than the
Japanese could shoot them down, which was a major component of why we won.
When I hear the talk on solar/ wind power I always remember the strategic advantage solid power sources such as hydro, natural gas and coal.. Strength comes from power–electrical power. Our country has gotten very weak from
the enviro leftists.
… and from very weak (& stupid) politicians.
Thanks for the History ‘reminder’. Need more of them.
Also in the real world of off shore UK wind:
All five turbines of the Hywind floating offshore wind farm are being towed to Norway for ‘heavy maintenance’ after only seven years of operation.
The bid price for floating wind has been increased by 52% to £246/MWh this year which is roughly four times the current wholesale price.
The cloud cuckoo land of Net Zero via renewables.
That price is after about 50% subsidies, I.e, the actual cost is about 500/ MWh, but because of 50% subsidies, the owner can sell at 245/MWh
A small drop in one month.. WOW… how meaningless is that !!
Talk about grasping at wet straws
Maybe due to the collapse of their housing market? But that’s just a blip.
So what’s the y-axis ?
Change in CO2 emission in Mt/mo. So the most recent blue blip is 6th time Chinese emission have “hinted” at peaking since 2018. 😂
Sorry, chopped the graph in the wrong place.. it’s in Luser’s first link.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Is that you Griff?
Congratulation! You just plotted a trend using one data point.
The carbon brief piece is incoherent. Its based on a one month decline. It claims that this decline is due to two things, one being stable power generation emissions. It attributes this (without any evidence) to increased wind and solar. It then goes on to cite the reason for the fall as being due to fall in steel and cement production:
While power-sector emissions stabilised, the largest source of reductions in emissions in March was the continued decline in demand for steel and cement from the construction sector, as illustrated in the figure below.
It is perhaps not surprising that if there is a fall in steel and cement production, power generation emissions do not rise. To prove the lack of increase is due to wind and solar requires a detailed argument which isn’t supplied. And a small one month decline is not a trend.
There is no reason to think Chinese emissions are going to reduce. Its like the long awaited crisis of capitalism that Marxists keep seeing in the tea leaves. The most likely trend for Chinese emissions is up, by whatever amount is necessary to economic growth. The CCP isn’t interested in emissions, doesn’t believe in global warming, and has no interest in reducing them.
Then we have the Guardian piece. The supposed savings occur well in the future, and are almost all due to an assumed cost of CO2. This is nonsense. Its only if you assume that the CO2 emissions are driving global warming that you can get to the cost savings, and the problem is that the US foregone emissions (if you believe them) that are being cited as the source of the savings do not in fact contribute materially to global warming even on the climate activist theory. They are not large enough to do that.
I have never seen a case showing that installing wind and solar actually either reduces emissions or saves money. It would be possible to make such a case, all you have to do is compare two systems, one being a hybrid of wind, solar and rapid start gas, the other a conventional one based on gas and coal. Do a proper LCOE comparison for the two, including all the costs that it takes to produce the same dispatchable power.
The argument is always that the hybrid saves fuel. Which it would if the gas in the hybrid system is consumed with the same efficiency as in the conventional one, but it isn’t, because its rapid start and always going on and off, rather than combined cycle in continuous use. Add in construction costs of duplicate capacity, and there is no way you save money by building the wind and solar, and you probably don’t save materially on emissions.
Then we come to the subsidies argument in your last link. I have not read the piece that claims that “Governments worldwide collectively spent around $620 billion in 2023 subsidising the use of fossil fuels”. What is the derivation of this number? Usually when such numbers are cited its a combination of claims that depreciation allowances are a form of subsidy (which is simple accounting illiteracy) and adding in all kinds of assumed indirect costs which are attributed to oil, gas and coal. And ignoring any taxes on fossil fuel production and use, which in the West are very high.
Show the derivation and we can discuss it. But on the face of it, color me skeptical.
You’re just throwing up headlines without subjecting the claims in the pieces linked to any kind of critical appraisal. In the first two cases they are very defective, and in the third most likely so.
Thanks Michel for this forensic clearing away of the bullshit that renewables cultists deposit everywhere,
Your efforts are reminiscent of the Labours of Hercules in cleaning of the Augean Stables.
If it is from CarbonBriefs.. you can absolutely bet it is a load of propaganda BS.
Same with the Gruniad.
Seconded!
Thanks for your clarification/explanation. Reasoning provides such clear pictures.
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the “woke again” indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls
Yes, but you need to argue the case on the specifics. Calling people moronic and stupid doesn’t address their arguments or persuade anyone. Rational argument may, in some cases will.
It’s great that you address the moronic claims, but at some point, playing the game on Lusername’s home court all the time, we’re maybe better off just ignoring the repetitive claptrap, no?
Retard.
The publishing industry has a major dose of the mind virus and is determined to cut its nose off to spite its face…
The campaign by Fossil Free Books (FFB), an activist collective of more than 800 authors and publishing workers, has focused on billions of pounds of investments that the Edinburgh-based firm holds in companies linked to the fossil fuel industry and to Israel. Among some of the seven festivals that remain sponsored by Baillie Gifford, there is fear that the financiers will conclude their involvement is no longer good for either them or the festivals.
It would leave a substantial hole in the budgets of organisations that have survived the pandemic and cost of living crisis partly because of corporate sponsorship.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/article/2024/jun/02/arts-festivals-baillie-gifford-israel-oil-hay-edinburgh-sponsorship
Virtue signalled.
I must presume none of those 800 ever use ff in any way.
Only the FF it takes to get published?
(And keep breathing.)
Of over a dozen conservative climate and energy articles I read this morning, one from Canada about TMIN versus TMAX warning was the most interesting. The subject does not get much attention.
A single global average temperature is deceptive. Not to mention a change of less than 1 degree C, is probably meaningless,
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds).
ClimateMovie fact check: Different warming rates – Climate Discussion Nexus
Only place you can measure TMin is at surface sites, which are highly affected by urban expansion and densification.
As you are well aware…there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming.
When I reviewed the stations in the Canadian Northwest (Yukon and Northwest Territories) from the GHCN-D database, I noticed that many of them showed winters have been getting colder over the past ~30 years.
This past winter season was another cold one up there.
That’s a ridiculous stance. You don’t have to build a nuclear bomb to show that E=Mc^2 Calculation of the energy absorption bands of CO2 results in a number of about 3 to 4 watts/sq. additional CO2 warming per doubling of CO2. Happer and van Wijngaarden, Harde, run your own Modtran….One degree warmer surface emits 5.4 Watts more IR…so about a degree of warming per doubling…about the same as potential data errors…Why make a scientific fool of yourself when perfectly credible arguments against a thermal crisis are evident ?
The difficulty is confusing two separate things. There is no doubt that increasing CO2 ppm will have a heating effect. That is, as you say, just physics.
The question is the result, if any, of applying that heat to the climate of the planet.
RG regularly confuses these two.
It is quite reasonable to be skeptical that the heating effect from additional CO2 is over time very much reduced or even cancelled by negative feedback mechanisms. That is just a view that the climate of the planet is self regulating to remain within some parameters. But that is not being skeptical about the effect of increased CO2 in itself. Its just taking a different view of the way the climate of the planet works.
Skepticism about whether additional CO2 has a heating effect is absurd. Skepticism about whether this heating effect results in long term warming may or may not be justified, but its not absurd in terms of physics.
Yes, the question is what is the net effect of all the forcings and feedback loops, not whether any particular forcing theoretically exists.
The net effect of all the forcings is the temperature of the atmosphere, which has 1) dry air, 2) water, vapor and clouds, 3) CO2 and 4) smidgens of other stuff.
See my below Retained Energy calc.
Comment says:”Skepticism about whether additional CO2 has a heating effect is absurd.”
I disagree. It is right and proper to be skeptical about CO2’s heating ability.
CO2 adds mass and that mass requires more energy to raise increase its temperature. There is some 35 giga tonnes of CO2 added each year. No one has yet shown how CO2 can heat itself with the added mass. What is the emissivity of CO2 at atmospheric temperatures and pressure? If zero then there is no heating by CO2.
CO2 has a heating effect?
That would show up in the atmospheric temperature, which is determined by the retained heat, RE. aka enthalpy.
This summary of analysis show CO2 contributed 0.30% to RE in 1900 and 0.39% in 2023, not much of a “heavy weight”
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves,
Some energy is retained in the atmosphere on a continuing basis
Retained energy, RE, 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, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
Assume WV near the surface at 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) at TS = 16 C for 2023, and 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) at TS = 14.8 C for 1900
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary at higher elevations, specific heat contents vary, and calculations are needed at each elevation, to get a more accurate value RE.
That complex approach would subtract from the 2023 and 1900 REs, however, the RE 2023/1900 ratio likely would be unaffected
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat WV at constant pressure
.
1) World, enthalpy moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.009 kg WV/kg dry air (14,500 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.009 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 38.870 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 16.096 kJ/kg; RE WV is 22.774 kJ/kg
.
2) Tropics, enthalpy moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27,389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.524 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 27.162 kJ/kg; RE WV is 43.362 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
World, enthalpy 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; CO2 421 ppm; World WV 14,500 ppm; Tropics WV 27,389 ppm
World: (16.096 + 22.774 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 200,896 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.25%, 58.36% and 0.39% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 147.8; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 104.5
.
Tropics: (27.160 + 43.360 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 144,804 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.43%, 61.35% and 0.22% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 281.6; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 176.4
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; CO2 296 ppm; World VW 3,689 ppm
World: (14.889 + 20.843 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 184,500 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.54%, 58.16% and 0.3% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 193.5; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 138.2
.
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089, a 16,395 EJ increase
CO2 RE in 1900 was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ; in 2023 was 0.154/39.024 x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, an increase of 239 EJ
CO2 ppm increase was 421/296 = 42%, and CO2 RE increase was 793/554 = 43%
Since you took the time to write that, I’ll give a thumbs up. But my friend bnice will never listen. The key point—there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
This is a climate and weather website where people interested in these topics can freely discuss anything without fear of censorship. In today’s world, that’s an incredible feature we should take advantage of.
Skeptics are unique in their diversity of opinions: they offer a much wider range of views compared to CAGW enthusiasts.
Not every post and reply needs to aim at persuading the masses.
I surely agree about the greatness of this blog. It’s a good opportunity to remind everyone to contribute.
Then produce the empirical measurements of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Not just theoretical radiation-only calculations.
Must be easy for you. Right ?
Waiting !!
You do know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you.
Here’s the thing, bnice, you’re the one who fears that admitting reality somehow concedes dangerous heating. I’m the one who says that the effect if any is small and beneficial. Now there’s a clue for you. When I use the phrase “if any”, that should explicitly tell you that I can’t measure a definite effect.
I will never understand your obstinate attachment to a certainty that there can be no effect of CO2 emissions. There is a reasonable argument consistent with data that there is an enhanced greenhouse effect. It’s a good thing. In no way is it harmful. Denying the possibility does NOT weaken alarmist claims. It weakens the effectiveness of climate realist arguments in the eyes of the broader public. For no good reason.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! Deny the emergency, not valid science.
“Then produce the empirical measurements of warming by atmospheric CO2.”
So… No evidence.. just words… ????
You are nearly as empty as RG.
I never understand your certainty of CO2 warming, despite not being able to produce any actual measured atmospheric evidence.
Science is evidence… produce it… or don’t. Easy peasy. !!
Rich Davis and DMacKenzie and others like to reside in the land of theory – which is all very nice and everything – but in the real world there is no evidence AT ALL of anthropogenic global heating. ALL the current ”heating” can be explained by the sun (depending on who’s data you accept). Lüdecke, H. J., Hempelmann, A., & Weiss, C. O. (2013) found zero evidence of co2 heating in the temp record. Neither did balloon data (Connollys) show any evidence.
The first IPCC report says ”We cannot detect the expected signal.” At what point do we stop arguing that co2 must do ‘something’ and simply start every discussion with – It can’t be measured?
”There is a reasonable argument consistent with data that there is an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
What data is that? Correlation? Experiments in the lab?
No, the key point is that AGW cannot be measured – let alone validated by experiment – therefore remains in the realm of theory.
That is what should be stressed before any talk of emergencies.
Then produce the empirical measurements of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Must be easy for you. Right ?
Modtran is just a model based on radiative transfer..
Why make a scientific fool of yourself by thinking radiative processes is all there is in the atmosphere.
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds)
_________________________________________________________
The IPCC tells us that:
IPCC AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750 pdf3
Temperature Extremes…
“Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.”
__________________________________________________
“Beware of averages.
The average person has one breast and one testicle.”
Dixie Lee Ray
I’m thankful that neither I nor my wife are average people.
One needs to remind oneself It is still an assumption/ hypothesis. And the GHE needs to be seen in context. The mechanism is clear but we might be splitting hairs.
Yes the reasonable position to take is what Michel posted. It’s possible that negative feedbacks render the real effect insignificant, while acknowledging the valid science.
Mr. Greene says:”A single global average temperature is deceptive. Not to mention a change of less than 1 degree C, is probably meaningless,
Warming of TMIN faster than TMAX is one symptom of greenhouse warming (affected by CO2, water vapor and clouds).”
It seems to me you have contradicted yourself. On one hand you say “global average temperature” is deceptive then turn around a say Tmin and Tmax are signs of GHW. How is something that is deceptive a sign of anything other than deception?
GAT is deceptive because it obscures the differences between TMIN and TMAX warming. It also obscures the lack of warming of Antarctica, negating the sea level rise scaremongering.
The following sentence tells us more [about Post-1975 warming than the GAT:
Warmer winter nights in Siberia.
I do not believe the UAH dataset since 1979 is wrong, but it does not necessarily apply to the local climate where a person lives and works.
There is no way a single GAT would explain how much warmer, with much less snow, our winters are here in SE Michigan. With no obvious summer warming. A single GAT hides those important details. That’s why I say it is deceptive. I don’t believe UAH is wrong.
Yet just a couple of days ago here I was challenging
your belief in the whole GAT construct, Richard.
As I recall, you never gave an explanation of your faith in GAT constructs.
You should change your handle to “Tricky Dickie”.
Not to mention “Intensive properties cannot be algebraically added or subtracted.”
Temperature is an intensive property. There is no way a single GAT has a valid physical meaning.
Urban measurements give urban temperatures , effected by urban habitats.
And also UHI effects from buildings and pavement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/
Given doing a search for this site requires scrolling through pages of alarmists before getting here, any suggestions on how to find good videos and books to combat the indoctrination my kids are already getting in pre school and first grade?
Perhaps:
https://www.prageru.com/
A book that does not give clear answers is a good start. And it depends on how smart/old the children are. Complexity is hard to make simpler. But you can explain complexity in a simple way. You need to involve uncertainty. Or draw lines and explain binary politics in a clear way. I always use courtroom scenarios, prosecution/defense type of situation. And who picks which expert. If you can point out the games in the media they’ll start to see patterns. Just buy a few newspapers and do a word check: denial, tipping point, overwhelming evidence, far/extreme, ultra, radical right. Just ask them to underline each one, then explain the one sidedness of it all..
Ie, make them think
Great idea, lets do this with articles here.
Yes, we’ll frequently find the word “bullshit” in reply comments to “MyUsername”.
And there’s a valid reason for that . . .
True, but the best response to Lusername is:
I forgot.
https://climateataglance.com/
How about Tony Heller’s short videos.
https://climateataglance.com/
https://climaterealism.com/
Jim Steele’s youtube videos at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XNHEz2QCJ_Phf2mvDFk0Q
Tom Nelson’s youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080/videos
Maybe a little advanced for young kids, but worth bookmarking for future reference. Tom has interviewed dozens of scientists, all agree there is no “climate crisis”. They’re not too young to understand those words.
On car free cities.
The darker greens fervently believe every city should be car free, because… they say so. Most of us, for very obvious reasons, do not. One could be forgiven for thinking car free cities do not exist at all. But I have some very good news for ItsUsername, there are quite a number of car free cities to choose from, already. Here’s a small selection below, there must be one that suits….
Car free cities… from the ‘discerning cyclist‘
Pontevedra, Spain
Venezia, Italy
Giethoorn, Netherlands
Vauban/Freiburg, Germany
Zermatt, Switzerland
Mackinac Island, USA
Copehhagen, Denmark
Hydra, Greece
Lamu, Kenya
Etc
https://discerningcyclist.com/car-free-cities-around-the-world/
If a car free city is what ‘Username’ wants, Username now knows where to go to realise the dream…
Will car free cities still have fossil fuel powered fire trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, delivery semis, UPS, FEDEX, etc.
Yes, they would, because no reasonable person argues for total car free cities.
In general, there is a reasonable point of view on cars and transport. Its not to ban cars or ICE vehicles in general. Its also not to leave cities as dominated by cars as they are at present. A reasonable model is some variant of the Dutch one, which tries to place enough restrictions on car use and routes so as to give space to people walking and cycling. But also to recognize that society is now organized substantially around cars, and that is not going to change.
The Dutch model, with segregated bikeways and walkways, was implemented because the rise of cars occurred in a society in which bikes were a standard form of transport, particularly for the young. When car ownership and use rose, the result was a rise in accidents and deaths particularly among the young.
The Dutch decided to do something about this. The default choice in most countries was to do nothing, and the result was a decline in cycling and walking. The different Dutch solution was to build segregated bikeways and walkways all over the country. They also introduced low traffic areas by limiting through traffic in residential areas.
The result is a country where you can drive almost anywhere you want, but you can also get almost anywhere safely by cycling, and you can walk in most places on dedicated walkways without worrying about either cars or bikes. It works.
Notice that whether the cars are EVs or ICE is immaterial to the Dutch model. A kid on a bike hit by a car going at 40 mph does not car what fuel it runs on. Even if you have banned all ICE cars and replaced them with EVs, you still need to make a decision about what sort of transport you want, and the Dutch example shows that some restrictions on car use and substantial protection for biking and walking and from through car traffic increase quality of life.
Whatever the fuel of the cars.
I hate bicycles. A close friend lost his 21Y/O daughter on a summer trip to Hollannd. I personally know 2 more parents who lost a child in bike accidents, and one with concussion and a broken arm last week. My daughter was is on lifelong steroids due to pituitary damage 15 years ago – a permanent disability pension – despite her helmet.
When my kids lost their bus pass, I gave them tickets to stop them using their bikes.
Yes, bicycles are certainly not accident free. Even in Holland where they have made every effort to supply safe segregated bikeways everywhere. Your catalogue of accidents is very bad – though I think also very unusual. I have lived and worked in Holland and never heard of either deaths or serious injuries among my acquaintance, and my own experience of the bikeways was that they were very safe. This may have changed in the last few years, see below.
But I agree that were bike use to become much more common, bike accidents would probably increase. Its one of the things people who advocate for increased use rarely consider. Though, as a precondition of any material increase, traffic segregation and bikeways would be essential, and this would reduce car-bike and truck-bike accidents which, at least in the UK, are most of the fatal ones.
This is what perplexity.ai says:
Key Points
Contributing Factors
Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a cycling haven, the recent surge in cyclist fatalities, especially among the elderly, has raised concerns and calls for improved infrastructure, speed limit reductions in urban areas, and efforts to promote helmet use.
It is very strange that in a country with dedicated bikeways car and van accidents have risen so much, according to this.
Comment says:”…no reasonable person argues for total car free cities.”
You assume folks that propose these ideas are reasonable. Why not just accept what they say at face value instead of giving them safety nets?
And a kid hit by a car doing 40 mph does care about the mass of the vehicle that hit him. Mass of vehicle matters and most EV’s are heavier than ICE.
I reckon Lamu would deny entry to MyUsername.
Their visitor standards aren’t high, but they have to draw a line somewhere.
Story Tip
Rivers are turning orange in Alaska likely due to climate change writes Anumita Kaur, Washington Post. If you read the article, the authors say a warming climate not climate change. Classic spin.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/alaskas-rusting-waters-pristine-rivers-and-streams-turning-orange
We just noticed something, therefore it has never happened before, and it goes without saying, it’s bad! We’re doomed I tells ya.
This thread contains a discussion of Tmin, Tmax and the global mean. People are pointing out the data deficiencies; such as, how independent is Tmax from Tmin, is the data they contain independent, how large are the uncertainties in meansurement, how should we handle the statistics, etc. These are all worthy arguments.
Something I rarely see written about is the problem of non-uniqueness. I ran a geophysical “service” company for years in partnership with the late Arthur Lange, and we performed all sorts of Geophysical measurements and field campaigns in search of client-specified targets. Non-uniqueness is the bane of any such endeavor. This non-uniqueness issue is best explained in this simple analogy. I have a series of numbers — I may know them exactly or not, but I do know each one originates from the sum of a couple of other numbers. What my client wants is the numbers that went into the sum.
There is not enough information to go back and recover the numbers in the sum from the sum itself.
With attribution problems, actually with every single issue in “climate science”, there is this same problem of non-uniqueness because many different factors are involved in temperature, and it is difficult to make an iron-clad argument about what Tmin or Tmax, or SST, or whatever, contains in terms of components.
Let alone the temperature is an intensive property and cannot be added.
The problem to state it another way is that there is much more energy needed to raise the temperature of wet soil than dry sand or asphalt. Both the heat capacity and the latent heat effects are what makes it bogus to average temperatures spatially across different climate regions. We should be accounting for total enthalpy changes.
A global average temperature is mathematically valid but is not physically meaningful because you could have a higher average temperature despite lower total enthalpy based on some spiked temperatures in drought regions while at the same time other regions may have only a small temperature decline associated with a large amount of heat lost.
I think of the global average temperature as more of an index. If all the world’s climate regions maintain about their normal rainfall, then a rise or fall in the global average may accurately indicate warming or cooling in terms of total enthalpy. But the all else being equal assumption is rarely valid.
Sorry Rich although I fully understand what you are saying I refuse to give people who would destroy our economy any leeway. A GAT is wrong.
You and I are not in a position to ‘give … any leeway’, mk.
We COULD potentially be in a position to marginally influence persuadable people that climate realism is a more reasonable position than climate alarmism. But if we cling unreasonably to a certainty that there is no possible warming effect or that fossil fuel emissions don’t even increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, then persuadable people are given reasons to dismiss our views as anti-science.
When you talk about people who would destroy our economy, you are talking about the realm of politics and persuasion, not science and evidence.
The only thing that can hope to defeat those people is persuading ordinary people to vote our way. We must present a case that seems reasonable. There is no benefit to asking them to believe something that we are not even able to prove and which doesn’t add to the reality that one way or the other, there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
In climate, it’s complicated even more by the fact that A + B separately <> A + B together, and nobody knows what any of those quantities actually are.
Story Tip
The Scottish Energy reversal
SNP calls Labour’s net zero plans ‘extremely dangerous’
A Labour government would be “extremely dangerous” for all of Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has claimed.
On Sky’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, was asked about Labour’s plan to stop renewing oil and gas licences if the party comes into power.
Mr Flynn said: “If we want to talk about energy, it’s not the SNP that’s saying there’s going to be 100,000 job losses as a result of the Labour Party’s policies.
“This is industry investment experts who are saying that, and it’s not just to do with ending new licences, it’s to do with removing investment allowances and it’s to do with extending taxation upon the industry.
“If you take away those 100,000 jobs, you are no longer in a position to end net zero… What the Labour Party are proposing is extremely dangerous, not just for the north-east of Scotland, but right across Scotland’s economy.”
Yes, indeed. Extremely dangerous, and not just for Scotland.
But which party was it, that only a few months ago, was in coalition with the Scottish Greens? Why, that was the same SNP, that had in mind equally draconian policies on gas and oil licenses.
But suddenly the woke had a moment of awakening when they realized this was not going to be just talk, this was going to be actual jobs, and after those jobs would come… right, votes! Now votes are serious, especially if you are the SNP at the moment, and the election is a few weeks away and you are tanking in the polls. So you turn on a dime and say Net Zero, say what, who was talking about that?
This is just the start of the awakening in the UK. The next big one will come when Labour comes to power four weeks from now, and starts to realize that actually, to decarbonize electricity generation by 2030 means getting companies to install lots more wind, starting now. And installing lots more storage to go with it, also starting now. And all that is going to require higher bid prices for the next round of wind license auctions. And someone in the Labour Party appears to have promised that this drive to Net Zero will reduce electricity prices for the public. I wonder who can have done that? You say it was Keir Starmer. Well, someone must have misinformed him. I wonder who?
Then we will be in the closing stages of the project, the search for the guilty….
Keir Starmer can easily deliver his promise of cutting energy prices. But there will have to be a lot more taxes to pay the subsidies that cut the energy prices.
Not at all sure he can. Certainly not easily. The Net Zero drive will raise the costs of provision so much that prices will have to rise, and rise a lot.
And as Truss found, the bond markets have a veto on UK fiscal policy now. You can be sure that Starmer and his new Chancellor read marked and inwardly digested the Truss episode. Very doubtful there is enough spending room to both do net zero and lower prices. Or that they will take the chance.
No, what they will do is fire Miliband and express dismay at how misinformed they were, and do a U-turn. Whether it will be on net zero or on prices or maybe both…? Well, it will be interesting to see.
Its getting interesting in other parts of the UK:
A group of Tory MPs including Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg have called for scrapping the 2050 net zero target to be part of the Conservative Party manifesto to avoid electoral “oblivion”.
The Popular Conservatives (PopCon) faction has issued a five-point plan on a Tony Blair-style pledge card for the Tories which they say could stop the party from being “a shadow of itself” after the general election.
The group urges the Conservatives to put scrapping 2050 net zero targets in the manifesto.
Is Reform’s rise in the polls maybe having an effect?
It seems the Germans tire of civil disobedience when it’s a problem, such as forminga criminalorganization:
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/alarm-as-german-climate-activists-charged-with-forming-a-criminal-organisation
Guess extinction doesn’t mean what it is supposed to mean. Or, lost species are re-evolving:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2024/05/23/meet-2-lost-species-a-flightless-bird-and-gliding-mammal-rediscovered-50-years-later/
What? My managed 401k missed out because it has fossil fuels not renewable?
I sincerely doubt the 5.1 billion means as much spread out over hundreds of thousands of accounts. But hey, big numbers always look scary:
https://fortune.com/2024/05/22/big-tech-employees-missed-out-5-1-billion-401k-gains-decade-because-of-fossil-fuels-new-research-finance/
Ahh, poor New Zealand, more trees won’t solve their climate problems:
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-millions-trees-isnt-climate-zealand.amp
Hold the press, chat GPT answers might cause more harm than good in Africa?
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-gpt-inaccuracies-agriculture-crop-losses.amp
Interesting story. The coming EU Parliament elections are going to be very interesting. Climate and energy policies have the potential to become a flashpoint for the right.
The Spiegel piece on German EV sales was an eye-opener:
https://notrickszone.com/2024/05/07/the-german-e-vehicle-nightmare-2024-q1-sales-plummet-14-graveyard-for-unsold-cars/
The real problem with the global warming mania is not so much the issues with the scientific foundation of the alarmism, its the ridiculous policy measures which have been advocated as a solution. Enough are now in full scale implementation, and its becoming obvious that they just don’t work.
As someone says in the comments to the youtube clip of the Spiegel piece, first you destroy the electricity supply, then you are surprised when cars which depend on it stop selling…
Too many liberal arts graduates and lawyers trying to run things which need engineers.
Yesterday I heard venture capitalist Kevin O’Leary propose that if Trump is elected he open up the Anwar area in Alaska to oil drilling, and Congress should charge a royalty of about five percent on all oil and gas sales from there, and Congress should write into law that this five percent can only be used to reduce the national debt of the United States.
I thought this was a very good idea.
Tom, I’m not so sure it is a good idea to open up one of the worlds premier wildlife refuges to drilling, but if you do then I guess taxing the oil companies to do it is at least something. And one would have thought, given the annihilation caused by the Exon Valdez in Alaska, the locals would be fighting this.
https://www.travelalaska.com/Destinations/Parks-Public-Lands/Arctic-National-Wildlife-Refuge#:~:text=The%20Arctic%20National%20Wildlife%20Refuge,of%20the%20Porcupine%20River%20Valley.
It’s an ok idea I suppose. It could be an effective ploy to free up those energy resources that we urgently need. But it’s just a new tax and a new source of revenue for the swamp critters to spend. Money is fungible. Sure you can pay down old debt with a new revenue, but how does that prevent new borrowing and more deficit spending? Without a balanced budget amendment, the problem can never be solved. Without throwing the bums out, there will never be any amendment to the Constitution.
Also at 5%, $75/bbl, and $34 trillion in debt, there would need to be about 9 trillion barrels of oil extracted to retire our debt. Estimated reserves in ANWR are between 4 and 12 billion barrels. So 12 billion barrels would reduce our debt by around 0.1%.
.
Speaking of Trump, I’m actually kind of shocked that in the first open thread after the witch hunt found Donald weighs as much as a duck and he turned somebody into a newt, nobody even wants to discuss that.
Carbon dioxide dropped after colonial contact wiped out Native Americans.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/is-a-colonial-era-drop-in-co%e2%82%82-tied-to-regrowing-forests/
Did the massive scale of death in the Americas following colonial contact in the 1500s affect atmospheric CO2 levels? That’s a question scientists have debated over the last 30 years, ever since they noticed a sharp drop in CO2 around the year 1610 in air preserved in Antarctic ice.
That drop in atmospheric CO2 levels is the only significant decline in recent millennia, and scientists suggested that it was caused by reforestation in the Americas, which resulted from their depopulation via pandemics unleashed by early European contact. It is so distinct that it was proposed as a candidate for the marker of the beginning of a new geological epoch—the “Anthropocene.”
… this sort of ends that meme that native americans took care of the land better. scientific proof that indigenous people had a horrific carbon footprint.
I have been searching for the quote of, maybe, 20 years ago of a ‘scientist’ discussing global warming and saying (paraphrased) “This is important to get people to pay attention we need to exaggerate things and scare them”. Anybody remember that?
Stephen Schneider