By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
By three votes to two, the UK Supreme Court (formerly the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords) ruled last week in a 100-page judgment that Surrey County Council, in granting planning consent to UK Oil and Gas plc for oil production at Horse Hill, Surrey, had neither requested nor considered in their assessment an estimate of the CO2 emissions from third parties combusting the 3.3 million barrels of oil that the Horse Hill field might produce over its lifetime.
The company says it will now “work closely with Surrey County Council promptly to rectify the situation, either via an amendment to the environmental-impact assessment” in the original zoning application or “via a new retrospective application”.
The Horse Hill drilling site, 3 miles from Gatwick Airport, Surrey, AI simulation
Here, in full, are the “facts” as set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment:
“Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on its climate of burning fossil fuels – chiefly oil, coal and gas. When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – so called because they act like a greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere, trapping the sun’s heat and causing global surface temperatures to rise. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) Production Gap Report 2023, p 3, close to 90% of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from burning fossil fuels.
“The whole purpose of extracting fossil fuels is to make hydrocarbons available for combustion. It can therefore be said with virtual certainty that, once oil has been extracted from the ground, the carbon contained within it will sooner or later be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and so will contribute to global warming. This is true even if only the net increase in greenhouse gas emissions is considered. Leaving oil in the ground in one place does not result in a corresponding increase in production elsewhere: see UNEP’s 2019 Production Gap Report, p 50, which reported, based on studies using elasticities of supply and demand from the economics literature, that each barrel of oil left undeveloped in one region will lead to 0.2 to 0.6 barrels not consumed globally over the longer term. …
“All that is required is to identify from published sources a suitable conversion factor – which is the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emitted upon combustion of each tonne of oil produced. The total estimated quantity of oil to be produced is then multiplied by this conversion factor [3.22] to calculate the total combustion emissions … for each tonne of oil produced. Multiplying the total estimated output from the proposed project of 3.3 million tonnes of oil … by this factor give an estimated total of 10.6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the project.
“It is instructive to compare the amount of these emissions with the direct greenhouse-gas emissions at the well site over the lifetime of the project, … [which] was 140,958 tonnes of CO2. As well as providing this figure, the developer calculated the proportion which this figure would represent of the total UK carbon budget. Based on this calculation, the environmental statement described the effects of the proposed development on climate as ‘negligible’. Had the combustion emissions been included in the assessment, the figure for greenhouse-gas emissions attributable to the project would have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater and could not have been dismissed as ‘negligible’ in that way.”
In total, therefore, just one page out of 100 in the judgment was devoted to the mere facts. The reason is that, as usual, the corporations behind the project did not dare to argue against The Science. Instead, they tamely accepted the Party Line. As a direct result of their failure to get to grips either with the physics or even with the economics of global warming, they expensively lost the case.
The mischief of the judgment is that, while the 141,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted at the drill site over its lifetime was negligible, the 10.6 million tonnes of CO2 that would be emitted by third parties combusting the oil produced at the site could not be dismissed as negligible. The sole stated ground for this ludicrous proposition, on which the entire judgment hinges, was that 10.6 million tonnes of CO2 are 75 times 141,000 tonnes.
The “judgment” made no attempt to calculate how much global warming the 10.74 million tonnes of CO2 emitted by the Horse Hill project over its lifetime would cause. So let us do what no one else in this case (least of all the judges) has done – the math.
As always, we shall use mainstream, midrange data and methods. In doing so, we do not necessarily endorse either the data or the methods. We accept them ad argumentum – that is, for the sake of argument. This approach minimizes the scope for diverting the discussion away from the main point we shall demonstrate: 10.74 million tonnes of CO2, the sum of the direct and indirect project emissions, is indeed negligible on any reasonable definition.
We start with 10,740,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted either directly or indirectly by the project. But this value must be reduced right at the outset because, as the judgment says, if the oil at Horse Hill is not extracted some 40% of the unextracted oil will be extracted somewhere else. The saving by not proceeding with the project, the remaining 60%, is 6,444,000 tonnes.
The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.1 x 1015 tonnes (NASA 2022), and the current CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa is 427 parts per million. Therefore, the total mass of CO2 in the air is 5.1 x 1015 x 427 / 106 = 2.178 trillion tonnes or thereby.
Thus, the reduction in CO2 concentration by not proceeding with the Horse Hill project is 6,444,000 x 427 / 2.178 trillion, or about 0.00126 ppmv. You can see where this is going.
The radiative forcing from a change in CO2 concentration is 5 ln(C / C0). Therefore, the forcing abated is 5 ln [(2.178 trillion – 6,444,000) / 2.178 trillion), or 0.0000148 W m–2.
To convert Watts per square meter to warming abated, multiply by the 1.68 K transient 21st-century warming by doubled CO2 (Nijsse 2020) and divide by the 3.93 W m–2 doubled-CO2 forcing to get the answer: 0.00000632 K, or less than one-150,000th of a degree.
But that is before allowing for the fact that the decadal rate of global warming in the third of a century since IPCC (1990) has been half of what was then (and still is) predicted. So make that less than one-300,000th of a degree, or just one-third of one percent of the 1/1000th of a degree that would be abated even if the UK actually attained net zero emissions by 2050 (which it will not).
One redeeming feature: the judgment does not ban the project. It merely requires Surrey County Council to take account of the third-party emissions from the oil produced over the project’s lifetime. All that UK Oil and Gas needs to do is to send the Council this article and the Council can amend and confirm its decision to allow the project to go ahead.
Even if that fails, another route is available. Some years ago, the UK “Supreme Court” was unwise enough to hold a widely-publicized climate-change propaganda event in Court 1, at which – of course – only the Party Line was presented, and in the most tendentious and childishly extreme terms.
The Supreme Court – now widely regarded as a joke – had, therefore, prejudged the climate question by demonstrating frank prejudice in favor of the official narrative. It is accordingly permanently debarred at administrative law from issuing any decisions whatsoever on questions involving climate change.
For the law of the United Kingdom recognizes only two principles of natural justice: first, that both sides of a question – such as the climate question – should be fairly heard (audiatur et altera pars), and secondly, that no judicial authority that has made a cause its own by expressing a public view upon it other than as part of a judgment in a particular case may sit in judgment upon that cause (nemo sit iudex in causa sua).
It is, therefore, open to UK Oil and Gas to lodge a straightforward application to the European Court of Human Rights in terms of Article 6 (“right to a fair trial”):
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. …”
The corporation should at once lodge an appeal to the Human Rights Court on the ground that on the climate question the UK Supreme Court is not an “independent and impartial tribunal” and that, therefore, it has no standing to overturn the lower courts’ findings in the corporation’s favor.
The appeal could usefully cite the following instances of prejudice in the Supreme Court’s grossly inadequate and deficient presentation of the facts –
- “Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on its climate of burning fossil fuels.”
This is rank prejudice. It assumes without evidence that the impact of burning coal, oil and gas has been or may become net-harmful. So far, it is proving handsomely net-beneficial. CO2 fertilization has increased the total biomass of all trees and other green plants on Earth by 15-30% in recent decades; cereal-crop yields per acre have tripled in 60 years, partly thanks to more CO2 in the air, since CO2 is plant food; plants are now more resistant to drought, thanks to the reduction in the quantity of stomata on the undersides of the leaves through which CO2 is inhaled and water exhaled; consequently, famines worldwide are at record lows; and these and suchlike indirect benefits are as nothing when compared to the direct benefits given to the world by the static and locomotive power generated by coal, oil and gas – benefits altogether ignored in the judgment.
- Use of the term “fossil fuels”. This is propaganda jargon straight from the climate-extremist playbook. It has no place in a supposedly dispassionate judgment by an “independent and impartial” tribunal.
Lodging the appeal now would protect the corporation’s position. The appeal can be dropped if (or, rather, when) Surrey County Council includes the above simple calculations in its assessment of the corporation’s zoning application and confirms that drilling may go ahead. Let us hope that, just for once, a corporation will find the courage to stand up to the Blob.
- “… greenhouse gases – so called because they act like a greenhouse in the earth’s atmosphere, …”.
No, they don’t act like a greenhouse. When a molecule of CO2 in the air meets a photon of light in its absorption band, it emits heat directly, as though a tiny radiator had been turned on. It does this by quantum oscillation in the bending vibrational mode of CO2. This has nothing to do with how a greenhouse operates. “Greenhouse gas” is another propaganda term adopted without question and without qualification by a prejudiced judiciary.
- “… trapping the sun’s heat”.
No, radiatively-active gases do not trap the Sun’s heat. They do not act like a blanket. They act like radiators.
- “… causing global surface temperatures to rise.”
Here, as elsewhere, the judgment fails to ask the question that any genuinely independent and impartial tribunal would ask: namely, by how much does the anthropogenic increase in CO2 concentration increase global temperature? The Supreme Court did not even bother to ask that question: perhaps the chief evidence that its judgment is rooted in a prejudice as ill-informed as it is profound. The West cannot long survive negligent stupidity on this scale.
“Big Oil” only exists because of humanity’s addiction to the products made from fossil fuels!
Electricity from wind and solar CANNOT:
· Cannot make tires for the billions of vehicles.
· Cannot make asphalt for the millions of miles of roadways.
· Cannot make medications and medical equipment.
· Cannot make water filtration systems.
· Cannot make sanitation systems.
· Cannot make fertilizers that come from natural gas to help feed billions.
· Cannot make pesticides to control locusts and other pests.
Thus, Renewables CANNOT satisfy the demands of our materialistic society.
I surmise that you are at the top of the list for carbon reduction.
All readers of WUWT are top of the list for carbon reduction.
The big names are just one down from Anthony 👀
Why does wanting the stuff that makes life enjoyable make one materialistic?
In my opinion those that complain about how others are materialistic are for the most part people who have failed earn enough to buy all the stuff they want.
people who have failed earn enough to buy all the stuff they want.
There’s also a lot of people complaining about it who have more than enough to do so. They just don’t want anyone else to.
“Big Oil” companies are first and foremost chemical companies. They do not generate, transmit, and distribute energy such as electricity.
but… but… we won’t need all that stuff- since there won’t be many people left when we’ve gone back to the happy Paleolithic /s
So do you get to decide when we went from surviving to materialistic ? How many tires is enough in YOUR learned opinion …
Ron doesn’t decide.
Do you have a car, bicycle, mobile phone, laptop, heating, shop in a supermarket, wear clothes, or use any products not made by your own two hands or traded with a neighbour who has made them in a “sustainable” way?
If not, you’re part of the “problem”
Good to know WUWT still attracts commenters more bonkers than Monckers.
Keep it coming !
Excellent refutation. Did you go to college to learn such verbal skills?
Well, that was a moronically EMPTY comment.
Did you take lessons from a 5-year-old ??
LORD Monckton has several magnitude intelligence and understanding that a little child like you would ever be capable of.
You can, of course, not refute or argue against one thing the Ronald said….
… so you just yap like a demented poodle.
We now have the worst troll ever on WUWT.
Another example of how courts are being used to promote ideology instead of interpreting the law. The fact that judges are labeled as conservative or liberal, pro business or pro people, proves it.
The law is an interesting aside, but here in the US federal judge rulings can be predicted with at least 90% accuracy by simply checking which president made the appointment.
When the court system is stacked against you, waffle. (Or more legally precisely, when the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When both are against you, pound the table.)
Bragg’s criminal suit against Trump was definitely pound the table, There are at least three major reversible errors on appeal: Stormy Daniel’s damaging but immaterial testimoney, (basis for the recent Weinstein reversal), unconstitutional (6A) indictment, unconstitutional (Richardson v US) jury instructions.
Exxon Mobil did a good job waffling in Texas. Hawaii did a poor job waffling against the kids. Probably they wanted to ‘lose’.
Put into fact perspective, the 3.3 million barrels this prospect might produce over its lifetime is 1/3 of one day’s US production. So the British Court system thinks that perspective is immaterial to saving the world? Mad virtue signaling, nothing more. I’d appeal this ruling on those fact grounds, NOT resubmit a planning permission.
And a successful appeal that overturns such a case as this establishes precedent.
Which kills off any more of these such bullshit judgements.
I’m no fan of Trump – but I can’t understand why anyone would care if he played around with a porn “star” and paid her to shut up about it. The only people who should care are Trump’s family.
If you looked like D.A. Alvin Bragg, you’d be jealous too of anyone who got to play doctors and nurses with a reasonably presentable real woman, even if she did put the meter on.
And no self-respecting lady would ever admit having sex with Alvin Bragg.
Trump and Stormy both say they didn’t have a sexual affair. Stormy signed a statement to that effect back in 2018.
So why do you believe they had sex? Because the leftwing media says so?
Now, maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t, but nobody other than those two know the truth, and both of them said it never happened.
Stormy has since changed her story for reasons known only to her, but then we have to ask, was she lying in 2018, or is she lying now?
Do you know the answer? I don’t.
I’m going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
And btw, it wouldn’t make any difference to me if he had an affair. That was long ago and far away, and does not prevent Trump from being one of the best presidents the United States ever had. I want him to continue the good job he did last time.
I’m voting for Trump.
Stormy also declared that she never had sex with The Donald in several interviews.
According to the rumor mill, both JFK and MLK were quite the lady’s men.
Plus Clinton got away with lying about Monica Lewinsky
uh… he “didn’t have sex with THAT woman”- he only got a b*ow job 🙂
While on the phone with a US Senator discussing something important.
That would make a great porn movie.
Actually, the Clinton lawyers asked the court for a definition of “Sexual Relations” and based on the concise, specific, and invalid definition were able to say no.
As I understand the case, it wasn’t about what went on between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, it was about Donald Trump not declaring the payment to Stormy Daniels as election expenses.
Much of the US system is broken right now, but remnants of their democratic system still survive, and it looks like the people may still be able to fix it. Or am I just too optimistic?
Actually, the indictment was for intentionally falsifying business records to cover up another (unspecified) crime.
The FEC did not prosecute for improper campaign contributions.
A legal witness was not allowed to explain the nuances of the law.
(The payment to buy the Stormy Daniels story was not an election expense.)
The jury was told they did not have to agree on what crime was covered up.
Trump did not prepare the invoices. Cohen did.
Trump did not approve the invoices.
The invoices were sent to Accounts Payable and were processed in accordance with CPA rules. Trumps sole involvement was signing personal checks.
The checks themselves, all 12, did not have anything except from, to, date, amount. How were those falsified?
The ledger recorded the verbiage on the invoices. How was that falsification.
9 of 11 invoices were paid from a personal bank account. How are those business records?
They never proved Trump falsified any records and especially they never proved intent.
2 invoices, 3 checks, and 2 ledger entries involved business money. Witness testified that was a simple accounting error.
Then there is the point not raised about retainer. Cohen used that term in communications and invoices sent.
There are written contracts and verbal contracts. Verbal contracts are legally binding but are avoided since they are extremely difficult to litigate.
If Trump said to Cohen, take care of it and I will pay you later, that is a verbal contract and since a lawyer was involved it was a Retainer.
If anything, Cohen could have been convicted for falsifying the invoices he submitted.
As a separate point, the election was over before the first payment was made.
As a separate point, given the Access Hollywood tape and the contrived Russia Collusion and the contrived Steele Dossier, it is unlikely the Stormy story a few days before the election would have had an impact.
in my opinion, all politicians, everywhere on the planet, are all idiots
With their hands in your wallet, yes.
If that was an election expense, then just about everything a candidate does, before, during and after an election, is an “election expense”.
In the UK we are about to be afflicted (barring electoral misadventure) with a Starmer government. He has openly admitted a preference for Davos over Westminster. He also has a predilection for the judicial process despite his talent in this field being unequal to his ambition. I fear we will watch the slow erasure of what is left of our parliamentary democracy in subservience to the courts. Much as we lament the lack of knowledge of the physical and biological sciences present in Parliament, it far exceeds that within the judiciary. Expect even greater displays of ignorance as lawfare by our haters and their minions obstructs life-enhancing progress.
The dreadful Blair cooked up the Supreme Court for a reason. As for Starmer – that he was able to rise to one of the top legal jobs hardly paints a good picture of the legal profession. There’s a certain irony that Starmer, when a barrister, acted against one of Blair’s few sensible ideas (to remove rights of certain immigrants to claim benefits).
How much does CO2 increase global temp? There are many related questions that are not answered….the biomass under the surface of the earth is said to be greater than the the biomass above the surface…..it is bacteria extending miles below the surface and dating back several billion years. The Russian scientist says the tundra melting would produce more CO2 than all oil-coal-gas combined….and he doesn’t mention methane. Climate and earth are very complicated.
I agree.
Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) Production Gap Report 2023, p 3, close to 90% of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from burning fossil fuels.
That statement sticks in my craw. Wikipedia estimates 550 billion tons biomass on earth. Much of that biomass must turn into co2. If 5% biomass converts per year that is 27billion tons. Maybe multiply by 3.2 to convert to co2 – don’t know. But Wikipedia also lists man made co2 at 35 billion tons per year. So seems like natural co2 emissions would be somewhere around 44%. (27/(27+35)). Just a thought.
The standard answer is that human activity CO2 into the atmosphere currently is about 4% of total annual CO2 flow into the atmosphere. Then it claims that the “natural” CO2 flow out of the atmosphere each year is equal to the “natural” CO2 flow out of the atmosphere each year, for no net change in atmospheric content. The human activity CO2 flow out of the atmosphere each year is supposedly around 50% of that 4%, leaving about a 2% long term increase each year.
Various real studies of the process, instead of just attempting to measure atmosphere content as is done at various officially accepted stations, do not support that human activity CO2 additions to the atmosphere are anywhere near 4% annually.
Thank you for the input. Yeah, after I wrote that I figured reply would be natural co2 is balanced so no contribution to increase. 10 years ago colleague said all co2 increase was caused by man. I was surprised and thought that’s a pig’s share. It bugged me.
Wow, if human co2 is only 4% then total co2 flow would be (35/.04) billion = 875 billion. More than wiki’s 550 billion biomass. So many unknowns that people need to sort through. Numbers do help.
Not that I would know where to start with the calculation, but 550 billion tons doesn’t sound near enough to me. Consider that every cell in every organism is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2, from the microscopic to the giants of flora and fauna. Plants and phytoplankton absorb the CO2, animals eat the plants, those animals are eaten by larger animals, and so on up the food chain until eventually everything dies and decomposes back into CO2 and whatever else was in their composition. 550 billion tons might be the amount of biomass circulated year on year, but that cannot be a constant, there must be huge variability dependant on weather conditions and other factors. 35 billion tons sounds like a lot, but it probably equates to a couple of extra molecules of CO2 per tree leaf on the planet, let alone every other type of flora on land and sea.
Yep, man made CO2 is 35e9/ 2.178e12 = .016, 1.6% of CO2 in the atmosphere per year (by weight). I suppose it keeps adding up but it’s not reasonable to think that man made CO2 is causing all the increase since it is likely a small percentage of the total CO2 flux.
More likely natural greening of the earth is a large contributor but that’s confusing too because more biomass should sink CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Man is responsible for 100% of the carbon increase in the atmosphere. How do we know? The law of conservation of mass.
Since 1850…
Humans injected 695 GtC (327 ppm) into the atmosphere.
The biosphere took 225 GtC (106 ppm) from the atmosphere.
The hydrosphere took 180 GtC (84 ppm) from the atmosphere.
That’s it. Full stop. Humans are wholly responsible for the mass increase in the atmosphere.
[Friedlingstein et al. 2023]
Maybe it is time for you to exit the planet in order to save it?
That is a pretty good living reference document. It will take some time to chew through it. I notice the ocean sink is all done by models which is really the only way, but are they really correct. Nice diagram shows 37000 dissolved GT carbon in ocean. Previous articles here at WUWT show much higher CO2 levels in geological history. You have to wonder where that came from. I don’t think we really know. Maybe the ocean regurgitates it back up through geologic processes we don’t observe. Could be happening right now which would not violate the conservation of mass. This stuff just makes me think we’re not getting the whole picture and there’s too much money being shuffled around to trust everything that is being reported. Thank you for the reference article.
“How much does CO2 increase global temp?”
Dr. Happer says feedback-free CO2 adds about 0.75C to the Earth’s atmosphere..
Since no water vapor feedback related to CO2 has ever been found, we should assume that Dr. Happers figure is the answer to your question.
That would mean a doubling of CO2 would amount to 1.5C.
Now, the next question is, what happens to the warmth CO2 adds to the atmopshere after negative feedbacks are accounted for? Does CO2 net warm, or net cool the Earth’s atmosphere?
Answer: Nobody knows.
And nobody can produce any measured scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 does actually warm the atmosphere at all..
“It is, therefore, open to UK Oil and Gas to lodge a straightforward application to the European Court of Human Rights in terms of Article 6 (“right to a fair trial”):”
Of course that option would not be possible if the Tories and Reform succeed in getting the UK to leave the EU convention on Human Rights. Or is it just that they seem to think that companies have a right to a fair trial but that humans being don’t?
You have put yourself on trial…. and have been found mentally incapable. !
By stopping companies providing energy, they are indeed attacking human rights.
Or are you saying that humans have no right to adequate reliable energy ??
Also the rights of those trying to earn a worthwhile living by helping their fellow humans.
(something you will never do)
I am just saying that I am amused by the fact that Mr. Monckton is claiming that the company should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights when the right wing parties he supports are busy trying to take away that right of appeal from the poorest in society by withdrawing from the European convention on Human Rights.
EU commission bludgers are only concerned about their own rights to a lifetime of living off the taxpayer teat.
Name one significant contribution they’ve ever made to the betterment of living standards of humanity.
The single market. As people in the UK are finding out leaving a free trade area imposes significant costs making everyone permanently poorer as a result.
WRONG. The UK had trade with many countries before the EU debacle.
All of the UK’s current economic and governance problems started when they joined the EU..
I don’t think you can blame the EU for Liz Truss. Or Boris Johnstone. They are home grown idiots.
According the the UK government “In 2022, the UK exported £340 billion of goods and services to the EU, 42% of total UK exports. The UK imported £432 billion from the EU, 48% of total UK imports.” And since leaving the EU all of that trade has attracted higher costs due to additional tariffs, custom duties and inspections. The UK has had to employ 1000’s more custom officials, vets, etc to deal with the additional red tape that was created by leaving the single market.
The cost estimates for Brexit suggest that the country is between 2 and 6% worse off. All of which is not surprising since putting up additional trade barriers with your largest trading partner is always going increase the cost of doing business.
EU is the one erecting trade barriers… It really is PETTY, isn’t it !
European Convention on Human Rights, actually restricts rights of humans to determine their own life. It is more a “control” mechanism.
UK citizens had more rights, and were a lot freer, before they joined the EU…
.. now they are shackled with heaps of moronic legislation from unelected far-left EU bureaucrats…
Can you name a single right that UK citizens lost when the UK joined EU? I would be very curious since the UK did not actual enact a human right act until 1998 long after they joined the UK. And in what way are they freer now that they have left? Have lost the right of free movement and the right to live and work in any country in the EU would certainly appear to make them less free than before.
The right to own a decent heater and other usable appliances, for one…
… and the myriad of other moronically stupid bits of restrictive legislation that the EU forced upon the UK.
The Poms always had the right to move freely through Europe.
They earnt that right, the hard way.
The EU has now been totally petty about this… as leftist always are.
“The Poms always had the right to move freely through Europe.”
That is just nonsense. Prior to entering EU the British needed visas and work permits to live and work in the EU. Just as when they left the single market they lost that right.
“The EU has now been totally petty about this… as leftist always are.”
As were the British. EU nationals no longer have the right to live and work in the UK. But the British were worse at looking after EU nationals living in the UK than were countries like Spain or France with large British communities.
““Or are you saying that humans have no right to adequate reliable energy ??”
I noticed you did not answer this question… Why is that ???
Do you really think people should be deprived of adequate cheap energy. !!
That is a disgusting and depraved idea, the sort we have come to expect from you and your comrades.
That’s funny. As a child in the 1960’s I travelled all over Europe with my family without visas, the only formality being a passport stamp at the border. The only exception to this was Communist Hungary, which required visas. The requirements for foreign nationals to work in Europe were similarly straightforward.
And the right to eat a banana that didn’t have much of a bend in it
And of course the UK has a Bill of Right that dates back to 1689.
And of course, in leaving the EU they gained the right not to be told what you were allowed to do by an anonymous, unelected, petty and moronic bureaucrat in a sheltered workshop in Brussels.
Somewhat true. To me, an outsider, it appears that the UK parliament acts as a proxy for the EU bureaucrats. They didn’t want to leave the EU so they make sure that no one in their society is actually free of the EU bureaucrats. It is just a two step process.
Yes, I should have mentioned that even though the PEOPLE voted for BREXIT…
… the politicians have largely ignored it… still bending over and taking it. !!
So many of the benefits have failed to happen.
Of course they are. If you want to trade with the the EU then you need to match their standards. Just as if you want to trade with the US then you have to accept hormone filled meat. The difference before was that when Britain was part of the EU it had a say in the regulations since a good fraction of the EU bureaucrats were British and the UK had veto powers like every other member. Now they get no say in the regulations but have to follow them in order to trade with the EU. The alternative would be for companies to make two models — one for the EU market and one for the much smaller UK market and nobody wants the costs associated with that.
What are the Brexit benefits? The NHS is yet to receive the 300 Million pound boost per week that the leavers promised – or lied about. Again it is very simple if you erect trade barriers between yourself and your largest trading partner you shouldn’t expect anything except to be worse off as a result.
No-one wants to match the stifling and regressive standards of the EU.
That is why the actual people of the UK voted to leave.
It is the politicians that have not implemented Brexit and still bow and grovel to all the EU agendas and rules that are the problem for the people of the UK.
The regression caused by the EU dictates and the continued grovelling to the greenie anti-science, anti-CO2 agendas is causing massive problems to the UK economy.. as it is to several other western economies around the world.
That’s common to every country in the world. Indeed, regulations vary for lots of things state to state in the US.
Why should nations be forced to throw away bent banana’s because a bureaucrat in Brussels deems them unacceptable?
Why is Van der Lyen selected to lead the EU, and not elected like every other public official in a democratic system?
The EU emerged from two of the most authoritarian nations on the planet, Germany and Italy, with supine France left with little choice, to rebuild after WW2 when the far left German and Italian regimes destroyed Europe. It’s no coincidence that having destroyed Europe the rest of the world came to the aggressors aid, rebuilt their nations and the Germans turned to economic dominance rather than military dominance.
The question of the EU is not one of economics. Brexit was not economically motivated, it was motivated by sovereignty over our borders our governance and our fragile democracy. If integration is so great, why is there a border between the USA and Mexico, and the USA and Canada?
The question of governance, centralised or decentralised, rages across the planet on a day to day basis. Scotland and Wales were awarded devolved governments by the Blair government. Scotland attempted independence from England, Catalunya in Spain wants it, Taiwan wants it (it’s been part of China since 1943).
The EU is failing, it’s only a matter of time until it fully disintegrates and the Ukraine conflict merely hastens that collapse.
The question of economics are secondary consideration to sovereignty, indeed, sovereignty determines economic prosperity but fools like you imagine otherwise, which is why the fate of the EU was sealed from the day it was conceived.
You remainers are hilarious. Where is the economic collapse you all predicted? If anything, the UK is faring better than the other Eurozone economies.
Yes, they are having to learn how to think for themselves again, something that many of them have forgotten how to do. Much easier to wait for the diktat to turn up from Brussels and then decide how to gold-plate it.
There are many Izaak One of the main and ongoing losses is the UKs right to fish in its own territorial waters.
Nonsense. The UK signed up to a common fishing policy that let UK fisherman fish in any EU waters in return for letting others fish in UK waters. But then they sold off their quotas to foreign fleets as an example of the free market in action. And now that the UK is outside the EU it can’t sell its fish in the EU which was the main market and nobody in the UK wants to eat the fish that live in the coastal waters. Fish exports to the EU are down by 83% since Brexit. Plus of course nobody wants to eat fish that has spent days in a container at Dover waiting to be inspected before it can cross the channel.
That is a complete fabrication. You obviously know nothing about Ted Heath’s folly of accession and the gifting of the main fishing waters in Europe which are British, to the EEC for zero return.
Fish sales pre Brexit were next to nothing.
Your 83% statistic is not merely misleading, it’s dishonest. But what do we expect from a Remainer?
Remainer tactics and the obvious resistance to Brexit from the incumbent tory government that didn’t want it in the first place, has been blindingly obvious.
The public issued our government with an instruction, and our government ignored it, thereby illustrating the erosion of what little democracy we had remaining in the UK.
Now the tories are staring oblivion for their treachery.
Farage is a symptom of the public’s dissatisfaction with the political betrayal the UK has endured. Liz Truss suffered the wrath of the banks, not the government nor the voting public and Sunak has finished the job of admirably.
Do not be surprised if Reform UK pull off a result almost as seismic as Brexit on the 4th July. The pollsters and MSM are no less colluding against Farage now Than they were during the Brexit campaign. Our congenitally stupid and desperate tory and labour parties simply do not recognise that unrelenting chicanery, and persistent lying to the public is the route to disaster.
The European elections, the rise of the AfD, Meloni in Italy, Le Pen in France, and snap elections in both the UK and France are merely warning shots to the globalist cult who have sought domain over democracy for the last 50 years.
Only fools like you refuse to recognise the damage done to Europe, an economically stagnant entity now facing extinction. After 40 years of genuine application to join the EU, Turkey has had enough. The final insult is about to be delivered with the fast track membership of Ukraine, now a dictatorship, being processed. Turkey has the largest land army in Europe and is about to join BRICS and will be the first nation to ever leave NATO.
Yet you continue to delude yourself with fishing quota’s and European trade, just like the tories.
You will get what you deserve. It’s our turn now!
What’s the benefit of free movement throughout the EU?
I mean to regular people, not undocumented immigrants.
People have the ability to work and live in any country in the world, assuming they are a useful addition to the country in question. ‘free movement’ has turned into ‘free for all’ as documented and undocumented migrants, naturally, move from economically deprived nations to economically prosperous nations thereby turning those into economically deprived areas.
The far left, ideological theory of free movement is great, but like everything else ideological it sucks in practice.
Great catch! There has always been freedom of movement in Europe for legitimate travellers and workers, subject to simple formalities. With the Schengen Treaty, this was extended to criminals, terrorists, and benefit fraudsters.
Totally right sir. If we had had a proper Brexit we would be mostly free from these EU regulations and policies, we are still stuck with due to the remainers who fought tooth and nail to stay in. They had more say in the matter than the feeble leavers led by playboy Johnson who didn’t really believe in the process, just using it to retain power and to hell with the ordinary folk who backed him.
Johnson and most of the Tories haven’t a clue about climate and energy matters, so they agreed to support the crazy Net Zero manifesto dreamt up by the Labor twins, all these people will suffer rejection by the masses when they finally realize they have been had, just like Brexit, they couldn’t deliver properly. The fact that climate science does not support any significant relationship between atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions, is entirely lost on them. As for dangerous climate change- give me a break!
It’s time for a new lot of politicians who have the interests of the whole country at heart, not just sectional, woke and business buddies.
What exactly would a “proper Brexit” entail? And how would it solve the issue of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement? The legally binding Good Friday agreement means that people and goods are free to cross over between Northern Ireland and Ireland and thus into the EU. Are you proposing to rip up that?
Again there is no way of being free of EU regulations if you want to continue to trade with them. And remember that 42% of British trade is with the EU. So if the UK were to diverge from EU standards then the EU would respond by increasing tariffs and making it harder to trade destroying a lot of British businesses. Plus the service sector and especially the banking sector needs to be aligned with the EU if they want to continue to do business with the EU.
And yes there are other countries with whom to trade but they are further away than a short train journey and so would add costs without bringing any benefits.
If you think you can leave one of the largest free trade blocks in the world without there being an economic downside then you are dreaming. As actually events have shown.
You’re missing the point. The question about Brexit was not and is not about most of the things you write about.
Its certainly not about UK citizens having the right to move to EU countries and work in them – they can of course still do that, and do. Nor is it about trade – you can still trade with the EU without being a member of it, the whole world does. Just as you can trade with the US or Japan, or indeed China, without being politically part of these states. Nor is it about meeting product standards. Obviously to sell goods in a territory you have to meet its standards. But this does not require membership of the EU. Nor is it about human rights.
The issue about EU membership was precisely that it is not a free trade block. Just as the US is not a free trade block, but a country. The EU is an evolving political entity with many of the EU level components of a federal republic. The UK decided that whatever the economic benefits of membership may be, they were not worth the political cost of becoming a member of a different federal state. You can argue about this, but its a political judgment on the merits of a political decision. In the end they did not want to be ruled from Brussels by the state that the EU is and is becomings, and they didn’t think their own participation in the process of that government was enough control to justify them in remaining.
The thing that struck some observers about the debate was the inability or refusal of the Remain faction to justify the EU in its own terms. They never argued from the nature of the institution that this was something people should want to be part of. They never addressed the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU. They never talked to the continuing problem with the Euro, a currency without the fiscal union it needs to make it long term viable. They never addressed the defects of the ECHR, surely the least independent and most overtly political supreme court anywhere in the democratic world. Reading its judgments one says thank God for English Common Law!
Whatever the ECHR is about, its not about the rights of the poor and powerless to seek redress, and its not used that way.
Remain was a decision a bit like the decision to become another state of the US. The British decided no, on the grounds of the nature of the state they were being asked to remain in. That’s why your arguments so completely miss the point.
You are right about some things. The structure made sense for the countries that founded and joined it. They have a common approach to government, an autocratic state administered by a powerful and autonomous civil service. The Commission is very much on the Franco-German model, so adjusting to that was easy. It also combined high tariffs on both agriculture and industry on the Bismarck model, that too having been a tradition. It has a sort of Potemkin parliament, mostly for show. That too is compatible with the French and German traditions, and not at all with the UK role of the Commons. And the EU is basically run by France and Germany, its a sort of tyranny of the majority.
The cultural incompatibilities in the end determined that the UK’s membership was always going to be temporary. The UK sold membership to its people on the grounds that it was just a free trade area. And when they found it wasn’t, they were always going to leave in the end.
The EU is a corpse, only now beginning to stink of rotting flesh.
A vindictive entity that ruined Greece and openly threatened to do the same to Hungary recently unless it conformed to the demands of the Brussels bureaucracy.
One that now gleefully watches on as Germany deindustrialises itself over insane green policies.
That is the standard of political regime, which we were promised would never exist, you worship.
“as Germany deindustrialises itself”
According to the IEA
“electricity demand in the EU’s industrial sector fell by an estimated 6% in 2022 and again in 2023.Prices of electricity for energy intensive industry in the EU in 2023 were almost double those in China and the US and the gap has widened putting EU energy intensive industry competitiveness under pressure”
IEA ‘Electricity 202 Analysis and forecast to 2026’
It is the poorest people that are hurt most by denying access to energy.
But I’m pretty sure you don’t give a damn about that.
Only Reform UK has pledged to leave the ECHR. The tories haven’t.
“Or are you saying that humans have no right to adequate reliable energy ??”
I noticed you did not answer this question… Why is that ???
Still no answer.
You are nothing but a dumb, cowardly little worm.
You won’t get one from Izaak Walton – it’s too close to the bone.
Well, is it not the case that humans are a plague upon the planet, totally without any benefits or rights to exist?
Greenhouses trap energy. GHGs trap energy.
Note that in this context “trap” is in reference to the 1LOT ΔU = Q – W or in more contemporary and applicable form ΔE = Ein – Eout. Specifically it is the case where ΔEout < ΔEin resulting in ΔE > 0.
So yeah, in this context, GHGs act like a greenhouse in that they both trap energy. The mechanism by which the trap occurs may be different, but they both still trap energy so says the 1LOT.
Blankets impede the transmission of energy through the medium. Radiatively-active gases also impede the transmission of energy through the medium. So yeah, in this context, they act like blankets.
BTW…I’ve noticed that you’ve ghosted WUWT in regards to the pause updates. Here is the most recent update that I invite you to comment on. At its peak the pause lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is now +0.34 C/decade.
I see your 0.34 C and raise you 0.0024 C.
Are ya feelin’ lucky?
Well are ya?
Punk?
I do get the reference to the movie. I’m not sure about the 0.0024 C though.
During the day, water, the main greenhouse gas, and CO2 absorbed in-coming IR light in sunlight. About 40% of the light in sunlight is IR light.
You could argue it is closer to 50% if you go down to 0.7 um for the wavelength. That doesn’t mean CO2, H2O are absorbing 50% of the incoming energy though. In fact, all modes of absorption including those below 0.7 um is about 30%’ish percent.
So what?
After rereading this I realized I should probably clarify this to avoid conflating it with the 30% reflection due to albedo. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m basically taking the 80 W.m-2 that is absorbed in the atmosphere and dividing by the total absorbed 240 W.m-2 from [Wild et al. 2019] which is actually 33%.
non-science gibberish.. as always.
“Blankets impede the transmission of energy through the medium.”
The atmosphere ALLOWS for the transmission of energy through the system.
The more heat at the surface, the more the energy transfer.
Nowhere is it being “blocked”
I know of no blanket that ENABLES the body to cool when it gets too warm.
So NO… in any real context , it does not act like a blanket.
Warming trend comes from two very strong El Nino events. (with cooling between)
Waiting for some evidence of human causation.
“pause updates”
Wow.. you still haven’t figured out that the 2023 El Nino broke the pause (well actually, it was a cooling trend)
Just dumb !!
.
oops , this was meant as a reply to bedbug.. or whatever.
Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation tells us CO2 molecules emit just as much radiation as they can absorb. Trapping doesn’t appear to be a very good word. And, in fact, it’s not at all true. CO2 is one of the primary gases which cools the planet.
What word do you use to describe something that is allowed to enter, but not allowed to exit?
CO2 does not cool the planet. If it is added the planet warms.
What is not allowed to exit?
Absorbed and re-emitted is not trapping.
Energy.
It most certainly is.
Remember, absorption often only occurs from one direction like is the case with a NDIR in which an IR lamp is only on one side of the cuvette. However, the emission occurs in all directions which necessarily means that the flux on thermopile side of the cuvette is less than on the IR lamp side because only 50% of the original IR lamp flux is being remitted by the gas toward the thermopile even when all the absorbed energy is reemitted.
It is important to note that infrared absorbing gas species can also thermalize the absorbed energy with neighboring molecules without the need for spontaneous emission to relax the dipole moment.
No. Not trapping. If there are emissions, there can be no trapping. If there is energy exchanged, there is not trapping.
Trap: have something held tightly by something else so that it cannot move or be freed.
What you are describing is, in simplistic terms what IR sensor engineers call scattering.
I have yet to see a true physics paper that demonstrates the IR absorbing gases thermalize anything. Valence electrons do not emit heat (kinetic energy).
The only kinetic energy passing from one molecule to another is momentum exchange when they “collide.”
This is easily falsified with a simple in home experiment. Put a pot of water on the stove. Use a thermopile or radiometer based instrument to observe whether the water is emitting. I personally use the Fluke 62 Max which has a 8-14 um filter in front of its thermopile, but you can use whatever you like. Now turn the stove on and allow the water temperature to increase in accordance with ΔT = ΔE/(m*c) due to the trapping of energy (ΔE > 0) within the bulk of the water. If your thermopile or radiometer continue to register emissions simultaneous with ΔT > 0 then you know ΔE > 0 meaning that energy was trapped in the bulk of the water.
That seems like a reasonably definition to me. Though allowing something to move doesn’t seem material. Afterall, if I allow 10 people to enter a room, but prevent them from exiting I think I can rightfully say I’ve trapped them even though they may continue to move within the room.
Yes. Gas species like CO2 will scatter the IR photons. That’s actually part of the reason why some of those photons get trapped on the lamp side of the cuvette.
Lombardi has a couple of papers specific to CO2+CO2, CO2+N2, and CO2+O2 collisions and how they the IR induced dipole moment of CO2. Not that I think Lombardi is the be-all-end-all researcher in the field. I just mention him because his publications are spot on relevant and contain extensive bibliography lists that can be cross referenced.
I know. But that doesn’t prevent polyatomic gases species from acquiring a dipole moment when they vibrate upon absorbing radiation of a specific frequency and then relaxing that dipole moment via a collision with another
Yep.
A load of GIBBERISH, with zero evidence attached…
… and totally irrelevant to the atmosphere.
Garbage. Greenhouses block convection. ALL gases dissipate heat.
You don’t think greenhouses prevent energy from escaping?
He did not say that. He said block convection, which is different, and he is correct.
I said both greenhouses and GHGs trap energy. He said that was “Garbage”. It’s such a bizarre response to an indisputable fact that I’m asking for clarification regarding whether he truly thinks it is garbage or not.
What about you? Do you think the fact that greenhouses and GHGs trap energy is garbage?
Your bizarro ideas about thermal conduction are way out there in la-la land.
In a word, yes. It is false.
Energy can not be trapped.
You said that down below as well. Perhaps you could try to explain here or there how you think ΔU from the 1LOT is prevented from ever being greater than 0?
You have just proved you are UTTERLY CLUELESS about energy transfer.
Well done.
And no CO2 DOES NOT trap energy.
What a moronic comment !
If GHG’s “trap” energy, when do they release it, and in what direction?
And precisely how much energy can a trace gas of 0.04% “trap”? And if it’s trapped, why would it effect the temperature of the planet? At some point the molecule will be saturated with as much energy as it can carry. What happens then?
You might want to cite some scientific papers to explain all this, but we know that up to 50% of medical science is considered junk (see attached) and whilst medical science has some constraints, climate science is notably unencumbered with any constraints. There is no clinical trial to understand the effects of CO2, under strictly controlled conditions, on the planet.
I would guess that less than 10% of ‘climate science’ is credible, which 10% is anyones guess.
In the same way that a blanket traps energy until it is removed GHGs trap energy until they are removed. Once GHGs are removed from the atmosphere a net flow of energy is allowed to proceed upward and into space.
ΔT = ΔE/(m*c)
Let’s assume 2xCO2 causes an increase of 3 C in the atmosphere, the atmosphere’s mass is 5.15e18 kg, and has a specific heat capacity of 1 kj/kg. Using the heat capacity equation we can calculate the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere as 3 C * 5.15e18 kg * 1 kj/kg = 15.5e21 ZJ. This method can be used to calculate the energy trapped in the other heat reservoirs of the climate system as well.
[Tyndall 1861] is a good place to start especially for historical context. [Myhre et al. 1998] and [Etminan et al. 2016] provides estimates of the trapping effect for a few polyatomic gas species. For fundamental concepts I recommend college level thermodynamics and spectroscopy textbooks. I used Thermodynamics by Cengel and Boles when I was college. And although I haven’t taken a spectroscopy class myself my college used Introduction to Spectroscopy by Pavia et al. for theirs.
Let’s see if we can figure how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle instead.
Blankets do not trap heat. That is the explanation parents give to young children.
Blankets alter the thermal conduction by adding thermal resistance (aka imperfect insulation). If blankets trapped heat, people would die.
Tyndall does not consider the IR radiative effects of CO2. His detector was a thermal electric pile. He was demonstrating the different Cp of gasses. Comparing 100% CO2 to 2% water saturated air got the same results. Funny that.
If you had thermodynamics, you would unquestioningly know that energy can not be trapped.
You don’t think blankets cause ΔEout < 0?
ΔEout < 0 does not mean people die.
Of course he did. His thermopile was exposed to the control infrared source on the left side and the experimental infrared source on the right side that had to pass through a tube that could be flooded with a gas. The galvanometer used by the thermopile could be zeroed by adjusting the control infrared source on the left to match the output of the experimental source on the right with the tube empty. The tube is then filled with CO2 (or other gas) and the galvanometer needle would deflect in proportion to how much of the infrared rays were trapped with in the tube as a result of the presence and quantity of gas in the tube. It is similar in concept to how modern day NDIRs detect polyatomic gas species.
Nope. He was demonstrating how much less radiation the thermopile was being exposed to when the tube was filled with various gas species. At no time did he measure the Cp of any of the gases.
In my thermodynamics class I learned that the 1LOT was one of the fundamental laws of physics that has never been shown to be wrong. Therefore energy can be trapped when ΔEout < ΔEin resulting in ΔE > 0. If you’re going to be so bold as to make the extraordinary claim that this scenario can never occur then the onerous is on you to show it with extraordinary evidence and then claim your Nobel Prize.
You do not know how a thermo-electric pile works, obviously.
Also, what are the frequencies emitted by steam? Hint 100 C.
I’ve never claimed I’m expert. But I do have a working knowledge of how thermopiles work and even how Tyndall’s specific implementation works. Tyndall actually describes its operation in his paper. Anyway, it’s moot either way since my understanding of thermopiles does not have some magic ability to retroactively influence Tyndall or his experiment demonstrating CO2’s IR radiative effects.
Most of them. Though I don’t think that is the spirit of your question which can only be answered with a line-by-line analysis such as that provided by HITRAN. But be warned the HITRAN standard temperature is 296 K so you have to apply the documented equations to adjust for the +77.85 K effect. You might as well make the pressure adjustments too if that level of detail is truly important. You may find the SpectralCalc site more convenient to use. That’s what I usually use.
Mr. 4: This is one of the letter-salad’s worst efforts, showing deep ignorance. Above, he says GHGs “trap” heat until, like a blanket, they are “removed”. He seems to think H2O and other traces are somehow removed from the atmosphere, rather than the heat moving on and leaving the GHG behind. I’m not well-versed in thermodynamics, but I know my coffee loses heat, and I bet CO2 does too. If only heat could be “trapped.” Each comment gets worse.
His notions about heat transfer and thermal resistance are esoteric, to be kind.
I do want to apologize for my username. It has been brought up before that people take offense to it. It is never my intention to offend people with my username or otherwise. The bdg part is my initials. The wx part is shorthand for weather as listed in the ITU-R M.1172 standard. I use bdgwx on WUWT here because it is my username on other weather related forums and I wanted people to be recognize me easily. Again, I apologize if it is offense to you. That definitely was not my intention.
They are. H2O in particular is removed aggressively via condensation. This is why it is not well mixed in the atmosphere. CO2 gets removed primarily via biosphere and hydrosphere buffering.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The passage of heat through a GHG does directly cause a GHG to get removed. The removal of GHGs are generally through other physical processes which may or may not be influenced by that heat, but is not directly caused by the heat itself.
Yes. It does. It does via spontaneous emission and collisions with neighboring molecules which is often referred to as thermalization.
It can. The 1LOT says ΔE = Ein – Eout. This is commonly referred to as the law of conservation of energy. Anyway, so when ΔEout < ΔEin then ΔE > 0. ΔE > 0 is the amount that is prevented from exiting the system or “trapped”.
BTW…to be pedantic “heat” means the net transfer of “energy”. And “energy” means the ability to do work. I don’t personally have a problem with saying heat is trapped, but the purest may take issue with the phrasing since it is actually energy that is being trapped by the inward flow of heat.
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: These indulgent, over-the-top apologies get funnier each time. You use a stupid nom de plume, I mock you for it. No need to prostrate yourself for giving “offense” that you only imagine.
So, when CO2 gets “removed” by the energy, where does it go out of the atmosphere? When water condenses, some falls to the surface, it doesn’t leave the atmosphere. It does lose the heat, though, so the heat is removed, not the water. You seem to miss this, maybe hypersensitivity about your chosen appellation distracted you??
Pointless to continue. Your nonsense is too much to read.
My points were
1) I’m sorry that my name offends some people.
2) H2O and CO2 can and does get removed from the atmosphere.
3) CO2 can lose energy via spontaneous emission or thermalization.
4) The 1LOT does not preclude ΔU > 0 (or ΔE > 0) for a system.
What points do you think are nonsense?
I don’t think I’ve ever read so much scientific GARBAGE packed together in one comment !
There is no energy trapped.
Gas Laws applied to balloon data analysis has shown that the energy in the atmosphere is totally linear wrt molecular density, with only H2O altering this linearity.
CO2 is a gas, and makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the final energy transfer in the atmosphere..
LOL……A blanket. How stupid can you get. Other than utterly and completely missing the point of the time directional elements. If the energy is “trapped” in the CO2 molecules it is not transmitting that energy, it does not does it act as insulation if it’s saturated with energy. If it’s transmitted it does so @ur momisugly 360º.
Make up your mind, it either traps energy or insulates, it can’t do both.
“ΔT = ΔE/(m*c)” = entirely irrelevant as there are far too many confounding factors like, say, water vapour or clouds, to mention only two.
“Let’s assume 2xCO2 causes an increase of 3 C in the atmosphere…..” Let’s assume nothing. Start from there.
I’ll only address Tyndall specifically; his experiment was done in a controlled, laboratory experiment with no confounding factors like, say, water vapour or clouds, to mention only two.
As for the other two, kindly refer to my earlier attachment. At best, judging by the evidence of experts, only one might be correct and even that’s doubtful.
You might want to consider theories that disprove your consensus view rather than support it. After all, that’s how good science is conducted, it is the responsibility of the scientist proposing a hypothesis to break it. All you do is cite lot’s of studies you have never attempted to test yourself.
If I’m judged against the full breadth and depth of knowledge then I’m definitely very stupid. In fact, I’m willing to concede that my stupidity is boundless. Afterall, the more I learn the more I realize how little I actually know.
It’s not. At least not for very long.
True.
It’s both. That’s what insulators do. They trap energy on the heat side of the barrier. Mathematically this is expressed with the 1LOT via the scenario where ΔEout < ΔEin resulting in ΔE > 0.
It is very relevant as it relates the trapped energy (ΔE > 0) to an increase in temperature ΔT > 0. Bodies warm because energy is being trapped (ΔE > 0) within them.
Then we leave it in the general form ΔT = ΔE/(m*c). That’s your answer.
He considered water vapor. But you may have a point regarding clouds. I found no mention of condensed water vapor in the gas tube at least in the 1859 experiment. I will say he was obsessed with water vapor so it would not be a surprise if he did not address it later. In any case with 160 years of further understanding we know that polyatomic gas species don’t stop interacting with IR radiation regardless of all the confounding factors contrived this includes clouds which do not prevent NDIRs from working. Either way your challenge of Tyndall is nothing more than a goal post move. You asked for a citations. I did as requested.
Your attachment does not provide evidence that the 1LOT is false.
There are no experiments that disprove the 1LOT. Therefore any theory based on it not being true is on shaky ground at best.
Another load on anti- and pseudo-science gibberish from a scientifically clueless twit.
Lots of back and forth with CMoB certainly lurking, but still ghosting. Per Sam in Tin Men:
“I don’t know why…”.
Mr. bob: Could be Monckton is concerned that whatever he says, this one will prostrate himself because he thinks he gave offense. I bet Monckton gets enough of those prostraters.
GAT: a meaningless number that cannot describe “the climate”. But it is the raison d’etre of your hallowed trendology.
Why do you never talk about the most important mechanism which transfers energy from sunlight to the atmosphere, namely CONVECTION?
First…I do talk about convection a lot.
Second…Convection is not the most important mechanism which transfers energy from sunlight to the atmosphere.
Third…Convection has nothing to do with CMoB’s claims GHGs do not act like greenhouses/blankets or trap energy which is why I didn’t mention it in this specific post. The reason applies to countless other topics like frontogenesis, evapotranspiration, etc. physical processes that have absolutely nothing to do with what CMoB said.
Formerly the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
Maybe the House of Lords is doomed.
That gratuitous assumption is at least partly due to the effect of clever propaganda conflating CO2 and genuine air pollution on a largely ignorant general public including the good Ladies and Lords on the UK Supreme Court.
Also there is a deep-seated sentiment in Western culture that anything human beings do to the environment must be inherently bad probably traceable back to the Christian doctrine of ‘original sin’.
Perhaps if you spent some time studying Christian doctrine, you wouldn’t make such a silly mistake.
Original sin takes the position that we were born in sin, not that everything we do is sinful.
This is in opposition to the view of some that we are born good, and only get corrupted by others as we grow up.
Original sin:
“the tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The concept of original sin was established by the writings of St Augustine” ( Oxford Dictionary of English ).
Anyway I was not stating the doctrine but a sentiment that probably derives from that doctrine.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone!
RE: Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming of Air.
Using Google, you should search for “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”.
This is the website of the late John Daly.
From the home page, scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”.
On the world map, click on “North America”, then scroll down to “Pacific” and then
click on “Death Valley”.
The figure shows plots of the annual average seasonal temperatures and a plot of the
annual temperature. The plots of temperature metrics are fairly flat and show no increase
in temperatures to 2001. In 1920, the concentration CO2 in air was about 300 ppm by
volume and by 2001 the concentration of CO2 in the air had increased to about 367 ppm
by volume.
On the basis of these data and the temperature data of the many weather stations around
the world, I have concluded that CO2 does not cause any “global warming”.
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. A cubic meter of air at 20 deg. C has a
mass of 1.20 kilograms. This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of
air by only a very small amount.
Finally, I have concluded that the claim by the IPCC that CO2 is the cause of the recent
global warming is a lie.
“I have concluded that CO2 does not cause any “global warming”.
I have concluded that you are not very bright. Almost 100% of scientists would agree with me.
EVERYONE has concluded that you are an AGW-worshipping little twit, RG. !
Still trying the fake 100% consensus crap… how petty of you.
Oh.. and we are all still waiting for that scientific evidence of CO2 warming that you seem totally incapable of producing.
Richard why do you persist in being so obnoxious. You do yourself no favours.
Mr. Greene: Almost 100% of scientists called me to say that they are too polite to say such a nasty thing without knowing more about Mr. Pierce. They said you should stop speaking for them, you make them look stupid. I told them it was a consensus here that Mr. Greene is projecting that look, and getting a consensus here was pretty hard to do!
The temperature of the planet has risen concurrent with the improvement in technology to measure temperature.
The most insidious of those technologies is the digital spreadsheet. Any clown with a PC can inject almost any amount of numeric data which produces an answer in the bottom right hand corner (usually) which is presented as irrefutable proof of whatever the operator cares to propose.
Input data quality is another thing entirely. As Peter Ridd points out, there is little to no QC in science in general, far less climate science.
Looking forward to the assessments on the emissions involved in manufacturing windmills and solar sh!t and if course the emissions from the necessary back up power options for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.
NET ZERO AT ANY COST? NO THANKS!
Nice essay. Well done.
Carbon Dioxide is necessarily introduced into Greenhouses (plant factories) because it is the food for the plants. In a closed space without continuously adding food, that is CO2, the plants could not survive. This is the correct meaning of a greenhouse gas, and there is only one.
On the other hand, green house glass (or auto glass) is the reason enclosed spaces heat up.
Excellent Lord Monckton as expected.
The author’s main point—that weak submission to faulty arguments is the wrong approach—is certainly worth careful consideration.
So then … when Joe Biden releases planet-killing oil from the US Strategic Oil Reserve … for political purposes … to cynically and temporarily lower the price of gasoline prior to his own next election … he owes a duty of a detailed EIR for the amount of planet-killing Co2 he is causing from 3rd party (read: voters) combustion of the oil.
And he certainly owes this EIR, which should be thoroughly reviewed by 3rd Party Peers, to the EPA for final judgement. Right? Since the SCOTUS made the “endangerment” Finding … then any and all use of fossil fuels must be LIMITED to some … “ideal” amount. Not enough to destroy the economy … but just enough to transfer the wealth of Big Oil (sic) into the pockets of “green” communists.
You know … it’s like Big Tobacco was done. Don’t ban tobacco … but tax the Holy Shite out of it which can be stuffed into the pockets of communists.
I shan’t be holding my breath, waiting for Biden’s Strategic Oil Reserve release EIR.
Environmental impacts per se do not stop projects. If they turn the IPCC crank the impact on temperatures will still be negligible. This could be just a nuisance requirement.
The word you are overlooking is … “mitigation”. Once the EIR is completed, there will be multiple recommended “mitigations”. Many of which can KILL projects by making them immediately unprofitable. You’ve not lived in the EIR world.
Horse Hill – 51°10’41″N 0°12’34″W
Presumably they will be making the same assessment when considering proposals for a wind farm. How much CO2 is produced in the mining, refining and production of the materials for the construction, including the loss of plants/trees of the site. Also need to include the CO2 output from the back-up generation when the wind doesn’t blow etc.
No, thought not.
From the article: ““Anyone interested in the future of our planet is aware by now of the impact on its climate of burning fossil fuels – chiefly oil, coal and gas.”
What impact?
There is no discernable impact from CO2 on either the Earth’s temperatures or the Earth’s climate or the Earth’s weather.
This Court claiming there is, demonstrates how little they really know about the subject. Propaganda works, even on Court judges.
There is no evidence supporting what they claim to know about CO2 and the Earth’s climate. They couldn’t prove any of their claims if their lives depended on doing so.
Hope you don’t mind if I repeat that in bold.
It deserves repeating many times. ! 🙂
You and Abbott are Dumb and Dumber
The There is no Greenhouse Effect Nutters.
Great job making conservatives look like junk scientist fools.
No, we are the “there’s no evidence that the CO2 greenhouse effect is big enough to be detectable” Nutters.
Have you detected a discernable greenhouse effect from CO2?
No, you haven’t. You think the temperature increase over the last few decades is evidence of CO2 warming, but there’s no evidence for that, no matter how much you wish it was so.
It may just be a coincidence that temperatures are rising while CO2 is rising. The temperatures rose at the same magnitude from the 1910’s to the 1930’s, as they are rising today, but the difference is CO2 levels were much lower from the 1910’s to the 1930’s, so CO2 was not driving the temperatures then, so why should we assume it is driving the temperatues now?
And, you can’t prove CO2 is doing anything in the atmosphere that Climate Alarmists claim it is doing. You are assuming way too much, which is not a good basis for a scientific opinion.
Science does not prove
Science collects evidence
Which you choose to ignore
The 1910 to 1940 warming was less than the 1975 to 2023 warming and the accuracy of the global average temperature is low before WWII.
Yet the climate catastrophists use 1850 or 1880 as the bench mark for global warming?
There was no global average temperature in the 1800s
There was a rough average of mainly US and Europe land temperatures with some haphazard N.H. sea surface measurements.
You missed the point.
The point is what caused the 1910 to 1940 warming? CO2 really only took off after 1950 yet by the late 1960s we were being told we were facing a new ice age!
The IPCC provides what I think is a helpful illustration of the factors involved and how they combine at various points in time.
FAKE modelled garbage, leaving out H2O which vastly overwhelms any other effect, and also leaving out the major energy sources of the planet.
It is a trite, meaningless load of garbage, designed for tiny meaningless minds.
The Stevenson Screen wasn’t conceived until 1864, it wasn’t adopted by the MET office until 1884.
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I’ve not challenged the dates at which Stevenson Screens were conceived or adopted. I hadn’t even mentioned them (until now) in this blog post at all.
You believe the IPCC and their monstrous computer games?
Somehow the lesser warming caused massive disruption while the greater one did not.
You certainly have never even attempted to produce the slightest scientific evidence to back up your gibberish and rants.
Seems you have no evidence.
Nor do we expect you would be capable of ever producing any.
You are a minor, ranting, non-science AGW twit.
You poor, petty little ZERO-EVIDENCE AGW-worshipping trollette !
Still waiting for you to produce scientific evidence of atmospheric warming by human CO2.
Don’t be a complete FAILURE all your insignificant little life.
His entire life has been, so far, one monumental failure.
Not much time left to rectify it.
He has his vaunted blog…
Self vaunted blog, stuffed full of press clippings scrounged from the internet.
I notice he doesn’t post the link since people like you and me began laughing at it.
Heh, see below…
Over 200,000 page views since February 2023 and over 611,000 page views before then
I publish a daily recommended climate and energy reading list that features the best conservative articles I can find every morning. Good authors such as Anthony Watts.
Some recommended artices are from this website, almost seven days a week..
No ads
No begging for donations
No money for me
No greenhouse and AGW denying
Those losers who insult my blog’s reading lists force me to provide a link so others can see the truth
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Heh, you are very impressed — with yourself.
Impressed that I am not you
That would be depressing.
You are a very strange person.
You have a lot of good content there.
The Billy Madison of climate blogs.
Anyone that reads it become dumber, dumberer…
… and ends up like RG.. the DUMBEST !
Why bother repeating what’s published on credible websites. You’re just an aggregator.
And we only have your word for page views. I have spent many years researching climate issues, as have many others, yet I never stumbled across your website. I don’t see it referenced on this site, I have never seen it referenced on any other site.
How do you generate page views?
Hot Spud has another huge burst of verbal flatulence.
Poor RG, the petty arrogance continues..
I usually try not to laugh at gross egotistical incompetence.
But in his case, I just can’t help it.. its so hilarious to watch.
Hey there pretty boy.
I wouldn’t go making fun of anyone else’s handle if I were you, when yours is so obviously open to ridicule.
Yet another ad hominem attack.
Time to stop feeding the trolls.
I suppose I should not respond to insults? Take them but don’t fight back?
That’s not my still
Someone throws down insults and I respond. Otherwise, this is a conservative echo chamber.
Correct. You should not respond to insults and many times your offer insults when there was nothing to respond to.
You would do better to raise the bar.
Your comments are one big insult from start to finish.
Petty insults to people…
… and ignorant insults to science.
And the content, when there is some, other than mindless blether, is an insult to people’s intelligence.
And why the continued petty child-like tantrums.. tired and boring !
Abbott seems to be replying to the pseudoscientific claim that we can observe the “impact” of CO2 on everything around us with our senses, an obviously false claim. I note that he said temperatures, not temperature which suggests that the topic so far is the local environments, not the global averages.
They are supposedly experts on law. I have yet to see, witness, or read about a lawyer who was an expert on science. They call scientists to give expert testimony, certainly but that does not make the lawyer a scientist.
“The West cannot long survive negligent stupidity on this scale.“
Which, of course is the whole aim of the anti-CO2 scam…
…. the destruction of Western civilisations down to third world level. !
You beat me to it….
That is, of course, left wing politics in a nutshell.
We must all conform to the lowest common denominator instead of aspiring to achieve.
Because, politically it’s easier to knock everything down, with empty promises to rebuild, than it is to elevate people to prosperity.
Strangely, since the Chinese adoption of capitalism they have elevated one billion people from grinding poverty in just 30 years. Without giving a monkeys about atmospheric CO2.
Our left wing governments in the west seem determined to reverse that concept.
Ah greenhouse gas DO act like a blanket which also doesn’t “trap heat” greenhouse gas and blankets are INSULATION they slow down the heat loss … the judgement is nonsense on stilts but you should use their own words/terms against them
Minor nit.
The earth is not a greenhouse. Only in a hothouse (aka greenhouse) is CO2 a greenhouse gas.
CO2 is just another molecule in the atmosphere. It is different than others in very minor ways with respect to energy transport.
The big difference is at 14.9 micrometer wavelength, which is the primary absorption of long wave IR. In this, the frequency is or becomes opaque when CO2 is present.
This is not because CO2 converts EM energy to kinetic energy as some proclaim. It is because CO2 absorbs the energy in valence bonds and re-emits the energy.
What happens is the vertical IR is scattered spherically. One molecule will be up. Another down. Another left, right, from any point over the geometry of the valence bonds. This means above looking down one does not measure IR 14.9 um.
Given the relatively small aperture of satellite sensors and the spherical geometry of the planet, very little of angular IR is detected. Given the nature of EM waves, increasing the angle of incidence increases the % reflected.
To be pedantic 14.9 um is the primary absorption of terrestrial IR because terrestrial IR peaks close to 14.9 um. CO2’s primary absorption peak is actually at 4.3 um. It’s just that terrestrial radiance close to this peak is small so CO2 does not absorb much of it here. BTW…the 4.3 um peak is used by most NDIRs precisely because CO2 interacts so strongly with it.
Sure, It can and does spontaneously emit the energy. But it will also lose this gained energy when it collides with neighboring molecules. In fact, the later is orders of magnitude more likely given the differences in the relatively long period of time waiting for a spontaneous emission and the relatively short period of time waiting for a collision. So yes, it is because CO2 converts EM energy to kinetic energy. Most people refer to this mode of energy conversion as thermalization.
You still measure the peak near 14.9 um. It’s just that the intensity is reduced since the emission is scattered in all directions meaning that at least half is out of view of the radiometer. This is the essence of part of the energy trap. That is energy that had an escape trajectory is now reduced in half in terms of emission. Like I mentioned above the other part of the trap is the thermalization of the energy with neighboring molecules.
I said long wave.
Like I said before it is impossible to trap energy.
Like I said before valence quantum physics does not create heat from EM waves.
I know. Like I said I’m being pedantic.
What specifically do you think is wrong with the 1st law of thermodynamics that precludes ΔU > 0?
Even if you did that has nothing to do with my response.
What a complete load of pseudo-science gibberish… pertaining to nothing.
False statement – fossil fuels are used to produce a variety of products which modern life cannot exist without. Grounds for appeal?
Perhaps the above should be part of the appeal and factored into the “Carbon Budget”
The main purpose is to produce oil, gasoline. diesel fuel and jet fuel.
Existing refineries can not change the product mu ix by much.
In the United States, plastic is primarily made from ethane, which is a byproduct of the fracking of natural gas.
That’s not what the court said, is it Richard?
Did you not read the article?
Too small for my eyes to read.
So your original response was totally unfounded.
Instead of wildly shooting from the hip, how about you read the document first?
Then make it larger on the screen, you incompetent twit !!
“The West cannot likely survive negligence on this scale”
That Christopher is precisely why the negligence has become institutionalised. For some unexplained reason, the unseen ‘they’ do not want the West to survive.
Corporations should recognize the science:
There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions add to it.
The science also estimates the mild effect of CO2 doubling, which would take 150 to 200 years
The scary climate predictions are not science.
They assume worst case feedbacks that greatly multiply the small warming effects of CO2 alone.
Those scary climate predictions should be treated by corporation as the wild guesses they have always been. The pleasant warming since 1975, mainly TMIN, is proof that global warming does not have to be bad news.
If a corporation wants to have a public position on climate science, then it should differentiate between climate science and climate astrology.
“There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions add to it.”
Evidence free suppository, yet again!!
“differentiate between climate science and climate astrology.”
Which is something you seem incapable of doing !
There is no need to debate There is No Greenhouse Effect dingbats like you … as almost 100% of scientists have said there is a greenhouse effect since 1896.
In your feeble mind, that greenhouse effect does not exist ONLY because you refuse to consider any evidence that it does exist. Over a century of evidence.
But you would rather remain perpetually confused, to be the poster boy for science denying conservatives, as an El Nino Nutter, Stage IV.
You serve as a useful idiot for leftists — they love science deniers like you and encourage you to spread your nonsense.
Because you can never refute their leftist CAGW climate nonsense with your even more bizarre There is No AGW conservative climate nonsense.
Have a Nice Day
“consider any evidence that it does exist”
STILL WAITING !
You don’t seem to have any evidence !!
Your incompetence has raced passed your arrogance and your ego. !
Your petty tantrums are getting tired and boring.
First, I totally disagree with the use of greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas.
Set that aside.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere affect the Cp specific heat. So CO2 has an affect, albeit miniscule.
There are no absolutes.
added CO2 actually increases the calculated dry lapse rate by a very tiny amount.
Hence greater temperature differential outwards..
… hence increase outward radiative flux and other energy transfer.
But as you say.. the difference is miniscule and totally immeasurable.
Corporations are profiting from the climate scam you idiot.
Do you consider the 100% of corporations paying more for electricity because of added solar and wind costs?
How do they benefit?
A company that sold solar panels or wind turbines could have a net benefit. Many of them are overseas. Companies that build solar and wind farms could benefit too.
A company making EVs would be losing a lot of money from the energy mandates.
It seems to me that only a small percentage of companies actually benefit from renewables. The idiot is you, Hot Spud.
You were going well until you let your Tourette’s get out of control in the last sentence.
What is “the science”?
“the science” is his unique brand of science, which has the imaginative inclusion of bombast, and the belief that insulting people who disagree with him represents a scientific achievement.
His shelf in the den must be full of Nobel Prizes now.
“Corporations should recognize the science:
There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions add to it.”
From my first comment, repeated for your benefit.
Non-answer noted … you employ the same language as the climate kooks.
RG is a climate kook, through and through. !
A staunch AGW-cult stall-wart.
So they should listen to a blethering ignorant loser with no evidence of anything.
Is that what you are saying??
That would be pretty stupid of them.
What is “the science”?
Fauci, wasn’t it?
Correct, sir.
Definitely deserves a higher score than -5.
Your suggestions would probably require testimony from scientists on the side of the oil and gas industry. Maybe you should revisit your previously expressed position on those that in fact do…
Greene’s affinity for minus signs stems from his Janus act—some of his rants are sensible, but many aren’t, I don’t know which face is talking and it isn’t worth the time to figure out. This and his propensity to step on others in order to elevate himself.
It should not be out of bounds in polite society to ask whether the three Supreme Court judges enforcing tis verdict should be forcibly cut off from gas supplies immediately, irrevocably, for as long as it takes them to reverse this judgment.
I cannot possibly see how any judge can be hypocritical enough to continue consuming gas whilst saying that others in future will be denied access to live-saving central heating in future winters due to their self-righteous political correct eco-zealotry.
Alinski’s Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.