Beyond its decarbonization benefits, transit saves households money, improves health, strengthens communities, and perhaps most surprisingly, even saves time.
It is used to living in a padded basement with granny bringing it food. !
That is its preferred and only existence.
Mass transit is indeed smelly, unhealthy and inconvenient.
More people catch diseases on mass transit than basically anywhere else that human congregate.
Covid and similar were particularly contagious on mass transit, because you can’t escape from the coughing, rasping sickness in the same bus or carriage.
Car transport is a far healthier way to travel.
Wind and solar are the very opposite of “clean”.
They are highly pollutive at basically every step in their rather short life.
And no, mass transit is not smelly, unhealthy or inconvenient. A properly managed mass transit system gets more people where they want to go, faster, safer and cheaper than any other possible solution.
Yes, during pandemics its not healthy, along with football matches, concerts, race meetings, any sort of crowded venues. Even restaurants and bars. In normal times however its not risky.
The question to ask yourself is why MyUserName is posting this. Its not like mass transit has just been discovered. Its merits have been known for over a century. The answer is simple, its to wind you up and provoke you. Don’t feed the troll, under however many different names and accounts he or she appears.
“A properly managed mass transit system gets more people where they want to go, faster, safer and cheaper than any other possible solution.”
Sure, but many systems aren’t properly managed. For example, the Boston transit system is a mess. The stations are hideous- filthy- dark- the trains are either very old or the new ones keep failing.
Mass transit is fine for some locations- and for some people- not for everyone, especially much of America. Jobs are scattered all over the vast highway system.
America aka ‘Murca is one of those words with multiple definitions, Greg. Yes we can say that America extends from the Canadian north to the Straits of Magellan, but that’s not the only definition. There’s also the abbreviated form of The United States of America.
As I often say to my Canadian friends in jest, we hope you’ll come visit us in America some time.
In the UK we’ll managed means Bus Lanes. A bus wide section of road set aside for public transport buses. If a private car enters this space a heavy fine follows. The net result is partially used at best Bus Lanes and queuing cars. The objective is/was to get people out of their cars and onto mass transit. As getting across most UK cities means a two leg journey with a wait as bus routes tend to be like spokes on a wheel from a central depot, sometimes a not very straight spoke all it’s done is increased congestion and consequently emissions of deadly CO2.
Those bus lanes destroyed the Cleveland OH downtown when the main road into downtown went from 2 lanes for traffic to one lane and no one wanted to bother with the traffic jams and went shopping elsewhere.
The most polluted air in London is in their mass transport system known as The Tube aka underground. You won’t find this published anywhere on Transport for London -TfL documents. It’s only private citizens who measure this AND make it public.
I still think that sitting or standing in a crowded tram means breathing in air heavily contaminated with pollutants like CO2 and methane
I lived in the SF Bay area when the Bay Area Rapid Transit system was launched. Initially, it was not unlike riding on one of the newly-opened Disneyland ‘people movers.’ However, it didn’t take long before riders started to abuse the trains by carving their names into the windows with their diamond rings, slashing the cushions with their knives, and worse. That was about the time I quit using BART for anything. Where I lived on the west side of the bay, I had about a 20-30 minute drive to get to the nearest BART parking lot on the east side. Mass transit has potential, but it is difficult to achieve that potential when most of the riders are people who can’t afford a car. It is totally impractical for someone who shops for groceries for their family once a week, and a risk to one’s safety if they have to walk to their car at night in a large parking lot.
1) Mass transit is dangerous, especially after millions of third world, illegal, unvetted, walk-ins, many of them released by their governments from asylums, prisons and rehab/correctional centers, i.e., the dregs of those third world societies.
They get dressed up, including pro-Biden shirts, in Panama and other countries, before being transported in freight trains and buses to our southern border
2) Wind and solar keep on “giving”
The Cape Cod beaches will be ruined for tourism, etc., for decades, because Fiberglas splinters of disintegrated rotor blades will penetrate skins and cause infections..
Also sea life will absorb these splinters and be come diseased, and have shorter lives and may become extinct
3) Just wait until all this wind/solar/battery crap has to be land filled in hazardous waste areas at great cost
4) The frigging a.. holes constituting the socialist Obama/Clinton holdover cabal that has been using Biden as a dysfunctional marionette, for 3.5 years, who somehow cannot master a teleprompter or a small flight of stairs, or whatever, that cabal should be exiled to a remote island that is permanently frozen, so they can contemplate global warming for the rest of their lives.
“Janet Yellen Calls For $78,000,000,000,000 To Tackle Climate Change Rebeka Zeljko Contributor U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said during a speech in Belem, Brazil, on Saturday that the price tag for a global transition to a low-carbon economy amounts to $78 trillion in financing through 2050.”
This from a totally whacko socialist person, which has zero respect in Europe financial circles, etc
She is an extreme example of the Obama/Clinton cabal currently running the US government.
All that money would be added to the US National Debt
Flora and Fauna Need More CO2, at least 1000 ppm
Plants 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, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
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) Increases world fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
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.
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 a variation of about 9 ppm during a year
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ energy) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt 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
Richard,
Dutch greenhouses in Canada are the size of airplane hangers, with elevated carts on rails to tend to tomato and other plants that are 10 – 15 ft tall.
They are automatically watered and fertilized, with high intensity illumination in case of too little sunshine and at night, plus the CO2 level is maintained above 1000 ppm
The Dutch ship by plane their fruits and vegetables and flowers, all from green houses, to the best stores and restaurants all over Europe and beyond.
Those investors are putting real money in high technology to make real money and give work to lots of real people and satisfy millions of eaters.
Just compare that with what you have done til now.
In the last glacial period the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm as the oceans cooled and more co2 could dissolve in them.
That is only 30 ppm above the extinction level of 150 ppm for C3 plants that you mentioned, and when they die the animals that depend on them die as well.
It is difficult to answer your question with any assurance. When I wrote it almost a decade ago, I couldn’t readily find good numbers for the other anthro’ sources I mention. Basically, what I was trying to demonstrate was that the known anthro’ sources were a lower-bound on the total. If I had to guess, I’d say that the total anthro’ sources were at least 1/3 larger than just the fossil fuels number. The fossil fuels are know fairly accurately because royalties and taxes have to be based on good numbers, so both the taxers and taxees keep each other honest with their due diligence.
Incidentally, you might want to search my name for the other 14 papers I’ve had published here, to peruse my other writings:
The “free” CO2 near the ocean surface is very low, due to almost all of it getting bound, as ions, to various ionic compounds, some of those are used by sea life, some precipitate to the sea floor.
Outgassing from oceans may be less than from thawing tundra
Most are fleeing the drug gangs funded mainly by illegal US drug use caused my making opium and opiates illegal when there were no deaths from opiates or opium, to protect the US alcohol and tobacco industries.
There were opium bars in all the major US cities and people were switching from alcohol and tobacco to opium. It has the same effect as alcohol but you don’t get drunk or have a hangover as is more pleasant than tobacco.
Mass transit is essential to convenient and cost effective local travel in any large and dense city. You find it in London, New York, Paris, Moscow… etc. Its been around for 100+ years, electrified versions since the 1890s.
As of December 31, 2023, 200 cities across 62 countries have metro systems. China, having 46 metro systems, is the country with the most metro systems in operation. [source: perplexity] A metro system is defined as light rail, above or below ground.
I have taken mass transit a lot in the US and Europe. In the rush hours the trains are crowded, but there are no “pushers”, and out of rush hour you can mostly sit. ‘Pushers’ are not an essential part of mass transit, its an attempt in a few systems to cope with inadequate capacity in rush hours.
Tokyo uses trained ‘pushers’ in the rush hours, though to a decreasing extent as they have found ways of increasing capacity. Its subway system carries 24 million people a day. I don’t know how you would provide that much transport capacity without a subway or other mass transit system. Build enough capacity and you won’t need pushers.
Try to take all those people to cars, and you would have gridlock.
You keep talking about mass transit systems already installed and running in the megacities. To what purpose are you discussing these? Are you afraid they are going to disappear?
Are you trying to convince people that “mass” transit should exist everywhere, that is, in rural areas? How do you deal with people who need the freedom to travel at a moment’s notice to service customers?
I’m responding to a post, which I think was trolling, from MyUserName. I think it was probably posted, as usual, to provoke, and it unfortunately succeeded. I’m saying that there is nothing new or exciting about mass transit systems, they’ve been around for over 100 years, and they are doing fine, so what exactly is the point.
Are you afraid they are going to disappear?
No, not at all. Don’t think there is any chance of that. Where they fit the need they work very well.
Are you trying to convince people that “mass” transit should exist everywhere, that is, in rural areas?
Servicemen also need tools and replacement parts, and the flexibility to go buy things he may not have in inventory. It would be impossible to put what is in his van into public carriages.
That’s why many people in large Asian metropolises wear face masks even in the absence of a global pandemic. This stems not only from awareness of the long term health effects of air pollution but also from the collective trauma of severe disease outbreaks like the Hong Kong flu in 1968 and the SARS outbreak in 2003.
Mass transit is essential to convenient and cost effective local travel in any large and dense city.
You just limited your opinion to a small type of situation. How many of those do you think there are? You do know that making “trains run on time” has been the bane of many a politician don’t you?
Tell how many of these megacities have mass transit that runs on time. Tell why Uber, Lyft, etc. competes with mass transit. Tell why people want to use mass transit where robberies and murder occur.
You just limited your opinion to a small type of situation. How many of those do you think there are?
As of December 31, 2023, 200 cities across 62 countries have metro systems. Hard to say how many more cities would be good candidates. They are very expensive to build out if underground, so the countries and cities have to be fairly rich.
How many run on time?
All the ones I have used ran on time. As to safety, I was quite wary of the NY subway, particularly late at night. The others I have found safe.
But the real question is, if you did not have mass transit in cities, how do you want people to get around to the extent that they do? You cannot do it with cars, that’s obvious. Just imagine the 24 million people who use the Tokyo metro daily trying to get their trips done in any other way. And anyway, why would you not want to deploy mass transit? It has a proven track record over 100 years, and is generally accepted as useful and cost effective by millions of users every day all around the world.
Maybe some greens would advocate the total abolition of the car and its replacement by mass transit systems everywhere. I’m certainly not advocating that. I do think the Dutch system of segregating bicycle, foot and vehicle traffic is a good one, as is the system of ‘living areas’ from which through car traffic is excluded. I don’t like living on a busy road, and doubt many people do.
Rural buses? I have taken them, and am not very enthusiastic. The (European) ones I’ve taken have been slow and not very comfortable and not much used. Maybe they have a role in some places.
Companies House documents show Tramlink Nottingham Limited reported losses of £57m to March 2023, up from £20m in 2022. The total funding envelope to deliver NET Fast is £2.3bn based on the actual cost of extensions 2 and 3 which are 10.8 miles long and cost £560 million pounds (this did include a number of new trams) Allowing £60 million for the trams, the cost per miles of the new lines was £46.2 million pounds per mile or £26,304 per yard. The total length is about 20miles (32km).
Sounds like a financial bath. I am guessing that ridership is low – that, rather than length of track, would be the real test. I don’t know Nottingham so cannot comment on why this has happened. Be interesting to see the business case (assuming there was one) and compare it to the outturn.
However, an individual failure doesn’t affect the case for public transport systems in general. 200+ cities have chosen to implement them for a reason, and that reason is that there is no other way to provide for people to travel as they want in the cities as they are.
You cannot do it with cars. Tokyo is the clearest example with 24 million trips a day over their mass transit system. The idea of doing that with cars — the idea is absurd. But London will be similar, close down the Underground and suburban rail, and try to get people to work in cars. And park them when they get there?
This seems so completely obvious I cannot understand what people here are objecting to. I regularly travel to mainline stations in London, and then take the Underground to my final destination. Why on earth would I want to drive from York or Bristol or Manchester? The train, you sit in comfort, work, get up and stretch legs every so often, and take less time on the journey.
And as for London to Brussels or Paris? No contest. I cannot imagine why anyone would choose to drive rather than take Eurostar.
That’s true as far as it goes. But there are vast swathes of land where mass transit would be impractically inconvenient and exorbitantly expensive to develop.
I live in tiny Connecticut, midway between New York City and Boston, yet in order to take a bus, I would need to walk over 5 miles round trip, would need to plan on waiting an unpredictable amount of time at the bus stop, and would be limited to only a few useful destinations.
Yes, there are many places where mass transit is not practical, and there are also countries and cities where the low level of the population makes them unpleasant or dangerous to use – like many other places and systems in those countries.
That isn’t the argument. The argument, if I understand it, is that some people here seem to object to any form of mass transportation, even safe and efficient systems in richer countries. Maybe they never travel much, or never travel to cities? Don’t understand it.
Sure. I’ve used it in Boston, Washington, Detroit, San Francisco, Rome, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Sydney. Found them all to be pretty convenient. When I visit Boston, I usually park at the Riverside station and take the Green Line in on the T. I’m not arguing that mass transit is inherently bad. But while my wife and daughters find tampons to be useful, and I can see the utility, it’s equally clear that they’re not for me. Those who want to force us all into dense urban areas are evil.
Couldn’t find a seat so I had to stand With the perverts in the back It was smelling like a locker room There was junk all over the floor We’re already packed in like sardines
“They want everyone to LIVE NEAR MASS TRANSIT.” This sounds like a harebrained idea thought up by someone who has never been west of the Hudson or east of the Sierras.
Only in very specific circumstances, namely where employment is concentrated in a small area, or for a major event with many thousands of people attending. Otherwise a car will usually be much quicker as has been the case for the last century.
Yes, and mass transit is a great idea when many, many folks are now working from home.
strativarius
July 28, 2024 2:05 am
An upcoming Alarmist anniversary to celebrate? Maybe WUWT could do a special celebratory css/stylesheet thing for it! (Just joking, Charles).
Next year will be the 35th anniversary of the UN[hinged’s] predicted climate disaster that was to have happened some 24/25 years ago. In 1989 they told us quite unequivocally and with great solemnity:
With each passing year this hackneyed old joke just gets more silly: “before it goes beyond human control.” As if it ever were under human control? They are bonkers. We had ten years, so they said, and here we all are 34 years later with bog all difference to report (except global greening, record yields etc). That just leaves them with the hype. And that goes on and on in schools, universities, state institutions and agencies, the mass media, and among the elites. And lets not forget the uber woke Civil Service. What’s more, the hype is being continuously ramped up in a sharp upward curve towards the promotion of mass psychological damage [in the young]. Take the week just gone by…
You get the idea. It’s no longer a decade, or a year, or even a month, anymore; it’s daily.
And now… what we in the UK can freely say is in the crosshairs once more.
“”So it begins. The UK’s new Labour government has been in power for less than a month, and it is already training its guns on freedom of speech. … Make no mistake, free speech is in crisis in British universities. Cancel culture runs amok. Expressing unwoke views can lead to extreme harassment and even excommunication from campus. The Free Speech Act is a fairly modest attempt to remind university chiefs of their duty to ensure free debate and free inquiry. … Labour’s keenness to shelve the act, so soon into its term, confirms what we already knew – that this is a party that is hostile to free speech and enthusiastic about woke censorship. It’s a party that sees the cruel harassment of academics like Kathleen Stock – who was hounded out of the University of Sussex for the thoughtcrime of believing in biological sex – and wants to join in on the side of the harassers. … With Labour in power, backed by a huge parliamentary majority, our freedom to think and speak has rarely been so imperilled.”” …
“”Labour’s war on free speech is just getting started”” https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/27/labours-war-on-free-speech-is-just-getting-started/
Sunday and Monday were rather pleasant days where I live. The temperatures were below average.
So I guess a global average temperature doesn’t mean much on a regional level. The global average is “the hottest evah!, but doesn’t apply to real life on the ground.
My home town is rather cool at this point of the season, and antarctica is experincing record cold, but the alarmists want us to pay attention to a global average.
And, btw, that UAH global average is about 0.24C cooler than it was a couple of months ago.
If the temperatures cool a few more tenths of a dagree, the climate alarmists will be declaring a New Ice Age is coming, like they did back in the 1970’s (if you go by the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global average temperature chart, which shows only about a 0.4C difference betweent the hot 1930’s and the cool 1970’s. The real temperature drop going by a legitimate temperature chart of the period was more like a 2.0C cooling. The return of the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s is a good demonstration of how the bogus instrument-era Hockey Stick chart does not represent reality. Nobody would be panicing over a 0.4C cooling. Now, a 2.0C cooling, that’s another matter.)
Too many places scattered all over the globe show little warming, if any. One must wonder why a “global” warming isn’t affecting everywhere the same. Why do warming areas move around?
Anomalies are not temperatures. They are an indicator of a change in a month. By ignoring both the uncertainties involved and the different baseline temperatures one really can’t tell what is happening with absolute temperatures.
Anomalies, in the interest of accuracy and better understanding, are not ‘change in a month’. They are the deviation from a long-term baseline average. If the average temperature measured on July 28th at a given site over a prior 30-year period was 25°C and today’s measurement is 24.5°C, then today’s anomaly would be -0.5°C.
There are plenty of valid reasons to question whether anomalies are measuring actual climate change rather than land use changes in the vicinity of the measurement station. (Urban Heat Island effects).
We can also note that taking the average of the day’s min and max temperature is an invalid metric. If there is a significant enhanced greenhouse effect, we would expect to see warmer Tmin but not significantly warmer Tmax. The anomaly would show warming, but it misleads us to expect dangerous heat waves during the day when actually it just means milder temperatures at night.
In any case, temperature is itself an invalid metric without accounting for humidity. We should be measuring a change in enthalpy (latent and sensible heat). Anyone who has experienced 95°F and 80% humidity in Boston or New York and has also visited Phoenix when it was 115°F, knows that the only real concern is humidity. Even 85°F at high humidity is far worse than 100°F at low humidity. Temperature anomalies do not take into account variability in humidity.
Anomalies, in the interest of accuracy and better understanding, are not ‘change in a month’. They are the deviation from a long-term baseline average.
“Deviation from a long-term baseline average”. Exactly what I said. The change of a monthly average from a SEMI-long baseline average.
A 30 year baseline can and does ignore temperature changes in the past. It can give an entirely false indication of what has occurred in the in other warming scenarios. The best option is ONE unchanging global baseline determined to be the best temperature. Climate science needs to be pushed to come to a decision on what the appropriate global temperature should be (not anomaly, just plain old temperature).
A defined baseline for computing anomalies has many advantages. It can be of infinite precision eliminating the need for propagation of the baseline error, avoids arguments about instrument and sampling bias, and doesn’t have to be changed every decade, making it possible to compare anomalies published decades apart.
It would make climate science pony up and do a proper cost/ benefit study to arrive at a “best temperature”. It isn’t perfect but allows a much better comparison over time. The issue of how long the baseline average should be and what it is goes away.
As a constant it should be an integer value to make it compatible with temperatures prior to 1980. A single decimal of 0 can be added for stations that measure to 1/10ths. It would make the precision and significant digits when dealing with measurements much more in line with physical science protocols. No more arithmetic driven millikelvins.
One would be able to convert an anomaly to an actual absolute temperature if one knows a sratation’s anomaly.
“… avoids arguments about instrument and sampling bias …” as long as the instrumentation hasn’t been changed during the baseline period (i.e., going from a Stevenson screen to an automated system), and as long as the site hasn’t been moved during the baseline period. For each and every temperature measuring and reporting station in the baseline.
as long as the instrumentation hasn’t been changed during the baseline period (i.e., going from a Stevenson screen to an automated system), and as long as the site hasn’t been moved
Those are a reason for ending a stations data series record and starting a new data record.
during the baseline period.
A standard baseline value for determining a global anomaly won’t have a baseline period. It will be a constant determined by what scientists decide is the “best” global temperature for the globe.
If climate science truly feels that another degree increase is intolerable, then perhaps 15°C or 16°C is the appropriate value.
The IPCC could simply make a statement that a new track is going to be used. The monthly average temperatures are already calculated. All the computer code that tracks individual station baseline temperatures can be scrapped and replaced by defining a simple constant for all calculations.
Sure, anomaly values will increase because much of the world is far above or below the average, but that also means that a proper statistical distribution will be available so standard deviation is meaningful.
I’m sure warmist climate scientists will pooh pooh this because current practice hides so much information behind a convoluted calculations. It allows prognostications with no real accountability.
sorry Jim, I think that most people would understand the phrase ‘change in a month’ as the range of temperatures from min to max during the current month. If you actually meant the change between the current month’s average temperature and the average temperature for the same month over a 30-yr period, then I would just say that you were not being very clear.
The Earth is still in a long-term 2+ million year ice age in a warmer but still cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
Talking about the Ice Age Scare in the 1970’s is a good way to show that the Bogus, Bastardized, Instruemnt-era Hockey Stick Global Average Temperature Chart really is bogus and does not represent reality.
The charts below are the U.S. regional chart (Hansen 1999) alongside a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
From history, and personal experience for some of us, we know that in the late 1970’s alarms were raised that the Earth might possibly be going into another Ice Age because of the trajectory of the temperatures.
The U.S. chart shows a temperature decline of about 2.0C from the hot 1930’s to the 1970’s. This is what gave people concern that another Ice Age might be looming in our future if temperatures continued in this direction.
The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart on the right shows only less than 0.4C of a temperature drop from the hot 1930’s, (which the bastardizers artificially cooled) to the 1970’s. No sane person would declare a new Ice Age in the offing over a less than 0.4C temperature drop.
Of course, in the 1970’s, there were no bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts in existance. The climate scientists of the time used the U.S. and other regional charts for their information.
The “Ice Age Cometh” debunks the bogus Hockey Stick chart temperature profile. The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick was created by corrupt climate scientists to promote the CO2-is-dangerous meme by making it appear that the global temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, because of CO2 increases, and it is now the hottest times in human history.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators have done a very good job of distorting the truth. They have fooled a lot of people into believing their lies, and these lies have cost society countless TRILLIONS of dollars in wasted spending trying to reign in CO2.
But if you compare these charts, you will see the lie exposed. One chart shows a temperature cooling of 2.0C. The other shows a temperature cooling of 0.4C. Which one is going to cause alarm in the science oommunity? The answer should be obvious. The Temperature Data Mannipulators have hidden the very hot 1930’s with their computer mannipulations to enable them to claim that today is the hottest time ever, but the truth is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. There is no unprecedented heat today and there is no evidence CO2 is adding any discerable heat to the Earth’s atmosphere.
The only “evidence” climate alarmists have for all their claims is this bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart, and it’s all a BIG LIE. Maybe the Biggest Lie Evah!
Temperature measurements at individual stations are affected by various local factors beyond just the weather, and this seems to be overlooked.
A thermometer near a pond will record different temperatures than one near a cave, even if both are experiencing similar weather conditions, due to the unique, immediate environmental influences at each location.
When scientists use data from neighboring stations to adjust and correct temperature records, they inadvertently incorporate the local environmental impacts from the “correct series” (vegetation, nearby bodies of water, sunlight exposure, etc.).
I think you will find these “scientists are pretty clever people and they might have just “thunked” some of the things what you are saying. But, hey, you can never be too sure….. if I were you I would write to NASA and NOAA and see what they think.
That is not an argument. It is an argument fallacy called Appeal to Authority.
If you don’t know an answer, either abstain from using this fallacy or simply say you don’t know enough to have an intelligent answer. IDK is a very appropriate response.
Regional land surface temperatures from around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so if the temperature data manniplators only used the land surface data, then there would be no Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile, instead, the temperature profile would resemble the benign U.S. regional temperature profile.
So the only way the Temperature Date Mannipulators can change this profile is to include sea surface temperatures as a method of cooling the past and warming the future.
Unfortunately, for your argument, there are no legitimate sea surface temperatures for much of the instrument era, and the Temperature Data Mannipulators took this opportunity to completely make up sea surface temperatures in such a way as to create the instrument-era Hockey Stick temperature profile which you accept as representing reality.
Reality, the regional unmodified temperature data, shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, all around the world, and this means there is no unprecedented warming today caused by CO2 because there is no unprecedented warming.
You are living in a False Reality, Simon. Snap out of it!
This is worth reading. A bit repetitive, quite long, but its worth the effort. Traces the logical and historical connexions between ideas which have come to form a more or less coherent ideology, and have gained widespread acceptance in the last 15 or so years in the English speaking countries.
The critique of the ideology is from a traditional liberal perspective – not the liberalism of today, but that of 50 years ago, and one of the more interesting discussions in it traces the way in which old-fashioned liberalism has evolved by way of identity theory into something which is most illiberal.
Yascha Mounk – The Identity Trap_ A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time-Penguin Random House (2023)
Alan Welch
July 28, 2024 4:15 am
The Guardian 25th July 2024 Climate Crisis “Man gets third-degree burns from walking on sand dunes in Death Valley European visitor rushed to hospital after briefly walking barefoot in California national park amid extreme heat”
Didn’t he think why it is called Death Valley. Lucky it was just his feet. Why hike anywhere in Flip Flops? Hope he paid for the helicopter ride.
Why the Guardian thought this was Climate Crisis news is a mystery. Will the Guardian now refer to it as “Burnt Feet Valley”?
Is there a correlation between temperature and gross stupidity? Perhaps the University of Colorado can investigate if there is an acceleration in the rate of rise in stupidity occurring.
With regard to the University of Colorado, one of its most prolific climate model slingers is on the move…Matt Burgess is moving from CIRES and CU Boulder to the University of Wyoming. He will be an assistant professor of economics in the College of Business and a presidential fellow working on an initiative focused on freedom of expression and constructive dialogue.
Let’s talk about EV’s. I have been living in Latin America for many years now, and currently residing in Colombia. There is no where in Colombia, almost, that you can go without running into mountains. Up and down, up and down. I don’t see any great demand for EV’s here, and one of the reasons is traveling (not to mention the impossible traffic conditions in Bogota and elsewhere. You wouldn’t want to run out of electrons there. I can’t imagine IC’s being replaced here or anywhere else in Latin America. (Where are those damned charging stations with vulnerable copper cables just waiting to be stolen?) Does anyone here have any experience with EV’s in Third World countries?
It says a lot about Democrat mentality that they would seriously consider her as presidential timber. It appears that they are motivated by identity politics and give no thought to her competence.
Trump showed he was a bad President in his term. Highest unemployment since the Great Depression 14.8 percent and left office with 6 percent unemployment and a raging epidemic that he did nothing to control.
I didn’t mention Trump. However, since you did, I think that I should address your lies. According to Investopedia, The unemployment rate in 2015 was 5.0%, what it characterizes as the “Natural rate.” During the Trump/Clinton election year, it dropped to 4.7%; during Trump’s first year in office, it dropped to 4.1%, then reached 3.6% in 2019, what Investopedia characterized as the “Goldilocks economy.” During the pandemic shutdowns of 2020, the unemployment rate did, unsurprisingly, rise to 6.7%, the same as in 2013. The year that Biden took office, the unemployment rate was the same as Trump’s second year in office, 2018. You completely misrepresented the recent US unemployment rate.
Another characteristic I have observed about Liberals is that many seem to have no compunction about lying to advance their political ideology.
I had an interesting experience in New Zealand in 1979. I was driving an under-powered Ford rental car. Trying to go over the mountain pass from Greymouth to Christchurch on the South Island, my car stalled before reaching the top. I had to back down to a turnout, turn around, drive back to where it was flat, and accelerate to well over the legal speed limit in order to keep the engine near the top of the torque curve. I was uncomfortable with speeding in a foreign country, but it was the only way I was going to get over the pass. Maybe an EV wouldn’t have that problem, I don’t know. But, I certainly wouldn’t want to have my EV battery become discharged on a lot of the roads in NZ.
And once you are out of the major cities in Australia,
Fug-ed about it !
Gregory Woods
July 28, 2024 4:28 am
And speaking about Global Heating, check out the numerous gloom and doom stories on the news feed msn.com. Good for a laugh. Each day there are scare stories enough to give your kid nightmares. As an added feature, msn has come up with a new feature: “What If” stories. What if Jupiter crashes into the moon? What if the Earth should stop spinning? What if giant cockroaches develop an appetite for Climate Deniers? What if…
They do still allow comments, on topics like fashion or entertainment. But there seems to be an increasing number of political stories where comments are turned off.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS; THERE WERE FOUR SHOOTERS https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/choose-one-law-enforcement-at-trump-shooting-was-either . The perimeter of Secret Service protection zone excluded the building where Crooks was lying on the roof, with a direct line of fire to Trump, and several nearby buildings, with windows, also with a direct line of fire to Trump.
.
Forensic acoustic analysis suggests, as many as four weapons were fired at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday. The FBI said Sunday that the shooter acted alone. After just one day, the FBI declaration was made without having all the evidence. It gives a signal to the Mass Media to “go with that story”. . The local police chief said, he was told by the FBI, 8 cartridges were found near Crook’s body. There is no independent confirmation of that FBI declaration. The FBI made that declaration to advance its preferred “lone shooter” scenario
. A cartridge consists of a bullet, case, gunpowder and ignitor. Cases are automatically ejected from a rifle after firing.
.
It looks like CNN disagrees with the FBI.
Acoustic analysis shows weapon A fired the first 3 shots, weapon B fired the next 5 shots.
But there were a total of 10 shots.
Shot 9 likely was by a police sniper trying to shoot Crook. He missed. Why take only one shot?
Shot 10 was by the Secret Service sniper on the roof behind Trump. . CNN had sent the acoustics timeline to its consultant in Colorado. Here is the report: . The first three shots were consistent with alleged weapon A, the next five were consistent with alleged weapon B, and the final “acoustic impulse” was emitted by a possible weapon C, per audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution. Audio analysis has also confirmed, the gunman was about 360 to 393 feet from the podium, according to forensics expert Robert Maher, who teaches audio forensics at Montana State University. This conclusion aligns with CNN’s analysis that the gunman was on a rooftop 393 to 492 feet from the podium when shots rang out. The shots exemplify a “crack-pop” sequence, typical when a supersonic bullet passes a microphone, before the “arrival of the corresponding muzzle sound,” Maher told CNN. The time between these markers places the shooter 110 to 120 meters from the microphone, Maher said, assuming the bullet is moving at an average speed of 800 to 1,000 meters per second, the equivalent of 2,600 to 3,280 feet per second.
The first three shots sound muffled and have no echos, meaning they were fired from inside a building by one or two shooters
Crooks did not start firing until the burst of 5
Some of those shots have echos.
One shot did not pass the mic near Trump, because it entered the fireman’s head.
The acoustic signature shows Shots 1, 2, and 3 appear to be fired by a sniper through an open window below and to the right of Crook, who was on the roof. Further info is needed Shot 1 has a much weaker sound than Shots 2 and 3 It could be there were two snipers firing. Shots fired inside a building have no echos, i.e., they were not fired by Crook.
The “lone shooter” declaration by the FBI is a cover-up, because the FBI also has the acoustic signature and the experts to analyze it, as does CNN, its consultant, and Maher . These three shots had an upward trajectory, from the bottom of the window, to Trump’s ear, then onwards . The supersonic shockwave and bullet of Shot 1 arrived at a mic near Trump in 0.18 second. The much slower muzzle sound took another 0.22 second to arrive at that mic Total sound travel time 0.40 second, i.e., about 0.4 x 1203.6 f/s = 480 ft to the target Shot 2 was fired 0.857 second after Shot 1 Shot 3, was fired 0.678 second after Shot 2 Three closely spaced shot by an expert! . Trump had tilted his head to look at a chart, felt the impact of Shot 1 on his right ear, quickly raised his hand to his ear, looked at the blood, and ducked, all within about 3 seconds, which caused Shot 2 and 3 to miss him. Secret Service people surrounded Trump within about 5 – 7 seconds, and held him down for about 20 seconds, until the “all-clear” was given. . NOTE: As part of its continuing disinformation campaign, and guidance for Media messaging, director Wray of the FBI claimed, under oath, Trump was hit by a piece of shrapnel, not a bullet, and the Media ran with it like pack of bloodhounds. However, on July 26, the NYT debunked the FBI red-herring nonsense, by super-imposing the sound of the supersonic shockwave and bullet of Shot 1, and a video of the flinch of Trump’s hand, then Shot 2, then Shot 3. Trump had moved just a little more (but not yet ducked), as is clearly shown on the video, but it was enough for Shots 2 and 3 to miss him. On July 26, Wray corrected his testimony to state it was a bullet that hit Trump’s ear. . Shots 4 through 7 were extremely close-spaced. According to the acoustic time line, all five shot took place in 0.775 second. Such rapid firing, and staying on a target at about 400 ft, is extremely difficult. This is championship-level shooting. The shots require detailed analysis One or more of these 5 shots may be from Crooks One or more of these 5 shots may have killed one person and wounded two others Those supersonic shockwaves and bullets arrived at the mic near Trump while he started ducking, but the Secret Service had not yet covered him.
. Shot 8 came a little later; it may have come from a greater distance Shot 9 likely was by a police sniper trying to shoot Crook. He missed. Why take only one shot? Crooks had a few seconds, but did not rise, hands up, to surrender . Shot 10 was fired by the highly visible Secret Service sniper on the roof behind Trump about 15.8 second after Shot 1; the bullet entered above Crook’s left eyebrow. . A skull contains brain matter, plus about a gallon of blood. The shockwave would blow the back part of a skull in pieces, with blood, etc., over a large area of the roof. A nearby bystander mentioned “they blew his head off” The aerial photo shows the body, some blood on Crooks’ face, and a clean roof! A video showed, an FBI person hosing down the roof. . Why did it take an eternity for the SS sniper to fire after Shot 1? Was he told not to fire, until given the go-ahead? Did he know more shots would be coming? Was he told to wait for more shots? . A botched hit with more than one shooter. You can watch it Full Screen on X Chris Martinson has updated follow-up analyses and videos which you can also view on X.
great write up wilpost. i have been involved in acoustics/sound propagation building speakers for many years. the physics of sound are well know and mathematically verifiable. with regard to this in your post…
“Why did it take an eternity for the SS sniper to fire after Shot 1? Was he told not to fire, until given the go-ahead? Did he know more shots would be coming? Was he told to wait for more shots?”
I took several courses in vibrations, acoustics and automatic controls in grad school, and worked for a machinery manufacturer that had a vibration analysis lab, and for Perkin-Elmer electro-optical division.
I am writing this for lay people
Chris Martinson likely has inputs from acoustics people, to be able to put his article together.
Analyzing the five shot burst will be challenging, because proper mics and amplifiers, etc., need to be used to get a very good spectrum, but they were not!
Martinson’s analysis is made from the audio recording from one media microphone near Trump’s podium. His analysis is fairly suppositional but techy-sounding, could easily mis-identify rifle reports from the shock waves of bullets going past, and ignoring echoes from surrounding surfaces, and reverb characteristics of the PA amplifier, with likely resultant errors in shot origin, and even number of shots.
But let’s stop wasting effort on this. We know the gunman was reported by rally attendees…we know there was confusion amongst security forces for several minutes about what a person was doing on the roof, even which roof he was on due to sight lines and the sloping roof…we know a policeman climbed up to see who was on the supposed-to-be-empty rooftop…we know that the shooter started firing at Trump immediately after causing that policeman to fall backwards…. We know it took 11 seconds for the counter sniper to acquire his target, and 15 seconds later the target was dead. In between, the counter sniper had to report that the target was acquired and ask permission to pull the trigger. Textbook counter-sniping…required after what appears to be lax entrance gate security control.
They are not as good as used for acoustics analysis/vibration testing systems, which usually have specialized mics, amplifiers and filters to separate sounds and frequencies on the time line
The first three shots are evenly spaced, have very distinct ka-booms, easy to analyze, no echos; they are from inside a building
The next 5 shots are so closely spaced, that separating them by stretching the time line, likely will not reveal much info, due to other noises.
I think PhD Martinson and others are well aware of the limits of the data.
You did not mention Jill holding an event in PA, on the same day as Trump, that likely had more and better-trained SS people, and that as a result several neo-phite, frantic women were trying to protect Trump, one of whom, on her first assignment, was not able to put her gun back into her holster!
It was a comedy skit, Keystone-Cop level,
Plus you did not mention that Jill had recommended the now-resigned SS head, who still is a DEI fiend, who was relatively new at the job of protecting a potential President, as she abundantly showed during House hearings.
NOTE: Shot 10, that killed Crooks, came 15.8 seconds after Shot 1, according to the acoustic time line
There were a few seconds after Shot 9 Crooks could have used to surrender, but he did not.
OK, folks, move on, don’t waste time, nothing to see here except a dead “lone” shooter.
Oh, and a dead fireman and two wounded
The aerial photo shows the body, some blood on Crooks’ face, and a clean roof!
Many of the Media photos were ‘sanitized’ for the sensibilities of the viewers. However, I saw a couple that showed a lot of blood draining down the roof, coming from the body.
In any event, it at least appears to be an attempted assassination aided and abetted by incompetence and violation of standard procedures.
You obviously have not listened to and looked at the acoustic file.
The first 3 shots had NO ECHO Shot 2 was fired 0.857 second after Shot 1 Shot 3, was fired 0.678 second after Shot 2
That means they were fired by one or two shooters, INSIDE the building, through an open window
The floor of that building was acting like a big silencer.
The next 5 shots were fired in 0.775 seconds.
If from ONE shooter, they would be spread out, especially at 480 ft
It is highly likely, there was more than one shooter of these 5 shots, and that those shots killed and injured innocent people in the stand.
A cartridge consists of a bullet, case, gunpowder and ignitor.
Or more formerly: projectile, cartridge case, propellant and primer. Having said that, I am also annoyed how typical media folks fail to distinguish between a round of ammunition (cartridge) and bullets.
The issue is that the director of the FBI was quoted as saying “8 cartridges,” when what I think he meant was “spent shell-casings.” It raises questions about the technical competency of the FBI director, if he was quoted correctly. Not much different than the director of the ATF. This administration is riddled with well-paid political appointees that are obviously incompetent, but can put a “(D)” behind their name.
A significant number of calls for medical attention because of the extreme heat were fielded by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, according to Fire Captain and Public Information Officer Jeremy Kern.
There were social media reports of many people sleeping in their vehicles overnight with temperatures around 100 degrees.
Some of the cars that went off the road in an attempt to pass traffic got stuck in the desert, Lavigne said.
Where will the AGW mania in the mainstream media finish up?
I found this observation about the westerns movie genre to be particularly instructive –
How will this play out in the future? Well, let’s summarize what we learned from the rise and fall of the western genre.
1. Genres die slowly, especially popular genres with large mass audiences. In those instances, the decline can continue for decades after a genre’s commercial peak.
2. The final stages of decline are marked by total market saturation—reaching ridiculous levels. Far more product is churned out than even the core audience can absorb.
3. The proliferation of merchandise aims to expand the franchise, but actually accelerates the pace of decline.
4. During the period of decline, the average age of the core fan base gets older. Youngsters may continue to have some interest in the genre, but without the enthusiasm of the old days.
5. Even more ominous, the box office stars start showing their age—and are far too old to lead any movement. They are hired out of desperation, because holding on to old fans is now more important than attracting new ones.
6. As a result, everything about the genre starts to feel stale. The stories were fresher twenty years ago. The lead stars were definitely fresher twenty years ago. The only thing that isn’t stale is the movie popcorn out in the lobby—and even that’s not a sure thing.
Ted Gioia is author of The Honest Broker on Substack (https://www.honest-broker.com)— a frank and opinionated guide to music, books, media, and culture.
Since demented Joe Biden has been ousted and Kamala Harris put in Joe’s place, the presidential poll numbers have improved slightly for Harris and the Democrats.
Trump was leading Biden in all the Battleground States by large numbers, outside the margin of error, in most cases, and is probably the reason the Democrats felt the need to get rid of Biden and a sure loss, and get someone else to replace him, in this case, Kamala.
So the numbers in the Battleground States have tightened, which is to be expected in Kamala’s “Honeymoon Phase” before she has to answer hard questions.
But even so, if you look at the poll numbers on individual issues, Trump is destroying the Democrats, including Kamala. On the economy, and on immigration, Trump leads the Democrats about 65 percent, to 30 percent for the Democrats/Kamala.
So Trump is leading by large margins on the subjects most of concern to American voters.
The Leftwing Media will make much of the recent tightening in the national general polls, but it won’t last, and on the important issues, Trump is running away with it.
We have the makings of a landslide victory for Trump, imo.
A Love Song to Smelly, Inconvenient, Glorious Mass Transit
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/07/26/a-love-song-to-smelly-inconvenient-glorious-mass-transit/
People love their cars simply because they give freedom of movement. And not just in Australia.
Freedom is self-harm in your book, right?
It is used to living in a padded basement with granny bringing it food. !
That is its preferred and only existence.
Mass transit is indeed smelly, unhealthy and inconvenient.
More people catch diseases on mass transit than basically anywhere else that human congregate.
Covid and similar were particularly contagious on mass transit, because you can’t escape from the coughing, rasping sickness in the same bus or carriage.
Car transport is a far healthier way to travel.
Wind and solar are the very opposite of “clean”.
They are highly pollutive at basically every step in their rather short life.
I bet car transport has picked up quite a bit in France lately.
You’re rising to it every time.
And no, mass transit is not smelly, unhealthy or inconvenient. A properly managed mass transit system gets more people where they want to go, faster, safer and cheaper than any other possible solution.
Yes, during pandemics its not healthy, along with football matches, concerts, race meetings, any sort of crowded venues. Even restaurants and bars. In normal times however its not risky.
The question to ask yourself is why MyUserName is posting this. Its not like mass transit has just been discovered. Its merits have been known for over a century. The answer is simple, its to wind you up and provoke you. Don’t feed the troll, under however many different names and accounts he or she appears.
And they aren’t known here, that’s why I post it. It’s that simple.
Basically.. I don’t care about your “appeasement” opinions.
I don’t take instructions from lusers or their friends.
Most mass transit systems are not well managed, and are often packed to the gills. Trains at rush hour, busses.. etc… been there , done that…
How many do they pack onto an aircraft.. how far apart.. do they check the health status of each passenger?
You are welcome to your mass transit, just don’t ask me to share it with you.
“A properly managed mass transit system gets more people where they want to go, faster, safer and cheaper than any other possible solution.”
Sure, but many systems aren’t properly managed. For example, the Boston transit system is a mess. The stations are hideous- filthy- dark- the trains are either very old or the new ones keep failing.
Mass transit is fine for some locations- and for some people- not for everyone, especially much of America. Jobs are scattered all over the vast highway system.
Does “America” include Latin America?
America aka ‘Murca is one of those words with multiple definitions, Greg. Yes we can say that America extends from the Canadian north to the Straits of Magellan, but that’s not the only definition. There’s also the abbreviated form of The United States of America.
As I often say to my Canadian friends in jest, we hope you’ll come visit us in America some time.
Generally, when we say America we mean the US. For all of the western hemisphere, we’d say “the Americas”- at least the way I learned geography.
Deadly CO2?
Of course, soon, all the busses in the UK will be very low cost electric, using extremely low cost (almost free) electricity. /s
Those bus lanes destroyed the Cleveland OH downtown when the main road into downtown went from 2 lanes for traffic to one lane and no one wanted to bother with the traffic jams and went shopping elsewhere.
We need a working definition of “fine”. There is not a single mass transit system in the US that is financially self-sustaining.
That is probably true for the entire world. Mass transit systems can’t exist off the fare box alone.
And as to “well managed”, I needed a laugh tonight – thanks.
The most polluted air in London is in their mass transport system known as The Tube aka underground. You won’t find this published anywhere on Transport for London -TfL documents. It’s only private citizens who measure this AND make it public.
I still think that sitting or standing in a crowded tram means breathing in air heavily contaminated with pollutants like CO2 and methane
In addition to trash and urine, most of the US ‘underground’ systems smell like worn brake pads and failing electrical switch gear.
I lived in the SF Bay area when the Bay Area Rapid Transit system was launched. Initially, it was not unlike riding on one of the newly-opened Disneyland ‘people movers.’ However, it didn’t take long before riders started to abuse the trains by carving their names into the windows with their diamond rings, slashing the cushions with their knives, and worse. That was about the time I quit using BART for anything. Where I lived on the west side of the bay, I had about a 20-30 minute drive to get to the nearest BART parking lot on the east side. Mass transit has potential, but it is difficult to achieve that potential when most of the riders are people who can’t afford a car. It is totally impractical for someone who shops for groceries for their family once a week, and a risk to one’s safety if they have to walk to their car at night in a large parking lot.
When I went to Uni when I was young, I could catch a ride in with my father.. took about 40 minutes on a good day.
If I only had morning lectures, I could either wait for dad to finish work at 5pm, or catch “public transport”.
two choices,
1… bus to Sydney Central, then train, then walk home from the station (a 2km walk).. total time about 3 hour !
2… bus to Caringbah, then somehow get home from there (5 km walk)
total time well over 3 hours.
I then got myself a motor bike ! 🙂
1) Mass transit is dangerous, especially after millions of third world, illegal, unvetted, walk-ins, many of them released by their governments from asylums, prisons and rehab/correctional centers, i.e., the dregs of those third world societies.
They get dressed up, including pro-Biden shirts, in Panama and other countries, before being transported in freight trains and buses to our southern border
2) Wind and solar keep on “giving”
The Cape Cod beaches will be ruined for tourism, etc., for decades, because Fiberglas splinters of disintegrated rotor blades will penetrate skins and cause infections..
Also sea life will absorb these splinters and be come diseased, and have shorter lives and may become extinct
3) Just wait until all this wind/solar/battery crap has to be land filled in hazardous waste areas at great cost
4) The frigging a.. holes constituting the socialist Obama/Clinton holdover cabal that has been using Biden as a dysfunctional marionette, for 3.5 years, who somehow cannot master a teleprompter or a small flight of stairs, or whatever, that cabal should be exiled to a remote island that is permanently frozen, so they can contemplate global warming for the rest of their lives.
“Janet Yellen Calls For $78,000,000,000,000 To Tackle Climate Change
Rebeka Zeljko
Contributor
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said during a speech in Belem, Brazil, on Saturday that the price tag for a global transition to a low-carbon economy amounts to $78 trillion in financing through 2050.”
This from a totally whacko socialist person, which has zero respect in Europe financial circles, etc
She is an extreme example of the Obama/Clinton cabal currently running the US government.
All that money would be added to the US National Debt
Flora and Fauna Need More CO2, at least 1000 ppm
Plants 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, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
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) Increases world fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
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.
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 a variation of about 9 ppm during a year
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ energy) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
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
It’s important to praise the benefits of more CO2 but the message needs to be accurate
“Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses”
NOT TRUE
C3 plants (80% of crops) require about 150ppm CO2 to survive
C4 plants (20% of crops) require about 10ppm CO2 to survive
With the current CO2 level of 420ppm, plants support 8 billion people and many animals
The optimum CO2 level for C3 plants is in the range of 800 to 1200ppm
C4 plants also benefit from more CO2, but far less.
More CO2 in the air also increases water use efficiency, so the plants can survive with less water (because transpiration is reduced.)
to survive
How about to thrive?
Richard,
Dutch greenhouses in Canada are the size of airplane hangers, with elevated carts on rails to tend to tomato and other plants that are 10 – 15 ft tall.
They are automatically watered and fertilized, with high intensity illumination in case of too little sunshine and at night, plus the CO2 level is maintained above 1000 ppm
The Dutch ship by plane their fruits and vegetables and flowers, all from green houses, to the best stores and restaurants all over Europe and beyond.
Those investors are putting real money in high technology to make real money and give work to lots of real people and satisfy millions of eaters.
Just compare that with what you have done til now.
“to survive”
RG only “needs” one slice of mouldy bread and a cup of water a day.
In the last glacial period the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm as the oceans cooled and more co2 could dissolve in them.
That is only 30 ppm above the extinction level of 150 ppm for C3 plants that you mentioned, and when they die the animals that depend on them die as well.
I suspect that it is much less than 68% because the denominator is probably too small:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
Clyde, Thank you for that article.
I will add the URL to three of my articles.
Clyde,
Are you saying the (37 Gt from fossil/0.68) at end 2023 is too low? My 0.68 should be less? If so, how much less?
It is difficult to answer your question with any assurance. When I wrote it almost a decade ago, I couldn’t readily find good numbers for the other anthro’ sources I mention. Basically, what I was trying to demonstrate was that the known anthro’ sources were a lower-bound on the total. If I had to guess, I’d say that the total anthro’ sources were at least 1/3 larger than just the fossil fuels number. The fossil fuels are know fairly accurately because royalties and taxes have to be based on good numbers, so both the taxers and taxees keep each other honest with their due diligence.
Incidentally, you might want to search my name for the other 14 papers I’ve had published here, to peruse my other writings:
1 / 0.68 = 1.47 more than fossil
1 / 0.75 = 1.33 more than fossil
I will defer to your estimate
Solar output has also been at its highest level over the past 100 years of any 100 period in the last 400 years.
That extra heat gets stored in the oceans and warms them and they can’t hold as much CO2.
The “free” CO2 near the ocean surface is very low, due to almost all of it getting bound, as ions, to various ionic compounds, some of those are used by sea life, some precipitate to the sea floor.
Outgassing from oceans may be less than from thawing tundra
Most are fleeing the drug gangs funded mainly by illegal US drug use caused my making opium and opiates illegal when there were no deaths from opiates or opium, to protect the US alcohol and tobacco industries.
There were opium bars in all the major US cities and people were switching from alcohol and tobacco to opium. It has the same effect as alcohol but you don’t get drunk or have a hangover as is more pleasant than tobacco.
Many of them ARE the drug gangs, who were paracites in crime ridden neighborhoods
Import the Third World, you become the Third World, as France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK have already become.
Our border Tsar, of Indian/Black background, a mental lightweight, running for President, would make all of this much worse.
The socialist Obama/Clinton holdover cabal should be put in jail on a cold island with no communication with the outside world
They should remove the windows to let fresh air in.
Freedom is slavery, innit?
Mass transit is essential to convenient and cost effective local travel in any large and dense city. You find it in London, New York, Paris, Moscow… etc. Its been around for 100+ years, electrified versions since the 1890s.
As of December 31, 2023, 200 cities across 62 countries have metro systems. China, having 46 metro systems, is the country with the most metro systems in operation. [source: perplexity] A metro system is defined as light rail, above or below ground.
What’s your point, exactly?
Have you see those pictures of the “pushers” (or whatever they are called)…
… that actually push people into Japanese (or is it Chinese) suburban trains, to pack them in like sardines !!
Just imagine how quickly disease would spread in such close packing.
I’m sure the luser would love to be packed in tight with a sweaty, coughing hairy bloke, poking something hard into its back.
I have taken mass transit a lot in the US and Europe. In the rush hours the trains are crowded, but there are no “pushers”, and out of rush hour you can mostly sit. ‘Pushers’ are not an essential part of mass transit, its an attempt in a few systems to cope with inadequate capacity in rush hours.
Tokyo uses trained ‘pushers’ in the rush hours, though to a decreasing extent as they have found ways of increasing capacity. Its subway system carries 24 million people a day. I don’t know how you would provide that much transport capacity without a subway or other mass transit system. Build enough capacity and you won’t need pushers.
Try to take all those people to cars, and you would have gridlock.
You keep talking about mass transit systems already installed and running in the megacities. To what purpose are you discussing these? Are you afraid they are going to disappear?
Are you trying to convince people that “mass” transit should exist everywhere, that is, in rural areas? How do you deal with people who need the freedom to travel at a moment’s notice to service customers?
To what purpose are you discussing these?
I’m responding to a post, which I think was trolling, from MyUserName. I think it was probably posted, as usual, to provoke, and it unfortunately succeeded. I’m saying that there is nothing new or exciting about mass transit systems, they’ve been around for over 100 years, and they are doing fine, so what exactly is the point.
Are you afraid they are going to disappear?
No, not at all. Don’t think there is any chance of that. Where they fit the need they work very well.
Are you trying to convince people that “mass” transit should exist everywhere, that is, in rural areas?
No.
Servicemen also need tools and replacement parts, and the flexibility to go buy things he may not have in inventory. It would be impossible to put what is in his van into public carriages.
That’s why many people in large Asian metropolises wear face masks even in the absence of a global pandemic. This stems not only from awareness of the long term health effects of air pollution but also from the collective trauma of severe disease outbreaks like the Hong Kong flu in 1968 and the SARS outbreak in 2003.
Mass transit is essential to convenient and cost effective local travel in any large and dense city.
You just limited your opinion to a small type of situation. How many of those do you think there are? You do know that making “trains run on time” has been the bane of many a politician don’t you?
Tell how many of these megacities have mass transit that runs on time. Tell why Uber, Lyft, etc. competes with mass transit. Tell why people want to use mass transit where robberies and murder occur.
You just limited your opinion to a small type of situation. How many of those do you think there are?
As of December 31, 2023, 200 cities across 62 countries have metro systems. Hard to say how many more cities would be good candidates. They are very expensive to build out if underground, so the countries and cities have to be fairly rich.
How many run on time?
All the ones I have used ran on time. As to safety, I was quite wary of the NY subway, particularly late at night. The others I have found safe.
But the real question is, if you did not have mass transit in cities, how do you want people to get around to the extent that they do? You cannot do it with cars, that’s obvious. Just imagine the 24 million people who use the Tokyo metro daily trying to get their trips done in any other way. And anyway, why would you not want to deploy mass transit? It has a proven track record over 100 years, and is generally accepted as useful and cost effective by millions of users every day all around the world.
Maybe some greens would advocate the total abolition of the car and its replacement by mass transit systems everywhere. I’m certainly not advocating that. I do think the Dutch system of segregating bicycle, foot and vehicle traffic is a good one, as is the system of ‘living areas’ from which through car traffic is excluded. I don’t like living on a busy road, and doubt many people do.
Rural buses? I have taken them, and am not very enthusiastic. The (European) ones I’ve taken have been slow and not very comfortable and not much used. Maybe they have a role in some places.
Companies House documents show Tramlink Nottingham Limited reported losses of £57m to March 2023, up from £20m in 2022.
The total funding envelope to deliver NET Fast is £2.3bn based on the actual cost of extensions 2 and 3 which are 10.8 miles long and cost £560 million pounds (this did include a number of new trams) Allowing £60 million for the trams, the cost per miles of the new lines was £46.2 million pounds per mile or £26,304 per yard. The total length is about 20miles (32km).
Money well spent?
Sounds like a financial bath. I am guessing that ridership is low – that, rather than length of track, would be the real test. I don’t know Nottingham so cannot comment on why this has happened. Be interesting to see the business case (assuming there was one) and compare it to the outturn.
However, an individual failure doesn’t affect the case for public transport systems in general. 200+ cities have chosen to implement them for a reason, and that reason is that there is no other way to provide for people to travel as they want in the cities as they are.
You cannot do it with cars. Tokyo is the clearest example with 24 million trips a day over their mass transit system. The idea of doing that with cars — the idea is absurd. But London will be similar, close down the Underground and suburban rail, and try to get people to work in cars. And park them when they get there?
This seems so completely obvious I cannot understand what people here are objecting to. I regularly travel to mainline stations in London, and then take the Underground to my final destination. Why on earth would I want to drive from York or Bristol or Manchester? The train, you sit in comfort, work, get up and stretch legs every so often, and take less time on the journey.
And as for London to Brussels or Paris? No contest. I cannot imagine why anyone would choose to drive rather than take Eurostar.
“cost effective” is in the eyes of the beholder.
That’s true as far as it goes. But there are vast swathes of land where mass transit would be impractically inconvenient and exorbitantly expensive to develop.
I live in tiny Connecticut, midway between New York City and Boston, yet in order to take a bus, I would need to walk over 5 miles round trip, would need to plan on waiting an unpredictable amount of time at the bus stop, and would be limited to only a few useful destinations.
Mass transit is as useful to me as a tampon.
F.e. India
That’s masstransportation 😀
And when they get there they take a moped taxi to get home, or walk, or a stinking bus
Moped taxi like that ? 😀
Yes, just like that
At least they are out in the open air. 🙂
If they start using as much energy per capita as us, they will travel in style, and we will be poorer
Yes, there are many places where mass transit is not practical, and there are also countries and cities where the low level of the population makes them unpleasant or dangerous to use – like many other places and systems in those countries.
That isn’t the argument. The argument, if I understand it, is that some people here seem to object to any form of mass transportation, even safe and efficient systems in richer countries. Maybe they never travel much, or never travel to cities? Don’t understand it.
Sure. I’ve used it in Boston, Washington, Detroit, San Francisco, Rome, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Sydney. Found them all to be pretty convenient. When I visit Boston, I usually park at the Riverside station and take the Green Line in on the T. I’m not arguing that mass transit is inherently bad. But while my wife and daughters find tampons to be useful, and I can see the utility, it’s equally clear that they’re not for me. Those who want to force us all into dense urban areas are evil.
It depends what you mean by a large and dense city.
London, Tokyo, New York, Paris, Hong Kong. In any case, not Los Angeles which is large but not dense.
London elected Sadiq Khan
Shows just how extremely dense they are !!
In most major cities in the US, “metro” is heavy rail, both below and above ground.
From “Everyone rides the Bus”.
Couldn’t find a seat so I had to stand
With the perverts in the back
It was smelling like a locker room
There was junk all over the floor
We’re already packed in like sardines
They want everyone to LIVE NEAR MASS TRANSIT.
So, all scrunched together in some sort of concentration camps?
Pass!
Central planning at its best. Everyone told where to live, what to work at, and where to go along with how to get there. A bureaucrats utopia!
“They want everyone to LIVE NEAR MASS TRANSIT.” This sounds like a harebrained idea thought up by someone who has never been west of the Hudson or east of the Sierras.
Only in very specific circumstances, namely where employment is concentrated in a small area, or for a major event with many thousands of people attending. Otherwise a car will usually be much quicker as has been the case for the last century.
Yes, and mass transit is a great idea when many, many folks are now working from home.
An upcoming Alarmist anniversary to celebrate? Maybe WUWT could do a special celebratory css/stylesheet thing for it! (Just joking, Charles).
Next year will be the 35th anniversary of the UN[hinged’s] predicted climate disaster that was to have happened some 24/25 years ago. In 1989 they told us quite unequivocally and with great solemnity:
“”UNITED NATIONS (AP)… A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
…
governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.””
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/03/icymi-the-u-n-told-us-wed-have-disaster-by-year-2000-if-global-warming-was-not-checked/
With each passing year this hackneyed old joke just gets more silly: “before it goes beyond human control.” As if it ever were under human control? They are bonkers. We had ten years, so they said, and here we all are 34 years later with bog all difference to report (except global greening, record yields etc). That just leaves them with the hype. And that goes on and on in schools, universities, state institutions and agencies, the mass media, and among the elites. And lets not forget the uber woke Civil Service. What’s more, the hype is being continuously ramped up in a sharp upward curve towards the promotion of mass psychological damage [in the young]. Take the week just gone by…
“”Sunday was Earth’s hottest day in all recorded history, climate agency says””
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/24/sunday-earth-hottest-day-history-climate-00170814
Shurely shome mishtake?
“”Monday was the world’s hottest day ever recorded — breaking Sunday’s short-lived record””
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/hottest-day-ever-record-monday-sunday-rcna163408
You get the idea. It’s no longer a decade, or a year, or even a month, anymore; it’s daily.
And now… what we in the UK can freely say is in the crosshairs once more.
“”So it begins. The UK’s new Labour government has been in power for less than a month, and it is already training its guns on freedom of speech.
…
Make no mistake, free speech is in crisis in British universities. Cancel culture runs amok. Expressing unwoke views can lead to extreme harassment and even excommunication from campus. The Free Speech Act is a fairly modest attempt to remind university chiefs of their duty to ensure free debate and free inquiry.
…
Labour’s keenness to shelve the act, so soon into its term, confirms what we already knew – that this is a party that is hostile to free speech and enthusiastic about woke censorship. It’s a party that sees the cruel harassment of academics like Kathleen Stock – who was hounded out of the University of Sussex for the thoughtcrime of believing in biological sex – and wants to join in on the side of the harassers.
…
With Labour in power, backed by a huge parliamentary majority, our freedom to think and speak has rarely been so imperilled.””
…
“”Labour’s war on free speech is just getting started””
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/27/labours-war-on-free-speech-is-just-getting-started/
Watch this space…
Sunday and Monday were rather pleasant days where I live. The temperatures were below average.
So I guess a global average temperature doesn’t mean much on a regional level. The global average is “the hottest evah!, but doesn’t apply to real life on the ground.
My home town is rather cool at this point of the season, and antarctica is experincing record cold, but the alarmists want us to pay attention to a global average.
And, btw, that UAH global average is about 0.24C cooler than it was a couple of months ago.
If the temperatures cool a few more tenths of a dagree, the climate alarmists will be declaring a New Ice Age is coming, like they did back in the 1970’s (if you go by the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global average temperature chart, which shows only about a 0.4C difference betweent the hot 1930’s and the cool 1970’s. The real temperature drop going by a legitimate temperature chart of the period was more like a 2.0C cooling. The return of the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s is a good demonstration of how the bogus instrument-era Hockey Stick chart does not represent reality. Nobody would be panicing over a 0.4C cooling. Now, a 2.0C cooling, that’s another matter.)
“about 0.24C cooler than it was a couple of months ago”
Caused by CO2, without a doubt 😉
A global average temperature doesn’t mean anything at all. There isn’t a single global climate for a start.
Please don’t pretend that “Global Average” anything but a pretend number.
Too many places scattered all over the globe show little warming, if any. One must wonder why a “global” warming isn’t affecting everywhere the same. Why do warming areas move around?
Anomalies are not temperatures. They are an indicator of a change in a month. By ignoring both the uncertainties involved and the different baseline temperatures one really can’t tell what is happening with absolute temperatures.
Anomalies, in the interest of accuracy and better understanding, are not ‘change in a month’. They are the deviation from a long-term baseline average. If the average temperature measured on July 28th at a given site over a prior 30-year period was 25°C and today’s measurement is 24.5°C, then today’s anomaly would be -0.5°C.
There are plenty of valid reasons to question whether anomalies are measuring actual climate change rather than land use changes in the vicinity of the measurement station. (Urban Heat Island effects).
We can also note that taking the average of the day’s min and max temperature is an invalid metric. If there is a significant enhanced greenhouse effect, we would expect to see warmer Tmin but not significantly warmer Tmax. The anomaly would show warming, but it misleads us to expect dangerous heat waves during the day when actually it just means milder temperatures at night.
In any case, temperature is itself an invalid metric without accounting for humidity. We should be measuring a change in enthalpy (latent and sensible heat). Anyone who has experienced 95°F and 80% humidity in Boston or New York and has also visited Phoenix when it was 115°F, knows that the only real concern is humidity. Even 85°F at high humidity is far worse than 100°F at low humidity. Temperature anomalies do not take into account variability in humidity.
“Deviation from a long-term baseline average”. Exactly what I said. The change of a monthly average from a SEMI-long baseline average.
A 30 year baseline can and does ignore temperature changes in the past. It can give an entirely false indication of what has occurred in the in other warming scenarios. The best option is ONE unchanging global baseline determined to be the best temperature. Climate science needs to be pushed to come to a decision on what the appropriate global temperature should be (not anomaly, just plain old temperature).
The rest I pretty much agree with.
A defined baseline for computing anomalies has many advantages. It can be of infinite precision eliminating the need for propagation of the baseline error, avoids arguments about instrument and sampling bias, and doesn’t have to be changed every decade, making it possible to compare anomalies published decades apart.
It would make climate science pony up and do a proper cost/ benefit study to arrive at a “best temperature”. It isn’t perfect but allows a much better comparison over time. The issue of how long the baseline average should be and what it is goes away.
As a constant it should be an integer value to make it compatible with temperatures prior to 1980. A single decimal of 0 can be added for stations that measure to 1/10ths. It would make the precision and significant digits when dealing with measurements much more in line with physical science protocols. No more arithmetic driven millikelvins.
One would be able to convert an anomaly to an actual absolute temperature if one knows a sratation’s anomaly.
“… avoids arguments about instrument and sampling bias …” as long as the instrumentation hasn’t been changed during the baseline period (i.e., going from a Stevenson screen to an automated system), and as long as the site hasn’t been moved during the baseline period. For each and every temperature measuring and reporting station in the baseline.
Those are a reason for ending a stations data series record and starting a new data record.
A standard baseline value for determining a global anomaly won’t have a baseline period. It will be a constant determined by what scientists decide is the “best” global temperature for the globe.
If climate science truly feels that another degree increase is intolerable, then perhaps 15°C or 16°C is the appropriate value.
The IPCC could simply make a statement that a new track is going to be used. The monthly average temperatures are already calculated. All the computer code that tracks individual station baseline temperatures can be scrapped and replaced by defining a simple constant for all calculations.
Sure, anomaly values will increase because much of the world is far above or below the average, but that also means that a proper statistical distribution will be available so standard deviation is meaningful.
I’m sure warmist climate scientists will pooh pooh this because current practice hides so much information behind a convoluted calculations. It allows prognostications with no real accountability.
sorry Jim, I think that most people would understand the phrase ‘change in a month’ as the range of temperatures from min to max during the current month. If you actually meant the change between the current month’s average temperature and the average temperature for the same month over a 30-yr period, then I would just say that you were not being very clear.
Never claimed to be a writer.
The Earth is still in a long-term 2+ million year ice age in a warmer but still cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
Talking about the Ice Age Scare in the 1970’s is a good way to show that the Bogus, Bastardized, Instruemnt-era Hockey Stick Global Average Temperature Chart really is bogus and does not represent reality.
The charts below are the U.S. regional chart (Hansen 1999) alongside a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.
From history, and personal experience for some of us, we know that in the late 1970’s alarms were raised that the Earth might possibly be going into another Ice Age because of the trajectory of the temperatures.
The U.S. chart shows a temperature decline of about 2.0C from the hot 1930’s to the 1970’s. This is what gave people concern that another Ice Age might be looming in our future if temperatures continued in this direction.
The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart on the right shows only less than 0.4C of a temperature drop from the hot 1930’s, (which the bastardizers artificially cooled) to the 1970’s. No sane person would declare a new Ice Age in the offing over a less than 0.4C temperature drop.
Of course, in the 1970’s, there were no bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts in existance. The climate scientists of the time used the U.S. and other regional charts for their information.
The “Ice Age Cometh” debunks the bogus Hockey Stick chart temperature profile. The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick was created by corrupt climate scientists to promote the CO2-is-dangerous meme by making it appear that the global temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, because of CO2 increases, and it is now the hottest times in human history.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators have done a very good job of distorting the truth. They have fooled a lot of people into believing their lies, and these lies have cost society countless TRILLIONS of dollars in wasted spending trying to reign in CO2.
But if you compare these charts, you will see the lie exposed. One chart shows a temperature cooling of 2.0C. The other shows a temperature cooling of 0.4C. Which one is going to cause alarm in the science oommunity? The answer should be obvious. The Temperature Data Mannipulators have hidden the very hot 1930’s with their computer mannipulations to enable them to claim that today is the hottest time ever, but the truth is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. There is no unprecedented heat today and there is no evidence CO2 is adding any discerable heat to the Earth’s atmosphere.
The only “evidence” climate alarmists have for all their claims is this bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart, and it’s all a BIG LIE. Maybe the Biggest Lie Evah!
https://imgur.com/v26AS6M
For those who like the latest version so they are up to date.
Why do you credulously believe adjusted “data”?
Because I know why they adjust it and the adjusted data shows less warming than the adjusted ….. so….. nothing suspicious to see here.
Temperature measurements at individual stations are affected by various local factors beyond just the weather, and this seems to be overlooked.
A thermometer near a pond will record different temperatures than one near a cave, even if both are experiencing similar weather conditions, due to the unique, immediate environmental influences at each location.
When scientists use data from neighboring stations to adjust and correct temperature records, they inadvertently incorporate the local environmental impacts from the “correct series” (vegetation, nearby bodies of water, sunlight exposure, etc.).
Mostly, they are tainting somewhat less affected rural data with massively tainted urban data.
The result is totally meaningless and unscientific as a temperature data set of any sort.
I think you will find these “scientists are pretty clever people and they might have just “thunked” some of the things what you are saying. But, hey, you can never be too sure….. if I were you I would write to NASA and NOAA and see what they think.
That is not an argument. It is an argument fallacy called Appeal to Authority.
If you don’t know an answer, either abstain from using this fallacy or simply say you don’t know enough to have an intelligent answer. IDK is a very appropriate response.
You really are gullible simpleton, aren’t you.
Yes, we know how they “adjust” it to create spurious warming above and beyond even the urban warmed data.
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that the surface sites can give anything even remotely representative of real whole-of-globe temperatures.
They are a COMPLETE FARCE.. just like your comments.
“adjusted data shows less warming than the adjusted”
And another Zeke/Schmidt CON-job that you have fallen for because you are so inherently gullible and simple-minded
Nearly every set of raw data from the NH and many from the SH show a strong peak similar to or less than 2000-2010..
There are no ocean measurements even worth bothering with before 2005, the coverage was way too sparse and haphazard or just “made-up”
Studies have shown that a very large proportion of surface sites are massively corrupted by urban and airport warming and junk station siting..
The global surface data is basically just GARBAGE.. which explain why you like it so much.
Ridiculous, Simon.
Regional land surface temperatures from around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so if the temperature data manniplators only used the land surface data, then there would be no Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile, instead, the temperature profile would resemble the benign U.S. regional temperature profile.
So the only way the Temperature Date Mannipulators can change this profile is to include sea surface temperatures as a method of cooling the past and warming the future.
Unfortunately, for your argument, there are no legitimate sea surface temperatures for much of the instrument era, and the Temperature Data Mannipulators took this opportunity to completely make up sea surface temperatures in such a way as to create the instrument-era Hockey Stick temperature profile which you accept as representing reality.
Reality, the regional unmodified temperature data, shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, all around the world, and this means there is no unprecedented warming today caused by CO2 because there is no unprecedented warming.
You are living in a False Reality, Simon. Snap out of it!
Up to date with all the URBAN mal-adjusted FAKE data.
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that the surface sites can give anything even remotely representative of real whole-of globe temperatures.
They are a COMPLETE FARCE.. just like your comments.
This is worth reading. A bit repetitive, quite long, but its worth the effort. Traces the logical and historical connexions between ideas which have come to form a more or less coherent ideology, and have gained widespread acceptance in the last 15 or so years in the English speaking countries.
The critique of the ideology is from a traditional liberal perspective – not the liberalism of today, but that of 50 years ago, and one of the more interesting discussions in it traces the way in which old-fashioned liberalism has evolved by way of identity theory into something which is most illiberal.
Yascha Mounk – The Identity Trap_ A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time-Penguin Random House (2023)
The Guardian 25th July 2024
Climate Crisis
“Man gets third-degree burns from walking on sand dunes in Death Valley
European visitor rushed to hospital after briefly walking barefoot in California national park amid extreme heat”
Didn’t he think why it is called Death Valley. Lucky it was just his feet. Why hike anywhere in Flip Flops? Hope he paid for the helicopter ride.
Why the Guardian thought this was Climate Crisis news is a mystery. Will the Guardian now refer to it as “Burnt Feet Valley”?
Is there a correlation between temperature and gross stupidity? Perhaps the University of Colorado can investigate if there is an acceleration in the rate of rise in stupidity occurring.
Is there a correlation between temperature and gross stupidity?
At the Guardian… most definitely.
With regard to the University of Colorado, one of its most prolific climate model slingers is on the move…Matt Burgess is moving from CIRES and CU Boulder to the University of Wyoming. He will be an assistant professor of economics in the College of Business and a presidential fellow working on an initiative focused on freedom of expression and constructive dialogue.
Good… Hope he takes a few more with him :<)
Greenie Go Home.
And, the always popular,
Welcome to Wyoming, Now Go Home.
European tourists flock to Death Valley in the summer, for the heat.
In contrast to the ‘Zonies who show up in the San Diego area during the summertime.
One of the great songs from the 1950s mentions melting tar on the roof…
https://youtu.be/hHPbBRaOjGo
Let’s talk about EV’s. I have been living in Latin America for many years now, and currently residing in Colombia. There is no where in Colombia, almost, that you can go without running into mountains. Up and down, up and down. I don’t see any great demand for EV’s here, and one of the reasons is traveling (not to mention the impossible traffic conditions in Bogota and elsewhere. You wouldn’t want to run out of electrons there. I can’t imagine IC’s being replaced here or anywhere else in Latin America. (Where are those damned charging stations with vulnerable copper cables just waiting to be stolen?) Does anyone here have any experience with EV’s in Third World countries?
But Kamala loves EVs as much as she loves yellow school buses.
You got a Venn diagram for that?
It might include people having gag reflexes along with those who don’t, and those with political aspirations
Who else can open her mouth so much and yet say so little that is meaningful or comprehensible?
It says a lot about Democrat mentality that they would seriously consider her as presidential timber. It appears that they are motivated by identity politics and give no thought to her competence.
Trump showed he was a bad President in his term. Highest unemployment since the Great Depression 14.8 percent and left office with 6 percent unemployment and a raging epidemic that he did nothing to control.
That’s why he wasn’t reelected.
LIAR.
Trump had USA humming before Covid.
You are deranged. !
And dishonest.
I didn’t mention Trump. However, since you did, I think that I should address your lies. According to Investopedia, The unemployment rate in 2015 was 5.0%, what it characterizes as the “Natural rate.” During the Trump/Clinton election year, it dropped to 4.7%; during Trump’s first year in office, it dropped to 4.1%, then reached 3.6% in 2019, what Investopedia characterized as the “Goldilocks economy.” During the pandemic shutdowns of 2020, the unemployment rate did, unsurprisingly, rise to 6.7%, the same as in 2013. The year that Biden took office, the unemployment rate was the same as Trump’s second year in office, 2018. You completely misrepresented the recent US unemployment rate.
Another characteristic I have observed about Liberals is that many seem to have no compunction about lying to advance their political ideology.
The cabal will tell her what to do
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1816974609637417112
I had an interesting experience in New Zealand in 1979. I was driving an under-powered Ford rental car. Trying to go over the mountain pass from Greymouth to Christchurch on the South Island, my car stalled before reaching the top. I had to back down to a turnout, turn around, drive back to where it was flat, and accelerate to well over the legal speed limit in order to keep the engine near the top of the torque curve. I was uncomfortable with speeding in a foreign country, but it was the only way I was going to get over the pass. Maybe an EV wouldn’t have that problem, I don’t know. But, I certainly wouldn’t want to have my EV battery become discharged on a lot of the roads in NZ.
And once you are out of the major cities in Australia,
Fug-ed about it !
And speaking about Global Heating, check out the numerous gloom and doom stories on the news feed msn.com. Good for a laugh. Each day there are scare stories enough to give your kid nightmares. As an added feature, msn has come up with a new feature: “What If” stories. What if Jupiter crashes into the moon? What if the Earth should stop spinning? What if giant cockroaches develop an appetite for Climate Deniers? What if…
and we have noticed that msn no longer allows comments…
They do still allow comments, on topics like fashion or entertainment. But there seems to be an increasing number of political stories where comments are turned off.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS; THERE WERE FOUR SHOOTERS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/choose-one-law-enforcement-at-trump-shooting-was-either
.
The perimeter of Secret Service protection zone excluded the building where Crooks was lying on the roof, with a direct line of fire to Trump, and several nearby buildings, with windows, also with a direct line of fire to Trump.
.
Forensic acoustic analysis suggests, as many as four weapons were fired at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday.
The FBI said Sunday that the shooter acted alone.
After just one day, the FBI declaration was made without having all the evidence.
It gives a signal to the Mass Media to “go with that story”.
.
The local police chief said, he was told by the FBI, 8 cartridges were found near Crook’s body.
There is no independent confirmation of that FBI declaration.
The FBI made that declaration to advance its preferred “lone shooter” scenario
.
A cartridge consists of a bullet, case, gunpowder and ignitor.
Cases are automatically ejected from a rifle after firing.
.
It looks like CNN disagrees with the FBI.
Acoustic analysis shows weapon A fired the first 3 shots, weapon B fired the next 5 shots.
But there were a total of 10 shots.
Shot 9 likely was by a police sniper trying to shoot Crook. He missed. Why take only one shot?
Shot 10 was by the Secret Service sniper on the roof behind Trump.
.
CNN had sent the acoustics timeline to its consultant in Colorado. Here is the report:
.
The first three shots were consistent with alleged weapon A, the next five were consistent with alleged weapon B, and the final “acoustic impulse” was emitted by a possible weapon C, per audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution.
Audio analysis has also confirmed, the gunman was about 360 to 393 feet from the podium, according to forensics expert Robert Maher, who teaches audio forensics at Montana State University.
This conclusion aligns with CNN’s analysis that the gunman was on a rooftop 393 to 492 feet from the podium when shots rang out.
The shots exemplify a “crack-pop” sequence, typical when a supersonic bullet passes a microphone, before the “arrival of the corresponding muzzle sound,” Maher told CNN.
The time between these markers places the shooter 110 to 120 meters from the microphone, Maher said, assuming the bullet is moving at an average speed of 800 to 1,000 meters per second, the equivalent of 2,600 to 3,280 feet per second.
There were three shotters
(1) Crooks
(2) The Secret Service sharpshooter who killed him
(3) A Policeman or Police sharpshooter who fires shots at Crooks but missed
Everything else is a tin hat conspiracy theory
Apparently only one was a good shot. That Crooks was able to fire for 10 or 15 seconds more after he first pulled the trigger is remarkable.
He was capable, but did not
See my comment regarding the next 5 shoots
Richard,
You missed at least one shooter
The first three shots sound muffled and have no echos, meaning they were fired from inside a building by one or two shooters
Crooks did not start firing until the burst of 5
Some of those shots have echos.
One shot did not pass the mic near Trump, because it entered the fireman’s head.
The acoustic signature shows Shots 1, 2, and 3 appear to be fired by a sniper through an open window below and to the right of Crook, who was on the roof. Further info is needed
Shot 1 has a much weaker sound than Shots 2 and 3
It could be there were two snipers firing.
Shots fired inside a building have no echos, i.e., they were not fired by Crook.
The “lone shooter” declaration by the FBI is a cover-up, because the FBI also has the acoustic signature and the experts to analyze it, as does CNN, its consultant, and Maher
.
These three shots had an upward trajectory, from the bottom of the window, to Trump’s ear, then onwards
.
The supersonic shockwave and bullet of Shot 1 arrived at a mic near Trump in 0.18 second.
The much slower muzzle sound took another 0.22 second to arrive at that mic
Total sound travel time 0.40 second, i.e., about 0.4 x 1203.6 f/s = 480 ft to the target
Shot 2 was fired 0.857 second after Shot 1
Shot 3, was fired 0.678 second after Shot 2
Three closely spaced shot by an expert!
.
Trump had tilted his head to look at a chart, felt the impact of Shot 1 on his right ear, quickly raised his hand to his ear, looked at the blood, and ducked, all within about 3 seconds, which caused Shot 2 and 3 to miss him.
Secret Service people surrounded Trump within about 5 – 7 seconds, and held him down for about 20 seconds, until the “all-clear” was given.
.
NOTE: As part of its continuing disinformation campaign, and guidance for Media messaging, director Wray of the FBI claimed, under oath, Trump was hit by a piece of shrapnel, not a bullet, and the Media ran with it like pack of bloodhounds.
However, on July 26, the NYT debunked the FBI red-herring nonsense, by super-imposing the sound of the supersonic shockwave and bullet of Shot 1, and a video of the flinch of Trump’s hand, then Shot 2, then Shot 3.
Trump had moved just a little more (but not yet ducked), as is clearly shown on the video, but it was enough for Shots 2 and 3 to miss him.
On July 26, Wray corrected his testimony to state it was a bullet that hit Trump’s ear.
.
Shots 4 through 7 were extremely close-spaced.
According to the acoustic time line, all five shot took place in 0.775 second.
Such rapid firing, and staying on a target at about 400 ft, is extremely difficult.
This is championship-level shooting.
The shots require detailed analysis
One or more of these 5 shots may be from Crooks
One or more of these 5 shots may have killed one person and wounded two others
Those supersonic shockwaves and bullets arrived at the mic near Trump while he started ducking, but the Secret Service had not yet covered him.
.
Shot 8 came a little later; it may have come from a greater distance
Shot 9 likely was by a police sniper trying to shoot Crook. He missed. Why take only one shot?
Crooks had a few seconds, but did not rise, hands up, to surrender
.
Shot 10 was fired by the highly visible Secret Service sniper on the roof behind Trump about 15.8 second after Shot 1; the bullet entered above Crook’s left eyebrow.
.
A skull contains brain matter, plus about a gallon of blood.
The shockwave would blow the back part of a skull in pieces, with blood, etc., over a large area of the roof.
A nearby bystander mentioned “they blew his head off”
The aerial photo shows the body, some blood on Crooks’ face, and a clean roof!
A video showed, an FBI person hosing down the roof.
.
Why did it take an eternity for the SS sniper to fire after Shot 1?
Was he told not to fire, until given the go-ahead?
Did he know more shots would be coming?
Was he told to wait for more shots?
.
A botched hit with more than one shooter. You can watch it Full Screen on X
Chris Martinson has updated follow-up analyses and videos which you can also view on X.
My main question is –
who’s going to be cast as ex-Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle in Oliver Stone’s no-doubt forthcoming netflix movie?
I think it would have to be someone like Louise Fletcher (RIP) who played conniving Nurse Ratched in “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”
amiright?
great write up wilpost. i have been involved in acoustics/sound propagation building speakers for many years. the physics of sound are well know and mathematically verifiable. with regard to this in your post…
“Why did it take an eternity for the SS sniper to fire after Shot 1?
Was he told not to fire, until given the go-ahead?
Did he know more shots would be coming?
Was he told to wait for more shots?”
Joe,
I took several courses in vibrations, acoustics and automatic controls in grad school, and worked for a machinery manufacturer that had a vibration analysis lab, and for Perkin-Elmer electro-optical division.
I am writing this for lay people
Chris Martinson likely has inputs from acoustics people, to be able to put his article together.
Analyzing the five shot burst will be challenging, because proper mics and amplifiers, etc., need to be used to get a very good spectrum, but they were not!
Martinson’s analysis is made from the audio recording from one media microphone near Trump’s podium. His analysis is fairly suppositional but techy-sounding, could easily mis-identify rifle reports from the shock waves of bullets going past, and ignoring echoes from surrounding surfaces, and reverb characteristics of the PA amplifier, with likely resultant errors in shot origin, and even number of shots.
But let’s stop wasting effort on this. We know the gunman was reported by rally attendees…we know there was confusion amongst security forces for several minutes about what a person was doing on the roof, even which roof he was on due to sight lines and the sloping roof…we know a policeman climbed up to see who was on the supposed-to-be-empty rooftop…we know that the shooter started firing at Trump immediately after causing that policeman to fall backwards…. We know it took 11 seconds for the counter sniper to acquire his target, and 15 seconds later the target was dead. In between, the counter sniper had to report that the target was acquired and ask permission to pull the trigger. Textbook counter-sniping…required after what appears to be lax entrance gate security control.
Media microphones usually are high quality
They are not as good as used for acoustics analysis/vibration testing systems, which usually have specialized mics, amplifiers and filters to separate sounds and frequencies on the time line
The first three shots are evenly spaced, have very distinct ka-booms, easy to analyze, no echos; they are from inside a building
The next 5 shots are so closely spaced, that separating them by stretching the time line, likely will not reveal much info, due to other noises.
I think PhD Martinson and others are well aware of the limits of the data.
You did not mention Jill holding an event in PA, on the same day as Trump, that likely had more and better-trained SS people, and that as a result several neo-phite, frantic women were trying to protect Trump, one of whom, on her first assignment, was not able to put her gun back into her holster!
It was a comedy skit, Keystone-Cop level,
Plus you did not mention that Jill had recommended the now-resigned SS head, who still is a DEI fiend, who was relatively new at the job of protecting a potential President, as she abundantly showed during House hearings.
NOTE: Shot 10, that killed Crooks, came 15.8 seconds after Shot 1, according to the acoustic time line
There were a few seconds after Shot 9 Crooks could have used to surrender, but he did not.
OK, folks, move on, don’t waste time, nothing to see here except a dead “lone” shooter.
Oh, and a dead fireman and two wounded
Many of the Media photos were ‘sanitized’ for the sensibilities of the viewers. However, I saw a couple that showed a lot of blood draining down the roof, coming from the body.
In any event, it at least appears to be an attempted assassination aided and abetted by incompetence and violation of standard procedures.
Investigators found eight rifle casings on the roof where the shooter was positioned.
Did he carry 3 empty ones up there with him?
Quite probable that the first 3 shots were fired from a slightly different position, or the gun resting differently on the roof.
eg… hand between gun and roof for the first three shots, then gun resting on roof ridge for remaining 5.
This would cause the different sounds
You obviously have not listened to and looked at the acoustic file.
The first 3 shots had NO ECHO
Shot 2 was fired 0.857 second after Shot 1
Shot 3, was fired 0.678 second after Shot 2
That means they were fired by one or two shooters, INSIDE the building, through an open window
The floor of that building was acting like a big silencer.
The next 5 shots were fired in 0.775 seconds.
If from ONE shooter, they would be spread out, especially at 480 ft
It is highly likely, there was more than one shooter of these 5 shots, and that those shots killed and injured innocent people in the stand.
No evidence of this other “shooter”.
How did EIGHT casings end up on the roof.?
Your comment is pure conjecture… conspiracy.
Shots fired with the rifle resting on the ridge would echo around the whole shed.
The FBI TOLD EVERYONE there were 8 cases, as part of its lone shooter fantasy.
Has anyone seen the cases? No
CNN sent the acoustic file to its consultant, and that consultant said the first three shots were fired by weapon A and the next 5 by weapon B.
That indicates, to a logical person, a minimum of two shooters and three cases inside the building and five cases elsewhere
What if an honest FBI had said there were only 2 cases on the roof?
All hell would break lose
Or more formerly: projectile, cartridge case, propellant and primer. Having said that, I am also annoyed how typical media folks fail to distinguish between a round of ammunition (cartridge) and bullets.
That should be “formally.”
The issue is that the director of the FBI was quoted as saying “8 cartridges,” when what I think he meant was “spent shell-casings.” It raises questions about the technical competency of the FBI director, if he was quoted correctly. Not much different than the director of the ATF. This administration is riddled with well-paid political appointees that are obviously incompetent, but can put a “(D)” behind their name.
Wray was appointed by Trump, who a few weeks later realized he had made a mistake!
Wray is way more incompetent than Comey, who is a snake in the grass and showboat
Thank you Eric
Those likely are the same people pontificating about wind/solar/batteries/EV/heat pumps and the evil CO2, without which life on earth would not exist
48 hours later of the ‘Traffic apocalypse from hell’ Interstate 15 reopens in the California desert but the I-40 detour is still a nightmare:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/i-15-traffic-nightmare-ends-as-northbound-lanes-open-some-44-hours-after-crash-fire-3102808/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=topnews&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=I-15%20traffic%20nightmare%20ends%20as%20northbound%20lanes%20open%20some%2044%20hours%20after%20crash%2C%20fire
Where will the AGW mania in the mainstream media finish up?
I found this observation about the westerns movie genre to be particularly instructive –
How will this play out in the future? Well, let’s summarize what we learned from the rise and fall of the western genre.
1. Genres die slowly, especially popular genres with large mass audiences. In those instances, the decline can continue for decades after a genre’s commercial peak.
2. The final stages of decline are marked by total market saturation—reaching ridiculous levels. Far more product is churned out than even the core audience can absorb.
3. The proliferation of merchandise aims to expand the franchise, but actually accelerates the pace of decline.
4. During the period of decline, the average age of the core fan base gets older. Youngsters may continue to have some interest in the genre, but without the enthusiasm of the old days.
5. Even more ominous, the box office stars start showing their age—and are far too old to lead any movement. They are hired out of desperation, because holding on to old fans is now more important than attracting new ones.
6. As a result, everything about the genre starts to feel stale. The stories were fresher twenty years ago. The lead stars were definitely fresher twenty years ago. The only thing that isn’t stale is the movie popcorn out in the lobby—and even that’s not a sure thing.
Ted Gioia is author of The Honest Broker on Substack
(https://www.honest-broker.com)—
a frank and opinionated guide to music, books, media, and culture.
Story Tip: Bike battery explodes in elevator.
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1817661444281770483
Since demented Joe Biden has been ousted and Kamala Harris put in Joe’s place, the presidential poll numbers have improved slightly for Harris and the Democrats.
Trump was leading Biden in all the Battleground States by large numbers, outside the margin of error, in most cases, and is probably the reason the Democrats felt the need to get rid of Biden and a sure loss, and get someone else to replace him, in this case, Kamala.
So the numbers in the Battleground States have tightened, which is to be expected in Kamala’s “Honeymoon Phase” before she has to answer hard questions.
But even so, if you look at the poll numbers on individual issues, Trump is destroying the Democrats, including Kamala. On the economy, and on immigration, Trump leads the Democrats about 65 percent, to 30 percent for the Democrats/Kamala.
So Trump is leading by large margins on the subjects most of concern to American voters.
The Leftwing Media will make much of the recent tightening in the national general polls, but it won’t last, and on the important issues, Trump is running away with it.
We have the makings of a landslide victory for Trump, imo.