What if the atmosphere kept flipping bottom to top, to keep absorbed energy from accumulating down here at the surface as sensible heat, from what water vapor and non-condensing GHGs do above us?
It’s not that hard to see the problem with the claims of GHG-driven “warming” and the claimed amplification by water vapor. The self-initiating dehumidifier completely overwhelms any such tendencies.
Tell the children the planet will be fine.
(P.S. in this radar summary chart, altitude is given as a flight level, i.e. “400” = 40,000 feet.)
The planet will be fine, absolutely. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
But, I think your comment is subject to misinterpretation. Surely the existence of convection isn’t evidence that there’s no greenhouse effect. It’s not evidence that the GHE is insignificant, either. The empirical evidence shows that it is not dangerous, which is the relevant point.
Any description of the GHE as ‘warming’ is fraught with a flaw in thinking. The GHE slows cooling. The sun is the only significant source of warming. When the surface is warmed, there will be convection, an emergent phenomenon. It certainly counteracts the GHE to an extent. It doesn’t perfectly negate it or render it insignificant.
So please don’t misinterpret. Neither the static radiative effect of incremental non-condensing GHGs, nor the claimed amplification by water vapor, are capable of driving the end result – certainly not to harmful effect. The dynamic operation of the atmosphere shows us empirically why this is so. Some, like yourself, believe we must expect some accumulation of sensible heat due to incremental GHGs. I don’t see how that can ever be isolated for reliable attribution, but I intend no disrespect.
I’m also not intending any disrespect. I’m just trying to add context for those who may conclude that there’s no greenhouse effect. Skeptics who make erroneous claims like that discredit climate realism and actually help alarmists win the day.
Even if it does, there’s no proof of either a straight-line relationship or of the increase being due to humans; and even if there’s a human element in this, who can categorically say how large that is?
What difference does it make whether there is a human component or how large that is if the empirical evidence shows it to be at most an amount that is insignificant?
By analogy, no one knows why people are dropping dead in the street, end of story?
You can’t counter a deep-seated irrational fear with a shrug and a lack of curiosity.
But logic dictates that if the empirically observed temperature change is so small as to be irrelevant, and the theory being proposed (which is accepted for the sake of argument only to prove this point) says that the future only holds prospect of a couple more beneficial degrees of warming, then we ought to be able to dissuade at least some of the fear-stricken that their ‘existential threat’ is rather toothless.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere also increases radiative cooling. An analogy is to consider the cooling of a sealer stainless steel cylinder heated by a glowing incandescent lamp inside inside. The heat has to get out by radiation and convection. If the outside is highly polished, there is nearly no radiation from the surface. Only convection. At an emissivity of 0.25, for example, cooling is dominated by convection. Orienting the cylinder vertically instead of horizontally doubles the heat loss because heat rises and generates vertical “wind”.
This cooling by multiple pathways is a standard emissivity thermal problem given to first year engineering students. Consider that cylinder as the atmosphere, except there is no convection from the atmosphere to space, only radiation. Big difference.
Now, paint little black dots on the outside of the cylinder. Heat radiates from those little dots far more effectively than the shiny surface. Cover 5% of the surface with 5% black dots. At some temperature, that 5% at ε=0.98 plus 95% ε=0.25 will be sufficient to transfer as much energy as the cylinder receives from the lamp inside. The temperature will be quite high in order to do that, but lower than with 100% ε=0.25.
As black dots are added, a certain additional amount of energy radiates and the temperature of the cylinder will drop. When 50% of the surface is covered, the drop will be significant because the emissivity of the cylinder is now much higher than it was with no dots. Consider the dots are actually CO2 molecules radiating to space (yeah, we know about beck radiation – stay focussed).
The instructive part of this is not what the surface area of dots has to be to create a 15 degree surface. The interesting bit is what happens if there are no dots at all and the atmosphere ε=0.00 (i.e. no GHG’s).
The surface of the Earth is heated directly by the sun in the daytime. If there were no GHG’s at all (transparent atmosphere), the energy striking the surface would be about double what it is now. Absent the ability of the atmosphere to cool (no dots) the temperature would rise rapidly and to a very high temperature, because the heating by the surface would continue all day, somewhere.
Of course the surface would radiate energy to space through the transparent atmosphere, but a great deal of the energy would be transferred to the air by convection and thermals pulling cooler air against the surface, as we see all the time on a hot day.
For an unscientific, foolish misunderstanding of “how this works”, see the NASA website or Wikipedia on the “greenhouse effect” for a jaw-dropping example of anti-science.
Essentially it says that if there were no GHG’s, convection heat transfer would cease! I am not kidding. They both say that without GHG’s the air temperature would be -18°C “like the surface of the moon”, as if that was relevant. In fact, absent the ability to cool by radiation, the air temperature near the surface would be well over 100°.
Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere increases its ability to cool by radiation to space and to a certain extent blocks (captures) some of the incident insolation. This shades the surface but adds back radiation. The net effect is a much cooler surface. Absent GHG’s, the only way for the atmosphere to cool would be by contact with the surface at night and energy radiation from the surface.
What’s the equilibrium temperature in that situation? Very high.
Head of NASA GISS, Dr Gavin Schmidt, like the IPCC, repeatedly says in his papers it will be -18°C without GHG’s. Like the moon, he says, which has no atmosphere to speak of. Without GHG’s, physics stops, he intimates. Hot air balloons cannot fly in the absence of GHG’s, they explain, because convection ceases without them.
They should start teaching that point of view in universities. See how that goes. Even a child walking across a hot beach understands that air is directly heated by the surface.
It is more accurate to say that the air cools the surface by convection and the GHG’s cool the air via radiative “dots”.
Skeptics who make erroneous claims like that discredit climate realism and actually help alarmists win the day.
What is helping alarmists win the day is conceding humans have caused some or all of the warming. Exactly what you are doing without realizing it , it seems.
When I say, “claims of GHG-driven ‘warming'” I mean the claimed attribution of a long-term trend of rising temperatures to the radiative effect of incremental GHGs.
Again, the issue is with how others may understand your words, not that you lack a proper understanding. The words we use should be precise enough to preclude easily anticipated misinterpretation. How many fruitless discussions have we seen about alleged violations of the second law of thermodynamics?
I do also understand that you are referring to the imprecise language used by the alarmists.
The empirical evidence shows that it is not dangerous, which is the relevant point.
No, the relevant point is the there is no empirical evidence of AGW and to acknowledge there is without said evidence only feeds the green monster and makes life more difficult for everyone. Stop crapping on about an unproven hypothesis. The current warming could be entirely due to natural causes.
“What if the atmosphere kept flipping bottom to top, to keep absorbed energy from accumulating down here at the surface as sensible heat, from what water vapor and non-condensing GHGs do above us?”
It does – that’s how the Lapse rate (-g/Cp) is formed. Your dehumidifier does indeed cause WV to precipitate out. But the absolute humidity that is “dehumidified” is dependent on the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. In turn dependent of a source of surface water and wind strength over that surface to effct evaporation. Hence Oceans are evaporating more and Land less as AGW proceeds.
What if the atmosphere kept flipping bottom to top, to keep absorbed energy from accumulating down here at the surface as sensible heat, from what water vapor and non-condensing GHGs do above us?
Is this a hypothetical or a proposed mechanism? What is the evidence in favor?
The prevalence in summer of convective weather and convective weather systems with very high echo tops and hail is evident in the radar summary charts like I posted here. Not a hypothetical. Thunderstorms.
Here is a link to the source of these images, which is updated several times per hour, for anyone who would like to become more familiar with this ongoing scene of powerful weather.
I say surprisingly balanced only because of my extremely low expectations for fairness and rational thinking on the part of the BBC correspondents.
Even the BBC isn’t prepared to swallow the IOC’s stance that Kelif and Lin have no unfair competitive advantage. Frankly I am shocked.
The argument is made however that effective testing to determine if they have an advantage is too expensive. That strikes me as absurd. The condition that is responsible for this controversy is referred to as DSD or differences in sexual development. It is extremely rare. At most 0.3% of the population according to the article. A simple cheek swab DNA test can screen out 99.7% of cases.
If the person has XY chromosomes, in my view they should not be competing in elite sport events as women. It’s not about stigmatizing these people and I empathize with the difficulty that this rare condition could present to them in their sense of self-worth and identity. But they are genetically male. They may not have in all cases a significant advantage over elite women competitors but to argue that they might be completely insensitive to testosterone is so unlikely that it is totally unreasonable to assert. It is probably unknowable whether their musculoskeletal development was advantaged even if presently they do not have elevated testosterone.
Sure, but as a practical matter, if at most 1 in 300 people have any level of this genetic variation (I am trying to avoid saying defect), and elite athletes all start out as children who are not routinely tested, how would such a small segment of the population compete fairly through their career to ultimately reach a paralympic competition?
Imagine that you are the ‘girl’ who is really a boy. On balance is this not a tragedy for you? You are sterile and although genetically you are male, you lack male genitalia or have ambiguous genitalia. If you are the parent of such a child how do you help them come to peace with their reality and accept their own infinite worth as human beings? Do you encourage them to engage in sports in a context that emphasizes their ‘differentness’?
If the alternative is inviting a male child who has gone through puberty the punch girls, as a consolation for his unfortunate difference of development, then yes, 100%, exclude them from beating up women and yes, encourage them to compete with well-matched opponents. Battering women isn’t a consolation prize; it’s battery. I loathe and detest it and would see them in jail for it.
However, and this is where there are definite issues, in Swyer syndrome, which is caused by a genetic defect on the Y chromosome, although sterile such a person has female genitalia including a cervix, but not female gonads, and they can become pregnant through IVF and carry a baby to term. Obviously in other animals this doesn’t present any problems as they can never become pregnant. https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/
I don’t think that those are ‘questions to ask first’, given that there is a definitive and cost-effect test for XY chromosomes and some of your questions are subjective. If the person has menstruated then she certainly doesn’t have XY chromosomes. A woman with a deep voice is not so rare at all. A man with little facial or body hair likewise.
Why seek ambiguity where common sense shows clarity?
This is predicated on all genes in both sex chromosomes working as they should. However, as shown in the websites I linked to, this is not always the case.
As I pointed out that in swyer syndrome, where one gene on the Y chromosome doesn’t work correctly, the person is born with female genitalia, including fallopian tubes but no gonads (ovaries), thus is infertile and doesn’t go through menarche. However, through IVF they can become pregnant and carry the baby to term. This is despite being XY 46.
In other conditions despite the Y chromosome, again due to a genetic variation, they don’t have the full male genitalia, the testes may not have descended, and other physical characteristics appear female rather than male.
Let me ask a question, what was the sex of castrato singers? What sex were eunuchs?
It is testosterone that gives males their characteristics.
A simple genetic test for XY is insufficient, there has to be testosterone tested for and possibly an X ray to determine whether there are internal gonads, also needed would be an indication that a person went through menarche and menstruates (female puberty) or male puberty. This then becomes very invasive.
After screening out 99.7% of any possible questionable athletes via a cheap and totally non-invasive technique, you would have XY men fighting XX women because it might be invasive for a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of competitors to be inconvenienced to prove that they are the rare unicorn that you imagine. Is my understanding of your position incorrect?
Never mind that if the person is as you imagine, without any advantage over XX women, the likelihood that they would excel in a sport like boxing is very low.
If it is a matter of justice (which I am not persuaded), then for the very, very few people who fail the cheek swab and yet are convinced that they have no advantage from their rare genetics, let them choose to follow a rigorous procedure to make the incredibly rare exception to the rule. And let the governing body cover the cost.
As with most things scientific / medical, assessments need to be objectively arrived at based upon MEASURED / OBSERVED factors.
For example, you can’t have 2 perfectly functioning eyes, but enter the disabled olympic competitions, claiming that one of your eyes “just doesnt’ FEEL right“.
It either tests 20/20 or it doesn’t.
And no further correspondence should be entered into.
The visual footprint of a planned wind turbine 205m (about 675 ft) to the blade tip in Wales. The horizon is indicated by the blue line. Anywhere with maroon is in direct sight.
Ed is probably going to be disappointed, especially with regard to his offshore plans
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) has recently published its ‘Global Wind Report 2024’
“Investment in the wind energy supply chain has been insufficient in recent years….From Europe to the Americas there has been chronic underinvesment in future supply chain capacity”
They “Expect bottlenecks in the supply chain from mid decade for multiple key components, in particular gearboxes, generators, blades, offshore wind compatible castings, towers and foundations.”
“Ports and installation vessels with sufficient large crane capacity are also needed to scale offshore wind”
“In all regions except China and India nacelle assembly capacity will be insufficient”
Meanwhile Wind Europe warned back in June 2022 that there would be a worldwide shortage of the three types of vessels needed to build offshore wind farms by”2024 and 2025″:-
Foundation Installation Vessels (FIVs), Wind Turbine Installation Vessels (WTIVs) and Cable Laying Vessels.(CLVs)
They stressed the gap between supply and demand would be even greater for the CLVs “over the next eight years”
NOTE: Linked in Suspended my Account after I posted this story below (they claim suspicious activity? Funny, the same thing happened when I got 50,000 views, three months ago, after a Post pointing out that melting of West Antarctica Glaciers might be due to Geothermal heating and Volcanic activity) Story Tip
A Clear Example of the Lack of Scientific Integrity.
The Climate Change Institute of the University of Maine is still misreporting the South Pole Temperatures Data on a Daily/Weekly/Monthly and probably Decade’s basis. Despite being told in no uncertain terms on Oct 02, 2023, that their Data does not add up and is contradicted by NOAA’s own Data for the South Pole Airport as well as the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s AWS station named NICO, a mere 60 miles away on the High Plateau.
What follows is the conclusion of that email to Professor Sean Birkel’s boss on 10/2/2023, Jason Chandler, the Executive assistant to the President of the University of Maine. Professor Birkel is the head of the Climate Change Institute (part of U-Maine):
(I never did get a response from either of them on this issue)
==================================================================== The average for the 19 readings of the Day for the South Pole AWS Station NICO => -56.8 C with a High of -55.3 C and a Low of -58 C
The 4 NOAA NZSP Airport Bulletins’ readings from Sunday 10/01/23 List -65 C/-64C/-60C and -59C for an Average of -62 C
So, how can the Climate Change Institute Reanalyzer Website’s Graph proclaim (based on the NOAA Climate Model, they claim) -49 C Average for Sunday 10/01/23 and then at 6 am 10/01/23 that was changed to -48 C Average, whereas that same NOAA in Real-Time than observes an Average of -62 C at the NZSP Airport. And the U Madison AWS gets -56.8 C at the NICO AWS, only 60 Miles away from the South Pole?
That is a Difference of between 8.8 C and 14 C Degree Celsius? How do you account for this? And this is not an isolated incident, I have been watching this since August 28th 2023, it is constantly, every day, this way. ====================================================================== The situation in 2024 is not much different, if not worse. I analyzed the June 2024 Data for the South Pole, and the result is in the Graph attached.
The Data speaks for itself, not really necessary for me to say anything else.
To be fair I emailed Professor Sean Birkel and Mr. Jason Chandlor from the University of Maine and invited them to come on Linked in and defend their Data. My page: (5) Activity | Frits Buningh | LinkedIn
I look forward to them showing up on my Page and Post and to find out why it might be that they are so off by like 10 C, on a Daily basis, too warm? (they never did!)
This is not an isolated case, there are other Stations on the High Plateau of Antarctica, like Fuji Dome, Concordia Station, Vostok and Argus Dome, where I could easily make similar graphs with similar discrepancies.
If you want to validate the SP data yourself, here are the links for the various data points
CCI: Climate Reanalyzer (type South Pole into the upper right-hand box on the page) (Enter Placename – Get Forecast)
I watch a lot of PBS and BBC because I don’t have cable television (I’m way too cheap) and because the constant commercials on other channels drive me crazy. It seems to me that both channels are about 40% propaganda. It isn’t even subtle propaganda. It is crude obvious propaganda that clobbers you over the head by repeatedly hammering away at the same limited themes over and over again. If you’ve read some of the Communist propaganda news out of the old Soviet Union (I read it occasionally for amusement) that’s what PBS and BBC resembles. You can’t trust what PBS and BBC are broadcasting because they are leaving out relevant information, they only present one side of an issue, and they always spin their news. It isn’t right that tax money goes to these propaganda mills.
This is the beginning of a common troll tactic, the Argument From Invincible Ignorance. Demand examples/sources, use any excuse to hand-wave away any provided regardless of merit, claim no one has given any examples/sources, repeat. It can be extended indefinitely so long as people mistakenly think the troll is arguing in good faith.
Let’s see if we get genuine curiosity or another AFII.
Or you could just provide an example of a BBC article that fits the criteria for propaganda…. which is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
Haha brilliant. This is 15 years old. A whole generation of journalists would have been through since then. Got anything that doesn’t have cobwebs on it?
Person 2: No contest! Ridd wins hands down. To quote the title of David Sedgwick’s book (well worth a read) ‘Is that true or did you hear it on the BBC?’
Where is your response to responses to your request to provide things more recent? It looks like the analysis of your behavior by “drednicholson” was right on target.
My response (within 24 hours, some of us have to work) is this is merely differing opinions. Peter Ridd has for a long time sat outside of the consensus on the reef. I know a scientist who knows him personally. Says he is a good man, but his opinions are not shared by his colleagues.
The BBC article is reporting on what the majority of scientists feel about the great barrier reef. Here read for yourself …. https://wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef/
By your definition WUWT is a highly propaganda based site because almost every climate scientist on the planet would disagree with most of what is written here. Do you think WUWT is a propaganda site?
It looks like the Radical Leftists who have taken over the UK in the last election are threatening private citizens with jail time if they post anything on the internet that the Radical Leftists don’t like.
Have we just lost the UK to totalitarianism?
Nigel Farage says some of the Radical Leftists are threatening him with jail for comments he made on the internet regarding the stabbing and killing of three little girls who were takiing part in a Taylor Swift-related party, when a maniac came in and started stabbbing everyone he could reach.
Farange asked on the internet who this person was, and Radical Leftists want to put him in jail. Farange’s post was a question, not a statement, but the Radical Leftists want to use this as a vehicle to do injury to him.
The Radical Left in both the UK and the U.S.is showing its true totalitarian colors now.
I didn’t think I would be seeing the Death of Western Democracy in my lifetime, but maybe I was wrong.
One doesn’t have to ba a “radical leftist” nor “far right” to disapprove of the way that hatred is being stirred up via the internet by idiots who think that this gives them anonymity. Many of them are getting an early-morning visit from PC Plod and finding themselves in court – and in some cases in prison. And a damned good thing too!
Ask yourself why you couldn’t find something so specific yourself. Also, if you support what’s happening, remember you contributed to living in it yourself when it happens.
So the prime minister said….”You will be put before the courts if you have broken the law.” Do you have a problem with that? I don’t. I thought republicans were the party of law and order.
Farage did the good old Trumpian… “people are saying.” Well come on Nigel, what people? Who has said you should be locked up?
Do you think he should be threatened with jail time by Labour for just asking an innocuous question?
What are the laws for posting on the UK internet? I’ll bet they leave a lot of room for interpretation. So then we have to ask: Who is doing this interpretation? Radical Corrupt Leftists?
republicans ? What does this have to do with republicans? Juvenile deflection maybe? If so, at least your meds are having some effect – you didn’t do the “Faux News” cheap sh!t cancel yourself escape hatch.
There are two main types of law: 1) mala in se, or inherently wrong (like theft and murder), and; 2) mala prohibita, wrong by legislation, (like No Parking). In the latter case, courts have held that doing something that is normally allowed, has to be clearly posted or otherwise made obvious to be enforceable. If there are higher laws that protect rights, such as freedom of speech in the USA, then despite the appropriate legislative body having passed a law, it is automatically invalidated by the higher law.
Recent behavior by the UK has made it clearer than ever that breaking away from GB was the right thing to do.
It was an interview with Maria Bartelomo on Fox News yesterday morning, Simon. It might not have been posted to the internet yet.
Farange said the radical leftists in the UK had him worried. All Farnage did was ask who this attacker was. Farange did not characterize the attacker in any way, yet the Leftists want to threaten him with jail for just asking a question on the internet. Of course, I doubt that what he said caused the Leftists to threaten him. It’s what Farange stands for (anti-radical leftism) that is the reason they are taking this opportunity to bash him.
Does it sound like Farange broke the law to you? I think at times like this (and Trumps attempted assassination) we should all wait for the facts before commenting. People here had Trump being shot by the left when we now know it was just a sick young man. When we don’t wait…..stuff like what happened in the UK happen. Farage is a political figure who used this terrible situation to promote his sick( in my opinion) cause. That’s wrong. I think Farage should have kept quiet till we knew what was happening.
Do you think he should be threatened with jail time by Labour for just asking an innocuous question? No. But he was never going to be.
Oh and thanks for replying. You are good like that. You are always very polite. I admire that.
Democrats are Gaslightig the American public over the illegal immigration issue.
Democrats claim everything would be fixed at the border except.that the Republicans and Donald Trump are preventing this by not voting for the “bipartisan” Senate immigration bill that was rejected by the Republicans at Trump’s urging
The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed
“This bill represented a grand bargain between elected officials who sought to extend legal protection to millions of migrants who had entered the U.S. illegally and officials who were most concerned about stemming the flow of such migrants. The bill accomplished the former but had no discernible impact on the latter, leading many conservatives to denounce it as an “amnesty” bill.”
end excerpt
This bill would have done great harm to the United States if passed, legalizing all the illegal activities the immigrants and the Biden-Harris administration are committing at the U.S. Southern border. Biden and Harris are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States and they want this to be legalized by passing this Democrat “bipartisan” immigration bill.
This amnesty bill is just a talking point for the Democrats since they knew this bill would not pass the House or the Senate. This bill would not help the situation, it would make things worse. So the Democrats are gaslighting the American public over this immigration bill.
On the other hand, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives created an immigration bill as one fo the first things they did in the new session. It had strong border protections including finishing the Trump border wall. This bill was sent to the U.S. Senate where the Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Shumer refused to submit it for a vote of the Senate and it is gathering dust in Shumer’s drawer right this miniute.
As a response to this Republican immigration bill, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate decided to do their own bill, and they did, and they included every radical Democrat idea they could think of in this bill to make things easier for illegal aliens to come to this country and to stay in this country.
When this Democrat bill was completed, the Republican Speaker of the House said it was “Dead on Arrival”. So the House did not vote for this bill.
So the Democrats are complaining that the Republicans won’t pass an immigration bill, but that is simply not true. The Republicans already passed a strong immigration bill, and are refusing to vote for a weak Democrat immigration bill, and rightfully so.
What irritates me is when the Democrats gaslight us about this immigration bill of theirs, Republicans, for the most part, just stand there with a blank look on their faces instead of telling us what I just told you, and demonstrating that the Democrats are just using this as a propaganda talking point, and their immigration bill would be a disaster for the United States.
It’s time for Republicans to speak up and bury this Big Lie the Democrats are telling about immigration bills. The Republicans passed an immigration bill months ago. A good immigration bill. One that would reduce the number of illegals coming across. Republicans should say so every time the Democrats try to claim their immigration bill is the only one in town.
Republicans need to: Fight! Fight! Fight!
Remaining silent in the face of Democrat lies is unacceptable and will get Republicans defeated at the voting booth if they don’t speak out and tell the public the truth.
The truth is: The Democrats are lying to all of us about immigration (among other things).
Crispin in Val Quentin
August 13, 2024 5:52 am
Friends,
I am looking for a chart that was once posted on WUWT years ago showing the global near surface air temperature with no GHG’s on the left axis, plotting a rising logarithmic curve to the right as CO2 is added, eventually reaching 500 ppm or so and +18°C.
Where can this chart be found?
The comment with it said that adding the first 20 ppm CO2 would increase the air temp 6°C from -18 to -12°.
Who remember back that far and where can I find it?
What if the atmosphere kept flipping bottom to top, to keep absorbed energy from accumulating down here at the surface as sensible heat, from what water vapor and non-condensing GHGs do above us?
It’s not that hard to see the problem with the claims of GHG-driven “warming” and the claimed amplification by water vapor. The self-initiating dehumidifier completely overwhelms any such tendencies.
Tell the children the planet will be fine.
(P.S. in this radar summary chart, altitude is given as a flight level, i.e. “400” = 40,000 feet.)
The planet will be fine, absolutely. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
But, I think your comment is subject to misinterpretation. Surely the existence of convection isn’t evidence that there’s no greenhouse effect. It’s not evidence that the GHE is insignificant, either. The empirical evidence shows that it is not dangerous, which is the relevant point.
Any description of the GHE as ‘warming’ is fraught with a flaw in thinking. The GHE slows cooling. The sun is the only significant source of warming. When the surface is warmed, there will be convection, an emergent phenomenon. It certainly counteracts the GHE to an extent. It doesn’t perfectly negate it or render it insignificant.
So please don’t misinterpret. Neither the static radiative effect of incremental non-condensing GHGs, nor the claimed amplification by water vapor, are capable of driving the end result – certainly not to harmful effect. The dynamic operation of the atmosphere shows us empirically why this is so. Some, like yourself, believe we must expect some accumulation of sensible heat due to incremental GHGs. I don’t see how that can ever be isolated for reliable attribution, but I intend no disrespect.
I’m also not intending any disrespect. I’m just trying to add context for those who may conclude that there’s no greenhouse effect. Skeptics who make erroneous claims like that discredit climate realism and actually help alarmists win the day.
CO2 cannot cause warming.
Even if it does, there’s no proof of either a straight-line relationship or of the increase being due to humans; and even if there’s a human element in this, who can categorically say how large that is?
What difference does it make whether there is a human component or how large that is if the empirical evidence shows it to be at most an amount that is insignificant?
A MASSIVE difference. Your argument should be…”no one knows what is causing the warming, end of story.”
By analogy, no one knows why people are dropping dead in the street, end of story?
You can’t counter a deep-seated irrational fear with a shrug and a lack of curiosity.
But logic dictates that if the empirically observed temperature change is so small as to be irrelevant, and the theory being proposed (which is accepted for the sake of argument only to prove this point) says that the future only holds prospect of a couple more beneficial degrees of warming, then we ought to be able to dissuade at least some of the fear-stricken that their ‘existential threat’ is rather toothless.
Correct. It inhibits cooling which allows the sun to cause a bit more warming. It does so at a level that will never be anything but beneficial.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere also increases radiative cooling. An analogy is to consider the cooling of a sealer stainless steel cylinder heated by a glowing incandescent lamp inside inside. The heat has to get out by radiation and convection. If the outside is highly polished, there is nearly no radiation from the surface. Only convection. At an emissivity of 0.25, for example, cooling is dominated by convection. Orienting the cylinder vertically instead of horizontally doubles the heat loss because heat rises and generates vertical “wind”.
This cooling by multiple pathways is a standard emissivity thermal problem given to first year engineering students. Consider that cylinder as the atmosphere, except there is no convection from the atmosphere to space, only radiation. Big difference.
Now, paint little black dots on the outside of the cylinder. Heat radiates from those little dots far more effectively than the shiny surface. Cover 5% of the surface with 5% black dots. At some temperature, that 5% at ε=0.98 plus 95% ε=0.25 will be sufficient to transfer as much energy as the cylinder receives from the lamp inside. The temperature will be quite high in order to do that, but lower than with 100% ε=0.25.
As black dots are added, a certain additional amount of energy radiates and the temperature of the cylinder will drop. When 50% of the surface is covered, the drop will be significant because the emissivity of the cylinder is now much higher than it was with no dots. Consider the dots are actually CO2 molecules radiating to space (yeah, we know about beck radiation – stay focussed).
The instructive part of this is not what the surface area of dots has to be to create a 15 degree surface. The interesting bit is what happens if there are no dots at all and the atmosphere ε=0.00 (i.e. no GHG’s).
The surface of the Earth is heated directly by the sun in the daytime. If there were no GHG’s at all (transparent atmosphere), the energy striking the surface would be about double what it is now. Absent the ability of the atmosphere to cool (no dots) the temperature would rise rapidly and to a very high temperature, because the heating by the surface would continue all day, somewhere.
Of course the surface would radiate energy to space through the transparent atmosphere, but a great deal of the energy would be transferred to the air by convection and thermals pulling cooler air against the surface, as we see all the time on a hot day.
For an unscientific, foolish misunderstanding of “how this works”, see the NASA website or Wikipedia on the “greenhouse effect” for a jaw-dropping example of anti-science.
Essentially it says that if there were no GHG’s, convection heat transfer would cease! I am not kidding. They both say that without GHG’s the air temperature would be -18°C “like the surface of the moon”, as if that was relevant. In fact, absent the ability to cool by radiation, the air temperature near the surface would be well over 100°.
Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere increases its ability to cool by radiation to space and to a certain extent blocks (captures) some of the incident insolation. This shades the surface but adds back radiation. The net effect is a much cooler surface. Absent GHG’s, the only way for the atmosphere to cool would be by contact with the surface at night and energy radiation from the surface.
What’s the equilibrium temperature in that situation? Very high.
Head of NASA GISS, Dr Gavin Schmidt, like the IPCC, repeatedly says in his papers it will be -18°C without GHG’s. Like the moon, he says, which has no atmosphere to speak of. Without GHG’s, physics stops, he intimates. Hot air balloons cannot fly in the absence of GHG’s, they explain, because convection ceases without them.
They should start teaching that point of view in universities. See how that goes. Even a child walking across a hot beach understands that air is directly heated by the surface.
It is more accurate to say that the air cools the surface by convection and the GHG’s cool the air via radiative “dots”.
What is helping alarmists win the day is conceding humans have caused some or all of the warming. Exactly what you are doing without realizing it , it seems.
When I say, “claims of GHG-driven ‘warming'” I mean the claimed attribution of a long-term trend of rising temperatures to the radiative effect of incremental GHGs.
Again, the issue is with how others may understand your words, not that you lack a proper understanding. The words we use should be precise enough to preclude easily anticipated misinterpretation. How many fruitless discussions have we seen about alleged violations of the second law of thermodynamics?
I do also understand that you are referring to the imprecise language used by the alarmists.
I avoid the use of the term “greenhouse effect” or its abbreviation “GHE” for the reasons you cite.
No, the relevant point is the there is no empirical evidence of AGW and to acknowledge there is without said evidence only feeds the green monster and makes life more difficult for everyone. Stop crapping on about an unproven hypothesis. The current warming could be entirely due to natural causes.
“What if the atmosphere kept flipping bottom to top, to keep absorbed energy from accumulating down here at the surface as sensible heat, from what water vapor and non-condensing GHGs do above us?”
It does – that’s how the Lapse rate (-g/Cp) is formed.
Your dehumidifier does indeed cause WV to precipitate out.
But the absolute humidity that is “dehumidified” is dependent on the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
In turn dependent of a source of surface water and wind strength over that surface to effct evaporation.
Hence Oceans are evaporating more and Land less as AGW proceeds.
Is this a hypothetical or a proposed mechanism? What is the evidence in favor?
Warm less dense air rises. Cooler more dense air sinks.
The prevalence in summer of convective weather and convective weather systems with very high echo tops and hail is evident in the radar summary charts like I posted here. Not a hypothetical. Thunderstorms.
Here is a link to the source of these images, which is updated several times per hour, for anyone who would like to become more familiar with this ongoing scene of powerful weather.
https://www.wunderground.com/maps/radar/summary
The Beeb has a surprisingly balanced article about the XY boxer controversy in the Olympics that I read today.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko.amp
I say surprisingly balanced only because of my extremely low expectations for fairness and rational thinking on the part of the BBC correspondents.
Even the BBC isn’t prepared to swallow the IOC’s stance that Kelif and Lin have no unfair competitive advantage. Frankly I am shocked.
The argument is made however that effective testing to determine if they have an advantage is too expensive. That strikes me as absurd. The condition that is responsible for this controversy is referred to as DSD or differences in sexual development. It is extremely rare. At most 0.3% of the population according to the article. A simple cheek swab DNA test can screen out 99.7% of cases.
If the person has XY chromosomes, in my view they should not be competing in elite sport events as women. It’s not about stigmatizing these people and I empathize with the difficulty that this rare condition could present to them in their sense of self-worth and identity. But they are genetically male. They may not have in all cases a significant advantage over elite women competitors but to argue that they might be completely insensitive to testosterone is so unlikely that it is totally unreasonable to assert. It is probably unknowable whether their musculoskeletal development was advantaged even if presently they do not have elevated testosterone.
The paralympic movement has considerable expertise in managing physical differences to ensure fairness.
Sure, but as a practical matter, if at most 1 in 300 people have any level of this genetic variation (I am trying to avoid saying defect), and elite athletes all start out as children who are not routinely tested, how would such a small segment of the population compete fairly through their career to ultimately reach a paralympic competition?
Imagine that you are the ‘girl’ who is really a boy. On balance is this not a tragedy for you? You are sterile and although genetically you are male, you lack male genitalia or have ambiguous genitalia. If you are the parent of such a child how do you help them come to peace with their reality and accept their own infinite worth as human beings? Do you encourage them to engage in sports in a context that emphasizes their ‘differentness’?
If the alternative is inviting a male child who has gone through puberty the punch girls, as a consolation for his unfortunate difference of development, then yes, 100%, exclude them from beating up women and yes, encourage them to compete with well-matched opponents. Battering women isn’t a consolation prize; it’s battery. I loathe and detest it and would see them in jail for it.
https://www.urologists.org/article/conditions/intersex-conditions
The basic questions to ask first:
Did they go through female puberty and menarche?
Did they go through male puberty including change in voice?
However, and this is where there are definite issues, in Swyer syndrome, which is caused by a genetic defect on the Y chromosome, although sterile such a person has female genitalia including a cervix, but not female gonads, and they can become pregnant through IVF and carry a baby to term. Obviously in other animals this doesn’t present any problems as they can never become pregnant.
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/
I don’t think that those are ‘questions to ask first’, given that there is a definitive and cost-effect test for XY chromosomes and some of your questions are subjective. If the person has menstruated then she certainly doesn’t have XY chromosomes. A woman with a deep voice is not so rare at all. A man with little facial or body hair likewise.
Why seek ambiguity where common sense shows clarity?
Chromosomally
X0 45 female
XX 46 female
XXX 47 female
XY 46 male
XYY 47 male
XXY 47 male
This is predicated on all genes in both sex chromosomes working as they should. However, as shown in the websites I linked to, this is not always the case.
As I pointed out that in swyer syndrome, where one gene on the Y chromosome doesn’t work correctly, the person is born with female genitalia, including fallopian tubes but no gonads (ovaries), thus is infertile and doesn’t go through menarche. However, through IVF they can become pregnant and carry the baby to term. This is despite being XY 46.
In other conditions despite the Y chromosome, again due to a genetic variation, they don’t have the full male genitalia, the testes may not have descended, and other physical characteristics appear female rather than male.
Let me ask a question, what was the sex of castrato singers? What sex were eunuchs?
It is testosterone that gives males their characteristics.
A simple genetic test for XY is insufficient, there has to be testosterone tested for and possibly an X ray to determine whether there are internal gonads, also needed would be an indication that a person went through menarche and menstruates (female puberty) or male puberty. This then becomes very invasive.
You are being absurd. Extreme cases make bad law.
After screening out 99.7% of any possible questionable athletes via a cheap and totally non-invasive technique, you would have XY men fighting XX women because it might be invasive for a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of competitors to be inconvenienced to prove that they are the rare unicorn that you imagine. Is my understanding of your position incorrect?
Never mind that if the person is as you imagine, without any advantage over XX women, the likelihood that they would excel in a sport like boxing is very low.
If it is a matter of justice (which I am not persuaded), then for the very, very few people who fail the cheek swab and yet are convinced that they have no advantage from their rare genetics, let them choose to follow a rigorous procedure to make the incredibly rare exception to the rule. And let the governing body cover the cost.
As with most things scientific / medical, assessments need to be objectively arrived at based upon MEASURED / OBSERVED factors.
For example, you can’t have 2 perfectly functioning eyes, but enter the disabled olympic competitions, claiming that one of your eyes “just doesnt’ FEEL right“.
It either tests 20/20 or it doesn’t.
And no further correspondence should be entered into.
Miliband is to let turbines of any height be built onshore.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20240811/282170771448189
The visual footprint of a planned wind turbine 205m (about 675 ft) to the blade tip in Wales. The horizon is indicated by the blue line. Anywhere with maroon is in direct sight.
Ed is probably going to be disappointed, especially with regard to his offshore plans
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) has recently published its ‘Global Wind Report 2024’
“Investment in the wind energy supply chain has been insufficient in recent years….From Europe to the Americas there has been chronic underinvesment in future supply chain capacity”
They “Expect bottlenecks in the supply chain from mid decade for multiple key components, in particular gearboxes, generators, blades, offshore wind compatible castings, towers and foundations.”
“Ports and installation vessels with sufficient large crane capacity are also needed to scale offshore wind”
“In all regions except China and India nacelle assembly capacity will be insufficient”
Meanwhile Wind Europe warned back in June 2022 that there would be a worldwide shortage of the three types of vessels needed to build offshore wind farms by”2024 and 2025″:-
Foundation Installation Vessels (FIVs), Wind Turbine Installation Vessels (WTIVs) and Cable Laying Vessels.(CLVs)
They stressed the gap between supply and demand would be even greater for the CLVs “over the next eight years”
NOTE: Linked in Suspended my Account after I posted this story below (they claim suspicious activity? Funny, the same thing happened when I got 50,000 views, three months ago, after a Post pointing out that melting of West Antarctica Glaciers might be due to Geothermal heating and Volcanic activity)
Story Tip
A Clear Example of the Lack of Scientific Integrity.
The Climate Change Institute of the University of Maine is still misreporting the South Pole Temperatures Data on a Daily/Weekly/Monthly and probably Decade’s basis. Despite being told in no uncertain terms on Oct 02, 2023, that their Data does not add up and is contradicted by NOAA’s own Data for the South Pole Airport as well as the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s AWS station named NICO, a mere 60 miles away on the High Plateau.
What follows is the conclusion of that email to Professor Sean Birkel’s boss on 10/2/2023, Jason Chandler, the Executive assistant to the President of the University of Maine. Professor Birkel is the head of the Climate Change Institute (part of U-Maine):
(I never did get a response from either of them on this issue)
====================================================================
The average for the 19 readings of the Day for the South Pole AWS Station NICO => -56.8 C with a High of -55.3 C and a Low of -58 C
The 4 NOAA NZSP Airport Bulletins’ readings from Sunday 10/01/23 List -65 C/-64C/-60C and -59C for an Average of -62 C
So, how can the Climate Change Institute Reanalyzer Website’s Graph proclaim (based on the NOAA Climate Model, they claim) -49 C Average for Sunday 10/01/23 and then at 6 am 10/01/23 that was changed to -48 C Average, whereas that same NOAA in Real-Time than observes an Average of -62 C at the NZSP Airport. And the U Madison AWS gets -56.8 C at the NICO AWS, only 60 Miles away from the South Pole?
That is a Difference of between 8.8 C and 14 C Degree Celsius? How do you account for this?
And this is not an isolated incident, I have been watching this since August 28th 2023, it is constantly, every day, this way.
======================================================================
The situation in 2024 is not much different, if not worse. I analyzed the June 2024 Data for the South Pole, and the result is in the Graph attached.
The Data speaks for itself, not really necessary for me to say anything else.
To be fair I emailed Professor Sean Birkel and Mr. Jason Chandlor from the University of Maine and invited them to come on Linked in and defend their Data.
My page: (5) Activity | Frits Buningh | LinkedIn
I look forward to them showing up on my Page and Post and to find out why it might be that they are so off by like 10 C, on a Daily basis, too warm? (they never did!)
This is not an isolated case, there are other Stations on the High Plateau of Antarctica, like Fuji Dome, Concordia Station, Vostok and Argus Dome, where I could easily make similar graphs with similar discrepancies.
If you want to validate the SP data yourself, here are the links for the various data points
CCI: Climate Reanalyzer (type South Pole into the upper right-hand box on the page)
(Enter Placename – Get Forecast)
WMO – SP: Weather in Amundsen-Scott – Climate monitor on August 2024 (weatherandclimate.eu)
NOAA Airport: tgftp.nws.noaa.gov/weather/current/NZSP.html
U-Wisconsin AWS – NICO: Data & Imagery — AMRC / AWS (wisc.edu)
(uses Julian Date Notation)
I watch a lot of PBS and BBC because I don’t have cable television (I’m way too cheap) and because the constant commercials on other channels drive me crazy. It seems to me that both channels are about 40% propaganda. It isn’t even subtle propaganda. It is crude obvious propaganda that clobbers you over the head by repeatedly hammering away at the same limited themes over and over again. If you’ve read some of the Communist propaganda news out of the old Soviet Union (I read it occasionally for amusement) that’s what PBS and BBC resembles. You can’t trust what PBS and BBC are broadcasting because they are leaving out relevant information, they only present one side of an issue, and they always spin their news. It isn’t right that tax money goes to these propaganda mills.
Examples?
This is the beginning of a common troll tactic, the Argument From Invincible Ignorance. Demand examples/sources, use any excuse to hand-wave away any provided regardless of merit, claim no one has given any examples/sources, repeat. It can be extended indefinitely so long as people mistakenly think the troll is arguing in good faith.
Let’s see if we get genuine curiosity or another AFII.
use any excuse to hand-wave away any provided regardless of merit
Reminds me of a recent exchange that was essentially “show me people who aren’t nobodies saying that” then “anyone saying that is a nobody”
What’s the point of engaging when you’ve already been informed in advance that any evidence you produce will be dismissed?
Or you could just provide an example of a BBC article that fits the criteria for propaganda…. which is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
Basically EVERY BBC article on climate is massively biased and tantamount to blatant propaganda.
The fact you haven’t realised that yet, says all that is needed about your simple-mindedmess.
OK, you asked for one. Here is one from BBC that was well exposed on WUWT of all places. The program is far worse than just botching an experiment…
Haha brilliant. This is 15 years old. A whole generation of journalists would have been through since then. Got anything that doesn’t have cobwebs on it?
OK, then how about this from August 8, 2024 on another website?
Person 1: Dr Peter Ridd reported this week on YouTube that the Great Barrier Reef is now better than its ever been, while the BBC reported this week that the Great Barrier Reef is the worst its ever been ?
Person 2: No contest! Ridd wins hands down. To quote the title of David Sedgwick’s book (well worth a read) ‘Is that true or did you hear it on the BBC?’
Where is your response to responses to your request to provide things more recent? It looks like the analysis of your behavior by “drednicholson” was right on target.
My response (within 24 hours, some of us have to work) is this is merely differing opinions. Peter Ridd has for a long time sat outside of the consensus on the reef. I know a scientist who knows him personally. Says he is a good man, but his opinions are not shared by his colleagues.
The BBC article is reporting on what the majority of scientists feel about the great barrier reef. Here read for yourself ….
https://wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef/
By your definition WUWT is a highly propaganda based site because almost every climate scientist on the planet would disagree with most of what is written here. Do you think WUWT is a propaganda site?
What about the Covington mess and Nick Sandemann? CNN was among other outlets sued due to their misrepresentation of the facts in that case.
Please find the debunk I did of nonsense from the BBC on the cost of renewables here
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/06/18/justin-rowlatts-renewables-disinformation/#comment-288885
You can also read the original article linked at the BBC.
Google is broken again for Simon.
It happens quite often for him. But never when he wants to post a graph. Strange occurrence, isn’t it?.
It looks like the Radical Leftists who have taken over the UK in the last election are threatening private citizens with jail time if they post anything on the internet that the Radical Leftists don’t like.
Have we just lost the UK to totalitarianism?
Nigel Farage says some of the Radical Leftists are threatening him with jail for comments he made on the internet regarding the stabbing and killing of three little girls who were takiing part in a Taylor Swift-related party, when a maniac came in and started stabbbing everyone he could reach.
Farange asked on the internet who this person was, and Radical Leftists want to put him in jail. Farange’s post was a question, not a statement, but the Radical Leftists want to use this as a vehicle to do injury to him.
The Radical Left in both the UK and the U.S.is showing its true totalitarian colors now.
I didn’t think I would be seeing the Death of Western Democracy in my lifetime, but maybe I was wrong.
One doesn’t have to ba a “radical leftist” nor “far right” to disapprove of the way that hatred is being stirred up via the internet by idiots who think that this gives them anonymity. Many of them are getting an early-morning visit from PC Plod and finding themselves in court – and in some cases in prison. And a damned good thing too!
Tom, do you have a link to where Farage said he was being threatened with jail for what he has said? I googled it and got nothing.
Try another search engine. Google censors truth.
Recommendations?
YouTube.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360264123112
Ask yourself why you couldn’t find something so specific yourself. Also, if you support what’s happening, remember you contributed to living in it yourself when it happens.
So the prime minister said….”You will be put before the courts if you have broken the law.” Do you have a problem with that? I don’t. I thought republicans were the party of law and order.
Farage did the good old Trumpian… “people are saying.” Well come on Nigel, what people? Who has said you should be locked up?
Does it sound like Farange broke the law to you?
Do you think he should be threatened with jail time by Labour for just asking an innocuous question?
What are the laws for posting on the UK internet? I’ll bet they leave a lot of room for interpretation. So then we have to ask: Who is doing this interpretation? Radical Corrupt Leftists?
republicans ? What does this have to do with republicans? Juvenile deflection maybe? If so, at least your meds are having some effect – you didn’t do the “Faux News” cheap sh!t cancel yourself escape hatch.
There are two main types of law: 1) mala in se, or inherently wrong (like theft and murder), and; 2) mala prohibita, wrong by legislation, (like No Parking). In the latter case, courts have held that doing something that is normally allowed, has to be clearly posted or otherwise made obvious to be enforceable. If there are higher laws that protect rights, such as freedom of speech in the USA, then despite the appropriate legislative body having passed a law, it is automatically invalidated by the higher law.
Recent behavior by the UK has made it clearer than ever that breaking away from GB was the right thing to do.
It was an interview with Maria Bartelomo on Fox News yesterday morning, Simon. It might not have been posted to the internet yet.
Farange said the radical leftists in the UK had him worried. All Farnage did was ask who this attacker was. Farange did not characterize the attacker in any way, yet the Leftists want to threaten him with jail for just asking a question on the internet. Of course, I doubt that what he said caused the Leftists to threaten him. It’s what Farange stands for (anti-radical leftism) that is the reason they are taking this opportunity to bash him.
The Radical Left is on the March.
Yep got it. Commented.
Does it sound like Farange broke the law to you? I think at times like this (and Trumps attempted assassination) we should all wait for the facts before commenting. People here had Trump being shot by the left when we now know it was just a sick young man. When we don’t wait…..stuff like what happened in the UK happen. Farage is a political figure who used this terrible situation to promote his sick( in my opinion) cause. That’s wrong. I think Farage should have kept quiet till we knew what was happening.
Do you think he should be threatened with jail time by Labour for just asking an innocuous question? No. But he was never going to be.
Oh and thanks for replying. You are good like that. You are always very polite. I admire that.
Story tip
The arrogance of radical leftists knows no bounds:
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warning-letter-to-musk-ahead-of-trump-interview/
EU sends warning letter to Musk ahead of Trump interview
by Julia Shapero – 08/12/24 4:04 PM ET
Trump Campaign: ” “Let us be very clear: the European Union is an enemy of free speech and has no authority of any kind to dictate how we campaign.”
end excerpt
Democrats are Gaslightig the American public over the illegal immigration issue.
Democrats claim everything would be fixed at the border except.that the Republicans and Donald Trump are preventing this by not voting for the “bipartisan” Senate immigration bill that was rejected by the Republicans at Trump’s urging
Here is an article describing the situation.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed
“This bill represented a grand bargain between elected officials who sought to extend legal protection to millions of migrants who had entered the U.S. illegally and officials who were most concerned about stemming the flow of such migrants. The bill accomplished the former but had no discernible impact on the latter, leading many conservatives to denounce it as an “amnesty” bill.”
end excerpt
This bill would have done great harm to the United States if passed, legalizing all the illegal activities the immigrants and the Biden-Harris administration are committing at the U.S. Southern border. Biden and Harris are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States and they want this to be legalized by passing this Democrat “bipartisan” immigration bill.
This amnesty bill is just a talking point for the Democrats since they knew this bill would not pass the House or the Senate. This bill would not help the situation, it would make things worse. So the Democrats are gaslighting the American public over this immigration bill.
On the other hand, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives created an immigration bill as one fo the first things they did in the new session. It had strong border protections including finishing the Trump border wall. This bill was sent to the U.S. Senate where the Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Shumer refused to submit it for a vote of the Senate and it is gathering dust in Shumer’s drawer right this miniute.
As a response to this Republican immigration bill, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate decided to do their own bill, and they did, and they included every radical Democrat idea they could think of in this bill to make things easier for illegal aliens to come to this country and to stay in this country.
When this Democrat bill was completed, the Republican Speaker of the House said it was “Dead on Arrival”. So the House did not vote for this bill.
So the Democrats are complaining that the Republicans won’t pass an immigration bill, but that is simply not true. The Republicans already passed a strong immigration bill, and are refusing to vote for a weak Democrat immigration bill, and rightfully so.
What irritates me is when the Democrats gaslight us about this immigration bill of theirs, Republicans, for the most part, just stand there with a blank look on their faces instead of telling us what I just told you, and demonstrating that the Democrats are just using this as a propaganda talking point, and their immigration bill would be a disaster for the United States.
It’s time for Republicans to speak up and bury this Big Lie the Democrats are telling about immigration bills. The Republicans passed an immigration bill months ago. A good immigration bill. One that would reduce the number of illegals coming across. Republicans should say so every time the Democrats try to claim their immigration bill is the only one in town.
Republicans need to: Fight! Fight! Fight!
Remaining silent in the face of Democrat lies is unacceptable and will get Republicans defeated at the voting booth if they don’t speak out and tell the public the truth.
The truth is: The Democrats are lying to all of us about immigration (among other things).
Friends,
I am looking for a chart that was once posted on WUWT years ago showing the global near surface air temperature with no GHG’s on the left axis, plotting a rising logarithmic curve to the right as CO2 is added, eventually reaching 500 ppm or so and +18°C.
Where can this chart be found?
The comment with it said that adding the first 20 ppm CO2 would increase the air temp 6°C from -18 to -12°.
Who remember back that far and where can I find it?
Thanks
Crispin