The beginning: “The Massachusetts legislature is considering proposed bill S2967 — “An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers.” The Senate addressed the bill first and it has since been delayed in the House. During the Senate debate, the chairman of the committee that helped draft the bill mentioned, “building out an entirely new electric grid is expensive…real expensive.” He further elaborated “so now you’ve got the electric grid, offshore wind, storage, lots of costs being brought to bare.”
However, no monetary value was ever mentioned. How expensive will this self-imposed transition actually be? We decided to break it down and look at a single measurable part of this bill that mandates the utility purchase of a huge amount of grid scale batteries by 2030, beginning in 2025. These batteries will cost many billions of dollars while they serve no useful purpose. This is explained briefly below.
The amount of batteries is somewhat unclear. The Bill specifies that 5,000 Megawatts (MW) of batteries be bought but this is the discharge capacity, that is how fast the batteries can be emptied. The storage capacity is what counts and that is measured in Megawatt-hours (MWh). Specifying MW is like buying juice based on how fast it pours not how much the bottle holds.
The Bill does include a range of storage capacities which bounds the cost somewhat. Most of the batteries are what is called mid-duration which means they can provide full discharge for from four to 10 hours. Almost all grid scale battery systems these days are four hour duration so for simplicity we will start by assuming the whole 5,000 MW buy is four hour batteries.
This gives 20,000 MWh of storage. Battery systems today run around $500,000 per MWh. That gives a total cost of $10,000,000,000 or ten billion dollars which equals roughly 17% of the current state budget. If 10 hour batteries are purchased the cost jumps to $25,000,000,000 or twenty-five billion dollars. The Bill actually calls for a good bit of longer duration batteries as well which makes the cost even higher.
These hugely expensive mandatory purchases will do little by way of supporting the transition to a grid run on solar, wind and batteries.
The average total electricity usage in Massachusetts is about 5,700 MWh per hour. In a solar, wind and battery world 20,000 MWh of batteries lasts just three and a half hours on average windless nights. On deadly cold nights this is more like just two hours, then you freeze in the dark. If we also electrify home heat and cars it is more like a mere one hour.”
Lots of resistance to the actual implementation of green energy by green energy whack jobs in western Wokeachusetts. Nobody now wants wind turbines on land- anywhere in the state. Lots of resistance to solar farms too – and now resistance building up against industrial battery systems. One in the town of Wendell is called: “No Assault & Batteries”. And I’ll repeat- this is from people who are green whack jobs. Their problem is that this green shit is now in THEIR area and they don’t like it.
Here’s the story about the batteries in the Greenfield Recorder.
Wendell’s No Assault & Batteries to host speakers on proposed battery storage facility
Wendell is a town noted for its large “old hippy” contingent. There was once a well known 60s hippy commune in the town. The nearby Connecticut River Valley is a far left region- probably the most far left in the entire far left state.
What the people in that area- and much of the rest of the state want- is green energy without the blight. They think just covering every building in the state and many parking lots with solar panels will do the trick for net zero. They hate seeing farms and forests being destroyed for solar panels and of course I agree with that. But they were all for it until they started popping up in their area. When a solar farm was built near my ‘hood in low income central Wokeachusetts back in 2012, I asked for their help in fighting it- got no help and instead was told how wonderful green energy will be. Hypocrites and nimbys.
At that link I see, “It’s time to start asking the tough questions.” A few of us here in Wokeachusetts have been challenging the green idiocy for many years and have been totally ignored by the media and the enviro groups. Years ago I wrote to the state Republican Party and asked their opinion about green energy. Got no reply. Wrote to the state’s Libertarian Party- and only got, “we don’t like big government”. In my modest working class neighborhood- of mostly small ranch houses- by now, maybe half of the homes have solar panels- yet few face south. Most face east or west. When I walk around the ‘hood, I like to see if the panels are getting direct sunlight on them. I seldom see that, especially in the winter when the sun is low in the sky most of the day.
Here, the companies that sell solar to home owners never tell the owner that trees are a problem for the panels. I see lots of trees here blocking the sunlight to the panels. I’m sure if people were told their trees would have to be cut down or heavily trimmed, they wouldn’t bother with solar. Also, I’ve had several solar salesmen come to the door. I tell them, “I’m busy but if you leave me your card I’ll check out your web site”. That’s when they start coughing, “oh, uh… we don’t have business cards because we’re green- don’t want to waste paper”. duh!
A mid-December night with no wind would require 12 hours of battery backup. 15 hours if you charged to 80% of capacity to extend battery life.
10 hours is not enough.
4 hours is BS
Two windless or low wind days in a row would be much worse.
Massachusetts already buys a significant portion of its electric power from other states, as it consumes more electricity than it produces within its borders,
Massachusetts utilities also signed a 20-year contract to purchase 9.45 million MWh of electricity annually from Hydro-Quebec.
I’m pretty sure the people of Maine voted against it. I only superficially pay attention to the topic. That resistance was led by the same enviros who resist everything about all forms of energy.
In fact MA imports about 60% of its juice. EIA says last year they produced about 20 million MWh but consumed about 50 million. So the HQ deal would be about a third of imports. The nearest US states that are net exporters are PA and OH both of which burn coal! HQ may also have some fossil generation. Have to check.
Don’t know about that, Eric. Would we have had 75 or so years of post-WW2 prosperity and relative peace if there hadn’t been WW2? The losers of that war, Germany and Japan certainly prospered even more than the winners (ignoring the DDR, which didn’t prosper very much).
As the new administration takes over soon in the U.S., it will be important to explain more widely and more effectively why the “climate” movement was wrong from the beginning. Fundamentally it was (and still is) the failure to properly account for how the atmosphere responds dynamically to the incrementally stronger absorbing power as CO2 concentrations rise.
Professor David Brunt made a comment in 1938 that captures this problem with Guy Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2.
““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 about now? Brunt knew what he was talking about. Modern satellite imaging, along with the advanced numerical modeling of the atmosphere in the form of the ERA5 reanalysis, show plainly how the dynamic response should allay any concerns about energy being made to accumulate down here as sensible heat, from what rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O do in the atmosphere.
Outside the US we watch and wait. What can we British do apart from cringe at Parliament and the executive – all pro net zero.
If you want ” to explain more widely “ you will first have to negate what is being taught/indoctrinated into the young in education at all levels. Something is definitely wrong when academia [mainly in the US] has to take a day or more out to deal with post-election grief and trauma.
Almost every classroom is being taught by de-facto activists using material like this:
“”What is climate change? A really simple guide
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, with more intense heatwaves and rising sea-levels among the consequences. Things are likely to worsen in the coming decades, but scientists argue urgent action can still limit the worst effects of climate change.”” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
….it will be important to explain more widely and more effectively why the “climate” movement was wrong from the beginning…
No, this is the last thing that will be important.
What is important is to explain more widely and effectively that the energy policies advocated by activists are impossible and useless. This is what is going to impoverish us and kill people.
Whether there is a climate crisis or not, makes no difference:
The largest and fastest growing emitters have no intention of reducing so your efforts will be futile
You can’t run countries on wind and solar because intermittency
And especially you can’t do it while raising demand from heat pumps and EVs.
I understand your point, and agree with the tactical imperative to stop the madness of energy policies.
But I also acknowledge that the ideological core of the overzealous commitment to “renewables” must be neutralized. This is important to stop the destructive and erroneous conditioning of children and young adults, especially, as strativarius points out nearby.
You’re both right. Civil society in all its manifestations has been taken over by a revolutionary movement that has infinite patience in implementing its agenda. It seized on the climate issue and managed to sell it to our ignorant leaders with spectacular results to date; it has more recently seized on a certain religion that shares its goal of destroying western civilisation, and of course it has seized on (or maybe created) identity politics, gender activism and ancestral guilt over slavery. It’s also discovered open borders and unlimited deficit spending. It’s a many-headed hydra.
I pray that Trump’s new term in office will help the scales to fall from the eyes of at least some of the millions of indoctrinated souls in America. I’m very cautiously optimistic but I’m not actually holding my breath. The revolutionaries embedded in our midst haven’t given up yet; they’ve just received a setback.
While all of that is interesting and informative, it is irrelevant for changes in CO2 concentration. Increasing CO2 itself forces a reduction in high altitude water vapor which counters the increased IR absorption of CO2. Overall, the total opacity of the atmosphere stays almost constant (see Miskolczi 2023).
Richard,
Maybe you should explain this phenomenon in more detail. It isn’t readily apparent why increased CO2 results in reduced water vapor at high altitude. Maybe the increased CO2 radiates more heat to outer space causing more stratospheric cooling, thus ice crystals to migrate downwards ? or what ?
Also I think you maybe miss the point of David’s NOAA videos. Basically, warm spots radiate so much more IR heat to outer space… that the 4 watts caused by a doubling of CO2 is nearly irrelevant, and much more irrelevant than just plugging “average” temperatures into Stephan-Boltzmann would indicate.
Integrating “watts/sq.M” over the planet from the GOES DATA rather than averaging “temperature” over the planet would give better answers. But you can see from his videos that such an integration is going to be wishful thinking on the part of a mathematician with no experience in instrumentation.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, “such an integration is going to be wishful thinking.” That is why I never refer to these images and videos to make any point about an overall number in W/m^2. Rather, the images help conceptualize the dynamic self-regulation that is going on between the surface and space. And this is in a specific band of IR wavelengths in which incremental CO2 is claimed to produce a “warming” result. As you know, I have no dispute with the claimed incremental static radiative effect.
For that matter, a geostationary satellite cannot be placed over the poles, so you couldn’t integrate over the whole planet in any case from the relatively high resolution, near-real-time radiance data from a GOES imager.
I have no problem with David’s comment. I agree with him that the atmosphere will react to heating in a very specific way. I pointed out that CO2 does not cause any heating and therefore would not cause such a reaction.
Follow this logic to understand why IR radiation from CO2 cannot warm Earth’s surface. . -Almost all surface IR absorption by CO2 occurs within the first 10 meters of the surface at current CO2 concentrations. -After IR energy is absorbed, collisions with other gas molecules pass the energy on to those molecules about 99.999% of the time. -These same types of collisions can induce a CO2 molecule to emit IR radiation at the 15 µm wavelength. Half of the radiation will be downward. -Almost all downward radiation from above 10 meters is reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules. -When downwelling IR from CO2 below 10 meters is absorbed at the surface, the surface warms and the lower atmosphere cools … temporarily. -The lower atmosphere and surface continually share energy through conduction via gas molecules colliding with the surface. -Conduction occurs between all gas molecules and the surface. While net energy exchange is quite low, the total amount of energy moving back and forth is large. -Due to the cooling of the lower atmosphere mentioned above and warming of the surface caused by CO2 downwelling IR, the surface will conduct more energy into the lower atmosphere. -This modified energy flow is nearly instantaneous and counters the warming effect of the increases in downwelling IR from CO2. The net change in temperature is essentially zero. -Occasionally, the downwelling CO2 IR will lead to evaporation at the surface. -Evaporation is a process which removes both the energy which caused the event and existing energy within the water molecule from the surface. This creates a water vapor molecule. -More evaporation increases lower atmosphere buoyancy since water vapor is a lighter molecule. This will trend to move water vapor upward in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses moving the energy away from the surface and lower atmosphere. This cools the lower atmosphere/surface. -Increased buoyancy accelerates convection which drives water vapor higher into the colder troposphere. -Colder air causes more high atmosphere condensation. -Increased condensation reduces high altitude water vapor. -Less high altitude water vapor allows more energy to be radiated to space
-The extra energy radiated to space in the water vapor spectral bands balances out the additional energy absorbed at the edges of the CO2 spectral bands. The net energy flow is unchanged.
All that matters is the downward component of the vector. If the energy is reabsorbed prior to reaching the surface then it’s not considered part of the set of events for computing the average altitude. That is why the altitude is less than 10 meters.
Because of this low altitude the radiation is essentially no different than conduction. Net conduction will be changed slightly in reaction to energy absorbed by the surface which doesn’t result in evaporation.
This means it is impossible for CO2 to warm the surface. The only result of downward radiation is a small increase in evaporation.
The back-radiation is not the cause of CO2 based warming. It is absorption of energy at the edges of 15 µm bands (aka the atmospheric window).
The evaporation enhances the water cycle which reduces high altitude water vapor, the only place where saturation of water vapor absorption is not present. This reduces water vapor’s greenhouse absorption which counters the increased absorption by CO2 from the atmospheric window.
Richard M, thank you for your reply. I hope on further consideration that you will see that the direct near-real-time observation of outgoing IR from GOES East shows the layperson that whatever they have been told about a passive “greenhouse” blanket-like effect is plainly wrong. And the plots of energy conversion values from ERA5 show the engineer, the scientist, and the meteorologist how unsound it has always been to think that the CO2 “warming” effect could be isolated for analysis. This is important conceptually, to neutralize the IPCC’s attribution claims.
Professor Brunt of Brunt-Viasala fame? He most definitely knew whereof he spoke. I really like this…
““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.”
I just put the finishing touches on an explanatory essay, not for WUWT but for another organization, that said just about the same thing. In effect, the atmosphere and concepts like thermodynamics and heat/moisture transport are so complex that simple models fail to illustrate the situation to any useful degree. In fact as Brunt says, simple models can be misleading.
After a brief search, YES! That is the same David Brunt.
And about your point, “In effect, the atmosphere and concepts like thermodynamics and heat/moisture transport are so complex…” – yes, imagine the complexity of the ERA5 reanalysis model! But it is a gold mine in the sense that its outputs, e.g. for energy conversion, help to put the claims about CO2 “warming” into proper perspective.
David,
I would never argue against presenting evidence that contradicts a theory of catastrophic effects, however, in my view we face fundamentally a political problem. The most urgent need is for persuasion, rather than to advance a scientific argument. The need is to appeal to the interests of the voters.
In large part this is because the motivations of many (most?) people pushing NetZero policy have little to nothing to do with actual climate change. It is a Trojan Horse to bring in mechanisms of control.
It should be apparent from four decades of experience that The Science ™ is cooked to tell a story. Ambiguity is the friend of deception.
In theory if you could prove your ideas in a way that no charlatan climastrologer could plausibly dispute, that might convince some people who are scientifically literate enough to grasp the concept. Too many would remain mystified. And in reality, ironclad proof is elusive.
But everyone can see the cost of electricity skyrocketing and the effects of inflation on the cost of everything. Add in rolling blackouts and the futility of making any impact given the growth in emissions in China and India, and I think most people could be convinced. They don’t need proof that CO2 is harmless. They need to be assured that at worst it would be a manageable concern.
On the scientific front I think your ideas can contribute to a sense that there’s no apocalypse looming and therefore pulling back from the aggressive policies of the past decade is not risky.
Thank you for your reply. You’re not wrong that “Too many would remain mystified.”
But in parallel as opposition to the destructive energy policy agenda gains traction, I believe we also need to expose the core error of the “climate change” messaging. Among skeptics, many are quite capably dealing with the senseless push into wind, solar, batteries, etc. But few skeptics seem to grasp just how misguided the “warming” claims were from the beginning, on technical grounds. I aim to move the needle.
I appreciate how you concluded, “On the scientific front I think your ideas can contribute to a sense that there’s no apocalypse looming and therefore pulling back from the aggressive policies of the past decade is not risky.” I would, however, not claim any originality concerning the scientific work that I am pointing out, describing, and posting for visualization.
“Despite all the hysteria surrounding human emissions, it turns out that fossil fuel emissions have a negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 levels,” FIRST SENTENCE AT THE LINK ABOVE
That sentence is a lie. Only fools believe that. But it would qualify the article for the semi-regular once a week junk science article here … which allows leftists to call this website a science denying website … and ignore all the other good articles here.
The question of why CO2 concentration has risen is a completely different question from whether rising CO2 has a significant or dangerous impact.
I would argue that fossil fuel burning has caused around 90% of the rise in CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.042%, but there is no evidence that the observed warming of the past 30 years is harmful and inconclusive evidence that rising CO2 has been the cause of significant warming.
As ever, you continue to provide material for us to wonder which side you are actually on. But while I have your attention here — regarding that so-called “Honest Climate” website of yours, have you surpassed over a million views by now, rapidly on your way to 2 million considering the hockey stick-style rise in number you ascribe to it over the last year and a half or so? And is there a real site visitor counter to be seen anywhere in it to prove you have any visitors there at all – particularly recent ones?
Every day I recommend at least 12 conservative author articles that refute CAGW and Net Zero
No CO2 does nothing articles recommended
No CO2 is dangerous articles recommended
99% of recommended articles are written by others. Some WUWT articles are always recommended. The energy articles here are good and so are most of the climate articles.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is beneficial for life on our planet. We should be celebrating our milder winters and greening of our planet.
Humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. The climate got warmer, just as over 99% of scientists had predicted. But the actual pattern of warming in the past 50 years was good news, not a crisis.
The worst argument to counter the false claim that AGW is bad news (CAGW) is the equally false claim that AGW does not exist. Or the false claim that the CO2 increase was 95% natural, when it was really 100% manmade.
This is a serious suggestion: counters such as you have are outdated (as in 90’s) web technology and are not accurate (see above). The first link also needs a really good revamp in design. I realize you’re probably not a professional at web design but you might want to have one at least take a look at it.
Any honest discussion forum SHOULD have differences of opinion. If everyone is singing the same song, then it’s a fraudulent, phony discussion site. Probably the majority of people here believe CO2 has some impact on the climate, but most think the impact is minimal. So your constant ranting against anyone who has a different opinion- and saying that leftists can then say the site is a denier site is without merit- but it’s probably true that if 1% of the people think CO2 has no impact- that the lefties WILL say that, proving what? What it proves is that they’re cultists who think everyone’s opinion must line up. Differences of opinion are fine- no need to rant against them. Just ignore opinions you don’t like. Focus your ranting against the climate emergency nut jobs.
I want this website to be respected.
The CO2 Does Nothing articles and comments have the opposite effect.
I want CAGW to be refuted
The AGW is Fake belief in comments has the opposite effect
The authors of CO2 Does Nothing and AGW is Fake articles and comments do not deserve respect because they help the climate alarmists by denying 127 years of science and over 99% of scientists.
They are the equivalent of Trump claiming global warming is a Chinese hoax.
It’ll never be respected- the same way the MSM will never respect Joe Rogan, to their own detriment. Who cares if Mickey Mann et. al. don’t respect this site. Of course they don’t. This site isn’t a peer reviewed journal. It’s an open discussion forum- for us to debate and often disagree- which is why it’s the best climate site on the planet. We don’t need nags.
Citations to scientific papers providing the “correct” numbers please.
Remember that “If there isn’t an error range (/ confidence interval), it isn’t science”.
.
Maybe you should have continued reading to the third sentence :
The research, published in the Science of Climate Change, argues that sea surface temperatures (SST) play a far more significant role than anthropogenic (human-caused) factors in determining annual changes in atmospheric CO? levels.
The researchers did not actually say what you inferred that they were saying from a single sentence.
They genuinely “believe” in their results, and being scientists they know that they are “wrong” — the only uncertainty is by how much, which future research will help narrow down — but they are not “lying”.
.
In future please try to rise to (at least) level 3 of the “debate pyramid”, instead of repeatedly demonstrating to the entire world your incapacity to rise above level 7, i.e. “Name calling (and/or Abuse)”.
The ice core proxies estimate that 1 degree of ocean warming would cause a mere 20 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 in the absece of manmade CO2 emissions.
With manmade CO2 emissions, oceans are a net absorber of CO2 They do not add CO2 to the atmosphere.
When the first sentence of an article is false, there is no logical reason for further reading.
The ice core proxies estimate that 1 degree of ocean warming would cause a mere 20 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 in the absece of manmade CO2 emissions.
Lol. You twonk! You believe anything you read without the slightest evidence and then spew it out again as the ultimate truth on which to base even more nonsense. I have a nice watch you might like to buy…..
The ice core proxies estimate that 1 degree of ocean warming would cause a mere 20 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 in the absece of manmade CO2 emissions.
Attached is a “zoomed view” of the EPICA ice-core — surface / GMST, not “ocean” / SST ! — temperature proxy (deuterium isotope ratios) and the Vostok CO2 measurements from bubbles in that core, from just before the Eemian interglacial to 100 kya (thousand years ago)..
This clearly shows the glacial-to-interglacial transition around 135 to 130 kya, where CO2 appears to trail behind the temperature “ramp” … but the “age models” used may shift them enough to question this …
After the “peaks” in both curves around 129 kya temperatures dropped until ~127 kya (by ~1.5°C), had a very “long and slow bounce” (of “only” 0.5°C) to ~123 kya, then “rolled over” and dropped steadily until ~108.5 kya (by ~4°C).
In parallel, CO2 levels “bounced around” between 260 and 280 ppm until ~113 kya, and then steadily dropped to ~230 ppm by ~105.5 kya, with a value around 245 ppm at the 108 kya date.
4°C lower GMST for around 25 ppm (270 – 245) less CO2 … that’s more like 6 ppm per degree, not 20 … and the trajectories definitely don’t have a correlation close to 1.
.
When the first sentence of a “rebuttal” is empirically false, there is no logical reason for further reading.
Gotta agree with RG on this point. A search for “anthropogenic atmospheric increase of CO2” has many articles by people with high grade qualifications that also agree with him, whereas same search for “anthropogenic atmospheric decrease of CO2”…well…nada…
I agree that the article’s claims are wrong, but they are not DENYING science, they are practicing science badly.
To say ‘denying’ is to imply some kind of revealed Truth. There’s strong evidence that most of the reason why our atmosphere has gone from 280ppm CO2 to 420ppm is the result of fossil fuel burning and a mass balance argument is in my view irrefutable, but everyone should be allowed to put forth hypotheses. That is the true meaning of science.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.839 g of CO2 and mass of 1.29 kg at STP.
Presently, in air at 70 deg. F and with 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 14.3 g of H2O, a mass of 1.20 kg, and only 0.78 g of CO2.
To the first approximation and with all things being equal, H2O is ca.
97% of the greenhouse effect. Since 71% of the earth’s surface, H2O
is always the main greenhouse and CO2 is a a minor trace greenhouse gas. The small amount of CO2 in air can heat up such a large amount of air by only a very small amount if at all.
We do not have too worry about CO2. Since 1988, the IPCC has been lying to us.
As I said, the question of what causes the rise in CO2 is a completely separate issue from whether CO2 is the primary cause of the observed modest warming of the past few decades.
Nothing I said here should be construed to mean that fossil fuel burning has any dangerous impact. Indeed, the increase in CO2 concentration which was the clear result of fossil fuel burning has on balance been very beneficial to human flourishing.
“As I said, the question of what causes the rise in CO2 is a completely separate issue from whether CO2 is the primary cause of the observed modest warming of the past few decades.”
I think that is the heart of this particular matter. They are two separate issues.
With all the studies of the atmosphere and the role of its trace gases in controlling climate, the oceans (especially the deep oceans below 2000 m) are poorly documented and even more poorly understood.
I just want to harp again on the point that is missed repeatedly. The cause of the CO2 concentration increase is a completely separate issue from any alleged climate effect of increased CO2 concentration.
There is the fact that fossil fuels burnt in any given year produce about twice as much CO2 as the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere in that same period. Nature is a net sink of carbon. That is what is called the mass balance argument.
Absolutely, CO2 outgases from the ocean when the surface warms. It’s a scientific fact but it’s not significant compared to fossil fuel emissions.
More importantly, it is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether and how much CO2 contributes to warming.
There is the fact that fossil fuels burnt in any given year produce about twice as much CO2 as the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere in that same period.
That is probably a spurious correlation. And I don’t believe the mass balance argument because the oceans are so poorly characterized that I suspect that those studying the Carbon Cycle have used the very precise anthropogenic emissions to balance the poor estimates of the ocean emissions.
Clyde we’ve been over this ground so many times. The mass balance does not measure or need to measure any CO2 fluxes other than fossil fuel emissions.
The amount of fossil fuel emissions is calculated from the production statistics and the known combustion reaction.
The amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is calculated from measured concentration and the total mass of the atmosphere which is known from atmospheric pressure and the surface area of the earth.
In – Out = Accumulation
You measure what we put in and we measure the accumulation. Basic algebra shows
In – Accumulation = Out
Out is a net term consisting of myriad impossible to accurately measure massive natural sinks and massive nearly equal natural sources. We don’t need to measure any of them or fully understand any of them.
If the measured accumulation is less than the calculated emissions from measured fossil fuel consumption then the Out term which is the net quantity removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks is a positive number. That is, nature on balance is a sink, not a source.
There’s no ambiguity or significant uncertainty about this. Although there is uncertainty about the quantity of fossil fuels burned in a period, it would have to be overestimated by a factor of 2 to come into balance. And don’t lose sight of the fact that overestimating implies that people are overpaying taxes and royalties. The financial incentive is to try to underestimate it!
Richard, Are you high?
15ppm is attributable to sea surface temperature rise. It’s a minor factor but around 10%, not zero. You can’t support saying ‘no evidence’.
The evidence is a small rise in SST and the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
I suspect that you wouldn’t recognize ‘evidence’ if it hit you in the face. That is probably why you so rarely present any.
Russell Cook
November 10, 2024 7:49 am
Story tip: RFK Jr and his team has put together a “Nominations for the People” website soliciting nominations from the public for 4000+ presidential appointments. In the “Energy and Natural Resources” section, somebody else has already nominated Willie Soon and Cal Beisner. Late last night, I myself nominated Lord Monckton for Climate Czar (don’t know if there’s a requirement for WH cabinet positions / advisor positions to be American citizens, but this effort gets his name to the Trump people) and I nominated AWED‘s John Droz for a range of advisor positions. After submitting those, the site reply was that it takes about a day or so for the nominations to appear. Also last night, David Schnare (<= if the NY Times hates him, that tells you how effective he can be!) told me he’d be open for another round of fighting at EPA, and he’ll be sending me a CV link on Monday to use in my nomination of him as EPA Director.
It’s easy to register at the Nominations site — who do you-all want to see appointed?
I would argue that Steven Koonin would be the best choice from a political effectiveness point of view. Consider the credibility of choosing Obama’s Undersecretary for Science.
I’ve been fortunate to exchange emails with Dr Lindzen over the years, so I did ask him about that two days back. He said that while an appointee position sounded intriguing, he is feeling a bit to old to do it. I was thinking he was 10 years younger than what he told me.
Steve Oregon
November 10, 2024 7:55 am
Among other worries our Oregonian editorial board says “It is already apparent how many ways the objectives of the Trump Administration will collide head-on with the values that a majority of Oregonians espouse. Trump’s election raises questions over possible rollbacks from climate and clean energy goals”
It’s all for the sake of the “goals”.
This is a prime example of how truly dumb, dishonest and perpetually wrong the left has become.
Imposing costly, stifling & punitive regulations and taxes upon the populace for the sake of “goals”.
Forever “goals” that have not and will never benefit anything climate, weather, droughts or floods.
My hope is Trump’s EPA will re-list CO2 as a NON-pollutant and force a blue state to sue.
Due to the Chevron SCOTUS ruling a Blue State can and will sue. Putting the CO2 science on trial once and for all.
Not sure I want a scientific question decided in a court of law any more than I want a scientific question decided by politically motivated bureaucrats.
That’s the bureaucrats excuse that was defeated in Chevron. Of course it is preferable to be able to challenge an administrative rule in court vs filing an appeal with the same bureaucracy that is imposing what to object to.
Court cases involve scientific experts. Just not the one sided crooked way bureaucracies do. .
This situation has been discussed at length here and if this comes to pass it will be again.
It’s been a wild week and I believe it’s just the beginning.
Story tip! Taliban will attend COP29.
– – – – – – – – –
Taliban deligation to attend UN climate summit for the first time
Afghanistan had the highest number of children made homeless by climate disasters of any country as of the end of 2023, according to Save the Children.
I was startled while watching a lecture by Tom Gallagher on paleoclimatology when he showed a figure made by “this gentleman” at 35″55. At the bottom was “Eschenbach, Sept 2020”. All Gallagher’s other citations were formal as in “Bloggs et al…”.
Clearly there is a need for a means of citing those not in the academic mainstream and “this gentleman” isn’t it.
Fran
November 10, 2024 10:29 am
Big fire at Critical Mineral Recovery in MO. Turns out the owner, a firm called Interco had two other battery processing plants burn down in the past 4 years! It seems to be a long learning curve.
I was eagerly anticipating a first-up comment here from MyUsername with a weekly Baghdad Bob / Comical Ali style propaganda blurb about how wind & solar are defeating the infidel fossil fuel energy providers.
LAS VEGAS, N.M. (KRQE) – Record-breaking snow hit areas across the state over the last few days, forcing road closures and keeping some residents of Las Vegas home.
The storm started on Monday producing over 30 inches of snow blanketing parts of Las Vegas leading to hours-long power outages.
Greetings from Colorado. Our ski resorts are enjoying the so-called global warming.
sherro01
November 10, 2024 3:18 pm
Chas The Moderator,
Lovely AI-assisted image, thank you. It raised my hopes because at first glance it seemed to show a lovely big open cut mine. In these politically-correct times, it is rare to see anything related to mining. The economy of my Australia depends on “dirty miners” who should receive gratitude.
It was hard to focus on this image. After a while I noticed a lens had fallen out of my reading glasses, so by closing the correct eye, I ascertained that the image was not showing a mine, but something pretty but abstract and not relevant to my cause. (Like Kamala was?). Geoff S
Time for WUWT and it’s readers to regain some decorum in our rhetroic now that America has been given an opportunity to return to sanity due to the recent election
Trumps election ends the Pandemic Era so let the healing begin.
So let’s stick to logic, concepts, data and ideas in our debate. We don’t want to make the same mistake as the DEMs in their rhetoric
Let’s side step carricture, ad hominen and the nasty, mean and the fallacous in our discourse. The leftest were loud for 5 years on “outsized mircophones” (D.Rep, Ritchie Torres) , lying like the old Soviet Union, and all the other abuses and wrong doing we are already way too famalier. Their lies and propganda damaged the country badly beginning in 2019 and ended up biting them in the butt.
It’s time for us to model free and open debate without the psychologcal risk of being smacked down by loud nasty pundits, left or right. .
The Dems lost due to the desensitization of fear mongering lies within their revoluationary propaganda machine leading credibility fatique (i.e. Climate, Anti-Trump, Identy, defund police, border and so on). After 5 years, it backfired and lost them the last election. They didn’t see it coming…so much for Leftist hubris.
Let us not engage in the same sort of hubris.
Let WUWT and its readers not make the same mistake.
The election empowered sanity to rein everywhere including the dem party.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table. ______________________________________________________________________________
The left has been pounding the table for a long time.
The laws of physics and statistics don’t support their narrative.
Thanks Steve, Agreed, My point is a matter of degree and their hubris thinking they could propel a revolution on tired fear mongering propaganda which got Trumped. Even many dems caught on and are sick uf it.
My question regarding the left climate propelled revolution… now what? Their propaganda doesn’t work anymore for the bulk of America. What is next in their game plan. My other point is big deep pocket elites funded the whole deal leveraging the fringe left and propelling them into the mainstream via a massive propaganda campaign since 2016. Those deep pockets are still out their and defeat and retreat are no in the vocabulary… So how to we anticipate their next step…. that is the question.
Proposed Battery Law Costs Billions and Does Nothing
By Laurie Belsito, policy director at Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
https://www.massfiscal.org/op-ed-the-actual-costs-legislature-climate-bill
The beginning: “The Massachusetts legislature is considering proposed bill S2967 — “An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers.” The Senate addressed the bill first and it has since been delayed in the House. During the Senate debate, the chairman of the committee that helped draft the bill mentioned, “building out an entirely new electric grid is expensive…real expensive.” He further elaborated “so now you’ve got the electric grid, offshore wind, storage, lots of costs being brought to bare.”
However, no monetary value was ever mentioned. How expensive will this self-imposed transition actually be? We decided to break it down and look at a single measurable part of this bill that mandates the utility purchase of a huge amount of grid scale batteries by 2030, beginning in 2025. These batteries will cost many billions of dollars while they serve no useful purpose. This is explained briefly below.
The amount of batteries is somewhat unclear. The Bill specifies that 5,000 Megawatts (MW) of batteries be bought but this is the discharge capacity, that is how fast the batteries can be emptied. The storage capacity is what counts and that is measured in Megawatt-hours (MWh). Specifying MW is like buying juice based on how fast it pours not how much the bottle holds.
The Bill does include a range of storage capacities which bounds the cost somewhat. Most of the batteries are what is called mid-duration which means they can provide full discharge for from four to 10 hours. Almost all grid scale battery systems these days are four hour duration so for simplicity we will start by assuming the whole 5,000 MW buy is four hour batteries.
This gives 20,000 MWh of storage. Battery systems today run around $500,000 per MWh. That gives a total cost of $10,000,000,000 or ten billion dollars which equals roughly 17% of the current state budget. If 10 hour batteries are purchased the cost jumps to $25,000,000,000 or twenty-five billion dollars. The Bill actually calls for a good bit of longer duration batteries as well which makes the cost even higher.
These hugely expensive mandatory purchases will do little by way of supporting the transition to a grid run on solar, wind and batteries.
The average total electricity usage in Massachusetts is about 5,700 MWh per hour. In a solar, wind and battery world 20,000 MWh of batteries lasts just three and a half hours on average windless nights. On deadly cold nights this is more like just two hours, then you freeze in the dark. If we also electrify home heat and cars it is more like a mere one hour.”
Lots more in the article. Fun stuff.
Lots of resistance to the actual implementation of green energy by green energy whack jobs in western Wokeachusetts. Nobody now wants wind turbines on land- anywhere in the state. Lots of resistance to solar farms too – and now resistance building up against industrial battery systems. One in the town of Wendell is called: “No Assault & Batteries”. And I’ll repeat- this is from people who are green whack jobs. Their problem is that this green shit is now in THEIR area and they don’t like it.
Here’s the story about the batteries in the Greenfield Recorder.
Wendell’s No Assault & Batteries to host speakers on proposed battery storage facility
https://www.recorder.com/Wendell-s-No-Assault-Batteries-to-host-speakers-on-proposed-battery-storage-facility-54064376
Wendell is a town noted for its large “old hippy” contingent. There was once a well known 60s hippy commune in the town. The nearby Connecticut River Valley is a far left region- probably the most far left in the entire far left state.
What the people in that area- and much of the rest of the state want- is green energy without the blight. They think just covering every building in the state and many parking lots with solar panels will do the trick for net zero. They hate seeing farms and forests being destroyed for solar panels and of course I agree with that. But they were all for it until they started popping up in their area. When a solar farm was built near my ‘hood in low income central Wokeachusetts back in 2012, I asked for their help in fighting it- got no help and instead was told how wonderful green energy will be. Hypocrites and nimbys.
Nailed it!
Classic NIMBYs.
At that link I see, “It’s time to start asking the tough questions.” A few of us here in Wokeachusetts have been challenging the green idiocy for many years and have been totally ignored by the media and the enviro groups. Years ago I wrote to the state Republican Party and asked their opinion about green energy. Got no reply. Wrote to the state’s Libertarian Party- and only got, “we don’t like big government”. In my modest working class neighborhood- of mostly small ranch houses- by now, maybe half of the homes have solar panels- yet few face south. Most face east or west. When I walk around the ‘hood, I like to see if the panels are getting direct sunlight on them. I seldom see that, especially in the winter when the sun is low in the sky most of the day.
I have a photo of a house in Englewood CO, surrounded by trees, with a PV array mounted on the roof, facing due NORTH.
Total waste of money.
Here, the companies that sell solar to home owners never tell the owner that trees are a problem for the panels. I see lots of trees here blocking the sunlight to the panels. I’m sure if people were told their trees would have to be cut down or heavily trimmed, they wouldn’t bother with solar. Also, I’ve had several solar salesmen come to the door. I tell them, “I’m busy but if you leave me your card I’ll check out your web site”. That’s when they start coughing, “oh, uh… we don’t have business cards because we’re green- don’t want to waste paper”. duh!
The door-to-door PV hucksters are the worst, I’ll yell at them if they ignore the sign on the front door: “Can’t you read?!?”
Does the sign say “No PV Hucksters!”? Maybe they think it doesn’t apply to them.
“NO to any solicitors”
“NO solar, windows, or siding”
“If you persist we will still say NO”
Good article at the link
A mid-December night with no wind would require 12 hours of battery backup. 15 hours if you charged to 80% of capacity to extend battery life.
10 hours is not enough.
4 hours is BS
Two windless or low wind days in a row would be much worse.
Massachusetts already buys a significant portion of its electric power from other states, as it consumes more electricity than it produces within its borders,
Massachusetts utilities also signed a 20-year contract to purchase 9.45 million MWh of electricity annually from Hydro-Quebec.
Regarding that 20 year contract- I don’t think the large right of way from Maine to Wokeachusetts has been approved. Do you know any more about this?
Wow, good point. The contract would have to be contingent on transmission.
I’m pretty sure the people of Maine voted against it. I only superficially pay attention to the topic. That resistance was led by the same enviros who resist everything about all forms of energy.
There was a referendum vote against it and a law passed from that but it must have been overturned as it is under construction in Maine (for now).
In fact MA imports about 60% of its juice. EIA says last year they produced about 20 million MWh but consumed about 50 million. So the HQ deal would be about a third of imports. The nearest US states that are net exporters are PA and OH both of which burn coal! HQ may also have some fossil generation. Have to check.
But then electrification will double their consumption.
hmmm… didn’t realize MA imports 60%— PA and OH are not close- didn’t realize it was possible to import from such a distance
I hear this bad bill might get voted on in the House this week. I urge WokeMA residents to tell their legislator to vote against it. Tell them twice.
The MA state legislature is something like 90% Democrat.
A tale of two approaches
The UK is going high tax and spend while going for net zero
Farmers warn Labour’s net zero ‘fertiliser tax’ will push up food prices
Chancellor accused of dealing further blow to British agriculture following inheritance tax raid with ‘under the radar’ carbon levy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/09/budget-fertiliser-tax-raise-food-prices-warn-farmers/
Trump’s US will be cutting taxes
Both claim to be promoting growth. My money is on the latter. And we can see it play out…
Why is my stuff on the wrong side of history?
Make amends for sorrow
Happiness will follow
Have a bit of faith
Make it so….
Are there any historical examples of people taxing themselves into prosperity?
There are many examples of taxation to pay for wars, and at least one side wins, so your point is weak…..And Greengobs are sure it’s a war on CO2….
Wars don’t generally lead to prosperity, even for the side that wins.
Don’t know about that, Eric. Would we have had 75 or so years of post-WW2 prosperity and relative peace if there hadn’t been WW2? The losers of that war, Germany and Japan certainly prospered even more than the winners (ignoring the DDR, which didn’t prosper very much).
Just want to say, “It’s morning in America again!”
Freedom is in the air.
As the new administration takes over soon in the U.S., it will be important to explain more widely and more effectively why the “climate” movement was wrong from the beginning. Fundamentally it was (and still is) the failure to properly account for how the atmosphere responds dynamically to the incrementally stronger absorbing power as CO2 concentrations rise.
Professor David Brunt made a comment in 1938 that captures this problem with Guy Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2.
““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.”
A more complete discussion, including a link to the original Callendar paper, is given here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/02/open-thread-52/#comment-3703255
What about now? Brunt knew what he was talking about. Modern satellite imaging, along with the advanced numerical modeling of the atmosphere in the form of the ERA5 reanalysis, show plainly how the dynamic response should allay any concerns about energy being made to accumulate down here as sensible heat, from what rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O do in the atmosphere.
Please consider the short time-lapse videos at my Youtube channel. Each video has a text description providing the full explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
Thank you.
What about now?
Outside the US we watch and wait. What can we British do apart from cringe at Parliament and the executive – all pro net zero.
If you want ” to explain more widely “ you will first have to negate what is being taught/indoctrinated into the young in education at all levels. Something is definitely wrong when academia [mainly in the US] has to take a day or more out to deal with post-election grief and trauma.
But it’s here too…
“”Guardian Offers Free Counselling to Staff After Trump Win””
https://order-order.com/2024/11/07/guardian-offers-free-counselling-to-staff-after-trump-win/
Almost every classroom is being taught by de-facto activists using material like this:
“”What is climate change? A really simple guide
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, with more intense heatwaves and rising sea-levels among the consequences. Things are likely to worsen in the coming decades, but scientists argue urgent action can still limit the worst effects of climate change.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
Education has to be de-lunified.
“…you will first have to negate what is being taught/indoctrinated into the young in education at all levels.”
Agreed!!
Yes. Reality matters.
When is a penis not a penis? Here’s a story that shows that adults are deluded too. https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2024/11/footwear-enthusiast.html
Democrats haven’t been this mad since Republicans freed their slaves.
Kemi Badenoch knows that NetZero is “unilateral economic disarmament” (her words). But she softened the message to get the Tory leadership.
Nigel Farage knows CO2 induced climate change is a scam.
After the grid collapses in the UK or even regular winter load shedding, there will be a turn to the right.
UK will increasingly look to USA rather than the Germans. But even Germany is waking up to the climate scam.
….it will be important to explain more widely and more effectively why the “climate” movement was wrong from the beginning…
No, this is the last thing that will be important.
What is important is to explain more widely and effectively that the energy policies advocated by activists are impossible and useless. This is what is going to impoverish us and kill people.
Whether there is a climate crisis or not, makes no difference:
This is the thing to focus on.
I understand your point, and agree with the tactical imperative to stop the madness of energy policies.
But I also acknowledge that the ideological core of the overzealous commitment to “renewables” must be neutralized. This is important to stop the destructive and erroneous conditioning of children and young adults, especially, as strativarius points out nearby.
You’re both right. Civil society in all its manifestations has been taken over by a revolutionary movement that has infinite patience in implementing its agenda. It seized on the climate issue and managed to sell it to our ignorant leaders with spectacular results to date; it has more recently seized on a certain religion that shares its goal of destroying western civilisation, and of course it has seized on (or maybe created) identity politics, gender activism and ancestral guilt over slavery. It’s also discovered open borders and unlimited deficit spending. It’s a many-headed hydra.
I pray that Trump’s new term in office will help the scales to fall from the eyes of at least some of the millions of indoctrinated souls in America. I’m very cautiously optimistic but I’m not actually holding my breath. The revolutionaries embedded in our midst haven’t given up yet; they’ve just received a setback.
Good points!
While all of that is interesting and informative, it is irrelevant for changes in CO2 concentration. Increasing CO2 itself forces a reduction in high altitude water vapor which counters the increased IR absorption of CO2. Overall, the total opacity of the atmosphere stays almost constant (see Miskolczi 2023).
Richard,
Maybe you should explain this phenomenon in more detail. It isn’t readily apparent why increased CO2 results in reduced water vapor at high altitude. Maybe the increased CO2 radiates more heat to outer space causing more stratospheric cooling, thus ice crystals to migrate downwards ? or what ?
Also I think you maybe miss the point of David’s NOAA videos. Basically, warm spots radiate so much more IR heat to outer space… that the 4 watts caused by a doubling of CO2 is nearly irrelevant, and much more irrelevant than just plugging “average” temperatures into Stephan-Boltzmann would indicate.
Integrating “watts/sq.M” over the planet from the GOES DATA rather than averaging “temperature” over the planet would give better answers. But you can see from his videos that such an integration is going to be wishful thinking on the part of a mathematician with no experience in instrumentation.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, “such an integration is going to be wishful thinking.” That is why I never refer to these images and videos to make any point about an overall number in W/m^2. Rather, the images help conceptualize the dynamic self-regulation that is going on between the surface and space. And this is in a specific band of IR wavelengths in which incremental CO2 is claimed to produce a “warming” result. As you know, I have no dispute with the claimed incremental static radiative effect.
For that matter, a geostationary satellite cannot be placed over the poles, so you couldn’t integrate over the whole planet in any case from the relatively high resolution, near-real-time radiance data from a GOES imager.
+100
I have no problem with David’s comment. I agree with him that the atmosphere will react to heating in a very specific way. I pointed out that CO2 does not cause any heating and therefore would not cause such a reaction.
Follow this logic to understand why IR radiation from CO2 cannot warm Earth’s surface.
.
-Almost all surface IR absorption by CO2 occurs within the first 10 meters of the surface at current CO2 concentrations.
-After IR energy is absorbed, collisions with other gas molecules pass the energy on to those molecules about 99.999% of the time.
-These same types of collisions can induce a CO2 molecule to emit IR radiation at the 15 µm wavelength. Half of the radiation will be downward.
-Almost all downward radiation from above 10 meters is reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules.
-When downwelling IR from CO2 below 10 meters is absorbed at the surface, the surface warms and the lower atmosphere cools … temporarily.
-The lower atmosphere and surface continually share energy through conduction via gas molecules colliding with the surface.
-Conduction occurs between all gas molecules and the surface. While net energy exchange is quite low, the total amount of energy moving back and forth is large.
-Due to the cooling of the lower atmosphere mentioned above and warming of the surface caused by CO2 downwelling IR, the surface will conduct more energy into the lower atmosphere.
-This modified energy flow is nearly instantaneous and counters the warming effect of the increases in downwelling IR from CO2. The net change in temperature is essentially zero.
-Occasionally, the downwelling CO2 IR will lead to evaporation at the surface.
-Evaporation is a process which removes both the energy which caused the event and existing energy within the water molecule from the surface. This creates a water vapor molecule.
-More evaporation increases lower atmosphere buoyancy since water vapor is a lighter molecule. This will trend to move water vapor upward in the atmosphere where it eventually condenses moving the energy away from the surface and lower atmosphere. This cools the lower atmosphere/surface.
-Increased buoyancy accelerates convection which drives water vapor higher into the colder troposphere.
-Colder air causes more high atmosphere condensation.
-Increased condensation reduces high altitude water vapor.
-Less high altitude water vapor allows more energy to be radiated to space
-The extra energy radiated to space in the water vapor spectral bands balances out the additional energy absorbed at the edges of the CO2 spectral bands. The net energy flow is unchanged.
“Half of the radiation will be downward.”
Even if such fanciful emission did occur* about 68% would have have more horizontal vector than downwards vector.
But without changing the temperature differential, you can’t change the net radiative flux. CO2 “back-radiation” is a myth.
*Most absorbed energy is released by conduction well before re-emission can occur
All that matters is the downward component of the vector. If the energy is reabsorbed prior to reaching the surface then it’s not considered part of the set of events for computing the average altitude. That is why the altitude is less than 10 meters.
Because of this low altitude the radiation is essentially no different than conduction. Net conduction will be changed slightly in reaction to energy absorbed by the surface which doesn’t result in evaporation.
This means it is impossible for CO2 to warm the surface. The only result of downward radiation is a small increase in evaporation.
The back-radiation is not the cause of CO2 based warming. It is absorption of energy at the edges of 15 µm bands (aka the atmospheric window).
The evaporation enhances the water cycle which reduces high altitude water vapor, the only place where saturation of water vapor absorption is not present. This reduces water vapor’s greenhouse absorption which counters the increased absorption by CO2 from the atmospheric window.
Richard M, thank you for your reply. I hope on further consideration that you will see that the direct near-real-time observation of outgoing IR from GOES East shows the layperson that whatever they have been told about a passive “greenhouse” blanket-like effect is plainly wrong. And the plots of energy conversion values from ERA5 show the engineer, the scientist, and the meteorologist how unsound it has always been to think that the CO2 “warming” effect could be isolated for analysis. This is important conceptually, to neutralize the IPCC’s attribution claims.
Professor Brunt of Brunt-Viasala fame? He most definitely knew whereof he spoke. I really like this…
I just put the finishing touches on an explanatory essay, not for WUWT but for another organization, that said just about the same thing. In effect, the atmosphere and concepts like thermodynamics and heat/moisture transport are so complex that simple models fail to illustrate the situation to any useful degree. In fact as Brunt says, simple models can be misleading.
After a brief search, YES! That is the same David Brunt.
And about your point, “In effect, the atmosphere and concepts like thermodynamics and heat/moisture transport are so complex…” – yes, imagine the complexity of the ERA5 reanalysis model! But it is a gold mine in the sense that its outputs, e.g. for energy conversion, help to put the claims about CO2 “warming” into proper perspective.
David,
I would never argue against presenting evidence that contradicts a theory of catastrophic effects, however, in my view we face fundamentally a political problem. The most urgent need is for persuasion, rather than to advance a scientific argument. The need is to appeal to the interests of the voters.
In large part this is because the motivations of many (most?) people pushing NetZero policy have little to nothing to do with actual climate change. It is a Trojan Horse to bring in mechanisms of control.
It should be apparent from four decades of experience that The Science ™ is cooked to tell a story. Ambiguity is the friend of deception.
In theory if you could prove your ideas in a way that no charlatan climastrologer could plausibly dispute, that might convince some people who are scientifically literate enough to grasp the concept. Too many would remain mystified. And in reality, ironclad proof is elusive.
But everyone can see the cost of electricity skyrocketing and the effects of inflation on the cost of everything. Add in rolling blackouts and the futility of making any impact given the growth in emissions in China and India, and I think most people could be convinced. They don’t need proof that CO2 is harmless. They need to be assured that at worst it would be a manageable concern.
On the scientific front I think your ideas can contribute to a sense that there’s no apocalypse looming and therefore pulling back from the aggressive policies of the past decade is not risky.
Thank you for your reply. You’re not wrong that “Too many would remain mystified.”
But in parallel as opposition to the destructive energy policy agenda gains traction, I believe we also need to expose the core error of the “climate change” messaging. Among skeptics, many are quite capably dealing with the senseless push into wind, solar, batteries, etc. But few skeptics seem to grasp just how misguided the “warming” claims were from the beginning, on technical grounds. I aim to move the needle.
I appreciate how you concluded, “On the scientific front I think your ideas can contribute to a sense that there’s no apocalypse looming and therefore pulling back from the aggressive policies of the past decade is not risky.” I would, however, not claim any originality concerning the scientific work that I am pointing out, describing, and posting for visualization.
Story tip: has this been seen or brought up here?
https://scientific.news/2024-09-04-study-sea-surface-temperature-impacts-co2-levels.html
huh.
“Despite all the hysteria surrounding human emissions, it turns out that fossil fuel emissions have a negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 levels,”
FIRST SENTENCE AT THE LINK ABOVE
That sentence is a lie.
Only fools believe that.
But it would qualify the article for the semi-regular once a week junk science article here … which allows leftists to call this website a science denying website … and ignore all the other good articles here.
The study itself put the SST effect at 66%. This means humans do have an effect, but not enough to ever create a problem.
Might be a few minor problems along with some nice benefits. A mixed bag- nothing to panic over.
The question of why CO2 concentration has risen is a completely different question from whether rising CO2 has a significant or dangerous impact.
I would argue that fossil fuel burning has caused around 90% of the rise in CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.042%, but there is no evidence that the observed warming of the past 30 years is harmful and inconclusive evidence that rising CO2 has been the cause of significant warming.
As ever, you continue to provide material for us to wonder which side you are actually on. But while I have your attention here — regarding that so-called “Honest Climate” website of yours, have you surpassed over a million views by now, rapidly on your way to 2 million considering the hockey stick-style rise in number you ascribe to it over the last year and a half or so? And is there a real site visitor counter to be seen anywhere in it to prove you have any visitors there at all – particularly recent ones?
Funny, but I don’t see the media quoting him. 🙂
The media quote climate alarmists
I’m a global warming lover who wants more CO2!
Richard Greene: the Janus of WUWT.
oops, karlo… you accidentally typed a “J”
!!
That was really funny.
You are a great WUWT court jester,
Damn near pee’d my pants
Did you film it?
Did you find that pee pee tape moron?
In Roman mythology, Janus was the god of doors, gates, and transitions.
I suspect I have been insulte but don;t get it.
Ignorance again.
Janus was a two-faced god.
Your two faces seem to be “ranting” and “raving”.
Most of the “views” will be his own !
946,000 page views
Counters on both home pages
Honest Climate Science and Energy
Honest global warming chart Blog
Every day I recommend at least 12 conservative author articles that refute CAGW and Net Zero
No CO2 does nothing articles recommended
No CO2 is dangerous articles recommended
99% of recommended articles are written by others. Some WUWT articles are always recommended. The energy articles here are good and so are most of the climate articles.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is beneficial for life on our planet. We should be celebrating our milder winters and greening of our planet.
Humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. The climate got warmer, just as over 99% of scientists had predicted. But the actual pattern of warming in the past 50 years was good news, not a crisis.
The worst argument to counter the false claim that AGW is bad news (CAGW) is the equally false claim that AGW does not exist. Or the false claim that the CO2 increase was 95% natural, when it was really 100% manmade.
So selected biased information conforming to your own lack of scientific understanding…. making people as ignorant as you are… great !!
Must be an empty site if you can’t find anything to help you with these issues…
Still totally unable to produce a single bit of evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Still totally unable to show us any CO2 caused warming in the UAH data.
Still totally unable to show how much warming has been caused by CO2 in the last 45 year, and back it up even remotely with any actual science.
——
The rate of atmospheric CO2 growth has been shown by data to follow ocean atmospheric temperatures.
Human CO2 emissions are a tiny percentage of the total CO2 flux.
Why continue to DENY the data and the science. ??
Are you determined to prove you are a data-denying scientific non-entity??
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
RG, I just gave you a dozen more page views 🙂
This is a serious suggestion: counters such as you have are outdated (as in 90’s) web technology and are not accurate (see above). The first link also needs a really good revamp in design. I realize you’re probably not a professional at web design but you might want to have one at least take a look at it.
That is just hilarious! A gold star for Greene is in order…lol.
Proof, please, of human co2 causing milder winters.
He made the claim. What more ‘proof’ do we need? 🙂
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show us the power of the little white square…
Any honest discussion forum SHOULD have differences of opinion. If everyone is singing the same song, then it’s a fraudulent, phony discussion site. Probably the majority of people here believe CO2 has some impact on the climate, but most think the impact is minimal. So your constant ranting against anyone who has a different opinion- and saying that leftists can then say the site is a denier site is without merit- but it’s probably true that if 1% of the people think CO2 has no impact- that the lefties WILL say that, proving what? What it proves is that they’re cultists who think everyone’s opinion must line up. Differences of opinion are fine- no need to rant against them. Just ignore opinions you don’t like. Focus your ranting against the climate emergency nut jobs.
Excellent comment
I want this website to be respected.
The CO2 Does Nothing articles and comments have the opposite effect.
I want CAGW to be refuted
The AGW is Fake belief in comments has the opposite effect
The authors of CO2 Does Nothing and AGW is Fake articles and comments do not deserve respect because they help the climate alarmists by denying 127 years of science and over 99% of scientists.
They are the equivalent of Trump claiming global warming is a Chinese hoax.
“I want this website to be respected.”
Then stop posting your garbage ranting anti-science hate comments against anyone you has more knowledge than you are capable of..
… and stop running away from answering the points I have posted many time.
Do you need them again ???
Simplistic fool.
It’ll never be respected- the same way the MSM will never respect Joe Rogan, to their own detriment. Who cares if Mickey Mann et. al. don’t respect this site. Of course they don’t. This site isn’t a peer reviewed journal. It’s an open discussion forum- for us to debate and often disagree- which is why it’s the best climate site on the planet. We don’t need nags.
But this is a site with a scientific bent. Mostly what I see from RG are unsupported opinions. Facts supporting his opinions are rare.
Citations to scientific papers providing the “correct” numbers please.
Remember that “If there isn’t an error range (/ confidence interval), it isn’t science”.
.
Maybe you should have continued reading to the third sentence :
The researchers did not actually say what you inferred that they were saying from a single sentence.
They genuinely “believe” in their results, and being scientists they know that they are “wrong” — the only uncertainty is by how much, which future research will help narrow down — but they are not “lying”.
.
In future please try to rise to (at least) level 3 of the “debate pyramid”, instead of repeatedly demonstrating to the entire world your incapacity to rise above level 7, i.e. “Name calling (and/or Abuse)”.
The ice core proxies estimate that 1 degree of ocean warming would cause a mere 20 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 in the absece of manmade CO2 emissions.
With manmade CO2 emissions, oceans are a net absorber of CO2 They do not add CO2 to the atmosphere.
When the first sentence of an article is false, there is no logical reason for further reading.
Hilarious…
Now RG thinks that warming oceans don’t increase the CO2 in the atmosphere
Science denial at it most hilarious.
Lol. You twonk! You believe anything you read without the slightest evidence and then spew it out again as the ultimate truth on which to base even more nonsense. I have a nice watch you might like to buy…..
Attached is a “zoomed view” of the EPICA ice-core — surface / GMST, not “ocean” / SST ! — temperature proxy (deuterium isotope ratios) and the Vostok CO2 measurements from bubbles in that core, from just before the Eemian interglacial to 100 kya (thousand years ago)..
This clearly shows the glacial-to-interglacial transition around 135 to 130 kya, where CO2 appears to trail behind the temperature “ramp” … but the “age models” used may shift them enough to question this …
After the “peaks” in both curves around 129 kya temperatures dropped until ~127 kya (by ~1.5°C), had a very “long and slow bounce” (of “only” 0.5°C) to ~123 kya, then “rolled over” and dropped steadily until ~108.5 kya (by ~4°C).
In parallel, CO2 levels “bounced around” between 260 and 280 ppm until ~113 kya, and then steadily dropped to ~230 ppm by ~105.5 kya, with a value around 245 ppm at the 108 kya date.
4°C lower GMST for around 25 ppm (270 – 245) less CO2 … that’s more like 6 ppm per degree, not 20 … and the trajectories definitely don’t have a correlation close to 1.
.
When the first sentence of a “rebuttal” is empirically false, there is no logical reason for further reading.
Gotta agree with RG on this point. A search for “anthropogenic atmospheric increase of CO2” has many articles by people with high grade qualifications that also agree with him, whereas same search for “anthropogenic atmospheric decrease of CO2”…well…nada…
Agreeing with me is dangerous. BeNasty will come after you in a hood with a torch and a pitchfork.
No pitch fork needed against a limp lettuce leaf !
As I have pointed out in detail, even monthly resolution of CO2 doesn’t show a decline during the 2020 COVID shutdowns. It appears that the biological sources easily compensate for missing anthropogenic sources.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
RG again rants without any scientific evidence, as usual.
His comment would qualify as being irrelevant junk comment from a child with little scientific understanding.
The rate of CO2 increase is very closely linked to, and follows, ocean atmospheric temperature. (as per graph)
Human CO2 release is only 4% or so the the total CO2 flux so is easily overwhelmed by small increases in natural flux.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
And of course , there is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 effects climate anyway.
RG has proven that many times.
I agree that the article’s claims are wrong, but they are not DENYING science, they are practicing science badly.
To say ‘denying’ is to imply some kind of revealed Truth. There’s strong evidence that most of the reason why our atmosphere has gone from 280ppm CO2 to 420ppm is the result of fossil fuel burning and a mass balance argument is in my view irrefutable, but everyone should be allowed to put forth hypotheses. That is the true meaning of science.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.839 g of CO2 and mass of 1.29 kg at STP.
Presently, in air at 70 deg. F and with 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 14.3 g of H2O, a mass of 1.20 kg, and only 0.78 g of CO2.
To the first approximation and with all things being equal, H2O is ca.
97% of the greenhouse effect. Since 71% of the earth’s surface, H2O
is always the main greenhouse and CO2 is a a minor trace greenhouse gas. The small amount of CO2 in air can heat up such a large amount of air by only a very small amount if at all.
We do not have too worry about CO2. Since 1988, the IPCC has been lying to us.
As I said, the question of what causes the rise in CO2 is a completely separate issue from whether CO2 is the primary cause of the observed modest warming of the past few decades.
Nothing I said here should be construed to mean that fossil fuel burning has any dangerous impact. Indeed, the increase in CO2 concentration which was the clear result of fossil fuel burning has on balance been very beneficial to human flourishing.
“As I said, the question of what causes the rise in CO2 is a completely separate issue from whether CO2 is the primary cause of the observed modest warming of the past few decades.”
I think that is the heart of this particular matter. They are two separate issues.
Science requires evidence
There is no evidence to support the claim that nature caused any of the CO2 increase since 1850
“Science requires evidence”
WE ARE WAITING…. so far you are totally empty.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the CO2 warming in the UAh atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
And RG now says that natural warming DOES NOT increase atmospheric CO2.
Science denial at its worst.
Here’s an article that should be on your web site
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
And here is a graph similar to the one in the article that shows that the rate of CO2 increase FOLLOWS ocean atmospheric temperatures.
Excepting nothing but another mindless, scientifically empty rant is response.
And I can’t see any evidence that it hasn’t.
With all the studies of the atmosphere and the role of its trace gases in controlling climate, the oceans (especially the deep oceans below 2000 m) are poorly documented and even more poorly understood.
I just want to harp again on the point that is missed repeatedly. The cause of the CO2 concentration increase is a completely separate issue from any alleged climate effect of increased CO2 concentration.
There is the fact that fossil fuels burnt in any given year produce about twice as much CO2 as the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere in that same period. Nature is a net sink of carbon. That is what is called the mass balance argument.
Absolutely, CO2 outgases from the ocean when the surface warms. It’s a scientific fact but it’s not significant compared to fossil fuel emissions.
More importantly, it is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether and how much CO2 contributes to warming.
That is probably a spurious correlation. And I don’t believe the mass balance argument because the oceans are so poorly characterized that I suspect that those studying the Carbon Cycle have used the very precise anthropogenic emissions to balance the poor estimates of the ocean emissions.
Clyde we’ve been over this ground so many times. The mass balance does not measure or need to measure any CO2 fluxes other than fossil fuel emissions.
The amount of fossil fuel emissions is calculated from the production statistics and the known combustion reaction.
The amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is calculated from measured concentration and the total mass of the atmosphere which is known from atmospheric pressure and the surface area of the earth.
In – Out = Accumulation
You measure what we put in and we measure the accumulation. Basic algebra shows
In – Accumulation = Out
Out is a net term consisting of myriad impossible to accurately measure massive natural sinks and massive nearly equal natural sources. We don’t need to measure any of them or fully understand any of them.
If the measured accumulation is less than the calculated emissions from measured fossil fuel consumption then the Out term which is the net quantity removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks is a positive number. That is, nature on balance is a sink, not a source.
There’s no ambiguity or significant uncertainty about this. Although there is uncertainty about the quantity of fossil fuels burned in a period, it would have to be overestimated by a factor of 2 to come into balance. And don’t lose sight of the fact that overestimating implies that people are overpaying taxes and royalties. The financial incentive is to try to underestimate it!
So why do you continue to contend that human co2 has caused the modern milding? Twonk!
Richard, Are you high?
15ppm is attributable to sea surface temperature rise. It’s a minor factor but around 10%, not zero. You can’t support saying ‘no evidence’.
The evidence is a small rise in SST and the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
I suspect that you wouldn’t recognize ‘evidence’ if it hit you in the face. That is probably why you so rarely present any.
Story tip: RFK Jr and his team has put together a “Nominations for the People” website soliciting nominations from the public for 4000+ presidential appointments. In the “Energy and Natural Resources” section, somebody else has already nominated Willie Soon and Cal Beisner. Late last night, I myself nominated Lord Monckton for Climate Czar (don’t know if there’s a requirement for WH cabinet positions / advisor positions to be American citizens, but this effort gets his name to the Trump people) and I nominated AWED‘s John Droz for a range of advisor positions. After submitting those, the site reply was that it takes about a day or so for the nominations to appear. Also last night, David Schnare (<= if the NY Times hates him, that tells you how effective he can be!) told me he’d be open for another round of fighting at EPA, and he’ll be sending me a CV link on Monday to use in my nomination of him as EPA Director.
It’s easy to register at the Nominations site — who do you-all want to see appointed?
Anthony Watts as National Meteorologist? Assuming such a job exists.
I would argue that Steven Koonin would be the best choice from a political effectiveness point of view. Consider the credibility of choosing Obama’s Undersecretary for Science.
Late to the party on this one, but I would put Richard Lindzen on the board.
I’ve been fortunate to exchange emails with Dr Lindzen over the years, so I did ask him about that two days back. He said that while an appointee position sounded intriguing, he is feeling a bit to old to do it. I was thinking he was 10 years younger than what he told me.
Among other worries our Oregonian editorial board says
“It is already apparent how many ways the objectives of the Trump Administration will collide head-on with the values that a majority of Oregonians espouse. Trump’s election raises questions over possible rollbacks from climate and clean energy goals”
It’s all for the sake of the “goals”.
This is a prime example of how truly dumb, dishonest and perpetually wrong the left has become.
Imposing costly, stifling & punitive regulations and taxes upon the populace for the sake of “goals”.
Forever “goals” that have not and will never benefit anything climate, weather, droughts or floods.
Possible rollbacks? 🙂 🙂
My hope is Trump’s EPA will re-list CO2 as a NON-pollutant and force a blue state to sue.
Due to the Chevron SCOTUS ruling a Blue State can and will sue. Putting the CO2 science on trial once and for all.
I think every Republican politician should be asked the question: “What is your position on CO2”?
Not sure I want a scientific question decided in a court of law any more than I want a scientific question decided by politically motivated bureaucrats.
That’s the bureaucrats excuse that was defeated in Chevron. Of course it is preferable to be able to challenge an administrative rule in court vs filing an appeal with the same bureaucracy that is imposing what to object to.
Court cases involve scientific experts. Just not the one sided crooked way bureaucracies do. .
“‘It’s Gonna End On Day One’: GOP Lawmakers, Fishermen Urge Trump To Keep Promise To Axe Offshore Wind”
https://dailycaller.com/2024/11/10/gop-lawmakers-fishermen-trump-offshore-wind-campaign-promise/
This situation has been discussed at length here and if this comes to pass it will be again.
It’s been a wild week and I believe it’s just the beginning.
Story tip! Taliban will attend COP29.
– – – – – – – – –
Taliban deligation to attend UN climate summit for the first time
Afghanistan had the highest number of children made homeless by climate disasters of any country as of the end of 2023, according to Save the Children.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/taliban-deligation-to-attend-un-climate-summit-for-the-first-time
Biden already gifted the Taliban some $85 billion in machinery.
What else do they want ?
And of course the Taliban can take zero blame for homeless and parentless children !!
It’s the IPCC’s equivalent of the Hajj.
I was startled while watching a lecture by Tom Gallagher on paleoclimatology when he showed a figure made by “this gentleman” at 35″55. At the bottom was “Eschenbach, Sept 2020”. All Gallagher’s other citations were formal as in “Bloggs et al…”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tWEjkEiZU
Clearly there is a need for a means of citing those not in the academic mainstream and “this gentleman” isn’t it.
Big fire at Critical Mineral Recovery in MO. Turns out the owner, a firm called Interco had two other battery processing plants burn down in the past 4 years! It seems to be a long learning curve.
Whoops – wrong video.
https://youtu.be/2Bas81OsV9Y
I was eagerly anticipating a first-up comment here from MyUsername with a weekly Baghdad Bob / Comical Ali style propaganda blurb about how wind & solar are defeating the infidel fossil fuel energy providers.
Been a tough week for those pushing the globalist climate scam.
Probably Myusername is prostrate with grief after the US election and hiding under the covers.
Maybe they have been laid off from their paid troll positions.
LAS VEGAS, N.M. (KRQE) – Record-breaking snow hit areas across the state over the last few days, forcing road closures and keeping some residents of Las Vegas home.
The storm started on Monday producing over 30 inches of snow blanketing parts of Las Vegas leading to hours-long power outages.
https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/city-of-las-vegas-recovering-after-unexpected-record-breaking-snow/
Greetings from Colorado. Our ski resorts are enjoying the so-called global warming.
Chas The Moderator,
Lovely AI-assisted image, thank you. It raised my hopes because at first glance it seemed to show a lovely big open cut mine. In these politically-correct times, it is rare to see anything related to mining. The economy of my Australia depends on “dirty miners” who should receive gratitude.
It was hard to focus on this image. After a while I noticed a lens had fallen out of my reading glasses, so by closing the correct eye, I ascertained that the image was not showing a mine, but something pretty but abstract and not relevant to my cause. (Like Kamala was?). Geoff S
To me it looks like a virtual tunnel with an eye at the end of it.
If anyone’s on LinkedIn, check out “Skeptical Science”. It’s not sceptical and not particlarly scientific either (IMHO)
Time for WUWT and it’s readers to regain some decorum in our rhetroic now that America has been given an opportunity to return to sanity due to the recent election
Trumps election ends the Pandemic Era so let the healing begin.
So let’s stick to logic, concepts, data and ideas in our debate. We don’t want to make the same mistake as the DEMs in their rhetoric
Let’s side step carricture, ad hominen and the nasty, mean and the fallacous in our discourse. The leftest were loud for 5 years on “outsized mircophones” (D.Rep, Ritchie Torres) , lying like the old Soviet Union, and all the other abuses and wrong doing we are already way too famalier. Their lies and propganda damaged the country badly beginning in 2019 and ended up biting them in the butt.
It’s time for us to model free and open debate without the psychologcal risk of being smacked down by loud nasty pundits, left or right. .
The Dems lost due to the desensitization of fear mongering lies within their revoluationary propaganda machine leading credibility fatique (i.e. Climate, Anti-Trump, Identy, defund police, border and so on). After 5 years, it backfired and lost them the last election. They didn’t see it coming…so much for Leftist hubris.
Let us not engage in the same sort of hubris.
Let WUWT and its readers not make the same mistake.
The election empowered sanity to rein everywhere including the dem party.
More Science Please!
Well known Lawyer adage:
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts;
if you have the law on your side, pound the law;
if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
______________________________________________________________________________
The left has been pounding the table for a long time.
The laws of physics and statistics don’t support their narrative.
Thanks Steve, Agreed, My point is a matter of degree and their hubris thinking they could propel a revolution on tired fear mongering propaganda which got Trumped. Even many dems caught on and are sick uf it.
My question regarding the left climate propelled revolution… now what? Their propaganda doesn’t work anymore for the bulk of America. What is next in their game plan. My other point is big deep pocket elites funded the whole deal leveraging the fringe left and propelling them into the mainstream via a massive propaganda campaign since 2016. Those deep pockets are still out their and defeat and retreat are no in the vocabulary… So how to we anticipate their next step…. that is the question.
huh. Need to get more jets in the right spot to stave off the next Ice Age:
https://news.sky.com/story/warming-effect-of-jet-contrails-can-be-cut-for-a-few-pounds-per-ticket-says-study-13253482