Installing more insulation probably would have reduced energy bills. But its not without problems, insulating the current UK housing stock unless very carefully done can lead to damp and mould. Especially when its combined with heavy handed draught proofing. But yes, where possible, and when done right, home insulation is a sensible thing to do, with or without government subsidies.
On the gas consumption reduction savings, the devil is in the detail of the assumptions. As far as I can tell from their account they do not seem to have taken account of intermittency. Just because you generate X GW of wind or solar does not mean that you save a corresponding amount of gas, because you will be generating a lot of it when its not needed. I see no account of the very large payments the UK currently incurs in order to stop wind suppliers generating. I also don’t know whether their costings take account of transmission additions.
The Economist piece is actually showing the problem. The problem is positive intermittency, its generating lots of power when its not needed and there is no demand for it. The other side of failing to deliver when there is peak demand. They suggest exporting, using storage, or moving demand. None of these are practical. Sweden for instance has declined transmission links to Germany because it would just export intermittency to them. Batteries are impractical and too expensive. Moving demand isn’t really possible at scale either, you cannot run industry or business on unreliable power, and household turnoffs are not going to be much better or acceptable.
Installing more insulation probably would have reduced energy bills
Improving insulation falls into the category of improving efficiency. The costs of improved efficiency are sometimes worthwhile but often the payback time means it essentially never pays for itself.
Many studies have found that, over time, improved efficiency leads to significantly increased energy usage. In the simple situation of better insulation actually done right, and a stable electricity market, heating and cooling costs are noticeably reduced. Within a fairly short time, the majority of people start making themselves more comfortable by raising the temperature more during cold weather and lowering the temperature more during hot weather because doing so is more affordable than it used to be. Soon they are using more electricity or gas than they did before insulating. This is very common and widespread.
Along with that kind of cause-effect situation there is the fact that more and more energy using devices are added to the household, further raising electricity use. The relationship between insulation or more efficient appliances and the additional devices may not be so straightforward as to be able to always show a cause-effect relationship but when saving through efficience actually means more money available, the choices of what to do with it tends to lead to additional energy use.
But regarding temperature, there is limit to that, no human will heat living space over 30C or cool below 0C. I have insulated house and same temperature is comfortable for me before insulation and after. I my case it is around 23C.
The ultimate sources of energy that we use each day have become lost as the emphasis has shifted to press reports of, for example, nuclear versus hydrocarbon burning.
Bicycle riders seem to feel virtuous because they are not driving a gasoline car, so saving the globe from overheating calamity. People eat food that has hydrocarbons so cyclists are still producing CO2, same principle as burning gasoline in autos.
Those foods that our cyclists consume as they ride, in turn, can come from agriculture that produces CO2 and calls attention to the actual gain when agriculture is used from corn to ethanol to auto tank, or corn for eating.
The economists who cost various energy sources need to include such complications and concepts. Geoff S
“Perhaps it may be that anyone who disagrees with your opinion, you characterize as stupid. A common problem on this site.
****************
One of MUN’s linked articles above talks about how low wind and solar energy prices have been in Europe. He is apparently not familiar with the concept of supply and demand in economics.
Anything that has a very low price or no value in a market economy is a consequence of low or no demand and/or a supply that is far greater than the demand. Therein lies the problem with wind and solar energy at times when the price on that energy is low or negative. It is generated (usually during the day) when it is not needed. Redundant energy production.
If battery storage was the answer to this problem, we would probably be seeing a lot more of them being installed than we do by now. If MUN does not understand this, then it is likely he will generate claims of stupidity for himself at blogs like this one.
I do not think that the simple, basic law of supply and demand in economics is an opinion.
Funny how statements like that don’t actually provide much useful information. I would guess that they are talking about IN THE SUMMER, not in the winter when the solar availability is not so long.
AND I think I have read repeatedly that in locations with a large solar % that at 5 or so, when working people get home, the solar output cannot keep up with the increasing demand, so the 11 to 7 seems to be a bit of BS.
Yes the high pressure steam generators — gas, coal and nuclear — all have to keep running during that period so they can quickly come on line at dusk. Very expensive, driving the LCOE for the steamers way up and the retail price with it.
You and the Greenies have such a piss-poor reputation for honesty that I’m not going to waste my time following those links to see how they lied. Some other commenter probably already has, but if not, oh well. Try being more honest, change your reputation, if you want to convince climate realists like me.
Carbon Brief’s analysis of the impact of having got rid of the “green crap” is based on a series of assumptions about what would have happened if those policy measures had remained in place.
You don’t need to read any further to understand it’s BS
… wholesale prices were negative in 301 of the 8,760 tradable hours last year.
To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to 3.4%. Actually, that doesn’t seem to be too bad. However, it tells the reader nothing about how negative the prices were. The claim is actually an indictment of so-called renewable power because it is typically at its peak when it is least needed. If someone is drowning and is swallowing water, the last thing they want is a drink of water. How often have you turned down dessert after eating a big meal? Reliable, dispatchable power is what is needed to stabilize prices. If what is being offered for consumption is unneeded or unwanted, then it is the wrong technology. The problem is compounded by subsidies provided from tax money. The suppliers should, instead, be allowed to go out of business if they can’t make a profit.
strativarius
June 23, 2024 2:15 am
If local people decide they don’t want a wind farm or a solar farm….
If you Google any agency in the state of Wokeachusetts, you’ll see lots about “the climate emergency”. But no problemo- as the female/woke/LGBT+ agency leaders will solve the problem.
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 flora and fauna, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
WV in the TS, up to about 1.5 km, is nearly constant at 9 g/kg of dry air
WV decreases from about 2.5 g to less than 0.5 g, from 2 km to 6 km, per balloon measurements
WV percent above 2 km is small compared to total WV
Assume:
For 2023, WV near the surface is 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 16 C
For 1900, WV is 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 14.8 C
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary with elevation, specific heat contents vary, and RE calculations are needed at each elevation, for more accurate RE values. That complex method was avoided for simplicity. . NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 421 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
. Specific enthalpy of 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
.
1a) In 2023, 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
.
1b) In 1900, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 14.8 C and H = 0.008244 kg WV/kg dry air (13,282 ppm)
h = 1.006 (14.8) + 0.008244 {2501 + 1.84 (14.8)} = 35.732 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 14.889 kJ/kg; RE WV is 20.843 kJ/kg https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor. . Specific enthalpy CO2, in 2023
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241.2 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 241.2 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air Specific enthalpy CO2, in 1900
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.833 x (14.8 + 273) = 239.8 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(296 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000449 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 239.8 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 287.8 K = 0.108 kJ/kg dry air . World RE in 2023: (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
RE roles were dry air 41.25%, WV 58.36% and CO2 0.39%
In 2023, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.36/0.39 was 147.8; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 14500/421 was 34.4. i.e., each WV molecule is 4.29 more effective regarding RE than each CO2 molecule.
. World RE in 1900: (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
RE roles were dry air 41.54%, WV 58.16% and CO2 0.30%
In 1900, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.16/0.30 was 193.5; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 13282/296 was 44.9, i.e., each WV molecule is 4.31 more effective regarding RE than each CO2 molecule. .
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 9,942 EJ, dry air 6215 EJ, CO2 239 EJ . NOTE:
If WV 4028 ppm, CO2 421 ppm in 2023, RE roles would be dry air 71.30%, WV 28.02% and CO2 0.68%
If WV 3389 ppm, CO2 296 ppm in 1900, RE roles would be dry air 71.63%, WV 27.85% and CO2 0.52%
. Tropics
In 2023, 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 (27)} = 70.524 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 27.162 kJ/kg; RE WV is 43.362 kJ/kg Tropics RE: (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
RE roles were dry air 38.43%, WV 61.35% and CO2 0.22% 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. About 35% of RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
Wilpost,
“Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming” Nope…Global warming “discussion” is mainly about how much IR is absorbed by CO2, and how much more heat it absorbs as it’s concentration increases by 2 1/2 ppm per year. IR effects you have not mentioned…
Right, because CO2 15 micrometer band saturates, so it cannot absorb IR
From Happer:
Many people, including me, estimate that the feedback-free warming from doubling CO2 will be around 0.75 C. This number used to be pretty universally accepted, before global warming alarm became fashionable and rewarding. For example, see these paragraphs from Steve Schneider and Rasool in the year 1971 when global cooling was all the rage: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8°K. However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off.
Even for an increase in CO by a factor of 10 the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5°K. Therefore the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 micron CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
But if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere becomes so high that the total atmospheric pressure is affected (which will require a CO2 increase by a factor of 1000 or more), then the absorption bands will broaden, the opacity will increase, and the temperature may start to rise so rapidly that the process could run away (13).
However, this appears to be only a remote possibility for Earth, even on a geological timescale, as a large build up of CO2 in the atmosphere will be severely restrained by its interaction with the oceans, the biosphere, and the crust. The main conclusion of this part of the study is that even an order of magnitude increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by human activities, which at the present rate of input is not expected within the next several thousand years, may not be sufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.
On the short time scale, if CO₂ is augmented by another 10 percent in the next 30 years, the increase in the global temperature may be as small as 0.1°K.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/1732207
Also note what happens, if I take an abnormally low WV ppm.
CO2 RE role increases from 0.52% in 1900 to 0.68% in 2023.
Those values are close to those of Happer and others
CO2 does play a very important role, which we should mention as often as possible, instead of hair-splitting where CO2 does this or that.
Any focus on CO2 is a red herring to divert our attention from the wonderful role of CO2, without which there would be no life on earth
NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2
As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, flora CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels are a blessing.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Forms a filter in the upper atmosphere that absorbs harmful UV radiation, with wavelengths below 240 nm; 3) Increases world fauna; 4) Increases crop yields per acre; 5) Reduces world desert areas
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt
Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL. https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
.
Mauna Loa curve shows an annual variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to:
1) seasonal absorption by photosynthesis, 6CO2 (from the air) + 6H2O (from the ground) + sunlight → C6H12O6 (glucose for energy) + 6O2 (to the air); plants use glucose to make cellulose for cell walls and starch for energy storage
2) ongoing decay.
. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english . Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 ions at the surface, is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural) in the atmosphere https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
“Right, because CO2 15 micrometer band saturates, so it cannot absorb IR”
That’s a very odd interpretation Wilpost…it is more correct to say CO2 absorbs 100% of the 15 micron radiation that tries to pass through it within a short distance….therefore adding more CO2 to that which already exists in the atmosphere…doesn’t do much….
That short distance is about 10 meter for trace gas CO2 to absorb some of 15 micrometer surface photons
A good chunk of the rest of the surface photons, including 15 micrometer photons, are eliminated by abundant WV within the first 150 meter.
However, most of the surface photons are eliminated, not by absorption, but by collisions with extremely numerous dry air molecules.
This photon elimination slightly warms the atmosphere, which will emit IR photons in all directions, but at longer wavelengths than those from the surface.
Those longer wavelengths are beyond the CO2 window, but not beyond the WV window
At about 2 km, where it is colder, WV is condensing on particles in sufficient quantities so they become visible as clouds, and WV ppm is reduced from 9 g/kg to about 1 – 2 g/kg, and less at higher elevations, where it is even colder.
Now, WV and CO2 are becoming less relevant regarding absorption of photons, and all molecules move slower and are further apart, and the atmosphere opacity becomes sufficiently small for photons to escape unhindered to outer space, through the so-called “window”
Excerpt:
.
Affordability, Charging-Infrastructure, & Range-Anxiety Continue To Keep Americans From Fully Embracing EVs https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/affordability-charging-infrastructure-amp-range-anxiety-continue
.
A number of factors have decreased buying of EVs, including among environmentally conscious consumers.
FT reported
.
1) high EV prices (increase monthly lease payments),
2) high financing interest rates (increase monthly lease payments),
3) short driving range,
4) lack of charging infrastructure,
5) high insurance cost,
6) high charging cost,
7) high repair cost,
8) very low resale/trade-in value,
9) low-range during hot and cold weather,
10) rapid wear of tires and brakes
(1) and (2) are somewhat explained by the following paragraph
Compared to conventional vehicles, EVs are financed with higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value ratios, and shorter loan durations. The “EV financing gap” occurs mainly because lenders perceive risks related to future innovations in battery technology, which could render EVs based on current technology obsolete.
(10) EV brakes last longer. A lot longer if there is plenty of stop and go driving that activates regenerative braking.
You left out the very annoying slow charging time, even with a “fast 480 volt DC charger”, especially in cold months
I wonder how much higher the insurance cost is? For starters, it’ll be higher because the cost of EVs is higher- but beyond that cost factor, is there also a premium due to higher repair costs?
At least one study, comparing BEV vehicles with comparable ICE vehicles, for vehicles purchased new in 2001 through 2023, found maintenance and repair cost 80% higher for BEV. Then there is the reported policy of insurance companies to declare BEVs involved in even small collisions totaled because of potential battery fires and explosions.
Regenerative braking- yes, but, aren’t EVs heavier? That might somewhat reduce the wear benefit of RB. Seems sensible that RB would reduce brake wear- but is the data in to prove it?
Then there is price. Performance brake pads and rotors for the Tesla Cyber Truck can be had for $800 and $2400, respectively. A knock off service kit for Tesla model S front brakes is $550. It’s a good thing that they last longer.
You need to understand how regenerative braking works. There are no brake pads involved in the process to wear. It’s all done by EMF forces within the motors when the fields are reversed. You can actually drive some EVs without touching the brakes. One foot driving. Tires and suspension take a hit though with all the extra weight. My thinking is the ideal car propulsion system is what BMW uses in their i3, too bad the car is butt ugly. 100 mile range on battery charge and an on board generator (ICE motorcycle engine) for extended range. Light engine, no transmission, no differential.
I find it difficult to believe that regenerative braking alone will be adequate for all situations. The question remains, because of the greater vehicle weight, whether the life of the brake pads will be shortened, stay the same, or increased. It may depend on the driving conditions. As the caveat goes, “Mileage may vary.”
Too true. I used to be a BMW bigot to the bone and there have been periods when BMW built some beautiful cars. The two nicest and best cars I ever owned were BMWs. But there have been too many periods when they have built some “butt ugly” ones too.
There are no brake pads involved in the process to wear.
I’m curious where you get that from – do you literally mean NO brake pads at all in regenerative braking systems?
My son’s hybrid had regenerative braking and it also had pads and rotors.
Scissor just before you said “Performance brake pads and rotors for the Tesla Cyber Truck can be had for $800 and $2400, respectively.”
Tires Plus says “Regenerative braking also slows the car down, which assists the use of traditional brakes.”
And for what it’s worth Wikipedia says “mechanical braking is still necessary for substantial speed reductions, to bring a vehicle to a stop, or to hold a vehicle at a standstill.”
Yes they have brakes and brake pads. If there is no room in the battery for the regenerative braking to take effect it relies on the conventional brake/pad system (like if you charge it to 100%). Also there are certain situations where regenerative braking is useless ….. panic stops, stopped, slow speeds like parking or creeping along …. but with most driving situations it can be used. Brake force is selectable and adjustable in Teslas to a certain extent from what I’ve read. Tesla owners report from 60 to 150K miles on the original pads.
Rapid tyre (tire) wear on EVs may be partly due to hard acceleration from standing starts. Because it’s essentially silent, I suspect a lot of drivers do it, who wouldn’t if they were driving ICE cars. Rapid acceleration is also enhanced by the positioning of the extra weight (under the passenger compartment rather than over the front wheels) means even more weight on the rear driving wheels. Also, many (most?) EVs have separate motors on each driving wheel. All giving better traction and greater acceleration.
I suspect that many EV owners unconsciously change their driving habits to include greater acceleration.
I borrowed an EV for a few days last year, and I amused myself by seeing how quickly I could take off when the lights changed. Very impressive – but somehow the silence made it less thrilling than it would have been with the deep-throated roar from the big old 5.7L V-8 in my pickup truck.
I wonder, if they built an optional “twin-carb V-8 with a hole in the muffler” noise maker in EVs, would they get more sales from the boy racers of the world?
I have yet to see any analysis of how the braking is partitioned between regeneration and friction. Almost certainly, regenerative braking will be minor for emergency stopping. My suspicion is that those who have the bad habit of tail-gating will see a much higher rate of brake lining wear than those who keep a good distance between themselves and the car ahead of them. The problem is, in congested driving (urban rush hour) leaving a gap is an invitation for someone to pass on the right and slide into the opening.
I am building a model to remove known significant stratospheric radiative events from surface readings, and in analyzing the data it appears that a VEI 4 Russian volcano named Shiveluch erupted in 1999 and caused a noticeable change in transmission. Looks like an ash event which takes 6 – 8 months and caused the prolonged La-Nina following the 98 El-Nino event. I was hesitant to put it on there because there is not much out there on it. Does this seem plausible?
Yes indeed, you would like to think that data could lead you to the truth like in the old days, but now, not so sure. The last few years have been a wealth of information with the massive Australian brushfire black carbon injection, followed by a never-before-seen injection of H2O from the HT eruption.
And now something has caused a large drop in transmission last month, could be Canadian Forest fires from late last year. There is a prediction opportunity here based purely on the Stratosphere, because generally when you have warm perturbations in the Stratosphere you have Texas killer freezes and such. Once a drop in transmission is detected from an Ash event, it takes a few months before the it shows up as an increase in temperature in the lower Stratosphere. And if and when it does, rest assured, somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere during winter, people will die because of the cascaded effects, altering jet stream. vortex breaches etc.. by way of intense cold fronts.
Ron Long
June 23, 2024 5:25 am
After reading a story about the two large fires, still not under control, in New Mexico, I happened to watch a CNN segment about heat warnings, extreme weather, and wildfires. CNN did not actually cover the New Mexico fires in this segment, as they had repeatedly done previously, linking the wildfires to climate change. The story I read: There is an offer of up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who started the two New Mexico fires. This “saving the planet” theme, leading the CAGW crowd, has some strange twists and turns.
There was a massive widespread beetle kill in the western national forests back in 06’ish.
The common government agency theme was it was caused by not having the -20 degree or colder
winter temperatures, eg climate change. The agency personnel I’ve been around for as long as I
can remember are not the brightest, more of a power/control mentality. In the wildfire
arena if you look back 100+ yrs to the ‘Big Burn of 1910″ where 3 million acres
went up in a couple of days that led to a big change in forest management and
things like Smoky the Bear. That’s all changed now with the VLAT’s and and the woke
management female rangers coming out with their phd’s ect. Bottom line here in the
northern rockies is there in not much left in the way of management tools such as
saw mills, loggers ec. It’s just not possible to manage a forest without tools. We’re heading into
a long hot dry spell after a very low snow pack and some areas if you climb up on
top of a high peak is dead in 360* as far as you can see in all directions. The radical
enviros constant lawfare on the forest backed by leftist appointed judges and
the support from lawmakers is the basis of this. There’s billions of gallons of timber
that can be made into diesel but there are factors in play that won’t allow that.
Richard M
June 23, 2024 5:46 am
Follow this chain of events to understand a cooling process driven by CO2 increases …
-More CO2 emits more downwelling IR. -Downwelling IR drives more evaporation. -More evaporation increases lower atmosphere buoyancy. -Increased buoyancy accelerates convection which drives water vapor higher into the colder troposphere. -Colder air causes more high atmosphere condensation. -Increased condensation reduces high altitude water vapor. -Less high altitude water vapor allows more energy to be radiated to space.
The way i see it is that you can assert 2 opposite options and calculate yr way into thinking that you’ve proven something. The more my knowledge expands the more i see the wide error bars. Ultimately very little about the climate system moves beyond hypothesis. And that is because of the system itself. You cannot equate yr way out of it. There are general concepts that are very hard to quantify exactly. And a slight variable can tilt things. In a way i find that reassuring. Take the GHE. A still slippery concept. Scientists do all kinds of things and apply the Method. Diversity IS the name of the game. I always use that in conversation w left leaning alarmists..because they like that word. You can see them squirm to try and NOT use it in regards to the climate. That discrepancy is funny to me.
Here’s the rest of the story. Follow this logic to understand why IR radiation from CO2 cannot warm Earth’s surface. . -Almost all surface IR absorption by CO2 occurs within the first 10 meters of the surface at current CO2 concentrations. -After IR energy is absorbed collisions with other gas molecules pass the energy on to those molecules about 99.999% of the time. -These same types of collisions can induce a CO2 molecule to emit IR radiation at the 15 nm frequency. Half of the radiation will be downward. -Almost all downward radiation from above 10 meters is reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules. -When downwelling IR from CO2 below 10 meters is absorbed at the surface, the surface warms and the lower atmosphere cools … temporarily. -The lower atmosphere and surface continually share energy through conduction via gas molecules colliding with the surface. -Conduction occurs between all gas molecules and the surface. While net energy exchange is quite low, the total amount of energy moving back and forth is quite large. -Due to the cooling of the lower atmosphere and warming of the surface caused by CO2 downwelling IR, the surface will now conduct/radiate more energy into the lower atmosphere. -This modified energy flow is nearly instantaneous and counters the warming effect of the increases in downwelling IR from CO2. The net change in temperature is essentially zero. -Occasionally, the downwelling CO2 IR will lead to evaporation at the surface. -Evaporation is a process which removes both the energy which caused the event and existing energy within the water molecule from the surface. This creates a water vapor molecule. -Since water vapor is a lighter molecule, it will trend to move upward in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses moving the energy away from the surface and lower atmosphere. -This cools the lower atmosphere/surface.
CO2 has no emissivity below 30 C so you are partially correct. And that is the issue side stepped the actual emissivity if it has zero emissivity then it can’t do what is claimed.
Earth’s energy uptake is temperature controlled over the tropical oceans. The surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. The negative feedback is very powerful with a gain of 2. That means the reflected EMR goes up twice as fast as the OLR goes down due to the cloud formation. That is readily observable by looking at hourly data from tropical moored buoys.
The cloud formation and persistence is driven by cyclic convective instability. To understand that, you need to understand how convective potential develops. You need to be able to recreate what is being measured by radiosondes as far as the moisture profile is concerned. See the attached for 22 June over Tampa Florida.
The notion that you get condensation above freezing is wrong. You get solidification. And the ice particles are minuscule with very slow rates of descent.
A question to ponder – when a radiosonde shows dry air, does that mean it is free of water or just free of water vapour.
The only way that radiosondes can change the way they do from day to day is for the water in the atmosphere to be changing state. The mobility of the fine ice particles is too slow to descend 3000m over a few hours.
CO2 plays no measureable role in the Earth’s energy balance. And climate models have oceans warming more than 30C, which simply cannot happen because of the basic physics involved in convective instability.
Each hurricanes that winds up will rip 3 to 4C out of the ocean surface temperature and shift mammoth amounts of energy from the tropical oceans to subtropical oceans and adjacent land.
I agree with almost everything you stated. The Earth would be much warmer without the water cycle. However, this doesn’t change the physics of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. That’s all I’m addressing.
As soon as you get into water evaporation from the surface and condensation in the atmosphere you are discussing the water cycle. CO2 is irrelevant to the water cycle.
It does not matter what molecule is releasing energy to space above 10km, it will cause the water to form ice and produce reflective cloud. That cloud regulates thee surface temperature.
These 9 charts from the Statistical Review Of World Energy expose the myth of the energy transition & show hydrocarbons are growing faster than alt-energy
It is not a myth. There is a massive transition from burning coal in developed nations to burning coal in China and India. Also a lot of liquid fuel involved in taking minerals top China and returning the manufactured goods.
Anyone who has a clue about manufacturing knows that converting minerals to wind and solar energy extractors requires a lot of coal. In fact, more coal than can ever be saved by those extractors over their currently limited operating life. If they could guarantee 200+ years of operation then there is the possibility of eventually saving some coal.
Kevin Kilty
June 23, 2024 7:33 am
Story tip: Apparently the State of Hawai’i has settled with their version of the children’s climate crusade against fossil fuels. Rick Moran at PJMedia had a quick summary today. Apparently the children have a right to a clean environment which will mean no fossil fueled transport after 2045 or something like that…
As Moran says, doing things like this “for the children” is always good politics.
If fossil fuels are phased out, ask the children what fuels do they propose for firetrucks, all the heavy transports such as cargo ships, freight trains and trucks, aircraft, military vehicles, and emergency power generation.
Trump said yesterday he is going to save our ice cars and he is going to get rid of the “Green New Scam”, of the Democrats.
Sounds promising.
CD in Wisconsin
June 23, 2024 8:06 am
I am trying to wrap my head around how old this is getting…….
Right on cue, like a programmed robot, CNN puts Bill Nye on the air to attribute the recent heat waves, floods, wildfires, etc., on the CO2 we humans are emitting into the atmosphere. Link below.
The mass media’s constant use of appeal to authority to keep their audiences faithful believers in the alarmist narrative only serves to keep them dumbed down when the “authority” in this case is (let’s say) less than fully qualified compared to the numerous scientists out there with PhDs in the climate or a related field.
I will celebrate the day that CNN, MSNBC and the others go back to being unbiased broadcast journalist outlets instead of propaganda and indoctrination outlets…..and not just on the subjects of climate and energy. Ignorance is not always bliss.
“In another comments thread Simon the Stupid tried to tell me that I need to read the Fake News like MSLSD in order to get a “balanced” view.”
And I stand by it. Why would you not want to know what the other side is saying/thinking? Isn’t it the ultimate in arrogance and ignorance to just assume you are right. While I disagree with most of what is said here, I do agree it is always good to keep an open mind. I can honestly say I have found myself agreeing with comments here from time to time. In my world that’s a good sign.
I heard a podcast once that talked about checking with yourself as to whether you are genuinely open to new ideas and changing your mind. There were four points two of which resounded with me.
1.Can you articulate what the other person is saying in a respectful way that “they” would agree with?
2.Can you articulate what it would take to make you change your mind on an issue?
Karlo thinks it is somehow clever to ignore what the other side are saying just because his candidate labels anyone who writes bad stuff about him as, “fake news.” That’s enough for him. He no longer has to think for himself. In my world that is close to being in a cult. And that is dangerous….. Just saying.
Of course you think it is nothing. Before you could think it is anything, you would need to understand it. From the posts you “excrete” here it is clear you live in a land where considering others ideas is seen as weakness. Very sad.
So funny. Marxist huh? Well comrade, I am not the one doing Putins dirty work by supporting a convicted felon and sexual convict in undermining the US democratic system. Now that is Marxist…….
“You are supporting a delusion, degenerate, corrupt, dementia-ridden cretin, and his drug-addled sexual predator of a son.” Sorry are we talking about Trump or Biden here?
“You supported the fakery of the 2020 election that undermined the democratic principles of the USA constitution, and put said cretin in charge.” When are you going to be a man and admit your man/boy lost? Oh that’s right, never….
“Trump was only “convicted” by a complete put-up kangaroo court, and totally biased and corrupt judge.” Yes well so you say, but he’s still a convicted felon by a jury chosen by his lawyers. So fail… fail.
“CNN and MSNBC have never been unbiased. They have always promoted the leftist ideology.”
And Fox take the side of the right. it’s how the media works in the US. But it doesn’t mean any of them are always correct or always wrong.
And when they report what you wouldn’t expect…. then that is a clue it’s worth taking note of. For example the latest Fox poll has Biden moving ahead of Trump. That is more noteworthy than if CNN had reported that.
Is it time for the sceptical sector to change what it conveys to the public?
So far, it has diligently acted as cross checkers to call out poor science and economics. This gives the public the impression that climate change is important, especially since it is news every day.
In reality, climate change has shown itself to be not so important. Most testable projections have failed. Future forecasts are mostly guesswork now and taking forever to start showing. Mild warming of a suspect global temperature is now about all that CC has to offer in evidence of reality.
Suggestion: The sceptics should start to wind down their volume of talk to aim for -11. Tell the public that CC has failed. Be laughingly dismissive. Avoid being serious and making the public treat CC as serious. Geoff S
Just watching England beat the USA in the T20 Cricket World Cup. No shame to the USA who have done very well to get to the last 8. It’s not like it’s a baseball world cup.
Buttler just hit a huge 6. It bounced on the pavilion roof. Unfortunately, the pavilion in Barbados is covered in solar panels.
Bit of a design flaw. The ball smashed the panels like a window opened on a shooting range.
Expensive.
Cricket?
Isn’t that a cellphone company?
Sorry. I know it’s a popular British sport but I know nothing about it other than it may have given birth baseball in the US. (I think the “bats” are flat. Learned that from the movie “Father Goose”.)
I didn’t know there even were any cricket teams in the US!
Allen, M.R., D.J. Frame, P. Friedlingstein, N.P. Gillett, G. Grassi, J.M. Gregory, W. Hare, C. Huntingford, S. Jenkins, C.D. Jones, R. Knutti, J.A. Lowe, H.D. Matthews, M. Meinshausen, N. Meinshausen, G.-K. Plattner, S.C.B. Raper, J. Rogelj, P.A. Stott, S. Solomon, T.F. Stocker, A.J. Weaver, K. Zickfeld, 2024: Geological Net Zero and the need for separate accounting for natural carbon sinks, Nature, in review.
Now and then I ffel that the way that CO2 sinks and sources are identified and quantified are rather vague.
A pretty map of part of the globe, with a pool of CO2 somewhere, tells us nothing useful about source or sink. It could be CO2 exiting a source to the air, or it could be CO2 in a queue waiting to go into a sink. Measurements of dynamics are needed, such as the rate of change of CO2 for that pool of CO2. Radioactive tracers are a neat solution in some cases.
Have I missed some vital point, given the limited work with tracers?
Geoff S
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume. This is only
0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. In 1920, the concentration of CO2 was
about 300 ppm by volume. This is 0.589 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. After
about a century, the amount of CO2 in air has increased by only 0.250 grams of CO2
per cubic meter of air.
After over a century of an enormous consumption of fossil fuels, where has all of the
CO2 gone? Most all of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans as evidenced by the abundance
of plants and animals there. Another large portion of CO2 is fixed by the plants on land.
A 21 deg. C and 70% RH, the concentration of water is 17,780 ppm by volume. This
is 14.3 grams of water per cubic meter of air. Water is about 98% of the greenhouse effect
for these weather conditions.
We really do not have to worry about CO2. The claim by the IPCC that CO2 is the cause
of the recent “global warming” is a lie.
Since the pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.2, a portion of the CO2 is converted to
bicarbonate and carbonate anions. These form a buffer system that keeps pH fairly stable. These anions are used by shell fish to grow their shells. Coral uses these anion for growth.
Gregory Wrightstone, Ferdinand Engelbeen, Roy Spencer, Kees le Pair and Peter Dietze all agree with me that the CO2 sink is proportional to atmospheric concentration and not proportional to emissions.
Michael S. Kelly
June 24, 2024 2:05 pm
What AI do you use to generate your title art? It’s really pretty good.
Jim Jelinski
June 25, 2024 8:28 pm
Hi!
My first visit in a while.
I was a regular reader of WUWT many years ago, but drifted away over the years.
Today I saw this video article over on ‘Citizen Free Press’ and thought y’all would be interested.
I have no idea if the author of this video article, and the article he is discussing, is correct or not.
I remember ‘Climategate’, so I put NOTHING past the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Disruption’ crowd.
Title: Error or Fraud – A New Bombshell in the Data
This week in cheap energy:
Analysis: Cutting the ‘green crap’ has added £22bn to UK energy bills since 2015
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-cutting-the-green-crap-has-added-22bn-to-uk-energy-bills-since-2015/
Europe faces an unusual problem: ultra-cheap energy
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/06/20/europe-faces-an-unusual-problem-ultra-cheap-energy
This week in la la land.
Green Crap has ADDED £44.235bn to UK energy bills and will be responsible for the collapse of the UK economy when regular blackouts start to happen..
You do know that carbonbreifs are used as a filter to stop odious farts, don’t you… Their only purpose.
If the EU faces ultra cheap energy.. why are Germany electricity costs pretty much the highest in the world.
Again, you have failed to read what you post..
wholesale prices were negative in 301 of the 8,760 tradable hours
The other 97% of the time they were causing massive increases in price because of their unreliable nature.
You really are one GULLIBLE little muppet, aren’t you, Luser. !!
I’d say you give Lusername way more credit than the troll deserves. It is not gullibility at all. It is propaganda spewed to deceive.
“propaganda spewed to deceive.
So has ZERO effectiveness, nobody here falls for it.
No, I have come to the conclusion that it really is genuinely dumb, ignorant, naive and confused.
Installing more insulation probably would have reduced energy bills. But its not without problems, insulating the current UK housing stock unless very carefully done can lead to damp and mould. Especially when its combined with heavy handed draught proofing. But yes, where possible, and when done right, home insulation is a sensible thing to do, with or without government subsidies.
On the gas consumption reduction savings, the devil is in the detail of the assumptions. As far as I can tell from their account they do not seem to have taken account of intermittency. Just because you generate X GW of wind or solar does not mean that you save a corresponding amount of gas, because you will be generating a lot of it when its not needed. I see no account of the very large payments the UK currently incurs in order to stop wind suppliers generating. I also don’t know whether their costings take account of transmission additions.
The Economist piece is actually showing the problem. The problem is positive intermittency, its generating lots of power when its not needed and there is no demand for it. The other side of failing to deliver when there is peak demand. They suggest exporting, using storage, or moving demand. None of these are practical. Sweden for instance has declined transmission links to Germany because it would just export intermittency to them. Batteries are impractical and too expensive. Moving demand isn’t really possible at scale either, you cannot run industry or business on unreliable power, and household turnoffs are not going to be much better or acceptable.
Improving insulation falls into the category of improving efficiency. The costs of improved efficiency are sometimes worthwhile but often the payback time means it essentially never pays for itself.
Many studies have found that, over time, improved efficiency leads to significantly increased energy usage. In the simple situation of better insulation actually done right, and a stable electricity market, heating and cooling costs are noticeably reduced. Within a fairly short time, the majority of people start making themselves more comfortable by raising the temperature more during cold weather and lowering the temperature more during hot weather because doing so is more affordable than it used to be. Soon they are using more electricity or gas than they did before insulating. This is very common and widespread.
Along with that kind of cause-effect situation there is the fact that more and more energy using devices are added to the household, further raising electricity use. The relationship between insulation or more efficient appliances and the additional devices may not be so straightforward as to be able to always show a cause-effect relationship but when saving through efficience actually means more money available, the choices of what to do with it tends to lead to additional energy use.
But regarding temperature, there is limit to that, no human will heat living space over 30C or cool below 0C. I have insulated house and same temperature is comfortable for me before insulation and after. I my case it is around 23C.
The ultimate sources of energy that we use each day have become lost as the emphasis has shifted to press reports of, for example, nuclear versus hydrocarbon burning.
Bicycle riders seem to feel virtuous because they are not driving a gasoline car, so saving the globe from overheating calamity. People eat food that has hydrocarbons so cyclists are still producing CO2, same principle as burning gasoline in autos.
Those foods that our cyclists consume as they ride, in turn, can come from agriculture that produces CO2 and calls attention to the actual gain when agriculture is used from corn to ethanol to auto tank, or corn for eating.
The economists who cost various energy sources need to include such complications and concepts. Geoff S
Hi Griff
I recall that Griff was more belligerent than stupid, while MyUsername is mostly just stupid.
Perhaps it may be that anyone who disagrees with your opinion, you characterize as stupid. A common problem on this site.
No. Most value their own opinions highly, yes, but stupidity is actually observable and quantifiable.
Well said.
Your comments mark you for what you are.
If you don’t want to be considered “stupid” and “empty”
… don’t continually make stupid empty comments.
“Perhaps it may be that anyone who disagrees with your opinion, you characterize as stupid. A common problem on this site.
****************
One of MUN’s linked articles above talks about how low wind and solar energy prices have been in Europe. He is apparently not familiar with the concept of supply and demand in economics.
Anything that has a very low price or no value in a market economy is a consequence of low or no demand and/or a supply that is far greater than the demand. Therein lies the problem with wind and solar energy at times when the price on that energy is low or negative. It is generated (usually during the day) when it is not needed. Redundant energy production.
If battery storage was the answer to this problem, we would probably be seeing a lot more of them being installed than we do by now. If MUN does not understand this, then it is likely he will generate claims of stupidity for himself at blogs like this one.
I do not think that the simple, basic law of supply and demand in economics is an opinion.
That’s a stupid comment Tony!
😛
from the 2nd link:
What about retail markets? I couldn’t read all the article.
Funny how statements like that don’t actually provide much useful information. I would guess that they are talking about IN THE SUMMER, not in the winter when the solar availability is not so long.
AND I think I have read repeatedly that in locations with a large solar % that at 5 or so, when working people get home, the solar output cannot keep up with the increasing demand, so the 11 to 7 seems to be a bit of BS.
The wholesale market might be near zero but the retail market far higher- in that case, the article is misleading.
Yes the high pressure steam generators — gas, coal and nuclear — all have to keep running during that period so they can quickly come on line at dusk. Very expensive, driving the LCOE for the steamers way up and the retail price with it.
You and the Greenies have such a piss-poor reputation for honesty that I’m not going to waste my time following those links to see how they lied. Some other commenter probably already has, but if not, oh well. Try being more honest, change your reputation, if you want to convince climate realists like me.
From your link:
You don’t need to read any further to understand it’s BS
If you believe anything carbonbrief produces it proves you are a moron.
From your Economist link:
To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to 3.4%. Actually, that doesn’t seem to be too bad. However, it tells the reader nothing about how negative the prices were. The claim is actually an indictment of so-called renewable power because it is typically at its peak when it is least needed. If someone is drowning and is swallowing water, the last thing they want is a drink of water. How often have you turned down dessert after eating a big meal? Reliable, dispatchable power is what is needed to stabilize prices. If what is being offered for consumption is unneeded or unwanted, then it is the wrong technology. The problem is compounded by subsidies provided from tax money. The suppliers should, instead, be allowed to go out of business if they can’t make a profit.
If local people decide they don’t want a wind farm or a solar farm….
Ed Miliband: ‘I’ll take on the wind farm Nimbys from day one’Interview: Shadow energy secretary on how Labour plans to wean Britain off gas
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/23/ed-miliband-interview-wind-farm-nimbys-uk-energy/
Edstone knows better….
Ed still can’t get over the fact that he is far less intelligent than his father and his brother
A Google search on “climate crisis” among others turns up four U.S. government agencies that use the term:
The Climate Crisis: Working Together for Future Generations
U.S. Department of State (.gov)
Tackling the Climate Crisis
U.S. Department of the Interior (.gov)
Combating the Climate Crisis
Department of Energy (.gov)
Tackling the Climate Crisis
U.S. Department of Defense (.gov)
“The Climate Crisis” is truly “The Big Lie” of our time.
So that’s four things Trump can do as soon as he gets elected.
If you Google any agency in the state of Wokeachusetts, you’ll see lots about “the climate emergency”. But no problemo- as the female/woke/LGBT+ agency leaders will solve the problem.
Make sure your diet includes mostly carbohydrates as they form the basis of our food pyramid. And don’t forget to get your safe and effective jabs.
And it starts with the Liar in Chief, Creepy Joe Brandon.
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-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 flora and fauna, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
WV in the TS, up to about 1.5 km, is nearly constant at 9 g/kg of dry air
WV decreases from about 2.5 g to less than 0.5 g, from 2 km to 6 km, per balloon measurements
WV percent above 2 km is small compared to total WV
Assume:
For 2023, WV near the surface is 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 16 C
For 1900, WV is 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 14.8 C
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary with elevation, specific heat contents vary, and RE calculations are needed at each elevation, for more accurate RE values. That complex method was avoided for simplicity.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 421 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Specific enthalpy of 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
.
1a) In 2023, 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
.
1b) In 1900, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 14.8 C and H = 0.008244 kg WV/kg dry air (13,282 ppm)
h = 1.006 (14.8) + 0.008244 {2501 + 1.84 (14.8)} = 35.732 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 14.889 kJ/kg; RE WV is 20.843 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 2023
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241.2 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 241.2 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 1900
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.833 x (14.8 + 273) = 239.8 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(296 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000449 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 239.8 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 287.8 K = 0.108 kJ/kg dry air
.
World RE in 2023: (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
RE roles were dry air 41.25%, WV 58.36% and CO2 0.39%
In 2023, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.36/0.39 was 147.8; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 14500/421 was 34.4. i.e., each WV molecule is 4.29 more effective regarding RE than each CO2 molecule.
.
World RE in 1900: (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
RE roles were dry air 41.54%, WV 58.16% and CO2 0.30%
In 1900, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.16/0.30 was 193.5; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 13282/296 was 44.9, i.e., each WV molecule is 4.31 more effective regarding RE than each CO2 molecule.
.
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 9,942 EJ, dry air 6215 EJ, CO2 239 EJ
.
NOTE:
If WV 4028 ppm, CO2 421 ppm in 2023, RE roles would be dry air 71.30%, WV 28.02% and CO2 0.68%
If WV 3389 ppm, CO2 296 ppm in 1900, RE roles would be dry air 71.63%, WV 27.85% and CO2 0.52%
.
Tropics
In 2023, 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 (27)} = 70.524 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 27.162 kJ/kg; RE WV is 43.362 kJ/kg
Tropics RE: (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
RE roles were dry air 38.43%, WV 61.35% and CO2 0.22%
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. About 35% of RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
Wilpost,
“Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming”
Nope…Global warming “discussion” is mainly about how much IR is absorbed by CO2, and how much more heat it absorbs as it’s concentration increases by 2 1/2 ppm per year. IR effects you have not mentioned…
Right, because CO2 15 micrometer band saturates, so it cannot absorb IR
From Happer:
Many people, including me, estimate that the feedback-free warming from doubling CO2 will be around 0.75 C. This number used to be pretty universally accepted, before global warming alarm became fashionable and rewarding. For example, see these paragraphs from Steve Schneider and Rasool in the year 1971 when global cooling was all the rage:
“From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8°K. However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off.
Even for an increase in CO by a factor of 10 the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5°K. Therefore the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 micron CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
But if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere becomes so high that the total atmospheric pressure is affected (which will require a CO2 increase by a factor of 1000 or more), then the absorption bands will broaden, the opacity will increase, and the temperature may start to rise so rapidly that the process could run away (13).
However, this appears to be only a remote possibility for Earth, even on a geological timescale, as a large build up of CO2 in the atmosphere will be severely restrained by its interaction with the oceans, the biosphere, and the crust.
The main conclusion of this part of the study is that even an order of magnitude increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by human activities, which at the present rate of input is not expected within the next several thousand years, may not be sufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.
On the short time scale, if CO₂ is augmented by another 10 percent in the next 30 years, the increase in the global temperature may be as small as 0.1°K.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1732207
Dan,
Also note what happens, if I take an abnormally low WV ppm.
CO2 RE role increases from 0.52% in 1900 to 0.68% in 2023.
Those values are close to those of Happer and others
CO2 does play a very important role, which we should mention as often as possible, instead of hair-splitting where CO2 does this or that.
Any focus on CO2 is a red herring to divert our attention from the wonderful role of CO2, without which there would be no life on earth
NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2
As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, flora CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels are a blessing.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Forms a filter in the upper atmosphere that absorbs harmful UV radiation, with wavelengths below 240 nm; 3) Increases world fauna; 4) Increases crop yields per acre; 5) Reduces world desert areas
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt
Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
.
Mauna Loa curve shows an annual variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to:
1) seasonal absorption by photosynthesis, 6CO2 (from the air) + 6H2O (from the ground) + sunlight → C6H12O6 (glucose for energy) + 6O2 (to the air); plants use glucose to make cellulose for cell walls and starch for energy storage
2) ongoing decay.
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 ions at the surface, is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural) in the atmosphere
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
“Right, because CO2 15 micrometer band saturates, so it cannot absorb IR”
That’s a very odd interpretation Wilpost…it is more correct to say CO2 absorbs 100% of the 15 micron radiation that tries to pass through it within a short distance….therefore adding more CO2 to that which already exists in the atmosphere…doesn’t do much….
And much more plentiful WV absorbs nothing?
That short distance is about 10 meter for trace gas CO2 to absorb some of 15 micrometer surface photons
A good chunk of the rest of the surface photons, including 15 micrometer photons, are eliminated by abundant WV within the first 150 meter.
However, most of the surface photons are eliminated, not by absorption, but by collisions with extremely numerous dry air molecules.
This photon elimination slightly warms the atmosphere, which will emit IR photons in all directions, but at longer wavelengths than those from the surface.
Those longer wavelengths are beyond the CO2 window, but not beyond the WV window
At about 2 km, where it is colder, WV is condensing on particles in sufficient quantities so they become visible as clouds, and WV ppm is reduced from 9 g/kg to about 1 – 2 g/kg, and less at higher elevations, where it is even colder.
Now, WV and CO2 are becoming less relevant regarding absorption of photons, and all molecules move slower and are further apart, and the atmosphere opacity becomes sufficiently small for photons to escape unhindered to outer space, through the so-called “window”
Excerpt:
.
Affordability, Charging-Infrastructure, & Range-Anxiety Continue To Keep Americans From Fully Embracing EVs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/affordability-charging-infrastructure-amp-range-anxiety-continue
.
A number of factors have decreased buying of EVs, including among environmentally conscious consumers.
FT reported
.
1) high EV prices (increase monthly lease payments),
2) high financing interest rates (increase monthly lease payments),
3) short driving range,
4) lack of charging infrastructure,
5) high insurance cost,
6) high charging cost,
7) high repair cost,
8) very low resale/trade-in value,
9) low-range during hot and cold weather,
10) rapid wear of tires and brakes
(1) and (2) are somewhat explained by the following paragraph
Compared to conventional vehicles, EVs are financed with higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value ratios, and shorter loan durations. The “EV financing gap” occurs mainly because lenders perceive risks related to future innovations in battery technology, which could render EVs based on current technology obsolete.
(10) EV brakes last longer. A lot longer if there is plenty of stop and go driving that activates regenerative braking.
You left out the very annoying slow charging time, even with a “fast 480 volt DC charger”, especially in cold months
Thank you, Richard, it will be added to the list
I wonder how much higher the insurance cost is? For starters, it’ll be higher because the cost of EVs is higher- but beyond that cost factor, is there also a premium due to higher repair costs?
At least one study, comparing BEV vehicles with comparable ICE vehicles, for vehicles purchased new in 2001 through 2023, found maintenance and repair cost 80% higher for BEV. Then there is the reported policy of insurance companies to declare BEVs involved in even small collisions totaled because of potential battery fires and explosions.
I just hope the insurance companies put the full extra cost of insuring EVs on to the EV owners and not the rest of us. Not sure they’ll do that.
I am morally certain they will spread the pain. It makes business sense and it makes ESG sense, which makes even more business sense.
Which is not to say it makes real sense, only that they will spread the cost to all of us.
“rapid wear of tires and brakes” ….. Tires yes (extra weight), brakes no (regenerative braking).
Regenerative braking- yes, but, aren’t EVs heavier? That might somewhat reduce the wear benefit of RB. Seems sensible that RB would reduce brake wear- but is the data in to prove it?
Then there is price. Performance brake pads and rotors for the Tesla Cyber Truck can be had for $800 and $2400, respectively. A knock off service kit for Tesla model S front brakes is $550. It’s a good thing that they last longer.
You need to understand how regenerative braking works. There are no brake pads involved in the process to wear. It’s all done by EMF forces within the motors when the fields are reversed. You can actually drive some EVs without touching the brakes. One foot driving. Tires and suspension take a hit though with all the extra weight. My thinking is the ideal car propulsion system is what BMW uses in their i3, too bad the car is butt ugly. 100 mile range on battery charge and an on board generator (ICE motorcycle engine) for extended range. Light engine, no transmission, no differential.
I find it difficult to believe that regenerative braking alone will be adequate for all situations. The question remains, because of the greater vehicle weight, whether the life of the brake pads will be shortened, stay the same, or increased. It may depend on the driving conditions. As the caveat goes, “Mileage may vary.”
Too true. I used to be a BMW bigot to the bone and there have been periods when BMW built some beautiful cars. The two nicest and best cars I ever owned were BMWs. But there have been too many periods when they have built some “butt ugly” ones too.
There are no brake pads involved in the process to wear.
I’m curious where you get that from – do you literally mean NO brake pads at all in regenerative braking systems?
My son’s hybrid had regenerative braking and it also had pads and rotors.
Scissor just before you said “Performance brake pads and rotors for the Tesla Cyber Truck can be had for $800 and $2400, respectively.”
Tires Plus says “Regenerative braking also slows the car down, which assists the use of traditional brakes.”
And for what it’s worth Wikipedia says “mechanical braking is still necessary for substantial speed reductions, to bring a vehicle to a stop, or to hold a vehicle at a standstill.”
So what am I missing?
Yes they have brakes and brake pads. If there is no room in the battery for the regenerative braking to take effect it relies on the conventional brake/pad system (like if you charge it to 100%). Also there are certain situations where regenerative braking is useless ….. panic stops, stopped, slow speeds like parking or creeping along …. but with most driving situations it can be used. Brake force is selectable and adjustable in Teslas to a certain extent from what I’ve read. Tesla owners report from 60 to 150K miles on the original pads.
Rapid tyre (tire) wear on EVs may be partly due to hard acceleration from standing starts. Because it’s essentially silent, I suspect a lot of drivers do it, who wouldn’t if they were driving ICE cars. Rapid acceleration is also enhanced by the positioning of the extra weight (under the passenger compartment rather than over the front wheels) means even more weight on the rear driving wheels. Also, many (most?) EVs have separate motors on each driving wheel. All giving better traction and greater acceleration.
I suspect that many EV owners unconsciously change their driving habits to include greater acceleration.
I borrowed an EV for a few days last year, and I amused myself by seeing how quickly I could take off when the lights changed. Very impressive – but somehow the silence made it less thrilling than it would have been with the deep-throated roar from the big old 5.7L V-8 in my pickup truck.
I wonder, if they built an optional “twin-carb V-8 with a hole in the muffler” noise maker in EVs, would they get more sales from the boy racers of the world?
I have yet to see any analysis of how the braking is partitioned between regeneration and friction. Almost certainly, regenerative braking will be minor for emergency stopping. My suspicion is that those who have the bad habit of tail-gating will see a much higher rate of brake lining wear than those who keep a good distance between themselves and the car ahead of them. The problem is, in congested driving (urban rush hour) leaving a gap is an invitation for someone to pass on the right and slide into the opening.
They missed long charging times.
Brainwashing the innocents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13559077/Climate-change-activists-scaring-children-alarming-lessons-schools-former-head-OFSTED-warns.html
I am building a model to remove known significant stratospheric radiative events from surface readings, and in analyzing the data it appears that a VEI 4 Russian volcano named Shiveluch erupted in 1999 and caused a noticeable change in transmission. Looks like an ash event which takes 6 – 8 months and caused the prolonged La-Nina following the 98 El-Nino event. I was hesitant to put it on there because there is not much out there on it. Does this seem plausible?
LT3, Very interesting! Seems plausible to me.
If your work gains traction, it will have to be savaged by the MSM because it is showing anti-correlation. 🙂
Yes indeed, you would like to think that data could lead you to the truth like in the old days, but now, not so sure. The last few years have been a wealth of information with the massive Australian brushfire black carbon injection, followed by a never-before-seen injection of H2O from the HT eruption.
And now something has caused a large drop in transmission last month, could be Canadian Forest fires from late last year. There is a prediction opportunity here based purely on the Stratosphere, because generally when you have warm perturbations in the Stratosphere you have Texas killer freezes and such. Once a drop in transmission is detected from an Ash event, it takes a few months before the it shows up as an increase in temperature in the lower Stratosphere. And if and when it does, rest assured, somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere during winter, people will die because of the cascaded effects, altering jet stream. vortex breaches etc.. by way of intense cold fronts.
After reading a story about the two large fires, still not under control, in New Mexico, I happened to watch a CNN segment about heat warnings, extreme weather, and wildfires. CNN did not actually cover the New Mexico fires in this segment, as they had repeatedly done previously, linking the wildfires to climate change. The story I read: There is an offer of up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who started the two New Mexico fires. This “saving the planet” theme, leading the CAGW crowd, has some strange twists and turns.
There was a massive widespread beetle kill in the western national forests back in 06’ish.
The common government agency theme was it was caused by not having the -20 degree or colder
winter temperatures, eg climate change. The agency personnel I’ve been around for as long as I
can remember are not the brightest, more of a power/control mentality. In the wildfire
arena if you look back 100+ yrs to the ‘Big Burn of 1910″ where 3 million acres
went up in a couple of days that led to a big change in forest management and
things like Smoky the Bear. That’s all changed now with the VLAT’s and and the woke
management female rangers coming out with their phd’s ect. Bottom line here in the
northern rockies is there in not much left in the way of management tools such as
saw mills, loggers ec. It’s just not possible to manage a forest without tools. We’re heading into
a long hot dry spell after a very low snow pack and some areas if you climb up on
top of a high peak is dead in 360* as far as you can see in all directions. The radical
enviros constant lawfare on the forest backed by leftist appointed judges and
the support from lawmakers is the basis of this. There’s billions of gallons of timber
that can be made into diesel but there are factors in play that won’t allow that.
Follow this chain of events to understand a cooling process driven by CO2 increases …
-More CO2 emits more downwelling IR.
-Downwelling IR drives more evaporation.
-More evaporation increases lower atmosphere buoyancy.
-Increased buoyancy accelerates convection which drives water vapor higher into the colder troposphere.
-Colder air causes more high atmosphere condensation.
-Increased condensation reduces high altitude water vapor.
-Less high altitude water vapor allows more energy to be radiated to space.
The way i see it is that you can assert 2 opposite options and calculate yr way into thinking that you’ve proven something. The more my knowledge expands the more i see the wide error bars. Ultimately very little about the climate system moves beyond hypothesis. And that is because of the system itself. You cannot equate yr way out of it. There are general concepts that are very hard to quantify exactly. And a slight variable can tilt things. In a way i find that reassuring. Take the GHE. A still slippery concept. Scientists do all kinds of things and apply the Method. Diversity IS the name of the game. I always use that in conversation w left leaning alarmists..because they like that word. You can see them squirm to try and NOT use it in regards to the climate. That discrepancy is funny to me.
Here’s the rest of the story. Follow this logic to understand why IR radiation from CO2 cannot warm Earth’s surface.
.
-Almost all surface IR absorption by CO2 occurs within the first 10 meters of the surface at current CO2 concentrations.
-After IR energy is absorbed collisions with other gas molecules pass the energy on to those molecules about 99.999% of the time.
-These same types of collisions can induce a CO2 molecule to emit IR radiation at the 15 nm frequency. Half of the radiation will be downward.
-Almost all downward radiation from above 10 meters is reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules.
-When downwelling IR from CO2 below 10 meters is absorbed at the surface, the surface warms and the lower atmosphere cools … temporarily.
-The lower atmosphere and surface continually share energy through conduction via gas molecules colliding with the surface.
-Conduction occurs between all gas molecules and the surface. While net energy exchange is quite low, the total amount of energy moving back and forth is quite large.
-Due to the cooling of the lower atmosphere and warming of the surface caused by CO2 downwelling IR, the surface will now conduct/radiate more energy into the lower atmosphere.
-This modified energy flow is nearly instantaneous and counters the warming effect of the increases in downwelling IR from CO2. The net change in temperature is essentially zero.
-Occasionally, the downwelling CO2 IR will lead to evaporation at the surface.
-Evaporation is a process which removes both the energy which caused the event and existing energy within the water molecule from the surface. This creates a water vapor molecule.
-Since water vapor is a lighter molecule, it will trend to move upward in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses moving the energy away from the surface and lower atmosphere.
-This cools the lower atmosphere/surface.
Comment says:”…emit IR radiation at the 15 nm…”
Please correct this entire sentence.
Thanks, I corrected my personal copy.
What is the emissivity of CO2 at the temperature and pressure within the first 10 meters?
Emissivity depends on the temperature, hence it will vary across the planet.
CO2 has no emissivity below 30 C so you are partially correct. And that is the issue side stepped the actual emissivity if it has zero emissivity then it can’t do what is claimed.
Earth’s energy uptake is temperature controlled over the tropical oceans. The surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. The negative feedback is very powerful with a gain of 2. That means the reflected EMR goes up twice as fast as the OLR goes down due to the cloud formation. That is readily observable by looking at hourly data from tropical moored buoys.
The cloud formation and persistence is driven by cyclic convective instability. To understand that, you need to understand how convective potential develops. You need to be able to recreate what is being measured by radiosondes as far as the moisture profile is concerned. See the attached for 22 June over Tampa Florida.
The notion that you get condensation above freezing is wrong. You get solidification. And the ice particles are minuscule with very slow rates of descent.
A question to ponder – when a radiosonde shows dry air, does that mean it is free of water or just free of water vapour.
The only way that radiosondes can change the way they do from day to day is for the water in the atmosphere to be changing state. The mobility of the fine ice particles is too slow to descend 3000m over a few hours.
CO2 plays no measureable role in the Earth’s energy balance. And climate models have oceans warming more than 30C, which simply cannot happen because of the basic physics involved in convective instability.
If you want to understand Earth’s energy balance then you need to be focused on understanding radiosondes and how convective potential forms. Convective potential is ubiquitous over tropical oceans. The Caribbean is presently a sight to behold – the hurricanes are coming.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-60.11,11.65,392/loc=-65.045,20.571
Each hurricanes that winds up will rip 3 to 4C out of the ocean surface temperature and shift mammoth amounts of energy from the tropical oceans to subtropical oceans and adjacent land.
I agree with almost everything you stated. The Earth would be much warmer without the water cycle. However, this doesn’t change the physics of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. That’s all I’m addressing.
As soon as you get into water evaporation from the surface and condensation in the atmosphere you are discussing the water cycle. CO2 is irrelevant to the water cycle.
It does not matter what molecule is releasing energy to space above 10km, it will cause the water to form ice and produce reflective cloud. That cloud regulates thee surface temperature.
Sorry, CO2 is not irrelevant. It’s not a major player, but it does have a small effect. Basic physics.
NO! basic physics says the atmosphere is controlled by the gas laws..
… Hence CO2 as part of that gas.. has ZERO effect.
Numbers Don’t Lie
These 9 charts from the Statistical Review Of World Energy expose the myth of the energy transition & show hydrocarbons are growing faster than alt-energy
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/these-charts-expose-myth-of-energy-transition
― Ronald Reagan
That sounds like a paraphrase of Mark Twain.
Ball don’t lie.
It is not a myth. There is a massive transition from burning coal in developed nations to burning coal in China and India. Also a lot of liquid fuel involved in taking minerals top China and returning the manufactured goods.
Anyone who has a clue about manufacturing knows that converting minerals to wind and solar energy extractors requires a lot of coal. In fact, more coal than can ever be saved by those extractors over their currently limited operating life. If they could guarantee 200+ years of operation then there is the possibility of eventually saving some coal.
Story tip: Apparently the State of Hawai’i has settled with their version of the children’s climate crusade against fossil fuels. Rick Moran at PJMedia had a quick summary today. Apparently the children have a right to a clean environment which will mean no fossil fueled transport after 2045 or something like that…
As Moran says, doing things like this “for the children” is always good politics.
Hunger Games 2046, Hawaii edition.
Well, at least in Hawaii they won’t have to walk uphill to and from school, in the snow.
How will planes full of tourists get fueled to go back to main land?
If fossil fuels are phased out, ask the children what fuels do they propose for firetrucks, all the heavy transports such as cargo ships, freight trains and trucks, aircraft, military vehicles, and emergency power generation.
A simple Google search on “climate crisis” turns up these four U.S. Government departments:
The Climate Crisis: Working Together for Future Generations
U.S. Department of State (.gov)
Tackling the Climate Crisis
U.S. Department of the Interior (.gov)
Combating the Climate Crisis
Department of Energy (.gov)
Tackling the Climate Crisis
U.S. Department of Defense (.gov)
The “Big Lie” [The Climate Crisis] is taking over the U.S. Government. Anyone with any common sense should find this very depressing.
Duh for some reason I thought I didn’t post that already.
An interesting piece on EV mandates and the coming elections. Save our cars!
https://www.cfact.org/2024/06/23/save-our-cars-is-a-winning-message-in-the-age-of-ev-mandates/
Perfect for bumper stickers.
Trump said yesterday he is going to save our ice cars and he is going to get rid of the “Green New Scam”, of the Democrats.
Sounds promising.
I am trying to wrap my head around how old this is getting…….
Right on cue, like a programmed robot, CNN puts Bill Nye on the air to attribute the recent heat waves, floods, wildfires, etc., on the CO2 we humans are emitting into the atmosphere. Link below.
https://tinyurl.com/mre8urym
The mass media’s constant use of appeal to authority to keep their audiences faithful believers in the alarmist narrative only serves to keep them dumbed down when the “authority” in this case is (let’s say) less than fully qualified compared to the numerous scientists out there with PhDs in the climate or a related field.
I will celebrate the day that CNN, MSNBC and the others go back to being unbiased broadcast journalist outlets instead of propaganda and indoctrination outlets…..and not just on the subjects of climate and energy. Ignorance is not always bliss.
In another comments thread Simon the Stupid tried to tell me that I need to read the Fake News like MSLSD in order to get a “balanced” view.
Pass.
“In another comments thread Simon the Stupid tried to tell me that I need to read the Fake News like MSLSD in order to get a “balanced” view.”
And I stand by it. Why would you not want to know what the other side is saying/thinking? Isn’t it the ultimate in arrogance and ignorance to just assume you are right. While I disagree with most of what is said here, I do agree it is always good to keep an open mind. I can honestly say I have found myself agreeing with comments here from time to time. In my world that’s a good sign.
I heard a podcast once that talked about checking with yourself as to whether you are genuinely open to new ideas and changing your mind. There were four points two of which resounded with me.
1.Can you articulate what the other person is saying in a respectful way that “they” would agree with?
2.Can you articulate what it would take to make you change your mind on an issue?
Karlo thinks it is somehow clever to ignore what the other side are saying just because his candidate labels anyone who writes bad stuff about him as, “fake news.” That’s enough for him. He no longer has to think for himself. In my world that is close to being in a cult. And that is dangerous….. Just saying.
/plonk/
“What a completely idiotic post.. pertaining to absolutely NOTHING.
“Isn’t it the ultimate in arrogance and ignorance to just assume you are right”
Yes.. look in the mirror. !
Of course you think it is nothing. Before you could think it is anything, you would need to understand it. From the posts you “excrete” here it is clear you live in a land where considering others ideas is seen as weakness. Very sad.
Your comment was totally irrelevant to anything and to everyone except to poor little victim you.
It was a pathetic piece of gibberish intended just to make yourself feel that you were capable of rational thought..
Basically just one big and very pathetic whinge. !
You don’t have ideas.. you prattle mindlessly about inanities…
Simon the Marxist, he ain’t too bright.
So funny. Marxist huh? Well comrade, I am not the one doing Putins dirty work by supporting a convicted felon and sexual convict in undermining the US democratic system. Now that is Marxist…….
You are supporting a delusion, degenerate, corrupt, dementia-ridden cretin, and his drug-addled sexual predator of a son.
You supported the fakery of the 2020 election that undermined the democratic principles of the USA constitution, and put said cretin in charge.
Trump was only “convicted” by a complete put-up kangaroo court, and totally biased and corrupt judge.
But you know all that… and are just yabbering mindlessly as usual.
“You are supporting a delusion, degenerate, corrupt, dementia-ridden cretin, and his drug-addled sexual predator of a son.”
Sorry are we talking about Trump or Biden here?
“You supported the fakery of the 2020 election that undermined the democratic principles of the USA constitution, and put said cretin in charge.”
When are you going to be a man and admit your man/boy lost? Oh that’s right, never….
“Trump was only “convicted” by a complete put-up kangaroo court, and totally biased and corrupt judge.”
Yes well so you say, but he’s still a convicted felon by a jury chosen by his lawyers. So fail… fail.
“the day that CNN, MSNBC and the others go back to being unbiased broadcast journalist outlets”
CNN and MSNBC have never been unbiased. They have always promoted the leftist ideology.
“CNN and MSNBC have never been unbiased. They have always promoted the leftist ideology.”
And Fox take the side of the right. it’s how the media works in the US. But it doesn’t mean any of them are always correct or always wrong.
And when they report what you wouldn’t expect…. then that is a clue it’s worth taking note of. For example the latest Fox poll has Biden moving ahead of Trump. That is more noteworthy than if CNN had reported that.
A sign of things to come? A power outage at Manchester Airport.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3ggg3v2mm5t
Is it time for the sceptical sector to change what it conveys to the public?
So far, it has diligently acted as cross checkers to call out poor science and economics. This gives the public the impression that climate change is important, especially since it is news every day.
In reality, climate change has shown itself to be not so important. Most testable projections have failed. Future forecasts are mostly guesswork now and taking forever to start showing. Mild warming of a suspect global temperature is now about all that CC has to offer in evidence of reality.
Suggestion: The sceptics should start to wind down their volume of talk to aim for -11. Tell the public that CC has failed. Be laughingly dismissive. Avoid being serious and making the public treat CC as serious. Geoff S
Just watching England beat the USA in the T20 Cricket World Cup. No shame to the USA who have done very well to get to the last 8. It’s not like it’s a baseball world cup.
Buttler just hit a huge 6. It bounced on the pavilion roof. Unfortunately, the pavilion in Barbados is covered in solar panels.
Bit of a design flaw. The ball smashed the panels like a window opened on a shooting range.
Expensive.
We have hail for that.
Oops.
Cricket?
Isn’t that a cellphone company?
Sorry. I know it’s a popular British sport but I know nothing about it other than it may have given birth baseball in the US. (I think the “bats” are flat. Learned that from the movie “Father Goose”.)
I didn’t know there even were any cricket teams in the US!
Interesting the underlying assumptions of this paper under review, sink saturation based on a sink flow proportional to emission and not to concentration and an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3 degrees with a rapid equilibrium constant. Please compare this with the model of Roy Spencer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/unnecessary-net-zero-part-ii-a-demonstration-with-global-carbon-project-data/
Allen, M.R., D.J. Frame, P. Friedlingstein, N.P. Gillett, G. Grassi, J.M. Gregory, W. Hare, C. Huntingford, S. Jenkins, C.D. Jones, R. Knutti, J.A. Lowe, H.D. Matthews, M. Meinshausen, N. Meinshausen, G.-K. Plattner, S.C.B. Raper, J. Rogelj, P.A. Stott, S. Solomon, T.F. Stocker, A.J. Weaver, K. Zickfeld, 2024: Geological Net Zero and the need for separate accounting for natural carbon sinks, Nature, in review.
First page of the paper
Hans,
Now and then I ffel that the way that CO2 sinks and sources are identified and quantified are rather vague.
A pretty map of part of the globe, with a pool of CO2 somewhere, tells us nothing useful about source or sink. It could be CO2 exiting a source to the air, or it could be CO2 in a queue waiting to go into a sink. Measurements of dynamics are needed, such as the rate of change of CO2 for that pool of CO2. Radioactive tracers are a neat solution in some cases.
Have I missed some vital point, given the limited work with tracers?
Geoff S
Harold the Organic Chemist says:
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume. This is only
0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. In 1920, the concentration of CO2 was
about 300 ppm by volume. This is 0.589 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air. After
about a century, the amount of CO2 in air has increased by only 0.250 grams of CO2
per cubic meter of air.
After over a century of an enormous consumption of fossil fuels, where has all of the
CO2 gone? Most all of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans as evidenced by the abundance
of plants and animals there. Another large portion of CO2 is fixed by the plants on land.
A 21 deg. C and 70% RH, the concentration of water is 17,780 ppm by volume. This
is 14.3 grams of water per cubic meter of air. Water is about 98% of the greenhouse effect
for these weather conditions.
We really do not have to worry about CO2. The claim by the IPCC that CO2 is the cause
of the recent “global warming” is a lie.
Agreed there are two reasons not to worry about CO2:
1 low climate sensitivity,
2 CO2 sink increases with concentration.
Since the pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.2, a portion of the CO2 is converted to
bicarbonate and carbonate anions. These form a buffer system that keeps pH fairly stable. These anions are used by shell fish to grow their shells. Coral uses these anion for growth.
Gregory Wrightstone, Ferdinand Engelbeen, Roy Spencer, Kees le Pair and Peter Dietze all agree with me that the CO2 sink is proportional to atmospheric concentration and not proportional to emissions.
What AI do you use to generate your title art? It’s really pretty good.
Hi!
My first visit in a while.
I was a regular reader of WUWT many years ago, but drifted away over the years.
Today I saw this video article over on ‘Citizen Free Press’ and thought y’all would be interested.
I have no idea if the author of this video article, and the article he is discussing, is correct or not.
I remember ‘Climategate’, so I put NOTHING past the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Disruption’ crowd.
Title: Error or Fraud – A New Bombshell in the Data
link to video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwlp-UzJR2A
Web page/channel of hosting organization:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers