The enviro-lawfare zealots keep rolling on, but at their own peril. Funny how totally oblivious they are to what can sink their entire effort. I’ll have my dissection of the latest in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits madness posted at my GelbspanFiles blog in the next few days. In the meantime, my interim post teaser notes how no amount of appeasement to the enviro mob ever insulates energy company folks from being targeted by these mobsters. One of these days, fossil fuel execs will learn this lesson.
“Watch this space: ‘Carrboro v Duke Energy’“
Ron Long
December 15, 2024 2:30 am
LA NINA IS A BAD GIRL. The ENSO condition currently is slightly in the lower Neutral zone, after a normal La Nina, with a predicted return to La Nina conditions in a month or two. I’m now on a short vacation on the coast of Chile, and the fish are not jumping and the cotton is not high. Never mind the cotton, the wine grapes are off to a slow start, and I’m close to a Panic Attack. All of that early and abundant snow in upper USA? The Bad Girl. So, if you prefer El Nino/Good Boy conditions you also prefer a warming world, so bring it on.
Ron,
Today’s “The Australian” newspaper 15 Dec has a long page 3 article starting ” The nation’s weather bureau will drop publishing incremental updates on the likelihood of El Nino and La Nina hitting Australia, conceding the controversial indicators have sowed confusion and given Australians a false impression of the seasonal forecast.”
BOM spokesman Dr Karl Braganza is reported saying that “the changing climate has made current weather patterns more varied than historical trends, making old methods of forecasting less reliable than new models.”
Another quote, “University of Melbourne weather researcher Kimberley Reid said weather models provided a better forecast because they relied on physics instead of historical precedents.”
Tomorrow I shall be writing separately to Dr Braganza and Dr Reid for evidence to support their reported claims.
Dr Braganza, in particular, will be asked to list the quantitative features of the alleged “changing climate”. Overall, the only change of any comprehensible significance for 30-year weather has been a 1 deg C or so Australian warming in the last 100 years, disputed because of frequent large adjustments and uncertainties from UHI. Dr Braganza plays a central part in adjusting official temperatures.
Dr Reid might become more credible if she used both physics and observations to comprehend climate. The main tests of climate models, the periodic CMIP series, have failed to show performance of models anywhere near adequate to be used to inform policy decisions like Australia’s still standing policy of “net zero C by 2050”. Just look at the mess that is the climate sensitivity.
Wow.
Geoff S
Journals that publish articles about historical temperatures should require authors to include the original data along the adjusted data, effectively showing the real uncertainty.
For measurement of downwelling and upwelling infrared radiation, the SURFRAD stations use a pyrgeometer pointed skyward and one pointed downward. If there is difficulty with the concept of a flux in both directions, the measurements from these stations can help establish the importance of the atmosphere (including clouds) as a longwave emitter. You can go to any of 8 stations in the U.S. and plot the data. Solar radiation is also measured and reported. This example plot is from Fort Peck MT for December 13th.
I note that the accuracy of these instruments is not sufficient to isolate a cause for a long-term trend, but they are obviously responsive in real time.
The SURFRAD pyrometers are calibrated using the Stefan-Boltazmann relationship so they are not measuring radiation energy. They infer an energy based on S-B relationship. In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object. Downwelling radiation from the clouds does not occur. The clouds are retarding the loss of heat from the instrument sensor to space.
Page 12 discusses the calibration based on S-B relationship.
Also note the article differentiates between a pyrgeometer and a pyranometer. The latter actually measures EMR absorption by a black body and its thermal response through its heating effect rather than the cooling measured in a pyregeomeqer and inferring an incoming energy flux when it is actually transmitting EMR from the sensor.
The satellite data for this century clearly shows that reflected solar has reduced and OLR has increased: ?ssl=1
The changes are greater across the NH than the SH. A small region of Antarctica and a few degrees just north of the Equator buck the overall trend. CO2 would need some very special properties to so selectively alter the clouds.
It is a very slippery slope in physics when practitioners accept inference as something that is real. It lacks physical meaning.
“In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object.”
So you are saying that a cold object, one who’s temperature is above absolute zero, stops radiating energy in the presence of a warmer object? How is that?
So you are saying that a cold object, one who’s temperature is above absolute zero, stops radiating energy in the presence of a warmer object?
No, that is not the implication. A colder object can not transfer HEAT to a warmer body which would cause the warmer body’s temperature to rise.
Cooling of the warm body continues and warming of the cold body also continues until equilibrium occurs. A third body, the sun, complicates the issue since the atmosphere also absorbs heat from the sun via CO2 and H2O.
One of the problems with your comment is the dependence on definitions. This is the definition of “heat” from my thermodynamic text:
Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the
boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the
surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference
between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system
at the higher [temperature] to the system at the lower temperature, and the
heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the
two systems. Another aspect of this definition of heat is that a body never
contains heat. Rather heat can be identified only as it crosses the boundary.
Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon.
Further, heat transferred to a system is considered to be positive, and
heat transferred from a system, negative.
–Page 73, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, by Van Wylen & Sonntag, Copyright 1968
This definition probably dates back to Clausius–so it should still be valid. We gain two concepts from this definition: 1) heat is a boundary phenomenon (nothing contains heat), and 2) heat only travels from a hotter system to a colder system.
If you have two systems: one is a glass of water in equilibrium with its surroundings and the other is a glass of ice cubes at a lower temperature with its surroundings.
In the first case, energy is transferring between the water and the surroundings and from the surroundings and the water. However, there is no heat being transferred. In the second case, energy is being transferred from the surroundings to the ice cubes and energy is being transferred from the ice cubes to the surroundings, but only the energy from the surroundings to the ice cubes are a “heat” transfer.
Energy that walks like “heat,” acts like “heat,” and quacks like “heat” is only “heat” if the energy travels from a hotter temperature to a colder temperature.
He says:”The SURFRAD pyrometers are calibrated using the Stefan-Boltazmann relationship so they are not measuring radiation energy. They infer an energy based on S-B relationship.”
So I take his “no transmission” comment as the equipment is not measuring any transmission from a cold to a hot object it is calculating one based on S-B relation.
Anyway gases in the atmosphere don’t emit based solely on temperature. Pressure plays a large role. I.e. There are no infrared pictures of CO2 in atmosphere.
Attached is a graph showing the pressure/temperature relation of CO2. If emissivity is .0X seems pretty close to zero to me.
The Stefan-Boltazmann equation requires measured values from real objects to calculate a meaningful result. Those values are EMR measurements.The instruments have to measure EMR from below and EMR from above. Perhaps the output of the entire device is reported as calculated results rather than the measured units but it is ridiculous to claim that any calculated values are not based on measured values.
Cold objects radiated EMR to hot objects, period. The result of that EMR from the cold object to the hot object may be very small and never result in a net energy transfer, but the radiation surely does reach the object. Any rise in temperature of the hot object from that cold object radiation is readily offset by the 4th power increase in radiation from the hot object.
If you want to claim otherwise, It seems to me that you have to hypothesize some interaction of the EMR from both occurring in the space between.
Andy, his statement is “they are not measuring radiation energy”. If his statement is incorrect please show why. Gases don’t produce black body radiation curves.
Hmmm! So, “ Downwelling radiation from the clouds does not occur.” The clouds are aware that the Earth is warmer than they are, and therefore only radiate upwards?? I haven’t noticed, but does a flashlight also turn off when pointed at the sun? Or are you really only talking about the NET radiant energy transfer from warm to cold?
Anxiously awaiting RickWill’s response to this. It can’t be that he doesn’t understand that all objects above absolute zero radiate independently of the rest of the universe, but net energy flows away from hotter objects because they radiate more than cooler objects do.
Radiation is is short for Electro-Magnetic radiation. It exists in the electromagnetic field. The torch will radiate energy outward to the sun until it equilibrates with the sun. That takes the travel time of the speed of light both ways.
Given that the torch replaces a cooler object in the suns view, and likewise for the torch, both will lose less energy and warm slightly. The torch obviously more than the sun.
The gravity field equilibrates at the same rate. The speed of light in free space is a function of the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the free space I do not know why the gravity field equilibrates at the same rate but mass and energy are linked.
So when you point your torch at a galaxy 13 billion light years away, it will take 26 billion years to “equilibrate”?
No. The same amount of radiation is emitted by the torch regardless of where it is pointed. The radiation received from the 13 billion year old galaxy was emitted before the earth existed. The two are absolutely independent of each other.
“In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object.” Hmmm, anyone with the most basic understanding of black body radiation, really the basis of quantum mechanics, is going to stop reading right there, unless they are wanting to familiarize themselves with quackery. We haven’t based heat and work transfer on the flow of “caloric” for a long time now….
Mischenko has since passed away but his contribution to EMR transmission through Earth’s atmosphere forms the basis of many of the current measuring instruments. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/publications/
Find and read through those and you will begin your education into the real physics of EMR energy transfer.
This one is particularly relevant to your out of date education. This from the introduction:
Despite the extensive use of the RTT and directional radiometry (DR) in numerous areas of applied science and engineering, both disciplines had remained thoroughly phenomenological until quite recently and their physical basis had remained uncertain. This had led to the widespread characterization of the RTT by physicists as a semi- empirical theory lacking solid physical foundation. This situation has finally changed owing to the emergence of a new microphysical paradigm based on the direct and self-consistent use of the Maxwell equations. This paradigm solves the long-standing problem of establishing the fundamental physical link between the RTT and phenomeno- logical DR on one hand and the Maxwell equations on the other.
You are confusing net radiated energy flux with total energy energy flux. A black body that’s being held at 300K is going to radiate the same no matter what is around it. A black body held a 299K will radiate slightly less than and there will be a relatively small amount of net energy transfer from the 300K body to the 299K body.
You are confusing net radiated energy flux with total energy energy flux.
No. I understand the basic physics of EMR as determined by Maxwell many years ago and now widely applied to the instruments used to understand radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere.
“there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object”
You appear to have studied ThermoDUMBnamics and repeat a classic conservative myth.
All objects emit electromagnetic radiation based on their temperature, A hotter object will emit more radiation than a cooler one, causing a NET energy flow (NET means combining the warmer to cooler object flow with warmer to cooler object flow) from the warmer to the colder body.
If you truly want to understand rather than make silly comments then read this Mischenk paper. This is extracted from the intrioducxrtion:
Despite the extensive use of the RTT and directional radiometry (DR) in numerous areas of applied science and engineering, both disciplines had remained thoroughly phenomenological until quite recently and their physical basis had remained uncertain. This had led to the widespread characterization of the RTT by physicists as a semi- empirical theory lacking solid physical foundation. This situation has finally changed owing to the emergence of a new microphysical paradigm based on the direct and self-consistent use of the Maxwell equations. This paradigm solves the long-standing problem of establishing the fundamental physical link between the RTT and phenomeno- logical DR on one hand and the Maxwell equations on the other.
In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object.
The electric space heaters of today are rather pitiful descends of the heaters that used to be available. Those operated with bright glowing orange heating elements. One can feel warm air coming off the current heaters (fan produced convention) but not the hot radiation that their ancestors produced.
Are you trying to tell me that when I look into the front of the heater and can see the coiled wire, as well as supporting structure and the fan base at the center, that I am seeing those parts by visible spectrum EMR being produced by them and not by virtue of light from the LED bulb in the ceiling fixture (which produces no heat I can feel with my hand about 1 inch from it)?
I have a Pelonis radiant heater warming my legs right now. No fan needed.
I would say it is about the best electric heater I have used. It’s lowest setting is at 500 watts, and it seems to put out more heat than others set at 750 watts.
Fanless heaters are common and work properly. The fan is a way of more rapidly mixing the warmed air with the rooms colder air. The fanless heater just radiates onto what is directly in from of it. That eventually heats more of the room’s air if the heat being produced by the heater is greater than the heat being lost from the room.
I strongly doubt, however, that your fanless heater can compete with a kerosene or propane heater rated at the same wattage in regard to the temperature directly in front of the heater. The electric version functions at a much lower temperature than something burning, thanks to our Federal Mother.
You would need to go to CERES to get the actual values for error – they claim around 3W/m^2 in absolute terms but the net is calibrated to the ocean heat. The instruments will need to be recalibrated for AR7 because ocean heat and net radiation are drifting apart since the AR6 calibration based on the decade 2005 to 2015..
The curves I have sown are differences so far this century so only subject to instrument drift, which is very low. Their difference of 1.1W/m^2 makes up most of the ocean heat content because these two vary more than the solar input from year-to-year.
There is no “flow in both directions”. Flow goes one way. There is energy movement against the flow, but that is not a flow or flux. In the case of IR, the origins of the energy varies significantly based on the spectral signature, however the vast majority of downwelling IR at the surface is emitted just a few meters above the surface.
The point is that the whole concept of a ‘flow’ is wrong. It’s an abstraction that is useful for engineering calculations but taking it too literally leads to error.
There are no heat particles moving from hotter to colder. Radiation is a balance between incoming and outgoing.
Also please consider watching Dr. Will Happer earlier this year discussing pyrgeometers and the effect of clouds on downwelling IR, beginning at about 10:00 in the video.
I suggest you start to educate yourself on Michael Mishchenko’s work on applying field theory to radiation transfer. In my experience, I have found very few people grasp field theory so cannot grasp the physics of EMR transmission. The old radiation theory does OK but givers no understanding of the basic physics.
You could start with this paper. This paragraph from the bottom of page 14:
A traditional phenomenological way of addressing this profound inconsistency has been to claim that, in fact, the electromagnetic field must be quantized, which, allegedly, results in the emergence of photons as localized and “in- dependent” particles of the electromagnetic field forming a “photon gas” (see, e.g., [32]).
The lesson here is that you should not believe anything you are taught unless you can verify it by experiment. Also not all experts are created equal. Once someone is talking about bidirectional EMR, you know they do not understand the underlying physics of ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION.
I am an electrical engineer and we did laboratory experiments on electro-magnetics looking at such things as the characteristic impedance of transmission lines and the reflection of wavefronts from open lines and closed lines as well high frequency transmission in co-axial cable and wave guides. I was subsequently taught Radiation Transmission Theory but was always skeptical about the lack of physics behind it. Mischenko was instrumental in reconciling basic physics with what has been the classic approach to radiation transmission. It appears Happer only knows the classic approach because he spouts rubbish. He even refers to “greenhouse” gasses. To think gasses control Earth’s energy balance is utter tripe. Even your curves highlight the significance of the ice in the sky. The solid ice and water condensate are important. Water vapour is important because it is a radiative gas that condenses or solidifies. The product of those processes control the energy balance on the surface.
What do you say the pyrgeometer instruments are detecting, and what are they responding to, for both the skyward-aimed and downward-aimed units?
As you know from my posts for a long time now, I also agree that the non-condensing gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O are simply not capable of forcing energy to accumulate down here as sensible heat. So nothing in my post here was intended to support such claims being made by the climate movement. I did not even mention the so-called “greenhouse gases.”
Replying to myself again to clear something up. When I say, “both directions” it is not to suggest that infrared radiation is emitted and received “vertically” up and down (i.e. bidirectionally.) These instruments use a hemispherical field of view to receive radiated energy from any and all points from horizon to overhead. So “both directions” simply means that the measured overall intensity from the sky hemisphere and from the ground hemisphere are in opposite directions and differ in strength and in the reasons for their variation over time.
willhaas
December 15, 2024 2:50 am
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is essentially zero. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. Mankind does not even know what the optimal climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. This is all a matter of science.
“There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system” willhaas
Amazing how 99.9% of scientists could have been wrong for the past 128 years and 194 of 197 nations that joined the Paris Agreement were fooled by their own scientists … Alternative explanation: willhaas is a dingbat.
Consensus is NOT evidence of anything, especially when it is a FAKE consensus based on erroneous and simplistic understanding
(Is John Cook your reference?) 😉
You are a scientific NON-ENTITY dickie-boi…
You are INCAPABLE of providing one single bit of scientific evidence to back up your idiotic rantings.
Care to try, for once.. or run away again.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of 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.
“If there are no measurements to support a {conjecture}, it is just speculation.” [RG]
Willhaas is absolutely correct… you are absolutely NOT
Amazing? Not really, but you need to know history in order to appreciate that. And history is not your thing, is it?
99.9% of scientists once thought that fire was a substance called Phlogeston, that atoms could not exist, that the Sun went around the Earth, that the continents were fixed and unchangeable and that mankind was the centre of creation. If someone mentions 99% you know you are dealing with a medieval mindset. And is to be pitied.
99.9% of scientists have been wrong many times. That a hypothesis is repeated often does not increase is validity. So much for that argument. What else you got?
Those 99.9 percent of scientists are not claiming CO2 has an effect on the global climate system. What they agree on is CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 MAY have an effect on the global climate system.
Only the fools among them claim to actually see any effects from CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere or climate.
But Richard, the majority of nations executed incredibly counter-productive policies during the Covid period and it sure doesn’t show that those ideas were correct or even made sense economically.
Alternative explanation: its one of these mass irrational frenzies that humans are subject to. They take place in scientific communities as well as in primitive peoples, in rich and poor alike. Examples? History is full of them. Witch hunts, millenarial religious cults of all kinds, financial manias, pointless wars, orgies of mass killings such as WWI or the great Soviet purges or the Holocaust… Medical delusions such as bleeding, miasma theory.
In our own time we have seen satanic child abuse mania, the dotcom bubble, trans and gender mania, masses of people suddenly running around kneeling for Heaven knows what reason, hysterical lockdowns over COVID, disastrous consensuses on diet involving demonization of saturated fats, or all fats, or maybe its carbs….
Climate hysteria is a real thing, though largely confined to the English speaking world. Your claim that 99.9% of scientists have agreed for 128 years is actually an example of it. Of course they have not! This is what happens in manias, people endlessly repeat the received wisdom. They get more and more furiously vehement about it as evidence piles up against it.
Until one day they don’t any more.
Read ‘When Prophecy Fails’ for a very perceptive analysis of one of these manias. The mechanism is always the same.
I would say that there is evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not catastrophic. CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 425ppm and over the same period (in fits and starts) temperature has only risen around 1.5°C. Agricultural output has risen dramatically and severe weather deaths have declined. There is evidence that fossil fuel burning is beneficial to society.
I would say that there is evidence that there are other factors at least as significant to climate as CO2.
The fact that global temperatures generally declined in the period from 1945 to 1975 while CO2 emissions rose sharply can be seen as evidence that CO2’s effect is near zero. Alternatively it can be seen as evidence that CO2 cools the planet. Or evidence that a relatively small effect of CO2 was offset by some other more powerful cooling effect. Evidence is not proof.
Taken together with the evidence of general warming over the past 30 years, we should consider a hypothesis that CO2 cools the planet as being unlikely. But then again there is no proof that there was not a relatively small cooling effect offset by some more powerful warming effect. There is nothing in the evidence to disprove the hypothesis that CO2 is irrelevant to climate. That does not prove that it is irrelevant.
If you were in a city when a crime was committed, that is evidence that you could have been the criminal. If there are witnesses who say that you were in another state at the time of the crime, that is evidence that you didn’t commit the crime. But none of that is ‘proof’ of anything. If you were born 10 years after the crime was committed, that is proof.
Nobody has proof of the ultimate effect that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has on temperature. I don’t think that such proof is even possible, given the complexity of climate systems. Temperatures appear to be rising modestly based on satellite data. This can be taken as evidence that any factor that has changed over the same period, may be the cause of the observed change. But again, it is not proof.
Another important distinction is that something can be a real effect but not a significant effect. Maybe CO2 really does enhance the natural greenhouse effect but to a degree that is so small that it has no practical relevance.
The big problem we face is that politicians want to make massive changes that are detrimental to human flourishing not on the basis of strong evidence of harm, but on the basis of a lack of proof that dire predictions can be ruled out. If we can’t prove that temperatures will not accelerate out of control, then they want to dismantle modern society and plunge us all into a dystopian poverty.
I don’t see how you think you’re making your case. CO2 has risen far above what ice core evidence seems to show as the max over the past 6 glaciations. Temperature has increased by a modest 1.5° or so in the period where CO2 jumped up. How does that even begin to suggest evidence that CO2 does nothing? (Let alone proof).
Sure, it’s consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 can vary independently from temperature and other factors influence temperature. It’s also consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 added by fossil fuel burning enhances the natural greenhouse effect. There’s no conclusive evidence of anything here. Certainly no proof of anything.
Making claims that are not supported only defeats your argument.
Why do you not just focus on the fact that even if the hypothesis of enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, there’s no evidence of harm and the ‘cure’ is far worse than the disease?
The ice cores do NOT include any manmade CO2 emissions so can not be used as evidence of the warming effects of manmade CO2 emissions. You remain a dimwit.
‘The ice cores do NOT include any manmade CO2 emissions…’
So what? Increasing CO2 from 180 ppm to 300 ppm isn’t significantly different from increasing CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. Re. the former, significant temperature increases actually preceded the CO2 increases. Re. the latter, there is absolutely no evidence that the increase in CO2 had any effect on what amounts to a much smaller increase in temperature.
But I can prove that the warming observed has been minor. And that is not “adding nothing”. It is relevant that by their own theory the observed effect has been so small that we don’t have enough fossil fuel left to produce harm.
I am not claiming that either their hypothesis or yours is correct. I am bracketing the range of possibilities and concluding that whoever is right, there is no true risk.
Why do you need to mention co2? If you do you should saying it is speculative and irrelevant at the moment. That is their hypothesis not yours. Why give them the time? If they can’t prove their hypothesis you do not need to conjecture about it. Just talk about the current warming and it’s effects. Talking about co2 just feeds the zombies. That is what you are doing.
“The fact that global temperatures generally declined in the period from 1945 to 1975 while CO2 emissions rose sharply “
CO2 rose 7% from 1940 to 1975. The is NOT “rose sharply”. Not enough CO2 warming to offset the global cooling caused by rising air pollution.
CO2 rose 25% from 1975 to 2023 — that is more than enough to cause global warming.
You are qualified to join the WUWT Peanut Gallery that denies CO2 as a cause of global warming. File your application with WUWT Court Jester BeNasty2000
You are qualified to join the WUWT Peanut Gallery that denies CO2 as a cause of global warming.
You must be really thick. Even more than I thought.
No one is claiming co2 ”does nothing”. The claim is that it is either too small to measure, or that it may very well do nothing appreciable. You have no evidence to the contrary..
Hint – a 99.999999999% consensus is not good enough evidence to the contrary. Neither is a correlation between rising co2 and temperature.
Not enough CO2 warming to offset the global cooling caused by rising air pollution.
Speculative crap.
CO2 rose 25% from 1975 to 2023 —that is more than enough to cause global warming.
Speculative crap.
strativarius
December 15, 2024 2:53 am
Today’s Goebbels moment
Miliband pledges no blackouts under Labour’s ‘unstoppable’ renewable energy shake-up
The UK will not face blackouts under Labour’s proposed shake-up of energy supply, Ed Miliband has said, as he unveiled plans to boost clean power by the end of the decade. … Speaking on Friday, Miliband denied there was a risk of blackouts in a clean power system if the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. “That’s why you have a strategic reserve of gas-fired power stations, why you have, for example, long-duration energy storage, why you have batteries, why you have nuclear,” … The point of this is that we’re doing the right thing, not just for climate reasons.” It is also about energy security, he said” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/13/miliband-pledges-no-blackouts-under-labours-unstoppable-renewable-energy-shake-up
How very Blair of him to be “doing the right thing” Only flywheel is about to wreck the country….
There will be no blackouts, you might not be able to afford to buy the electricity unless you are a billionaire, but the electricity will always be available, so long as you can afford to spend £100 to boil a kettle.
Last year they signed up 2M people who got up to £4 per Kwh they used less of in peak periods. This year they only have 1M signed up and offer only £0.60p per Kwh reduced usage. They need 10M signed up to get anywhere near enough to get it to work when all those new windmills are becalmed. If they have to offer £10 per Kwh less usage to get 10M signed up then where does the £10 come from ?
Answer: the ones not signed up and already shivering in the cold.
They don’t need to make it mandatory. If you don’t want a smart meter you’re free to keep your old school meter. Oh by the way, the fixed rate for power is £100 per KW-hr and scheduled to rise £10 each month. If you’re a day late paying your bill, we come out and remove the old meter. Should you subsequently wish to apply for service, no worries! A smart-meter can be installed within a few months for a nominal £10000 fee.
Strat, have you been following the saga of the Spectator, Gareth Roberts and IPSO?
We are seeing the end of free speech in the UK. For those not all that familiar with the UK situation, here is a short summary.
Back in the day there was a scandal about the gutter press in the UK hacking phones and then using the private information they had got. To avert government regulation of the press (remember, the UK has no First Amendment or written constitutional speech protections) the press formed a voluntary standards organization, IPSO. The Spectator, like most publications, joined.
Recently they published a piece by Gareth Roberts which contained the following clause. Ms Sturgeon
‘was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender’.
Dawson complained to IPSO. And now, as the song goes, bury the rag deep in your face, now is the time for your tears.
Because IPSO found that the sentence was not a breach of section 1 of the Editor’s Code, which governs inaccuracy; nor a breach of section 3, which covers harassment; but it was a breach of section 12.1, which holds that ‘The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability’. (paraphrased from Michael Gove’s piece in the Spectator.)
And so it issued a penalty, which is that the Spectator must publish its decision.
Do you see what has happened here? Its censorship (with British characteristics) of speech which is perfectly lawful in the UK. The first two findings were that the speech was lawful, even truthful. But IPSO has usurped the editorial function and decided it was too upsetting for the Spectator rightfully to have published it.
It will undoubtedly have been upsetting to Dawson. It was arguably rude, unfeeling and unnecessary. But does an official body have any business telling a paper or editor it should not be publishing material just because it is not nice or polite?
The UK is in trouble. It is as a matter of policy adopting measures which are based mainly on irrational and obsessive feelings of minorities. Whether its on climate, energy, gender, or this construct they call ‘race’. There are new instances every day. The concepts of transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, racism have wide currency and increase every week. And in all these cases simply to voice a critical opinion of what the censors want to be received opinion is met by whatever sanctions they have at their command.
Various bodies then take it on themselves to penalize individuals who misspeak. They are all acting independently of course. Fire them, deny them banking, ban them from publishing. Whatever. The result is a chilling consensus, and an increasing atmosphere of careful silence in public outside of the circle of people one knows. Its the Soviet Union or China, with British characteristics.
And its coming, or rather has already come, to schools, universities, charities, place of work all over the country.
It strikes me that what is happening (I almost said, what they are creating, though I don’t think its being consciously created) is a sort of pressure cooker environment, which is becoming increasingly likely to explode as a landslide for Reform at the next opportunity.
@ur momisugly 10am Melbourne time now.
Rest of the day forecasts are for 41C in Melb, but only 32s – 34s in the 100 kms surrounding rural regions.
UHI on full display.
Again, and as ever.
Nick’s place is a bit further than 100 kms from Melbourne, so he’ll have a balmy 33 – 34.
Sweet!
A typical summer day for this time of year.
Forecast here in the Hunter on Tuesday is 37C, but the last couple of days the actually temp turned out about 2C more than forecast. Will run both air-cons all day 🙂
Tough time for the NEM will be the demand peak from 5pm – 9pm when roof top solar power is minimal to none.
story tip.
you guys have got to read this one.
try not to laugh to hard.
here is a teaser.
This fall, Ann Arbor residents resoundingly approved creating a ‘sustainable energy utility’ to provide solar power to city residents
Optional participation in the utility allows residents to draw power from utility-owned solar panels on their roof, ideally at a lower cost than their current DTE Energy bill
The utility plan comes as Ann Arbor races to get off fossil fuels and residents grow frustrated with DTE’s reliability and cost
Perhaps WUWT could follow the progress of this ‘plan’ doomed to failure and report regularly. It will be interesting to see when the penny drops, how long it will take.
Utility owned solar panels on their roof. A rent a roof scheme, with contracts. The European experience with such Air B&B construct is that you will not be able to sell your house until the rental runs out.
Yeah, I can’t even imagine the contractual complexity of who pays for what. “My roof’s leaking….”
Who’s insurance covers covers the panels or roof problems?
I grew up not far from Ann Arbor, and I remember when the people there were primarily conservative. What changed was an influx of federal government spending related to the University of Michigan and spinoffs, such as federal labs and medical facilities dependent on federal funds.
Ann Arbor has a lot of big trees in its residential areas, many have to be cut down to make way for solar. The University’s sports teams now have to fly even further and use more fossil fuels to compete in an ever growing sports conference.
What I see at universities, is ever growing construction of buildings and power consumption associated with data/computing, even as they tout their recycling of containers, paper, etc.
scissor, my experience in ann arbor started in 1962. i was 5yo.
dad and uncle had retail shop on campus since the mid 50s, same street for over 40 years. the town was much smaller then and the uofm leviathan was a much smaller part of the city overall. and yes indeed it was conservative. i go there only if necessary.
It was a great small town back then. Metzger’s, when it was downtown, was a favorite of mine. If you like German it’s still good but doesn’t have the ambience it once did.
Imo Philips said that he asked where was the breast exhibit at Ann Arbor’s Hands On museum.
Those are several indicators that universities everywhere just give lip-service to climate change and net zero, as they, among the most strident advocates for societal upheaval from the elimination of hydrocarbon-based fuels, never talk about eliminating or even just reducing the scope of college sports with its associated fuel budgets.
This duplicitous posturing gives students the impression they are the protected elite class while everyone else is subject to net-zero policies, implying they want a two-tiered society.
Their decarbonization advocacy can’t be taken seriously unless university boards set an example for society by cutting or eliminating sports programs, but I won’t be holding my breath, it’ll never happen, and it’s not necessary. Such advocates are just hypocrites. ‘Rules for thee, not for me’ types. They even don’t see their own two-faced elitist attitude.
There are numerous cranes for construction on campus ultimately leading to even more demand on its natural gas fired power plant. The university president, board of regents, and particularly its football coach (Prime) have discovered and regularly use private jet travel.
When I moved to Michigan in 1977: In the 1980s, It was a Republican town. Of course, that was just at the beginning of the Republicans running entirely off the rails. The university is liberal, and has many radicals, but the town is probably at this point is VERY liberal: Harris had over six times as many votes as Trump in Ann Arbor — 59,424 to 8,951
while defending recent rate hikes as necessary to make system improvements that will reduce outages.
consumers energy did the rate hike thingy a few years ago.
both know the grid is in jeopardy.
both trying to reduce demand with rate hikes during high usage times of day.
Can you explain the mechanics of how the utility will function?
It will be 18 months before you’ll see solar on roofs from the utility. First you’ve got to have the basics in place. You’ve got to have billing, you’ve got to have customer service, you’ve got to have your staff, you have to have your technical leads.
Just shy of 700 households or businesses have signed up to express an interest in the sustainable energy utility. We’ll start by contacting them, and we’ll develop recommendations based on their energy needs. For example, that could be rooftop solar and storage and maybe a little bit of insulation so you’re more efficient and you don’t need as big of a system. And you get to look at that recommendation and decide whether to sign up.
if you read in reverse, slowly and by candle light the question is actually answered.
from a question in the artical… How is that different from a homeowner simply deciding to install solar panels on their own?
Eventually we could have neighborhood micro grids (a system in which multiple households are connected to a shared solar array), so the residents with the really pretty trees could still receive solar power from a system in their neighborhood.
I know of a few places where 2 to 10 houses share a well. It would be a good idea to examine how these mini-systems work, or not. In one 2-house system, one lady wanted to have a green lawn in a climate zone of almost no summer precipitation. The other hardly had enough water for family functions. Who, then, pays if maintenance or a new pump is needed?
There are places in the US and in the world where solar power can work reasonably well (as long as the sun is out), but Michigan isn’t one of them. There is also a race developing to install solar “farms” on rural land here Maryland, complete with lots of community opposition. Maryland, never mind much further north states like Michigan, are not great places for generating a lot of power via solar panels. For at least 5 months out of the year (in Maryland), the sun is too low in the sky to generate much power, and of course nothing is generated at night. We don’t get a whole lot of snow here, but we do have long periods of gloomy, dreary days with no sunshine to speak of in winter. The situation is worse the further north you go, even less winter sun and the northern states often get lots of snow. So is everyone in these neighborhoods going to go out and clear the panels on their roofs after every snow?
IMO solar is a poor value (if it can be said to have much value at all) in all but the southern third of the US.
I’m one of the least knowledgeable here on climate and energy- but because I’ve been reading everything here for several years- I know a lot more than almost everyone I know in my life – and they’re mostly highly educated professionals! Even I can see faults with the Electric Viking. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s getting well compensated by ruinable energy companies.
2018 legislation that gave the FAA more power, including power over drones, expires on December 2024. It is too convenient that massive drone sitings are happening just before that legislation comes up for renewal.
NJ Drone ‘Invasion’ Just In Time For Congress To Reauthorize Related Orwellian Federal Aviation Administration Law, including strengthening the FAA’s oversight powers of drones.
Democrats are experts at lying with a straight face. The question here is which thing is the lie? That they don’t know what they are, or that there’s nothing to be concerned about? Or are both things lies?
Logically they
a) know exactly what they are so that they could accurately assess that they are harmless (Lie – Truth)
or
2) don’t have a clue but they don’t want to admit that and have a panic (Truth – Lie)
or
d) they know full well what they are and they don’t want you to know until it’s too late. (Lie – Lie)
The latest news is two people have been arrested for flying a drone. They were located on an island (not named). And the report said one suspect escaped via boat and was being sought.
No other details.
I note that a few days ago a Chinese national was arrested in California just before he boarded a flight to China. He was arrested for flying a drone over the space launch facilities at Vandenburg. So apparently somebody in the U.S. government has the ability to detect drones and their operators.
They should send this capability to the East Coast.
I think the Federal Government is finally mustering forces to tackle this mystery as enormous pressure is being put on them from local politicians of both political parties.
It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to follow one of these drones home. Police helicopters have infrared detectors and they can follow a drone even if the drone turns out its lights. So put a helicopter in the air so equipped, and have it hover above the drone and just follow it until it heads for home. How hard is that? I don’t think a drone can out-range a helicopter.
If you want to find out what these drones are made out of, just have them fly over Oklahoma or Texas. 🙂
Well, I don’t know about mechanical drones, but over here in the Socialist State of Washington and while out Christmas shopping, I’ve noted an ever increasing amount of apparently non-native ‘drones’ in my town. My maternal ancestors arrived through Ellis Island from Sicily in the early 20th century, with a job working for railroad available. No $$ assistance from Uncle Sugar for sure-thier surname was even changed as they arrived (sounds cliche’ but it is true). So, I have no underlying problem with legal immigration. Back to the present, I noted no fewer than 4 differing languages spoken (5 if you include English, which I rarely heard) Español being the predominant but included Ukrainian (or Russian, hard to discern); and at least 2 differing African dialects in addition to the Spanish. One could conclude that, after the recent elections going Republican in most of the US except for the west coat including this former beautiful State, that illegals have been flooding up and over here into the welcoming, open arms of governor-elect Furgeson, a devote leftist anti-Trumper, to escape into a Sanctuary State. This is fact, and a readily noticable and very recent change in local demographics. No judgements here, just had to get this observation off of my chest, if considered non-sequitir I apologize to all.
Feliz Navidad oops Merry Christmas from the melting pot,
Regards,
MCR
Post Script-6 languages, forgot to give equal time to the Arabic overheard, spoken by an apparent female covered head to toe in some sheet-like drapery equivalent. Just for accuracy.
Regards,
MCR
Not just Countries, but also certain US States should abandon environmentally destructive renewables, such as wind and solar, that produce lucrative opportunities for grifting and grafting by the elites, but only very expensive GRIEF for all others.
.
In 2023, world energy consumption for all purposes was 82% from fossil fuels, per the Energy Institute. The US percentage from fossil fuels is the same
.
Senator Collins of Maine, one of the calculating politicians in a Washington snake pit, is holding out approving the new Secretary of Defense, because she wants the secret PROMISE of $billions of goodies.
She already denied approval of the Matt Gaetz nomination for US DOJ to show how powerful she is.
How he caroused with women during his earlier life likely is of no importance to her, except if money can be pilfered out of the federal $vault for Maine’s highly subsidized, grid-disturbing, environmentally-damaging, fishery/tourist-killing, 850-tall, experimental, floating wind turbine contraptions, that produce electricity at 36 c/kWh with no subsidies, or 18 c/kWh after 50% subsidies, according to spreadsheet analysis.
.
If Denmark gets NO BIDS for three multi-$billion, standard offshore wind systems, in the North Sea, how in hell would Maine ever get any bids for its dubious, unproven, experimental floating contraptions?
.
The sooner politically connected, holy-cow, Aqua Ventus ceases to exist, and stops sucking from the government tits, the better for the long-suffering, over-regulated, over-taxed Maine people, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth Maine economy, recently burdened by thousands of coddled illegal aliens who increase crime, increase social unrest, and drive down the wages of low-income workers.
.
No wonder Trump got elected and took the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court
Enough is enough
.
Democrats just do not get it
They do not deserve to be in government, say We the People!
From: The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real . CO2 Sequestered by Coral .
In his study, Montaggioni determined a maximum coral growth rate of 8 mm/y.
If this is extrapolated to the current total global coral area10) of 423,589 km2, this results in a calcium carbonate production of 8.75 Gt CaCO3/y.
This corresponds to a maximum fixation of slightly more than 1 Gt C/y, or 3.7 Gt CO2/y.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.
.
In addition, a considerable part of the growth also takes place to the sides of the coral reefs.
Storms, waves or voracious fish repeatedly break off pieces of coral from the reef and its flanks.
These fragments sink to the seabed and build up a cone of rubble on the flanks of the reef.
The mass of this debris cone is built up along the way, so to speak, as the reef grows in height.
Therefore, the amount of carbon sequestered annually can confidently be estimated at a total of 2 Gt/yr. or 7.4 Gt CO2/y, or almost 1 ppm
At the same time, coral reefs account for only 0.12% of the total area of the oceans.
It should be noted, these figures are maximum values: it is hardly possible to seriously estimate average values.
. Calcification Across All Oceans and Across All Latitudes .
In addition to corals, countless other organisms produce large quantities of durable calcium carbonate shells from CO2and calcium ions.
These include cyanobacteria and uni-cellular green algae on the carbonate platform of the Bahamas, which thrive several times a year in such masses, their calcareous shells color the water milky white, visible on satellite photos.
Over millions of years, these tiny single-celled organisms have piled up the Bahamas carbonate platform to a thickness of about 4.5 kilometers.
The much larger Florida platform reaches a thickness of up to 12 km.
.
The total ocean-wide calcium carbonate production by tiny organisms with calcareous shells, which occur in shallow waters, but in many cases also in the entire near-surface ocean, is estimated by various authors to range from < 1 Gt C yr-1 11) to 1.6 Gt C yr-1 12) and 2 Gt C yr-1 13) up to 4.7 Gt C yr-1 14) and 5 Gt C yr-1 15). . Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2. Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023
About 10 to 40% of these emissions are permanently stored as limestone in the oceans, in the same year
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, human plus natural, it is near the lowest level in 600 million years.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes and Net Zero by 2050 schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs.
Crops in open fields, with CO2 at 420 ppm, require fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and much machinery to have high yields/acre.
Crops in greenhouses, with CO2 at 1200 ppm, require minimal chemicals, have 2 to 3 times higher yields/acre
Many plants have become weak or extinct, along with the fauna they support, due to CO2 at 420 ppm, or less.
As a result, many areas of the world lost resilience, became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 ppm needs to at least double or triple. Unfortunately, not enough fossil fuel is left over to make that CO2 increase happen.
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as long-term cycles, fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
. Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt. Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere = 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.3 ppm (assumed); to forests and other sinks 1.55 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.
Forests net CO2 absorption = absorption 15.6 Gt – emission 8.1 Gt = 7.6 Gt, or almost 1 ppm https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-satellites-help-quantify-forests-impacts-on-the-global-carbon-budget/
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasons
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
. https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/ https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora and fauna in the oceans, such as plankton, kelp, coral, seagrass, shell fishes, etc. See The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at The Real Science https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of ions [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural) https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
DRILL — BABY — DRILL
ROLL ON JANUARY 20TH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The enviro-lawfare zealots keep rolling on, but at their own peril. Funny how totally oblivious they are to what can sink their entire effort. I’ll have my dissection of the latest in the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits madness posted at my GelbspanFiles blog in the next few days. In the meantime, my interim post teaser notes how no amount of appeasement to the enviro mob ever insulates energy company folks from being targeted by these mobsters. One of these days, fossil fuel execs will learn this lesson.
“Watch this space: ‘Carrboro v Duke Energy’“
LA NINA IS A BAD GIRL. The ENSO condition currently is slightly in the lower Neutral zone, after a normal La Nina, with a predicted return to La Nina conditions in a month or two. I’m now on a short vacation on the coast of Chile, and the fish are not jumping and the cotton is not high. Never mind the cotton, the wine grapes are off to a slow start, and I’m close to a Panic Attack. All of that early and abundant snow in upper USA? The Bad Girl. So, if you prefer El Nino/Good Boy conditions you also prefer a warming world, so bring it on.
My article on X about
La Niña Threshold Not Yet Reached, ENSO Neutral Conditions Persist: Full-fledged La Nina Requires At Least Five Months
https://x.com/ugaap/status/1865071172762898519
Ron,
Today’s “The Australian” newspaper 15 Dec has a long page 3 article starting ” The nation’s weather bureau will drop publishing incremental updates on the likelihood of El Nino and La Nina hitting Australia, conceding the controversial indicators have sowed confusion and given Australians a false impression of the seasonal forecast.”
BOM spokesman Dr Karl Braganza is reported saying that “the changing climate has made current weather patterns more varied than historical trends, making old methods of forecasting less reliable than new models.”
Another quote, “University of Melbourne weather researcher Kimberley Reid said weather models provided a better forecast because they relied on physics instead of historical precedents.”
Tomorrow I shall be writing separately to Dr Braganza and Dr Reid for evidence to support their reported claims.
Dr Braganza, in particular, will be asked to list the quantitative features of the alleged “changing climate”. Overall, the only change of any comprehensible significance for 30-year weather has been a 1 deg C or so Australian warming in the last 100 years, disputed because of frequent large adjustments and uncertainties from UHI. Dr Braganza plays a central part in adjusting official temperatures.
Dr Reid might become more credible if she used both physics and observations to comprehend climate. The main tests of climate models, the periodic CMIP series, have failed to show performance of models anywhere near adequate to be used to inform policy decisions like Australia’s still standing policy of “net zero C by 2050”. Just look at the mess that is the climate sensitivity.
Wow.
Geoff S
Journals that publish articles about historical temperatures should require authors to include the original data along the adjusted data, effectively showing the real uncertainty.
Good on you Geoff.
Let us know their reply (if any)
For measurement of downwelling and upwelling infrared radiation, the SURFRAD stations use a pyrgeometer pointed skyward and one pointed downward. If there is difficulty with the concept of a flux in both directions, the measurements from these stations can help establish the importance of the atmosphere (including clouds) as a longwave emitter. You can go to any of 8 stations in the U.S. and plot the data. Solar radiation is also measured and reported. This example plot is from Fort Peck MT for December 13th.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
I note that the accuracy of these instruments is not sufficient to isolate a cause for a long-term trend, but they are obviously responsive in real time.
The SURFRAD pyrometers are calibrated using the Stefan-Boltazmann relationship so they are not measuring radiation energy. They infer an energy based on S-B relationship. In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object. Downwelling radiation from the clouds does not occur. The clouds are retarding the loss of heat from the instrument sensor to space.
The sensor is also an energy source when it is pointed at a cooler object. The EMR transmits from the sensor to the cooler location. You will note in this article that it has an excitation voltage:
https://www.arm.gov/publications/tech_reports/handbooks/pyrg_handbook.pdf
Page 12 discusses the calibration based on S-B relationship.
Also note the article differentiates between a pyrgeometer and a pyranometer. The latter actually measures EMR absorption by a black body and its thermal response through its heating effect rather than the cooling measured in a pyregeomeqer and inferring an incoming energy flux when it is actually transmitting EMR from the sensor.
The satellite data for this century clearly shows that reflected solar has reduced and OLR has increased:
?ssl=1
The changes are greater across the NH than the SH. A small region of Antarctica and a few degrees just north of the Equator buck the overall trend. CO2 would need some very special properties to so selectively alter the clouds.
It is a very slippery slope in physics when practitioners accept inference as something that is real. It lacks physical meaning.
“In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object.”
So you are saying that a cold object, one who’s temperature is above absolute zero, stops radiating energy in the presence of a warmer object? How is that?
No, that is not the implication. A colder object can not transfer HEAT to a warmer body which would cause the warmer body’s temperature to rise.
Cooling of the warm body continues and warming of the cold body also continues until equilibrium occurs. A third body, the sun, complicates the issue since the atmosphere also absorbs heat from the sun via CO2 and H2O.
Some implication which you infer is not what is stated.
One of the problems with your comment is the dependence on definitions. This is the definition of “heat” from my thermodynamic text:
Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the
boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the
surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference
between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system
at the higher [temperature] to the system at the lower temperature, and the
heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the
two systems. Another aspect of this definition of heat is that a body never
contains heat. Rather heat can be identified only as it crosses the boundary.
Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon.
Further, heat transferred to a system is considered to be positive, and
heat transferred from a system, negative.
–Page 73, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, by Van Wylen & Sonntag, Copyright 1968
This definition probably dates back to Clausius–so it should still be valid. We gain two concepts from this definition: 1) heat is a boundary phenomenon (nothing contains heat), and 2) heat only travels from a hotter system to a colder system.
If you have two systems: one is a glass of water in equilibrium with its surroundings and the other is a glass of ice cubes at a lower temperature with its surroundings.
In the first case, energy is transferring between the water and the surroundings and from the surroundings and the water. However, there is no heat being transferred. In the second case, energy is being transferred from the surroundings to the ice cubes and energy is being transferred from the ice cubes to the surroundings, but only the energy from the surroundings to the ice cubes are a “heat” transfer.
Energy that walks like “heat,” acts like “heat,” and quacks like “heat” is only “heat” if the energy travels from a hotter temperature to a colder temperature.
I read Rick’s post different than you do.
He says:”The SURFRAD pyrometers are calibrated using the Stefan-Boltazmann relationship so they are not measuring radiation energy. They infer an energy based on S-B relationship.”
So I take his “no transmission” comment as the equipment is not measuring any transmission from a cold to a hot object it is calculating one based on S-B relation.
Anyway gases in the atmosphere don’t emit based solely on temperature. Pressure plays a large role. I.e. There are no infrared pictures of CO2 in atmosphere.
Attached is a graph showing the pressure/temperature relation of CO2. If emissivity is .0X seems pretty close to zero to me.
The Stefan-Boltazmann equation requires measured values from real objects to calculate a meaningful result. Those values are EMR measurements.The instruments have to measure EMR from below and EMR from above. Perhaps the output of the entire device is reported as calculated results rather than the measured units but it is ridiculous to claim that any calculated values are not based on measured values.
Cold objects radiated EMR to hot objects, period. The result of that EMR from the cold object to the hot object may be very small and never result in a net energy transfer, but the radiation surely does reach the object. Any rise in temperature of the hot object from that cold object radiation is readily offset by the 4th power increase in radiation from the hot object.
If you want to claim otherwise, It seems to me that you have to hypothesize some interaction of the EMR from both occurring in the space between.
Andy, his statement is “they are not measuring radiation energy”. If his statement is incorrect please show why. Gases don’t produce black body radiation curves.
What do you suppose is being measured? It has to be some physical property.
A cold object radiates photons in all directions just as a warm object.
The only difference is the photons of the colder object are longer.
What happens to these photons, being absorbed or colliding, is another issue
Hmmm! So, “ Downwelling radiation from the clouds does not occur.” The clouds are aware that the Earth is warmer than they are, and therefore only radiate upwards?? I haven’t noticed, but does a flashlight also turn off when pointed at the sun? Or are you really only talking about the NET radiant energy transfer from warm to cold?
Anxiously awaiting RickWill’s response to this. It can’t be that he doesn’t understand that all objects above absolute zero radiate independently of the rest of the universe, but net energy flows away from hotter objects because they radiate more than cooler objects do.
Radiation is is short for Electro-Magnetic radiation. It exists in the electromagnetic field. The torch will radiate energy outward to the sun until it equilibrates with the sun. That takes the travel time of the speed of light both ways.
Given that the torch replaces a cooler object in the suns view, and likewise for the torch, both will lose less energy and warm slightly. The torch obviously more than the sun.
The gravity field equilibrates at the same rate. The speed of light in free space is a function of the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the free space I do not know why the gravity field equilibrates at the same rate but mass and energy are linked.
So when you point your torch at a galaxy 13 billion light years away, it will take 26 billion years to “equilibrate”?
No. The same amount of radiation is emitted by the torch regardless of where it is pointed. The radiation received from the 13 billion year old galaxy was emitted before the earth existed. The two are absolutely independent of each other.
“In fact there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object.”
Hmmm, anyone with the most basic understanding of black body radiation, really the basis of quantum mechanics, is going to stop reading right there, unless they are wanting to familiarize themselves with quackery. We haven’t based heat and work transfer on the flow of “caloric” for a long time now….
Exactly. Every object will radiate photons. It’s a fundamental fact of the universe!
And that would indicate that they have been taught simplistic radiation transmission theory that is devoid of fundamental physics.
If you want to understand real physics then watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjKJyn_uoIE
Mischenko has since passed away but his contribution to EMR transmission through Earth’s atmosphere forms the basis of many of the current measuring instruments.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/publications/
Find and read through those and you will begin your education into the real physics of EMR energy transfer.
This one is particularly relevant to your out of date education. This from the introduction:
You are confusing net radiated energy flux with total energy energy flux. A black body that’s being held at 300K is going to radiate the same no matter what is around it. A black body held a 299K will radiate slightly less than and there will be a relatively small amount of net energy transfer from the 300K body to the 299K body.
No. I understand the basic physics of EMR as determined by Maxwell many years ago and now widely applied to the instruments used to understand radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere.
“there is no transmission of EMR from a cold object to a hot object”
You appear to have studied ThermoDUMBnamics and repeat a classic conservative myth.
All objects emit electromagnetic radiation based on their temperature, A hotter object will emit more radiation than a cooler one, causing a NET energy flow (NET means combining the warmer to cooler object flow with warmer to cooler object flow) from the warmer to the colder body.
If you truly want to understand rather than make silly comments then read this Mischenk paper. This is extracted from the intrioducxrtion:
The electric space heaters of today are rather pitiful descends of the heaters that used to be available. Those operated with bright glowing orange heating elements. One can feel warm air coming off the current heaters (fan produced convention) but not the hot radiation that their ancestors produced.
Are you trying to tell me that when I look into the front of the heater and can see the coiled wire, as well as supporting structure and the fan base at the center, that I am seeing those parts by visible spectrum EMR being produced by them and not by virtue of light from the LED bulb in the ceiling fixture (which produces no heat I can feel with my hand about 1 inch from it)?
I have a Pelonis radiant heater warming my legs right now. No fan needed.
I would say it is about the best electric heater I have used. It’s lowest setting is at 500 watts, and it seems to put out more heat than others set at 750 watts.
A really nice heater.
This is what it looks like:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Midea-1500W-Quartz-Electric-Space-Heater-MSH20Q3ABBV-Black-New/5456258318?classType=VARIANT&from=/search
This particular one is a Midea, but it’s exactly like the Pelonis I have.
Fanless heaters are common and work properly. The fan is a way of more rapidly mixing the warmed air with the rooms colder air. The fanless heater just radiates onto what is directly in from of it. That eventually heats more of the room’s air if the heat being produced by the heater is greater than the heat being lost from the room.
I strongly doubt, however, that your fanless heater can compete with a kerosene or propane heater rated at the same wattage in regard to the temperature directly in front of the heater. The electric version functions at a much lower temperature than something burning, thanks to our Federal Mother.
Where is the uncertainty envelope for these two curves?
You would need to go to CERES to get the actual values for error – they claim around 3W/m^2 in absolute terms but the net is calibrated to the ocean heat. The instruments will need to be recalibrated for AR7 because ocean heat and net radiation are drifting apart since the AR6 calibration based on the decade 2005 to 2015..
The curves I have sown are differences so far this century so only subject to instrument drift, which is very low. Their difference of 1.1W/m^2 makes up most of the ocean heat content because these two vary more than the solar input from year-to-year.
There is no “flow in both directions”. Flow goes one way. There is energy movement against the flow, but that is not a flow or flux. In the case of IR, the origins of the energy varies significantly based on the spectral signature, however the vast majority of downwelling IR at the surface is emitted just a few meters above the surface.
The point is that the whole concept of a ‘flow’ is wrong. It’s an abstraction that is useful for engineering calculations but taking it too literally leads to error.
There are no heat particles moving from hotter to colder. Radiation is a balance between incoming and outgoing.
For further reading about pyrgeometers, I found this paper.
https://downloads.psl.noaa.gov/BLO/Air-Sea/DYNAMO/fairall_IR_rads_JTECH_1998_i1520-0426-15-6-1229.pdf
Also please consider watching Dr. Will Happer earlier this year discussing pyrgeometers and the effect of clouds on downwelling IR, beginning at about 10:00 in the video.
I suggest you start to educate yourself on Michael Mishchenko’s work on applying field theory to radiation transfer. In my experience, I have found very few people grasp field theory so cannot grasp the physics of EMR transmission. The old radiation theory does OK but givers no understanding of the basic physics.
You could start with this paper. This paragraph from the bottom of page 14:
The lesson here is that you should not believe anything you are taught unless you can verify it by experiment. Also not all experts are created equal. Once someone is talking about bidirectional EMR, you know they do not understand the underlying physics of ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION.
I am an electrical engineer and we did laboratory experiments on electro-magnetics looking at such things as the characteristic impedance of transmission lines and the reflection of wavefronts from open lines and closed lines as well high frequency transmission in co-axial cable and wave guides. I was subsequently taught Radiation Transmission Theory but was always skeptical about the lack of physics behind it. Mischenko was instrumental in reconciling basic physics with what has been the classic approach to radiation transmission. It appears Happer only knows the classic approach because he spouts rubbish. He even refers to “greenhouse” gasses. To think gasses control Earth’s energy balance is utter tripe. Even your curves highlight the significance of the ice in the sky. The solid ice and water condensate are important. Water vapour is important because it is a radiative gas that condenses or solidifies. The product of those processes control the energy balance on the surface.
What do you say the pyrgeometer instruments are detecting, and what are they responding to, for both the skyward-aimed and downward-aimed units?
As you know from my posts for a long time now, I also agree that the non-condensing gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O are simply not capable of forcing energy to accumulate down here as sensible heat. So nothing in my post here was intended to support such claims being made by the climate movement. I did not even mention the so-called “greenhouse gases.”
Replying to myself again to clear something up. When I say, “both directions” it is not to suggest that infrared radiation is emitted and received “vertically” up and down (i.e. bidirectionally.) These instruments use a hemispherical field of view to receive radiated energy from any and all points from horizon to overhead. So “both directions” simply means that the measured overall intensity from the sky hemisphere and from the ground hemisphere are in opposite directions and differ in strength and in the reasons for their variation over time.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is essentially zero. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. Mankind does not even know what the optimal climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. This is all a matter of science.
Early morning here….and head is struggling…. maybe something I drank last night ?? 😉
.. but totally agree with Will. 🙂
“There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system” willhaas
Amazing how 99.9% of scientists could have been wrong for the past 128 years and 194 of 197 nations that joined the Paris Agreement were fooled by their own scientists … Alternative explanation: willhaas is a dingbat.
Consensus is NOT evidence of anything, especially when it is a FAKE consensus based on erroneous and simplistic understanding
(Is John Cook your reference?) 😉
You are a scientific NON-ENTITY dickie-boi…
You are INCAPABLE of providing one single bit of scientific evidence to back up your idiotic rantings.
Care to try, for once.. or run away again.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of 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.
“If there are no measurements to support a {conjecture}, it is just speculation.” [RG]
Willhaas is absolutely correct… you are absolutely NOT
Have we even gotten a source for the 99.9% claim? RG is the only one I’ve ever seen make that claim.
Scientific consensus is a liberal myth.
Not to mention being an oxymoron.
An oxymoron stated by a moron… Makes sense. 🙂
The obligatory RM was here, proudly presenting his ignorance.
Amazing? Not really, but you need to know history in order to appreciate that. And history is not your thing, is it?
99.9% of scientists once thought that fire was a substance called Phlogeston, that atoms could not exist, that the Sun went around the Earth, that the continents were fixed and unchangeable and that mankind was the centre of creation. If someone mentions 99% you know you are dealing with a medieval mindset. And is to be pitied.
99.9% of scientists have been wrong many times. That a hypothesis is repeated often does not increase is validity. So much for that argument. What else you got?
You are a nut without a mirror
Those 99.9 percent of scientists are not claiming CO2 has an effect on the global climate system. What they agree on is CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 MAY have an effect on the global climate system.
Only the fools among them claim to actually see any effects from CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere or climate.
It is not the opinion of the many that counts, but the clarity of the few
“. . . the Paris Agreement were fooled by their own scientists . . . .”
I only need to quote Richard Feynman:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool.”
But Richard, the majority of nations executed incredibly counter-productive policies during the Covid period and it sure doesn’t show that those ideas were correct or even made sense economically.
Alternative explanation: its one of these mass irrational frenzies that humans are subject to. They take place in scientific communities as well as in primitive peoples, in rich and poor alike. Examples? History is full of them. Witch hunts, millenarial religious cults of all kinds, financial manias, pointless wars, orgies of mass killings such as WWI or the great Soviet purges or the Holocaust… Medical delusions such as bleeding, miasma theory.
In our own time we have seen satanic child abuse mania, the dotcom bubble, trans and gender mania, masses of people suddenly running around kneeling for Heaven knows what reason, hysterical lockdowns over COVID, disastrous consensuses on diet involving demonization of saturated fats, or all fats, or maybe its carbs….
Climate hysteria is a real thing, though largely confined to the English speaking world. Your claim that 99.9% of scientists have agreed for 128 years is actually an example of it. Of course they have not! This is what happens in manias, people endlessly repeat the received wisdom. They get more and more furiously vehement about it as evidence piles up against it.
Until one day they don’t any more.
Read ‘When Prophecy Fails’ for a very perceptive analysis of one of these manias. The mechanism is always the same.
What is ‘real evidence’?
I would say that there is evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not catastrophic. CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 425ppm and over the same period (in fits and starts) temperature has only risen around 1.5°C. Agricultural output has risen dramatically and severe weather deaths have declined. There is evidence that fossil fuel burning is beneficial to society.
I would say that there is evidence that there are other factors at least as significant to climate as CO2.
The fact that global temperatures generally declined in the period from 1945 to 1975 while CO2 emissions rose sharply can be seen as evidence that CO2’s effect is near zero. Alternatively it can be seen as evidence that CO2 cools the planet. Or evidence that a relatively small effect of CO2 was offset by some other more powerful cooling effect. Evidence is not proof.
Taken together with the evidence of general warming over the past 30 years, we should consider a hypothesis that CO2 cools the planet as being unlikely. But then again there is no proof that there was not a relatively small cooling effect offset by some more powerful warming effect. There is nothing in the evidence to disprove the hypothesis that CO2 is irrelevant to climate. That does not prove that it is irrelevant.
If you were in a city when a crime was committed, that is evidence that you could have been the criminal. If there are witnesses who say that you were in another state at the time of the crime, that is evidence that you didn’t commit the crime. But none of that is ‘proof’ of anything. If you were born 10 years after the crime was committed, that is proof.
Nobody has proof of the ultimate effect that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has on temperature. I don’t think that such proof is even possible, given the complexity of climate systems. Temperatures appear to be rising modestly based on satellite data. This can be taken as evidence that any factor that has changed over the same period, may be the cause of the observed change. But again, it is not proof.
Another important distinction is that something can be a real effect but not a significant effect. Maybe CO2 really does enhance the natural greenhouse effect but to a degree that is so small that it has no practical relevance.
The big problem we face is that politicians want to make massive changes that are detrimental to human flourishing not on the basis of strong evidence of harm, but on the basis of a lack of proof that dire predictions can be ruled out. If we can’t prove that temperatures will not accelerate out of control, then they want to dismantle modern society and plunge us all into a dystopian poverty.
The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 does nothing.
The climate cult love to show the large increase of CO2, but don’t realise that the temperature has not followed
I don’t see how you think you’re making your case. CO2 has risen far above what ice core evidence seems to show as the max over the past 6 glaciations. Temperature has increased by a modest 1.5° or so in the period where CO2 jumped up. How does that even begin to suggest evidence that CO2 does nothing? (Let alone proof).
Sure, it’s consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 can vary independently from temperature and other factors influence temperature. It’s also consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 added by fossil fuel burning enhances the natural greenhouse effect. There’s no conclusive evidence of anything here. Certainly no proof of anything.
Making claims that are not supported only defeats your argument.
Why do you not just focus on the fact that even if the hypothesis of enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, there’s no evidence of harm and the ‘cure’ is far worse than the disease?
Well, what does CO2 do ??
A steep rise in CO2 obviously had basically ZERO EFFECT on temperature, which remains only a small amount above the coldest of the Holocene.
It is not remotely consistent with CO2 causing warming.
Making claims that are based purely on speculation only defeats your non-argument.
Why don’t you focus on providing empirical evidence that CO2 does actually cause atmospheric warming, instead of cow-towing to AGW mantra.
The ice cores do NOT include any manmade CO2 emissions so can not be used as evidence of the warming effects of manmade CO2 emissions. You remain a dimwit.
‘The ice cores do NOT include any manmade CO2 emissions…’
So what? Increasing CO2 from 180 ppm to 300 ppm isn’t significantly different from increasing CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. Re. the former, significant temperature increases actually preceded the CO2 increases. Re. the latter, there is absolutely no evidence that the increase in CO2 had any effect on what amounts to a much smaller increase in temperature.
There is nothing in the evidence to disprove that eating pasta fagioli is irrelevant to climate.
Correct. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’m saying focus on the facts that you can substantiate and don’t try to ‘prove’ the unprovable.
Any effect that CO2 has had on temperature has been limited to a harmless warming. Maybe zero, maybe 1.5°C—meh!
Fossil fuel burning has vast benefits to mankind. Undeniable.
More CO2 enhances agriculture. Undeniable.
Wind and solar cannot power our industrial society without bankrupting us. Defensible.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
The only fact regarding the slight recent warming of the Earth is that there was a slight recent warming of the Earth. I’m focusing on that fact.
Saying things like..
…….just feeds the zombies and contributes net zero to our understanding.
Absolutely wrong.
You cannot prove that CO2 “does nothing”.
But I can prove that the warming observed has been minor. And that is not “adding nothing”. It is relevant that by their own theory the observed effect has been so small that we don’t have enough fossil fuel left to produce harm.
I am not claiming that either their hypothesis or yours is correct. I am bracketing the range of possibilities and concluding that whoever is right, there is no true risk.
“But I can prove that the warming observed has been minor.”
But absolutely zero evidence any of the warming is from CO2.
No evidence that CO2 does anything..
By you can keep regurgitating AGW-cult memes if that is what you want.
Just makes you look like RG’s mate.
Absolutely wrong.
Why do you need to mention co2? If you do you should saying it is speculative and irrelevant at the moment. That is their hypothesis not yours. Why give them the time? If they can’t prove their hypothesis you do not need to conjecture about it. Just talk about the current warming and it’s effects.
Talking about co2 just feeds the zombies. That is what you are doing.
No you aren’t. You left out pasta fagioli.
The evidence is that a steep jump in CO2 has had basically ZERO EFFECT on the temperature.
There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has any warming effect at all.
Why keep cow-towing to the anti-science of AGW mantra..
Next you will be dragging out “consensus” as evidence, or something !!
“The fact that global temperatures generally declined in the period from 1945 to 1975 while CO2 emissions rose sharply “
CO2 rose 7% from 1940 to 1975. The is NOT “rose sharply”. Not enough CO2 warming to offset the global cooling caused by rising air pollution.
CO2 rose 25% from 1975 to 2023 — that is more than enough to cause global warming.
You are qualified to join the WUWT Peanut Gallery that denies CO2 as a cause of global warming. File your application with WUWT Court Jester BeNasty2000
You must be really thick. Even more than I thought.
No one is claiming co2 ”does nothing”. The claim is that it is either too small to measure, or that it may very well do nothing appreciable. You have no evidence to the contrary..
Hint – a 99.999999999% consensus is not good enough evidence to the contrary. Neither is a correlation between rising co2 and temperature.
Speculative crap.
Speculative crap.
Today’s Goebbels moment
Miliband pledges no blackouts under Labour’s ‘unstoppable’ renewable energy shake-up
The UK will not face blackouts under Labour’s proposed shake-up of energy supply, Ed Miliband has said, as he unveiled plans to boost clean power by the end of the decade.
…
Speaking on Friday, Miliband denied there was a risk of blackouts in a clean power system if the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
“That’s why you have a strategic reserve of gas-fired power stations, why you have, for example, long-duration energy storage, why you have batteries, why you have nuclear,”
…
The point of this is that we’re doing the right thing, not just for climate reasons.” It is also about energy security, he said”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/13/miliband-pledges-no-blackouts-under-labours-unstoppable-renewable-energy-shake-up
How very Blair of him to be “doing the right thing” Only flywheel is about to wreck the country….
This is where smart-meters come in.
There will be no blackouts, you might not be able to afford to buy the electricity unless you are a billionaire, but the electricity will always be available, so long as you can afford to spend £100 to boil a kettle.
Last year they signed up 2M people who got up to £4 per Kwh they used less of in peak periods. This year they only have 1M signed up and offer only £0.60p per Kwh reduced usage. They need 10M signed up to get anywhere near enough to get it to work when all those new windmills are becalmed. If they have to offer £10 per Kwh less usage to get 10M signed up then where does the £10 come from ?
Answer: the ones not signed up and already shivering in the cold.
Who will get the blame, Millivolt !!!
They have not thought this through.
They’ll just make it mandatory to sign up.
They don’t need to make it mandatory. If you don’t want a smart meter you’re free to keep your old school meter. Oh by the way, the fixed rate for power is £100 per KW-hr and scheduled to rise £10 each month. If you’re a day late paying your bill, we come out and remove the old meter. Should you subsequently wish to apply for service, no worries! A smart-meter can be installed within a few months for a nominal £10000 fee.
Strat, have you been following the saga of the Spectator, Gareth Roberts and IPSO?
We are seeing the end of free speech in the UK. For those not all that familiar with the UK situation, here is a short summary.
Back in the day there was a scandal about the gutter press in the UK hacking phones and then using the private information they had got. To avert government regulation of the press (remember, the UK has no First Amendment or written constitutional speech protections) the press formed a voluntary standards organization, IPSO. The Spectator, like most publications, joined.
Recently they published a piece by Gareth Roberts which contained the following clause. Ms Sturgeon
‘was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender’.
Dawson complained to IPSO. And now, as the song goes, bury the rag deep in your face, now is the time for your tears.
Because IPSO found that the sentence was not a breach of section 1 of the Editor’s Code, which governs inaccuracy; nor a breach of section 3, which covers harassment; but it was a breach of section 12.1, which holds that ‘The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability’. (paraphrased from Michael Gove’s piece in the Spectator.)
And so it issued a penalty, which is that the Spectator must publish its decision.
Do you see what has happened here? Its censorship (with British characteristics) of speech which is perfectly lawful in the UK. The first two findings were that the speech was lawful, even truthful. But IPSO has usurped the editorial function and decided it was too upsetting for the Spectator rightfully to have published it.
It will undoubtedly have been upsetting to Dawson. It was arguably rude, unfeeling and unnecessary. But does an official body have any business telling a paper or editor it should not be publishing material just because it is not nice or polite?
The UK is in trouble. It is as a matter of policy adopting measures which are based mainly on irrational and obsessive feelings of minorities. Whether its on climate, energy, gender, or this construct they call ‘race’. There are new instances every day. The concepts of transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, racism have wide currency and increase every week. And in all these cases simply to voice a critical opinion of what the censors want to be received opinion is met by whatever sanctions they have at their command.
Various bodies then take it on themselves to penalize individuals who misspeak. They are all acting independently of course. Fire them, deny them banking, ban them from publishing. Whatever. The result is a chilling consensus, and an increasing atmosphere of careful silence in public outside of the circle of people one knows. Its the Soviet Union or China, with British characteristics.
And its coming, or rather has already come, to schools, universities, charities, place of work all over the country.
It strikes me that what is happening (I almost said, what they are creating, though I don’t think its being consciously created) is a sort of pressure cooker environment, which is becoming increasingly likely to explode as a landslide for Reform at the next opportunity.
Yes, I did see that. I wish I could say I was surprised.
It would be worse had the democrats won in the US
It is forecast to be a maximum temperature of 41°c tomorrow in Melbourne Australia. The following day it is forecast to be a maximum of 25°c
We have less than 24 hours to live. HA!HA!
Be interesting to see what the temperatures are in rural areas at say 100kms from the CBD.
@ur momisugly 10am Melbourne time now.
Rest of the day forecasts are for 41C in Melb, but only 32s – 34s in the 100 kms surrounding rural regions.
UHI on full display.
Again, and as ever.
Nick’s place is a bit further than 100 kms from Melbourne, so he’ll have a balmy 33 – 34.
Sweet!
A typical summer day for this time of year.
Heatwave? We doan got no stinkin’ heatwave!
I have absolutely no idea who / what / how that link to urmomisugly got into my comment.
Forecast here in the Hunter on Tuesday is 37C, but the last couple of days the actually temp turned out about 2C more than forecast. Will run both air-cons all day 🙂
Tough time for the NEM will be the demand peak from 5pm – 9pm when roof top solar power is minimal to none.
How are the grapes??
I’ll ask one of my winery mates when I see them, but I suspect the Shiraz will probably be loving it. Concentrate the juices.
Look for a really good “solid” tasting vintage. 🙂
I remember that flying when the OAT was around 30 was HOT! (OAT: outside air temperature on a plane)
story tip.
you guys have got to read this one.
try not to laugh to hard.
here is a teaser.
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/ann-arbor-hopes-bring-rooftop-solar-masses-creating-utility
You really couldn’t make up better humour than this:
Obviously also immune to outages of sunlight? Like every night…
And you can’t run a house on rooftop solar alone anyway, not without specialised and expensive equipment. It needs a grid.
But, but, I thought it was cheaper! That’s 10 years of electricity bills for a lot of people. Hmmmm.
There’s a whole article promoting this idea, and yet explaining clearly why it won’t work. It would be very amusing if these idiots weren’t serious.
Perhaps WUWT could follow the progress of this ‘plan’ doomed to failure and report regularly. It will be interesting to see when the penny drops, how long it will take.
Utility owned solar panels on their roof. A rent a roof scheme, with contracts. The European experience with such Air B&B construct is that you will not be able to sell your house until the rental runs out.
What’s the procedure when the roof needs replacing before the solar panel rental period is up?
Yeah, I can’t even imagine the contractual complexity of who pays for what. “My roof’s leaking….”
Who’s insurance covers covers the panels or roof problems?
Or if the utility-owned solar panels cause a fire.
Insurance fun !!!
The other thing to beware of is that by installing solar panels, you will be voiding any warranty you may have had on your roofing job.
I grew up not far from Ann Arbor, and I remember when the people there were primarily conservative. What changed was an influx of federal government spending related to the University of Michigan and spinoffs, such as federal labs and medical facilities dependent on federal funds.
Ann Arbor has a lot of big trees in its residential areas, many have to be cut down to make way for solar. The University’s sports teams now have to fly even further and use more fossil fuels to compete in an ever growing sports conference.
What I see at universities, is ever growing construction of buildings and power consumption associated with data/computing, even as they tout their recycling of containers, paper, etc.
scissor, my experience in ann arbor started in 1962. i was 5yo.
dad and uncle had retail shop on campus since the mid 50s, same street for over 40 years. the town was much smaller then and the uofm leviathan was a much smaller part of the city overall. and yes indeed it was conservative. i go there only if necessary.
It was a great small town back then. Metzger’s, when it was downtown, was a favorite of mine. If you like German it’s still good but doesn’t have the ambience it once did.
Imo Philips said that he asked where was the breast exhibit at Ann Arbor’s Hands On museum.
thats funny, i have found that the best exhibit at a hands on museum is the hand sanitizer station.
Those are several indicators that universities everywhere just give lip-service to climate change and net zero, as they, among the most strident advocates for societal upheaval from the elimination of hydrocarbon-based fuels, never talk about eliminating or even just reducing the scope of college sports with its associated fuel budgets.
This duplicitous posturing gives students the impression they are the protected elite class while everyone else is subject to net-zero policies, implying they want a two-tiered society.
Their decarbonization advocacy can’t be taken seriously unless university boards set an example for society by cutting or eliminating sports programs, but I won’t be holding my breath, it’ll never happen, and it’s not necessary. Such advocates are just hypocrites. ‘Rules for thee, not for me’ types. They even don’t see their own two-faced elitist attitude.
Yep. “Lip-service” is a apt description.
Here’s a joke. https://www.colorado.edu/sustainability/media/10
There are numerous cranes for construction on campus ultimately leading to even more demand on its natural gas fired power plant. The university president, board of regents, and particularly its football coach (Prime) have discovered and regularly use private jet travel.
When I moved to Michigan in 1977: In the 1980s, It was a Republican town. Of course, that was just at the beginning of the Republicans running entirely off the rails. The university is liberal, and has many radicals, but the town is probably at this point is VERY liberal: Harris had over six times as many votes as Trump in Ann Arbor — 59,424 to 8,951
Annie Arborring, is known as Berkley East. It is a hub for Crackpot Theories,
such as DEI, CRT and as well as Global Warming.
with out question!
from the artical….
DTE officials have acknowledged shortcomings in delivering reliable energy,
gee, i wounder why?
also from dte…
while defending recent rate hikes as necessary to make system improvements that will reduce outages.
consumers energy did the rate hike thingy a few years ago.
both know the grid is in jeopardy.
both trying to reduce demand with rate hikes during high usage times of day.
also…
Can you explain the mechanics of how the utility will function?
It will be 18 months before you’ll see solar on roofs from the utility. First you’ve got to have the basics in place. You’ve got to have billing, you’ve got to have customer service, you’ve got to have your staff, you have to have your technical leads.
Just shy of 700 households or businesses have signed up to express an interest in the sustainable energy utility. We’ll start by contacting them, and we’ll develop recommendations based on their energy needs. For example, that could be rooftop solar and storage and maybe a little bit of insulation so you’re more efficient and you don’t need as big of a system. And you get to look at that recommendation and decide whether to sign up.
if you read in reverse, slowly and by candle light the question is actually answered.
ok, just one more and i will stop, i promise.
from a question in the artical…
How is that different from a homeowner simply deciding to install solar panels on their own?
Eventually we could have neighborhood micro grids (a system in which multiple households are connected to a shared solar array), so the residents with the really pretty trees could still receive solar power from a system in their neighborhood.
ann arbor, oh how far you have fallen.
I know of a few places where 2 to 10 houses share a well. It would be a good idea to examine how these mini-systems work, or not. In one 2-house system, one lady wanted to have a green lawn in a climate zone of almost no summer precipitation. The other hardly had enough water for family functions. Who, then, pays if maintenance or a new pump is needed?
There are places in the US and in the world where solar power can work reasonably well (as long as the sun is out), but Michigan isn’t one of them. There is also a race developing to install solar “farms” on rural land here Maryland, complete with lots of community opposition. Maryland, never mind much further north states like Michigan, are not great places for generating a lot of power via solar panels. For at least 5 months out of the year (in Maryland), the sun is too low in the sky to generate much power, and of course nothing is generated at night. We don’t get a whole lot of snow here, but we do have long periods of gloomy, dreary days with no sunshine to speak of in winter. The situation is worse the further north you go, even less winter sun and the northern states often get lots of snow. So is everyone in these neighborhoods going to go out and clear the panels on their roofs after every snow?
IMO solar is a poor value (if it can be said to have much value at all) in all but the southern third of the US.
More nonsense from the Electric Viking.
America installed batteries equivalent to 20 nuclear power plants in 4 years
Another fool who doesn’t know the difference between GigaWatt and GigaWattHour.
I’m one of the least knowledgeable here on climate and energy- but because I’ve been reading everything here for several years- I know a lot more than almost everyone I know in my life – and they’re mostly highly educated professionals! Even I can see faults with the Electric Viking. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s getting well compensated by ruinable energy companies.
He’s on a power trip.
🙂
Reading between the lines I strongly suspect we’ll have our first nuclear power station before an offshore wind farm-
An offshore wind in the Bass Strait has been approved. But it won’t be running anytime soon. | Watch
Nuclear will be less costly than offshore wind farms, with fewer casualties.
Certainly no loss of whales.
Ok so how can it be that I’m the first to mention the Story of the Month—DRONES OVER NEW JERSEY?
What’s the scoop?
1) Alien Invasion
2) Terrorist Plot
3) Alien Invasion
4) Project Blue Beam
5) Alien Invasion
6) Deep State Assassination Plot
7) Alien Invasion
Biden would have them downed if they were gasoline powered.
I think he would first want to be sure that they weren’t from China before shooting them down. Wouldn’t want any friendly fire incidents.
2018 legislation that gave the FAA more power, including power over drones, expires on December 2024. It is too convenient that massive drone sitings are happening just before that legislation comes up for renewal.
NJ Drone ‘Invasion’ Just In Time For Congress To Reauthorize Related Orwellian Federal Aviation Administration Law, including strengthening the FAA’s oversight powers of drones.
NJ Drone ‘Invasion’ Just In Time For Congress To Reauthorize Orwellian Law | ZeroHedge
Alternative theory:
New Theory: NJ Drone Sightings May Be “Nuclear Sniffers” Following Elevated NYC Radiation Levels | ZeroHedge
That would be option 2, I guess.
I’ll call that option 8 – Deep state psyop
How can anyone say with a straight face that they don’t know what they are, but they are nothing to be concerned about?
https://youtu.be/NuAKnbIr6TE
Democrats are experts at lying with a straight face. The question here is which thing is the lie? That they don’t know what they are, or that there’s nothing to be concerned about? Or are both things lies?
Logically they
a) know exactly what they are so that they could accurately assess that they are harmless (Lie – Truth)
or
2) don’t have a clue but they don’t want to admit that and have a panic (Truth – Lie)
or
d) they know full well what they are and they don’t want you to know until it’s too late. (Lie – Lie)
(Any Buzz fans see what I did there?)
https://youtu.be/gVGbDEAnDyo
The latest news is two people have been arrested for flying a drone. They were located on an island (not named). And the report said one suspect escaped via boat and was being sought.
No other details.
I note that a few days ago a Chinese national was arrested in California just before he boarded a flight to China. He was arrested for flying a drone over the space launch facilities at Vandenburg. So apparently somebody in the U.S. government has the ability to detect drones and their operators.
They should send this capability to the East Coast.
I think the Federal Government is finally mustering forces to tackle this mystery as enormous pressure is being put on them from local politicians of both political parties.
It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to follow one of these drones home. Police helicopters have infrared detectors and they can follow a drone even if the drone turns out its lights. So put a helicopter in the air so equipped, and have it hover above the drone and just follow it until it heads for home. How hard is that? I don’t think a drone can out-range a helicopter.
If you want to find out what these drones are made out of, just have them fly over Oklahoma or Texas. 🙂
Well, I don’t know about mechanical drones, but over here in the Socialist State of Washington and while out Christmas shopping, I’ve noted an ever increasing amount of apparently non-native ‘drones’ in my town. My maternal ancestors arrived through Ellis Island from Sicily in the early 20th century, with a job working for railroad available. No $$ assistance from Uncle Sugar for sure-thier surname was even changed as they arrived (sounds cliche’ but it is true). So, I have no underlying problem with legal immigration. Back to the present, I noted no fewer than 4 differing languages spoken (5 if you include English, which I rarely heard) Español being the predominant but included Ukrainian (or Russian, hard to discern); and at least 2 differing African dialects in addition to the Spanish. One could conclude that, after the recent elections going Republican in most of the US except for the west coat including this former beautiful State, that illegals have been flooding up and over here into the welcoming, open arms of governor-elect Furgeson, a devote leftist anti-Trumper, to escape into a Sanctuary State. This is fact, and a readily noticable and very recent change in local demographics. No judgements here, just had to get this observation off of my chest, if considered non-sequitir I apologize to all.
Feliz Navidad oops Merry Christmas from the melting pot,
Regards,
MCR
Post Script-6 languages, forgot to give equal time to the Arabic overheard, spoken by an apparent female covered head to toe in some sheet-like drapery equivalent. Just for accuracy.
Regards,
MCR
Not just Countries, but also certain US States should abandon environmentally destructive renewables, such as wind and solar, that produce lucrative opportunities for grifting and grafting by the elites, but only very expensive GRIEF for all others.
.
In 2023, world energy consumption for all purposes was 82% from fossil fuels, per the Energy Institute. The US percentage from fossil fuels is the same
.
Senator Collins of Maine, one of the calculating politicians in a Washington snake pit, is holding out approving the new Secretary of Defense, because she wants the secret PROMISE of $billions of goodies.
She already denied approval of the Matt Gaetz nomination for US DOJ to show how powerful she is.
How he caroused with women during his earlier life likely is of no importance to her, except if money can be pilfered out of the federal $vault for Maine’s highly subsidized, grid-disturbing, environmentally-damaging, fishery/tourist-killing, 850-tall, experimental, floating wind turbine contraptions, that produce electricity at 36 c/kWh with no subsidies, or 18 c/kWh after 50% subsidies, according to spreadsheet analysis.
.
If Denmark gets NO BIDS for three multi-$billion, standard offshore wind systems, in the North Sea, how in hell would Maine ever get any bids for its dubious, unproven, experimental floating contraptions?
.
The sooner politically connected, holy-cow, Aqua Ventus ceases to exist, and stops sucking from the government tits, the better for the long-suffering, over-regulated, over-taxed Maine people, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth Maine economy, recently burdened by thousands of coddled illegal aliens who increase crime, increase social unrest, and drive down the wages of low-income workers.
.
No wonder Trump got elected and took the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court
Enough is enough
.
Democrats just do not get it
They do not deserve to be in government, say We the People!
From:
The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
.
CO2 Sequestered by Coral
.
In his study, Montaggioni determined a maximum coral growth rate of 8 mm/y.
If this is extrapolated to the current total global coral area10) of 423,589 km2, this results in a calcium carbonate production of 8.75 Gt CaCO3/y.
This corresponds to a maximum fixation of slightly more than 1 Gt C/y, or 3.7 Gt CO2/y.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.
.
In addition, a considerable part of the growth also takes place to the sides of the coral reefs.
Storms, waves or voracious fish repeatedly break off pieces of coral from the reef and its flanks.
These fragments sink to the seabed and build up a cone of rubble on the flanks of the reef.
The mass of this debris cone is built up along the way, so to speak, as the reef grows in height.
Therefore, the amount of carbon sequestered annually can confidently be estimated at a total of 2 Gt/yr. or 7.4 Gt CO2/y, or almost 1 ppm
At the same time, coral reefs account for only 0.12% of the total area of the oceans.
It should be noted, these figures are maximum values: it is hardly possible to seriously estimate average values.
.
Calcification Across All Oceans and Across All Latitudes
.
In addition to corals, countless other organisms produce large quantities of durable calcium carbonate shells from CO2and calcium ions.
These include cyanobacteria and uni-cellular green algae on the carbonate platform of the Bahamas, which thrive several times a year in such masses, their calcareous shells color the water milky white, visible on satellite photos.
Over millions of years, these tiny single-celled organisms have piled up the Bahamas carbonate platform to a thickness of about 4.5 kilometers.
The much larger Florida platform reaches a thickness of up to 12 km.
.
The total ocean-wide calcium carbonate production by tiny organisms with calcareous shells, which occur in shallow waters, but in many cases also in the entire near-surface ocean, is estimated by various authors to range from < 1 Gt C yr-1 11) to 1.6 Gt C yr-1 12) and 2 Gt C yr-1 13) up to 4.7 Gt C yr-1 14) and 5 Gt C yr-1 15). .
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023
About 10 to 40% of these emissions are permanently stored as limestone in the oceans, in the same year
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, human plus natural, it is near the lowest level in 600 million years.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes and Net Zero by 2050 schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs.
Crops in open fields, with CO2 at 420 ppm, require fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and much machinery to have high yields/acre.
Crops in greenhouses, with CO2 at 1200 ppm, require minimal chemicals, have 2 to 3 times higher yields/acre
Many plants have become weak or extinct, along with the fauna they support, due to CO2 at 420 ppm, or less.
As a result, many areas of the world lost resilience, became arid and deserts.
Current CO2 ppm needs to at least double or triple. Unfortunately, not enough fossil fuel is left over to make that CO2 increase happen.
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as long-term cycles, fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.
Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere = 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.3 ppm (assumed); to forests and other sinks 1.55 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.
Forests net CO2 absorption = absorption 15.6 Gt – emission 8.1 Gt = 7.6 Gt, or almost 1 ppm
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-satellites-help-quantify-forests-impacts-on-the-global-carbon-budget/
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasons
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora and fauna in the oceans, such as plankton, kelp, coral, seagrass, shell fishes, etc. See
The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at The Real Science
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of ions [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf