We get the remnants as they cut across the North Atlantic towards Europe. Famously, in 1987 we got the full monty, not just a remnant. The Remnants make for wet and quite windy weather. Even they get a name nowadays.
Nobody could have modelled this year’s weather, which prompted a of of doublethink: a really non-descript and rubbish summer and at the same time the hottest ever. The Guardian came up with a helpful explanation for that:
“”There has been a widespread feeling that this summer was a big letdown, unusually cool and even cold at times. But was it really so bad? “”
In support of learning how the atmosphere works in response to absorbed energy, here is another set of time-matched images and downloadable videos for Band 16 and GEOCOLOR. This time the CONUS (48 states of the U.S.) region is shown, as “seen” from the GOES East geostationary satellite. The images (i.e. visualizations) are on an hourly interval for 7 days ending on August 19, 2024. The CONUS view is in higher resolution than the “full disk” view of the planet.
The formation and dissipation of clouds during daytime solar heating is impressive to watch. From the Band 16 images, note the importance of cloud variability to the longwave emission to space. And from the GEOCOLOR images, one can clearly see the emergence of cumulus cloud cover in response to daytime heating, with the implied increase in reflection back to space.
The point of this post? We can “watch” the atmosphere’s dynamic self-regulation for both LW emission (in a relevant band of wavelengths) and SW reflection using readily available images from space, in relatively high resolution and in near-real-time.
A large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated, parameter-tuned climate model is simply not capable of generating realistic outputs of LW emission and SW reflection,especially concerning clouds. There can be no diagnostic power in any of those models to determine a climate system response to incremental non-condensing GHGs.
Links
Plot of radiance vs Band 16 “Brightness Temperature” colors. The radiance (i.e. the strength of the longwave emission to space) at 30C, bright yellow, is 10 times the radiance at -90C, white.
Plot of radiance vs. wavelength showing the significance of Band 16 for 2XCO2. The wavelengths of Band 16 (magenta highlight) are responsible for a significant portion of the static radiative effect of the 2XCO2 case. NOAA calls this the “CO2 Longwave IR” band.
Folder containing 168 time-ordered images from GOES East, CONUS region, Band 16, hourly intervals, 7 days ending August 19, 2024 and a downloadable mp4 video of the same.
hiskorr
Have you also noted that discussion of environmental temperatures is mostly about temperature increases (warming) rather than temperature decreases (cooling)?
Since every warming has an equal and opposite cooling, or we would have seen past run-away temperatures, this indicates a bias in the approach of that most authors have taken to their scientific research.
Bias, especially when not explained as part of overall uncertainty, is one of the main indicators of poor quality science, so often seen in this environmental research emphasis of the last 3 decades or so.
The emphasis on temperatures was, I suggest, there from the start of research for no better reason than the availability of past measurements with capacity to cause panic. Have you noticed the comparative absence of papers about (say) humidity? There was also a data base on humidity, but it might have been a harder variable to use to scare the population.
It is also so shallow. So sad that so many under-educated politicians are swayed by it.
Geoff S
British steel to cut 2,500 jobs despite £600m taxpayer-funded green initiative British Steel is set to close its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe by the end of the year, placing 2,500 jobs in jeopardy. The move comes as the Chinese-owned company seeks to accelerate its transition to greener steel production, despite having received £600 million in taxpayer support. https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/british-steel-to-cut-2500-jobs-despite-600m-taxpayer-funded-green-initiative/
Added with the green jobs at Port Talbot that comes to 5,500. This is a big numbers game; one industry, two sites. Expensive too.
More power to them, but how are they going to get their message out? The US media have a de facto ban on important election coverage. Anything that helps Republicans and hurts Democrats is simply not reported, except by accident. Facts and policies are chief among the things that can help Trump and hurt Harris.
It is not quite that bad. We own radio talk shows and there are conservative newspapers and Fox TV. Then there is the Internet which is far more important than newspapers.
Reagan went directly to the people via Presidential Addresses.
Trump did it via “Social Media” (and they called for him to be banned from Twitter etc.) to shut him down.
The Left wants to control the “paper” contrary opinions are “printed” on.
US oil production set a record in 2023 under Biden
There are no US oil refineries with oil shortages
Oil production on federal land was higher under Biden than under Trump
During Biden’s tenure, the United States has continued to produce and export the most crude oil out of any country, at any time.
If Trump were president, he would be talking about the great oil boom in the United States
“Drill Baby Drill” is just a campaign slogan that would be counterproductive for the oil industry.
Even during a great year for the industry, 2023, the net profit margins were not very high. The industry does not need to increase oil production and lower their already modest net profit margins.
4Q 2023 Net Profit Margins Chevron 9% ExxonMobil 10% Apple 25%
2017 to 2021
Trump fought the Deep State
The Deep State won
Then why did Biden
1) drain the SPR?
2) cancel the Keystone pipeline?
3) enable Putin’s Nordstream II pipeline?
4) cancel O/G lease bidding?
5) go hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia begging them to increase oil supplies?
5) cancel sanctions against Iran & Venezuela so they could produce/sell more oil?
Here are some thoughts on the effect of a greening planet on global temperatures :
I have been looking for an answer to this question for a while and while searching on the web I found that the incoming solar radiation fraction absorbed by photosynthesis is estimated to be about 1%.
According to the Earth energy budget (NASA 2017), the TSI fraction absorbed by the surface is 163.3 W/m².
Thus, the photosynthesis may absorb some 1.63 W/m². The absorbed photons contribute to carbohydrates production instead of heat. Thus the photosynthesis has a cooling effect of 1.63 W/m².
So we can estimate the cooling by photosynthesis increase induced by CO2 in the last 40 years :
– It is 1.63 * 0.2 * 0.7 = 0.23 W/m².
On the other hand, assuming that a CO2 doubling induces an increase in the radiative forcing of 3 W/m² in a clear sky, as found in the William Happer’s paper, assuming that clouds block all infrared emitted by the surface, and using the logarithmic formula used by the IPCC with Happer’s parameter and taking a 67% cloudiness into account, we find that the CO2 concentration increase of 20% during the last 40 years may have increased the radiative forcing by 3 * (1 – 0.67) * ln (1.2) / ln (2) = 0.26 W/m².
So, if all those “by rule of thumb” assumptions aren’t too wrong, the net raditative forcing of the CO2 during the last 40 years should be almost 0 (0.03 W/m²).
Perhaps this is why a cross-correlation analysis between CO2 concentration and UAH temperatures does not show any correlation from CO2 towards temperatures ?
While a period of 40 years is greater than the designated 30 year rule for a [climate component] trend, it’s still less than a nanosecond in geological time.
This is a good point, that the incremental energy going into the chemical products of photosynthesis should not be ignored. And what about photosynthesis in the oceans?
Humans are now adding about 5 ppm of CO2 a year and nature is absorbing about 2.5 ppm of CO2 a year. What else do you need to know?
The manmade CO2 emissions have been gradually increasing and a greening planet probably absorbs more CO2. So what?
The atmospheric CO2 level keeps increasing. That makes some people panic, while I celebrate the change.
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. Down to 180 ppm just 20,000 years ago. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good news if done using modern pollution controls.
A small increase in natural flux totally overwhelms human released COR2, so much so that the rate of increase is almost totally in lockstep with ocean atmospheric temperatures.
I found that the incoming solar radiation fraction absorbed by photosynthesis is estimated to be about 1%.
While photosynthesis may absorb energy, a lot of that energy is only sequestered for a few months. When fall/winter take over, that energy is returned as plants/leaves die off.
There is some long term growth, but calculating it will be more complex.
NASA estimates the terrestrial vegetation increase at nearly 20%. Is there any reason to suppose that marine phytoplankton growth wouldn’t be of the same magnitude?
Part of the imbalance is created by the seasonal photosynthetic CO2 draw-down being bracketed by the first killing frost and the last killing frost. As the planet warms, the seasonal draw-down phase will lengthen, removing more atmospheric CO2. The issue is the rates of emission and removal, with the rate of removal being much higher.
In 1938, Professor David Brunt commented on Guy Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
An excerpt from that comment:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
What was the Professor talking about? Why was the expectation of “warming” incomplete and therefore misleading?
Consider this description of a computed hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis model – the “vertical integral of energy conversion.” I have pasted it here. Bold emphasis mine.
************************
Name
Vertical integral of energy conversion
Short name
viec
Unit
W m-2
Description
This parameter is one contribution to the amount of energy being converted between kinetic energy, and internal plus potential energy, for a column of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere. Negative values indicate a conversion to kinetic energy from potential plus internal energy.
This parameter can be used to study the atmospheric energy budget. The circulation of the atmosphere can also be considered in terms of energy conversions.
*******************
This is important to understand. It explains how the attribution of “warming” to the incremental static radiative effect of rising concentrations of non-condensing GHGs has been unsound all along. One cannot isolate “warmer” from “faster” and “higher” in the atmosphere’s dynamic response to absorbed energy.
The fashionable claim that “scientists have known” that incremental CO2 must cause the surface to warm (i.e. to accumulate energy as sensible heat) neglects what scientists have also known about the general circulation.
BigE
August 25, 2024 6:06 am
Does anyone think that the introduction of AI will bring a new perspective on the “climate crisis”, global warming, and hazards? I am hoping AI will cut through BS and provide a non-biased assessment? Or will it just suck up the internet’s mis-truths and inaccurate climate science?
Lots of people think the thing we’re suddently calling “AI” is intelligent. It isn’t.
I am hoping AI will cut through BS
It won’t. It can’t. It never will. We are as far from general artificial intelligence as we’ve ever been. LLMs don’t have any capacity to reason. They can do things clever people can do, like translate languages and summarize sources, and identify/classify images and sounds, but that’s about it. They are not clever.
Look at many of the images at the head of these WUWT posts. Many of them are AI generated. You can tell what the subject of the image is because it looks like what it is supposed to be, but you are not looking at a photo of a real thing. That farm of ruined off-shore wind turbines doesn’t exist, but if it did, it might look a bit like that. That image is not proof of anything. When a so-called AI burps up one of its word-salads it is doing the same thing. It is generating something that superficially resembles what a real answer would look like but it is not in any sense an answer. To use Wolfgang Pauli’s phrase, those utterances aren’t even wrong. Putting it a little differently, AI is only going to turbocharge the BS.
I asked the Grok 2 AI in X this question and was given the following answer, which is much more moderate than the climate movement wants us to believe:
*************
Me: Given that the general circulation of the atmosphere involves the conversion of kinetic energy to internal energy + potential energy and vice versa, how likely is it that the radiative effect of incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases can ever be isolated for reliable attribution of the reported warming?
Grok: The isolation of the radiative effect of incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases for reliable attribution of global warming is a complex issue due to several factors:
1. **Atmospheric Energy Dynamics**: The general circulation of the atmosphere involves a continuous conversion between kinetic energy, potential energy, and internal energy. This dynamic interplay complicates the isolation of any single factor’s effect, like that of non-condensing greenhouse gases, because changes in one form of energy can lead to adjustments in others. For instance, an increase in kinetic energy might be related to changes in wind patterns due to temperature gradients, which could be influenced by, but not solely caused by, greenhouse gas increases.
2. **Multiple Influences on Climate**: Climate change involves numerous interacting components, including but not limited to solar radiation, ocean currents, albedo effects, aerosols, and greenhouse gases. Each of these elements can affect the Earth’s energy balance in ways that might amplify or mask the effects of greenhouse gases. For example, posts on X and some studies suggest that changes in solar radiation or reductions in anthropogenic aerosols could significantly contribute to warming, potentially confounding the direct attribution to greenhouse gases alone.
3. **Model Limitations**: Climate models, including those using neural networks or traditional GCMs, attempt to simulate these interactions. However, even advanced models like NeuralGCM have limitations in resolution and in representing sub-grid scale processes, which might affect their ability to accurately isolate the effect of incremental greenhouse gases. The complexity of feedback mechanisms, like cloud formation or ice albedo feedback, adds uncertainty to these models.
4. **Empirical Evidence and Observations**: Observational data, such as satellite measurements, show the greenhouse effect is real, but isolating the incremental effect of additional non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 amidst natural variability and other anthropogenic effects (like land use change or other pollutants) is challenging. Some X posts highlight skepticism regarding the attribution, pointing towards other natural or internal variability that could explain part of the observed warming.
5. **Scientific Consensus and Debate**: There’s a broad scientific consensus that greenhouse gases contribute significantly to global warming. However, the precise quantification of this contribution, especially the incremental effect of non-condensing gases against the backdrop of natural climate variability, remains a topic of research and debate. The debate isn’t generally about whether these gases have an effect but how much of the observed warming can be reliably attributed to them given all other variables.
Given these points, while it’s scientifically acknowledged that incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases contribute to warming through their radiative forcing, isolating this effect **reliably** for precise attribution amidst the Earth’s complex and dynamic climate system remains highly challenging. The likelihood of achieving a universally accepted isolation of this effect, considering all natural and anthropogenic confounding factors, is therefore moderate at best due to the inherent complexities and the ongoing scientific endeavor to refine our understanding. ************
The key feature of the condensing nature of water vapour is convective instability. That limits ocean surface temperature to 30C. If you ask ChatGPT to find any region of the global oceans that averages more than 30C over a year it will agree with you that none exceeds 30C.
Given improvements in the last year, you could probably lead it into defining the process of convective instability as observed by monsoon, cyclones and Hadley cells.
You then lead it into why there is a 30C limit and that convective instability actually controls the thermalised radiation into the climate system.
I am out of free time to pursue this question and will not part with money to get the answer I know from ChatGPT or other AI. But the capability is improving.
AI spouts the leftist climate narrative but will not insult the person asking the question. A polite leftist.
This is already happening.
AI = more effective leftist propaganda
Don’t expect any answers to be “We don’t know the answer to your question”
Leftists have all the answers to every question. They have “studied” a huge number of subjects. Eventually they know nothing about everything, such as Joe Bien and Kamala Harris.
Aholes have all the answers to every question. They have “studied” a huge number of subjects. Eventually they know nothing about everything, such as … (see above commenter)
I used Chat GPT a couple of years ago and was unimpressed. It was a regurgitation and depended entirely on its training data.
However, it can now do basic maths and associated research. This is recent output from ChatGPT:
The production of concrete and steel, both essential for constructing wind turbine foundations and towers, requires significant energy, much of which may come from coal, depending on the energy mix of the region.
Concrete Production:
Cement, a key ingredient in concrete, is produced by heating limestone and other materials in a kiln, a process that requires a lot of energy, often from coal.
It’s estimated that producing one ton of cement releases about 0.8 tons of CO2, with a portion of this coming from the combustion of coal.
Steel Production:
Steel is made in blast furnaces where iron ore is reduced with coke (a coal-derived product) and heated to high temperatures.
Producing one ton of steel typically requires about 770 kg of coal, which releases roughly 2.1 tons of CO2.
So it appears it is gaining more attributes of intelligence beyond just reguritating. Most scientists lack the ability for original thought and have become regurgitators. The notion of consensus is pervasive. So AI is already surpassing what most scientists can do.
I think if you kept pressing it on the amount of coal needed to make wind turbines and all the supporting infrastructure to get a dispatchable system, you could probably get it to agree that “renewable” energy was crock-o-s. It does not exist. So that puts it well beyond the capability of most politicians and academics.
I know that open ocean surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. It is that hard temperature limit that ultimately regulates the energy input to the climate system. The process is observed as monsoon, Hadley cells and cyclones. All linked to convective potential that must form in Earth’s atmosphere due to the properties of water vapour. CO2 only contributes to the regulated limit through additional mass from the burnt carbon and that is negligible. I expect AI is not too far from having the ability to connect these dots.
So it appears it is gaining more attributes of intelligence beyond just reguritating.
I am not persuaded. Where is the evidence the the ChatGPT worked out anything for itself?
I will be clear about my doubt: I think ChatGPT presented you with something you found congenial and you have been insufficiently critical.
Ireneusz
August 25, 2024 6:10 am
For the past two years, there has been a reported drop in upper stratospheric temperatures in the tropics, which may indicate a decline in ozone production. The temperature at this level of the atmosphere can only increase due to photolysis of the O2 molecule by UV with a wavelength shorter than 242 nm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
Ireneusz
August 25, 2024 6:23 am
Matt Devitt WINK Weather RARE SUMMER SNOW! At least 4″ of snow and counting in the California mountains with with even more this evening. It’s a winter wonderland…in August!
Depends on whose narrative. More water vapour in the atmosphere means more precipitation. When the air at ground level is less than 0C precipitation becomes snow.
The existing glaciers will grow on the high northern slopes and work their way into the valleys.
The trend in early season snow is strongly upward.
A sure sign of the apocalypse; indicating ever greater urgency to elect the genius salad-maker.
JiminNEF
August 25, 2024 9:31 am
I’m watching the Women’s Open. They’re playing at St Andrews and they are dressed as if at a ski resort. I know it’s just Scottish weather, but it’s still amusing.
i spent a pleasant week in Scotland one September many years ago. Not cold, wet or windy. Weather predictions are almost as difficult as economic forecasts.
Steve Z
August 26, 2024 3:00 am
WUWT had a real time global temperature website on the right hand margin until a few days ago. Now, that website has disappeared. Does anyone have the link to that website? I know the domain name had “global.temperature…” in it. I have Searched for two days, and I still cannot find it. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Honey I shrank the hurricanes. Where have the hurricanes gone? We were promised plenty but halfway the season had only one worth mentioning.
We get the remnants as they cut across the North Atlantic towards Europe. Famously, in 1987 we got the full monty, not just a remnant. The Remnants make for wet and quite windy weather. Even they get a name nowadays.
Nobody could have modelled this year’s weather, which prompted a of of doublethink: a really non-descript and rubbish summer and at the same time the hottest ever. The Guardian came up with a helpful explanation for that:
“”There has been a widespread feeling that this summer was a big letdown, unusually cool and even cold at times. But was it really so bad? “”
[Yes, it was.]
“”The difference now is that extreme heat is taken for granted
…
What has changed is our perceptions as hot summers have become normalised with the growing impact of the climate crisis.””
https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/aug/22/how-climate-crisis-made-this-uk-summer-feel-like-a-letdown-weatherwatch
What you sense and observe… toss that all out; you’re far too dim to even attempt observation, anyway. That’s what the priesthood is for.
Coins come up heads but sometimes they come up tails.
In support of learning how the atmosphere works in response to absorbed energy, here is another set of time-matched images and downloadable videos for Band 16 and GEOCOLOR. This time the CONUS (48 states of the U.S.) region is shown, as “seen” from the GOES East geostationary satellite. The images (i.e. visualizations) are on an hourly interval for 7 days ending on August 19, 2024. The CONUS view is in higher resolution than the “full disk” view of the planet.
The formation and dissipation of clouds during daytime solar heating is impressive to watch. From the Band 16 images, note the importance of cloud variability to the longwave emission to space. And from the GEOCOLOR images, one can clearly see the emergence of cumulus cloud cover in response to daytime heating, with the implied increase in reflection back to space.
The point of this post? We can “watch” the atmosphere’s dynamic self-regulation for both LW emission (in a relevant band of wavelengths) and SW reflection using readily available images from space, in relatively high resolution and in near-real-time.
A large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated, parameter-tuned climate model is simply not capable of generating realistic outputs of LW emission and SW reflection,especially concerning clouds. There can be no diagnostic power in any of those models to determine a climate system response to incremental non-condensing GHGs.
Links
Plot of radiance vs Band 16 “Brightness Temperature” colors. The radiance (i.e. the strength of the longwave emission to space) at 30C, bright yellow, is 10 times the radiance at -90C, white.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=drive_link
Plot of radiance vs. wavelength showing the significance of Band 16 for 2XCO2. The wavelengths of Band 16 (magenta highlight) are responsible for a significant portion of the static radiative effect of the 2XCO2 case. NOAA calls this the “CO2 Longwave IR” band.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=drive_link
Folder containing 168 time-ordered images from GOES East, CONUS region, Band 16, hourly intervals, 7 days ending August 19, 2024 and a downloadable mp4 video of the same.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aNRAJQwmcoBPPj6chzL9LQzr4lkIVwYD?usp=sharing
Folder containing 168 time-ordered images from GOES East, CONUS region, GEOCOLOR, hourly intervals, 7 days ending August 19, 2024 and a downloadable mp4 video of the same. This shows daytime clouds very clearly.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Iufarbi3_AkHZvXl7sk89V8DcW23OVrW?usp=sharing
The NOAA portal for these images:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus.php?sat=G16
Thank you! We’re finally beginning to get data on energy flows and balance to/from the Earth, rather than just useless measures of temperature.
You’re welcome. I appreciate your reply.
hiskorr
Have you also noted that discussion of environmental temperatures is mostly about temperature increases (warming) rather than temperature decreases (cooling)?
Since every warming has an equal and opposite cooling, or we would have seen past run-away temperatures, this indicates a bias in the approach of that most authors have taken to their scientific research.
Bias, especially when not explained as part of overall uncertainty, is one of the main indicators of poor quality science, so often seen in this environmental research emphasis of the last 3 decades or so.
The emphasis on temperatures was, I suggest, there from the start of research for no better reason than the availability of past measurements with capacity to cause panic. Have you noticed the comparative absence of papers about (say) humidity? There was also a data base on humidity, but it might have been a harder variable to use to scare the population.
It is also so shallow. So sad that so many under-educated politicians are swayed by it.
Geoff S
Bias, especially when not explained as part of overall uncertainty, is one of the main indicators of poor quality science”
Identical to the sciences of Health and Medicine.
Wow, your point is well made…for those who look…
Thank you for looking!
Green jobs
British steel to cut 2,500 jobs despite £600m taxpayer-funded green initiative
British Steel is set to close its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe by the end of the year, placing 2,500 jobs in jeopardy. The move comes as the Chinese-owned company seeks to accelerate its transition to greener steel production, despite having received £600 million in taxpayer support.
https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/british-steel-to-cut-2500-jobs-despite-600m-taxpayer-funded-green-initiative/
Added with the green jobs at Port Talbot that comes to 5,500. This is a big numbers game; one industry, two sites. Expensive too.
Before WW2, the biggest steel producers in the world were Krupp and US Steel. China knows that steel production makes you “da boss”…
Gota love Chinese “stainless”. Half a season on a boat renders a Magma BBQ rusted in spots all over.
Trump and Vance have now made the high cost of energy and especially electricity an election issue, promising to cut both. More power to them.
More power to them, but how are they going to get their message out? The US media have a de facto ban on important election coverage. Anything that helps Republicans and hurts Democrats is simply not reported, except by accident. Facts and policies are chief among the things that can help Trump and hurt Harris.
It is not quite that bad. We own radio talk shows and there are conservative newspapers and Fox TV. Then there is the Internet which is far more important than newspapers.
On the other hand, dems command the dead vote and other forms of cheating.
Yes but we are not trying to get the message to the dead, just the brain dead.
👏 👏 👏 👍 👍 👍 👍
And the illegal walk-in vote.
That crap should be nipped in the bud by Trump
Take the cheating weapons out of the hands of the Democrats
social media
Reagan went directly to the people via Presidential Addresses.
Trump did it via “Social Media” (and they called for him to be banned from Twitter etc.) to shut him down.
The Left wants to control the “paper” contrary opinions are “printed” on.
Some facts:
US oil production set a record in 2023 under Biden
There are no US oil refineries with oil shortages
Oil production on federal land was higher under Biden than under Trump
During Biden’s tenure, the United States has continued to produce and export the most crude oil out of any country, at any time.
If Trump were president, he would be talking about the great oil boom in the United States
“Drill Baby Drill” is just a campaign slogan that would be counterproductive for the oil industry.
Even during a great year for the industry, 2023, the net profit margins were not very high. The industry does not need to increase oil production and lower their already modest net profit margins.
4Q 2023 Net Profit Margins
Chevron 9%
ExxonMobil 10%
Apple 25%
2017 to 2021
Trump fought the Deep State
The Deep State won
2021 to 2025
Biden fought Big Oil
Big Oil won
That should be “despite Biden.”
And he sold our “Strategic Oil Reserve” to China.
Then why did Biden
1) drain the SPR?
2) cancel the Keystone pipeline?
3) enable Putin’s Nordstream II pipeline?
4) cancel O/G lease bidding?
5) go hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia begging them to increase oil supplies?
5) cancel sanctions against Iran & Venezuela so they could produce/sell more oil?
Here are some thoughts on the effect of a greening planet on global temperatures :
I have been looking for an answer to this question for a while and while searching on the web I found that the incoming solar radiation fraction absorbed by photosynthesis is estimated to be about 1%.
According to the Earth energy budget (NASA 2017), the TSI fraction absorbed by the surface is 163.3 W/m².
Thus, the photosynthesis may absorb some 1.63 W/m². The absorbed photons contribute to carbohydrates production instead of heat. Thus the photosynthesis has a cooling effect of 1.63 W/m².
During the last 40 years, the CO2 concentration increased by some 20% and the planet vegetation increased by about the same amount.
It is estimated that the CO2 contribution to this greening is about 70% :
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
So we can estimate the cooling by photosynthesis increase induced by CO2 in the last 40 years :
– It is 1.63 * 0.2 * 0.7 = 0.23 W/m².
On the other hand, assuming that a CO2 doubling induces an increase in the radiative forcing of 3 W/m² in a clear sky, as found in the William Happer’s paper, assuming that clouds block all infrared emitted by the surface, and using the logarithmic formula used by the IPCC with Happer’s parameter and taking a 67% cloudiness into account, we find that the CO2 concentration increase of 20% during the last 40 years may have increased the radiative forcing by 3 * (1 – 0.67) * ln (1.2) / ln (2) = 0.26 W/m².
So, if all those “by rule of thumb” assumptions aren’t too wrong, the net raditative forcing of the CO2 during the last 40 years should be almost 0 (0.03 W/m²).
Perhaps this is why a cross-correlation analysis between CO2 concentration and UAH temperatures does not show any correlation from CO2 towards temperatures ?
While a period of 40 years is greater than the designated 30 year rule for a [climate component] trend, it’s still less than a nanosecond in geological time.
What is one to do when theory disagrees with reality? Put it to a vote?
In that time period CO2 levels were a lagging feedback to changes in ocean temperature.
Global manmade CO2 emissions were negligible until the 1970s.
You can not use data with ZERO manmade CO2 emissions to explain the climate effect of manmade CO2 emissions.
Global manmade CO2 is still negligible.
You have proven that cannot provide ANY data to show it has any warming effect.
The only measurable effect is biosphere enhancement.
This is a good point, that the incremental energy going into the chemical products of photosynthesis should not be ignored. And what about photosynthesis in the oceans?
He said “absorbed by photosynthesis” which could included the phytoplankton in the ocean
Humans are now adding about 5 ppm of CO2 a year and nature is absorbing about 2.5 ppm of CO2 a year. What else do you need to know?
The manmade CO2 emissions have been gradually increasing and a greening planet probably absorbs more CO2. So what?
The atmospheric CO2 level keeps increasing. That makes some people panic, while I celebrate the change.
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. Down to 180 ppm just 20,000 years ago. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good news if done using modern pollution controls.
Human CO2 is only about 4% of the total CO2 flux.
The Natural flux increases as the planet warms.
A small increase in natural flux totally overwhelms human released COR2, so much so that the rate of increase is almost totally in lockstep with ocean atmospheric temperatures.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters (rclutz.com)
Doesn’t your ignorance let you learn anything or are you still stuck with all the erroneous AGW-mantra you have been brain-washed with ?
“CO2 concentration and UAH temperatures does not show any correlation from CO2 towards temperatures ?”
The correlation is strong and positive
Are you deliberately being bling to reality?
You are almost a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter.
Making conservatives look foolish.
Others here will soon be here to defend you.
CO2 denial is a great way to never be taken seriously by the general public and almost all scientists.
Can you demonstrate that the correlation is not spurious? All we see from you are your personal opinions.
You have been asked MANY times to show the CO2 warming in the UAH data..
and have failed completely every time.
You make yourself look like a complete fool… a great way to be laughed at.
While photosynthesis may absorb energy, a lot of that energy is only sequestered for a few months. When fall/winter take over, that energy is returned as plants/leaves die off.
There is some long term growth, but calculating it will be more complex.
NASA estimates the terrestrial vegetation increase at nearly 20%. Is there any reason to suppose that marine phytoplankton growth wouldn’t be of the same magnitude?
Part of the imbalance is created by the seasonal photosynthetic CO2 draw-down being bracketed by the first killing frost and the last killing frost. As the planet warms, the seasonal draw-down phase will lengthen, removing more atmospheric CO2. The issue is the rates of emission and removal, with the rate of removal being much higher.
In 1938, Professor David Brunt commented on Guy Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
An excerpt from that comment:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
What was the Professor talking about? Why was the expectation of “warming” incomplete and therefore misleading?
Consider this description of a computed hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis model – the “vertical integral of energy conversion.” I have pasted it here. Bold emphasis mine.
************************
Name
Vertical integral of energy conversion
Short name
viec
Unit
W m-2
Description
This parameter is one contribution to the amount of energy being converted between kinetic energy, and internal plus potential energy, for a column of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere. Negative values indicate a conversion to kinetic energy from potential plus internal energy.
This parameter can be used to study the atmospheric energy budget. The circulation of the atmosphere can also be considered in terms of energy conversions.
*******************
This is important to understand. It explains how the attribution of “warming” to the incremental static radiative effect of rising concentrations of non-condensing GHGs has been unsound all along. One cannot isolate “warmer” from “faster” and “higher” in the atmosphere’s dynamic response to absorbed energy.
The fashionable claim that “scientists have known” that incremental CO2 must cause the surface to warm (i.e. to accumulate energy as sensible heat) neglects what scientists have also known about the general circulation.
Does anyone think that the introduction of AI will bring a new perspective on the “climate crisis”, global warming, and hazards? I am hoping AI will cut through BS and provide a non-biased assessment? Or will it just suck up the internet’s mis-truths and inaccurate climate science?
ChatGPT heavily relies on the BBC and Wikipedia. I hope that helps.
If anything, we will be in aggregate less intelligent and less scientific.
Lots of people think the thing we’re suddently calling “AI” is intelligent. It isn’t.
It won’t. It can’t. It never will. We are as far from general artificial intelligence as we’ve ever been. LLMs don’t have any capacity to reason. They can do things clever people can do, like translate languages and summarize sources, and identify/classify images and sounds, but that’s about it. They are not clever.
Look at many of the images at the head of these WUWT posts. Many of them are AI generated. You can tell what the subject of the image is because it looks like what it is supposed to be, but you are not looking at a photo of a real thing. That farm of ruined off-shore wind turbines doesn’t exist, but if it did, it might look a bit like that. That image is not proof of anything. When a so-called AI burps up one of its word-salads it is doing the same thing. It is generating something that superficially resembles what a real answer would look like but it is not in any sense an answer. To use Wolfgang Pauli’s phrase, those utterances aren’t even wrong. Putting it a little differently, AI is only going to turbocharge the BS.
I asked the Grok 2 AI in X this question and was given the following answer, which is much more moderate than the climate movement wants us to believe:
*************
Me:
Given that the general circulation of the atmosphere involves the conversion of kinetic energy to internal energy + potential energy and vice versa, how likely is it that the radiative effect of incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases can ever be isolated for reliable attribution of the reported warming?
Grok:
The isolation of the radiative effect of incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases for reliable attribution of global warming is a complex issue due to several factors:
1. **Atmospheric Energy Dynamics**: The general circulation of the atmosphere involves a continuous conversion between kinetic energy, potential energy, and internal energy. This dynamic interplay complicates the isolation of any single factor’s effect, like that of non-condensing greenhouse gases, because changes in one form of energy can lead to adjustments in others. For instance, an increase in kinetic energy might be related to changes in wind patterns due to temperature gradients, which could be influenced by, but not solely caused by, greenhouse gas increases.
2. **Multiple Influences on Climate**: Climate change involves numerous interacting components, including but not limited to solar radiation, ocean currents, albedo effects, aerosols, and greenhouse gases. Each of these elements can affect the Earth’s energy balance in ways that might amplify or mask the effects of greenhouse gases. For example, posts on X and some studies suggest that changes in solar radiation or reductions in anthropogenic aerosols could significantly contribute to warming, potentially confounding the direct attribution to greenhouse gases alone.
3. **Model Limitations**: Climate models, including those using neural networks or traditional GCMs, attempt to simulate these interactions. However, even advanced models like NeuralGCM have limitations in resolution and in representing sub-grid scale processes, which might affect their ability to accurately isolate the effect of incremental greenhouse gases. The complexity of feedback mechanisms, like cloud formation or ice albedo feedback, adds uncertainty to these models.
4. **Empirical Evidence and Observations**: Observational data, such as satellite measurements, show the greenhouse effect is real, but isolating the incremental effect of additional non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 amidst natural variability and other anthropogenic effects (like land use change or other pollutants) is challenging. Some X posts highlight skepticism regarding the attribution, pointing towards other natural or internal variability that could explain part of the observed warming.
5. **Scientific Consensus and Debate**: There’s a broad scientific consensus that greenhouse gases contribute significantly to global warming. However, the precise quantification of this contribution, especially the incremental effect of non-condensing gases against the backdrop of natural climate variability, remains a topic of research and debate. The debate isn’t generally about whether these gases have an effect but how much of the observed warming can be reliably attributed to them given all other variables.
Given these points, while it’s scientifically acknowledged that incremental non-condensing greenhouse gases contribute to warming through their radiative forcing, isolating this effect **reliably** for precise attribution amidst the Earth’s complex and dynamic climate system remains highly challenging. The likelihood of achieving a universally accepted isolation of this effect, considering all natural and anthropogenic confounding factors, is therefore moderate at best due to the inherent complexities and the ongoing scientific endeavor to refine our understanding.
************
Your question was way too broad.
The key feature of the condensing nature of water vapour is convective instability. That limits ocean surface temperature to 30C. If you ask ChatGPT to find any region of the global oceans that averages more than 30C over a year it will agree with you that none exceeds 30C.
Given improvements in the last year, you could probably lead it into defining the process of convective instability as observed by monsoon, cyclones and Hadley cells.
You then lead it into why there is a 30C limit and that convective instability actually controls the thermalised radiation into the climate system.
I am out of free time to pursue this question and will not part with money to get the answer I know from ChatGPT or other AI. But the capability is improving.
AI spouts the leftist climate narrative but will not insult the person asking the question. A polite leftist.
This is already happening.
AI = more effective leftist propaganda
Don’t expect any answers to be “We don’t know the answer to your question”
Leftists have all the answers to every question. They have “studied” a huge number of subjects. Eventually they know nothing about everything, such as Joe Bien and Kamala Harris.
Aholes have all the answers to every question. They have “studied” a huge number of subjects. Eventually they know nothing about everything, such as … (see above commenter)
I used Chat GPT a couple of years ago and was unimpressed. It was a regurgitation and depended entirely on its training data.
However, it can now do basic maths and associated research. This is recent output from ChatGPT:
So it appears it is gaining more attributes of intelligence beyond just reguritating. Most scientists lack the ability for original thought and have become regurgitators. The notion of consensus is pervasive. So AI is already surpassing what most scientists can do.
I think if you kept pressing it on the amount of coal needed to make wind turbines and all the supporting infrastructure to get a dispatchable system, you could probably get it to agree that “renewable” energy was crock-o-s. It does not exist. So that puts it well beyond the capability of most politicians and academics.
I know that open ocean surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. It is that hard temperature limit that ultimately regulates the energy input to the climate system. The process is observed as monsoon, Hadley cells and cyclones. All linked to convective potential that must form in Earth’s atmosphere due to the properties of water vapour. CO2 only contributes to the regulated limit through additional mass from the burnt carbon and that is negligible. I expect AI is not too far from having the ability to connect these dots.
I am not persuaded. Where is the evidence the the ChatGPT worked out anything for itself?
I will be clear about my doubt: I think ChatGPT presented you with something you found congenial and you have been insufficiently critical.
For the past two years, there has been a reported drop in upper stratospheric temperatures in the tropics, which may indicate a decline in ozone production. The temperature at this level of the atmosphere can only increase due to photolysis of the O2 molecule by UV with a wavelength shorter than 242 nm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
Matt Devitt WINK Weather
RARE SUMMER SNOW! At least 4″ of snow and counting in the California mountains with with even more this evening. It’s a winter wonderland…in August!
That’s a beautiful thing. Doesn’t quite fit the narrative, however.
Depends on whose narrative. More water vapour in the atmosphere means more precipitation. When the air at ground level is less than 0C precipitation becomes snow.
The existing glaciers will grow on the high northern slopes and work their way into the valleys.
The trend in early season snow is strongly upward.
A sure sign of the apocalypse; indicating ever greater urgency to elect the genius salad-maker.
I’m watching the Women’s Open. They’re playing at St Andrews and they are dressed as if at a ski resort. I know it’s just Scottish weather, but it’s still amusing.
i spent a pleasant week in Scotland one September many years ago. Not cold, wet or windy. Weather predictions are almost as difficult as economic forecasts.
WUWT had a real time global temperature website on the right hand margin until a few days ago. Now, that website has disappeared. Does anyone have the link to that website? I know the domain name had “global.temperature…” in it. I have Searched for two days, and I still cannot find it. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
I found it. https://temperature.global
A surprising message on their home page…
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Temperature.Global will be shutting down 12/31/24
No explanation given. 01 January 2025 would have been their 10th anniverary.