UK ambassadors to the US are often high-level politicos, with a career diplomat as an understudy to do all the hard work. The trick Starmer needs to pull off is to find a high-level Labour grandee who has not already piddled in Trump’s soup—repeatedly.
As Trump often says, if he only talked to people who say nice things about him, he wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. I’m sure Sir Stalin will find somebody to send to Washington.
The variation in equatorial Pacific relative sea levels in response to El Niño/La Niña cycles has been often reported in WUWT posts. The best example that I could find in the Gloss Core Network site is from the Kwajalein Tide Gauge, with monthly mean readings starting from the late 1940’s to present.
What makes this site unique is the recognisable sea level response to every El Niño/La Niña cycle from the 1950’s as summarised here.
As noted in earlier blogs, El Niños are characterised by low relative sea level responses in the western Pacific, and by high relative sea levels in the east.
I hold the view that refuting the core claim of the climate movement – which is that rising CO2 ends up forcing energy to accumulate down here as sensible heat – requires first understanding the circulating atmosphere (including clouds) as a variable emitter of longwave radiation. Overall, of the longwave radiation emitted to space, how much of it came from the land + ocean surface without being first absorbed by the atmosphere or clouds? In 2009, NASA said this amount is 12% of incident solar radiation. From the atmosphere and clouds, the amount is 59% of incident solar radiation. This is based on 29% of incident solar energy being reflected (i.e. an albedo of 0.29).
Which is the emitter, therefore, that matters most? The atmosphere, including clouds, is responsible for nearly 5 times as much energy delivered to space (i.e.,59/12) as longwave radiation, than the land + ocean surface.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.839 grams of CO2 and has a mass 1.29 kg.
In air at 70 deg. F and with a RH of 70%, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 11.9 grams of H2O and 0.78 grams of CO2, and has a mass
of 1.20 kg. To the first approximation and all things being equal, the proportion of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O Is given by:
GHE for H2O = moles H2O / moles H2O + moles = 0.66 / 0.66 + 0.018 = 0.97 or 97%.
This simple calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and molecule of CO2 absorb ca. the same amount IR light. Actually H2O absorbs more light than CO2.
The claim by the IPPC is the cause of recent global warming is a lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification of distributing donor funds ,via the UNFCCC and the IPCC, from the rich countries to the poor countries to help the cope with global warming and climate change. At the COP29 conference the poor came clamoring not for billions but trillions of funds.
Hopefully, president-elect Donald Trump will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown man.
Harold, let me first stipulate that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, and that I share your opinion that the IPCC is corrupt (to which I would add, like all UN bodies).
However, I am not convinced that you are disproving any actual claim of the climate change fraudsters here. They never claimed that CO2 is the sole greenhouse gas or even the most significant one.
Even if 97% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, it has always been the most significant greenhouse gas. Their claims are that the natural GHE is enhanced by the addition of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, and that this warming causes a rise in the amount of water vapor, which is a stronger GHG.
Making a weak claim doesn’t help the cause of skepticism.
The empirical data shows that even if the cause of recent warming has been the enhancement of the natural GHE by CO2 from fossil fuel emissions, it is not a dangerous effect, and is indeed probably a net benefit.
No, not at all. But that claim isn’t disproven by what Harold wrote. The alarmists claim that a small amount of non-condensing GHG can induce a large amount of water vapor.
“… non-condensing GHG can induce a large amount of water vapor.”
This is the proposed “positive water feed back”, but it is nonsense. 71 % of the earth’s surface is covered by water and it does not any help from CO2.
The major process transporting water from the oceans into air and onto the land is the wind. Climate models don’t take into account the wind for putting into the air.
About others, an X (fka Twitter) user with a profile that says, “Climate scientist at NASA GISS,” whom I will not name here, posted this yesterday 12/21/24. “No amount of paid shilling from (***another X user***) will change that CO2 is in fact the main control knob of climate change on Earth since pre-industrial and on many other timescales, we do control the future evolution of Earth’s climate.”
So even our own taxpayer-funded government employees are actively making this exact claim.
I am not saying that it’s true that CO2 is a climate control knob, nor am I saying that alarmists don’t talk about CO2 being a climate control knob.
What Harold says is correct but it doesn’t refute what the alarmists claim. They acknowledge the role of water vapor. They make erroneous and empirically unsupported claims about the extent to which warming from CO2 will drive higher water vapor and thus amplify the warming effect of CO2.
Forty-five years of satellite data dispute their claims. The equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is less than 2°C even if the only thing driving warming is an enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect from fossil fuel emissions, which is probably not true.
A less than 4° warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age would be beneficial to human flourishing. But if that requires finishing the first doubling to 560ppm and then redoubling to 1120ppm, it’s not very likely that we have that much economically extractible fossil fuel remaining. Thus my claim that it’s not a concern even if some of their hypothesis is correct.
I was just reponding to Scissor’s reply, “…that IPCC and others infer and try to convince us that CO2 is the control knob for climate?” to give a near-real-time example of exactly that claim.
In your reply here, “What Harold says is correct but it doesn’t refute what the alarmists claim” – I don’t disagree.
Well, you can of course state that Co2 is the ‘enforcer’, you have to provide proof outside of the assumption and that’s a problem, both from a physics standpoint as well in the context of the climate system. Give us the data, please. None forthcoming. Just a series of constructs.
I don’t subscribe to the alarmist viewpoint. As one who opposes the alarmists’ political program and wants to see it defeated, I’m saying that the argument that 97% of the GHE comes from water vapor doesn’t contradict the alarmists’ hypothesis. If it doesn’t discredit their ‘series of constructs’ then how is it going to persuade people that they are wrong to say it is a danger?
On the other hand, I point to data as analyzed in Lewis and Curry, that even when all observed warming is attributed to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, the observed warming amounts to an ECS less than 2°C which is only beneficial.
Mr. Davis makes an Important Point, one that is consistently missed by most commenters here: Warmer Is Better.
Regardless of the putative cause (CO2, water vapor, the sun, Milankovitch cycles, stellar dust, Jupiter, fairies, etc.) more warmth is, or would be, a Good Thing for humanity and Life Itself.
Much palaver is spent on this site in an effort to prove warmer isn’t (or will not be) happening. Okay. Be that way. Spin your wheels. Maybe you’re right. If so, it’s a stone cold bummer because warmer is entirely preferable.
Fear is our enemy. Fear turns independent sovereign people into malleable sheep. We should dispel fear as best we can for the good of society. One such dispelling is to convince the masses that warmth is nothing to be afraid of.
“Making a weak claim doesn’t help the cause of skepticism.”
With all due respect to your opinions, Rich, I assert that the position of the self-identified “lukewarmer” skeptic – that “some” accumulation of energy down here as sensible heat should be expected from rising CO2 concentration, but it’s not harmful and probably beneficial – is itself a weak claim. There is no means available to us to reliably attribute ANY of the reported warming to the computed incremental static radiative effect of any of the non-condensing GHGs.
A strong argument is one that logically excludes the key conclusions of the opponent. A weak argument fails to address some or all of the important claims of the opponent.
The claim that I seek to refute is that society must stop burning fossil fuels to avoid dangerous heating of the earth.
The key thing to be excluded is dangerous heating.
I don’t care if CO2’s net effect is zero and 100% of observed warming has been due to variations in cloud cover driven in some way by solar variations; or if it’s all explained by meridional flow changes; or nucleation sites seeded by galactic cosmic rays; or is effectively negated by emergent phenomena; or some combination of all of the above.
If any of those devilishly difficult to prove hypotheses should prove accurate, well, my premise that there’s no dangerous warming will be supported. I’ll be pleased to see that we have a better understanding of why there’s no danger.
To logically exclude the alarmist viewpoint, it is my strategy to accept per argumentum that the mechanism that the alarmists propose could be real and then demonstrate that the instrumental evidence doesn’t support a dangerous outcome.
And for the record, I am not a self-identified “lukewarmer”.
I define a lukewarmer as one who believes that fossil fuels emissions are definitely the primary cause of warming temperature observations. I do not.
The lukewarmer view is also usually that CO2 emissions, while not catastrophic, are nevertheless a problem. I consider enhanced CO2 to be most likely beneficial whether it contributes to warming or not.
I am convinced by the satellite evidence that the earth has been observed to be mildly warming from some causes which I can’t definitively establish.
I am convinced by the logic of the mass balance argument that the burning of fossil fuels has raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over a period of many decades.
I accept the conventional science that water vapor and a few non-condensing gases maintain liveable surface temperatures on earth. The natural greenhouse effect is real.
I observe that warmer temperatures are generally better for human flourishing.
I observe that we live on a homeostatic planet that has numerous emergent thermoregulatory phenomena.
I don’t know if enhancing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere on balance has a warming effect or not.
Thanks for your replies and clarification. I will not refer to your opinions as those of the “lukewarmer” position any longer.
Our disagreement, in a nutshell, is about the validity of the core claim about rising concentrations of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs.
If I am stating this correctly, you are saying there is no reason to think the claimed GHG warming will be dangerous; that the GHG warming itself and other effects are likely beneficial anyway; and that when we know more, it might turn out that the GHGs were not a factor at all. This position cedes the core claim.
I am saying that we already have a sufficient basis in observation from space, and in computed estimates of atmospheric dynamics, to conclude that the incremental static radiative effect of rising GHGs is fundamentally not capable of forcing absorbed energy to accumulate on land and in the oceans as sensible heat – most certainly not to any extent harmful. This, in my view, refutes the core claim directly and is therefore a stronger argument against the climate movement’s many branches of “impacts” and demands for “action.”
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful replies. We do disagree somewhat about how best to counter the destructive “climate” movement.
Might I suggest that there is a time and a place for both approaches? That the argument satisfying (and comprehensible) to one audience may be unconvincing and/or inscrutable to another audience. Taken together there is a synergy of persuasion.
True. But let me suggest that when agreeing with others about the “greenhouse effect” and its “enhanced” condition with increased CO2, it should be noted that no one “knows” that an accumulation of energy down here as sensible heat has occurred or should be expected to occur as a result. In other words, the static effect does not control the dynamic end result.
“… to the poor countries to help the cope with global warming and climate change.”
Some argue that those high-minded folks {HMF} blame all the ills of Africa, Mid-East, Asian, & Americas south of the USA to be caused by colonialism. Thus, it is the duty of the European (& US) to redress the ills with loads of money and unlimited migration (no borders).
Others {O} believe CO2 is equivalent to witches that must be found and eliminated.
Some think the ‘Os’ are funded and controlled by the ‘HMFs’.
It’s complicated.
The molecules absorb photons, which are vibration packages of energy with a frequency and a wavelength, with no mass, moving at the speed of light in a vacuum
Water vapor absorbs about 2.5 times more photons than CO2
“The claim by the IPPC (sic) is the cause of recent global warming is a lie.”
Even using a more charitable description that the IPCC is seriously mistaken rather than lying, there remains no good scientific reason to have ever supposed that the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 could be isolated to properly quantify a climate system response.
David, on reading your numbers here, I plugged some numbers into a spreadsheet I did a few years back. Basically a Planck curve calc of how much electromagnetic radiation is emitted by a black body of known temperature between 2 chosen wavelengths. The wave lengths I used were 8 to 14 microns, the “atmospheric window” (So Weins Law temp +88 to -66 C covering the Earthly surface temperature range).
Radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted directly to outer space by a clear atmosphere. Then I took 80% of that value as the normal transparency of the atmospheric window. Then I used 1/3 of that value to allow for 66% cloud cover blocking IR in the physical window of surface to outer space.
The results are for a single square meter:
Surface temp.(K) Fraction of EMR 8-14 micron _____ Watts direct to outer space
310 (~body temp). .382____________52.8
300. .376____________45.6
290 (~room temp). .367____________38.9
280 .358_____________32.9
270 (~freezing). .346_____________27.5
260. .332_____________22.7
250 ( ~polar temp). .316_____________18.4
So one can see that as an “average” square meter of surface heats up or cools down, the amount it radiates to outer space significantly changes. And surface loss of heat by radiation is about half of heat loss by convection and evaporation combined.
Since the incoming solar only averages 340 watts of which 100 is reflected away, mostly by clouds, with only actually about 170 actually heating the surface, one can see that there is a very strong push back to an equilibrium surface temperature when some change drives the surface hotter or colder, all resulting from the way the atmospheric window behaves with temperature….and not so obviously from these numbers, how much cloud cover opens and closes the physical surface to outer space window….something your GOES satellite imaging shows in an enlightening manner.
The brightest place on Earth most years occurs over Kansas. Almost no solar EMR penetrates the cloud that forms over Kansas at certain times of the year.
Ice in the atmosphere, on the land and on the ocean surface controls Earth’s energy balance. Work out what is going on with the ice and you have a reasonable handle on climate.
Despite the claim that CO2 would cause the ice to melt on the tropical peaks, it is still;l there above 5,000m. Very persistent stuff ice.
I see where Trump is saying the United States may have to take back control of the Panama Canal.
Trump doesn’t like the exorbitant fees U.S. vessels are charged for passage through the Canal, and he doesn’t like the Chinese butting their noses into it, either.
Trump does seem to get along with the new leader of Panama.
Trump says if prices are not lowered for U.S. shipments, he may have to reclaim the Canal.
You gotta love this guy!
I bet there is a lot of conversation going on in Panama right now. Next thing you know, the Panamanian leader will be having dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
“On November 6, 1903, the United States recognized the Republic of Panama, and on November 18 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed with Panama, granting America exclusive and permanent possession of the Panama Canal Zone.
In exchange, Panama received $10 million and an annuity of $250,000 beginning nine years later. The treaty, negotiated by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and French engineer Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country’s new national sovereignty.”
If I recall correctly, Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal to Panama when he was in the White House back in the 1970s. I didn’t agree with it then, and I still don’t now.
We in the U.S. spent a lot of time, money and hard work building the damn thing back in the early 1900’s, so I should think we should rightfully claim it as our own. Panama may want some kind of compensation from the U.S. for taking it back, but maybe Trump could work out some kind of arrangement for joint ownership and operation of it. Don’t know that I would agree with that, but if that is what it takes……
IIRC, the area around the canal used to be a U.S. territory called the Canal Zone. Maybe it will be again. At any rate, U.S. shipping deserves lower fees for using the canal since we built it in the first place.
The Panama Canal, which was completed by the United States in 1914, was returned to the Central American country in 1999 under a 1977 deal signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter
The Jones Act is to encourage cross country road, rail, pipelines and air freight, so was and remains to encourage lower 48 commerce. The country has benefitted greatly on the whole. Ocean freighters not so much.
But if Trump thinks the Jones act should be repealed, say, for US flagged ships….he might do something. Except US corporate income tax makes most US ship owning non-competitive, and the need to keep consumer costs low for US’s consumer society takes precedence. When Trump gets around to talking to his various departments about his plans to put tariffs on imports, he is going to find he hasn’t quite thought through all the angles.
I acknowledge that Trump isn’t perfect. No president ever is. However, I suggest to you that you are confusing what you call a “dictator” with what is actually a display of strong leadership skills and capabilities from Trump. That is something that was seriously lacking in Biden and Harris. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Trump (or any President) from becoming what you might call a “dictator” as seen and practiced in non-democratic countries. Perhaps Trump will try to go over the top once in a while, but it is better than being a weak and feeble president such as what we have seen in Biden.
If you and others have a problem with presidents having too much authority with the issuance of executive orders, then perhaps the incoming Congress should introduce and pass legislation to curb that authority. Then more of what the president would want to do would require the approval of Congress. I however am not going to hold my breath waiting for such legislation to find its way to the president’s desk for his signature.
You don’t know what you’re talking about Richard. There’s a treaty that says Panama won’t discriminate against any country in setting the tolls. The Neutrality Treaty.
“After a period of joint American–Panamanian control, the Panamanian government took control in 1999. It is now managed and operated by the Panamanian government-owned Panama Canal Authority.”
It is easy to find deficiencies in the US Constitution. It’s a game anyone can play.
One of my takes is that the founders overlooked the proper range of executive power, which they only envisioned as enforcing the laws passed by the legislature. Executive orders should be only of two types.
#1, the primary power is that executive orders can only apply to operations and employees of the executive branch. They cannot have any force or effect on any individual, business, organization, etc. that is not part of the Federal executive branch.
#2, is the emergency declaration which is subject to strict limitations. Orders can apply to more or less everyone if the president declares that a genuine emergency for the United States has come into being and restrictions or other special provisions are necessary. The order expires after 60 days unless approved by congress within that 60 days. If so approved it is valid for 6 months from the date of declaration. Any further extension must be approved by the same vote of Congress and is only valid for 6 months each time.
I would argue that the vote approving must be 3/4 of Congress but we would probably have to settle for the more common 2/3. Any appropriate regulations could be declared by the executive during the emergency but all such regulations become null and void at the expiration of the emergency. Congress could of course pass emergency laws that would not, unless expressed within the law, expire, but any such emergency enabling laws would require the same 2/3 approval (or better, 3/4). No special midnight before holiday leave or end of session, etc. votes would have any force or effect unless voted on by 2/3 (or 3/4) of all of Congress.
Love your alternate universe, but in an evenly divided country that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment, it is almost unthinkable that we will ever see a 28th Amendment on any topic whatsoever, unless it is a destructive one made possible by giving votes to tens of millions of socialist illegal immigrants.
15 states that would NEVER ratify an amendment that you or I would like:
Massachusetts
California
New York
Illinois
Hawaii
Minnesota
Oregon
Washington
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Maryland
Colorado
New Jersey
Delaware
Vermont
Only 13 needed to block adoption.
Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia are also highly dubious.
Let’s hope that the other 31 can muster 13 to oppose the changes we would despise.
We Are in a CO2 Famine https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
By Willem Post
.
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 https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/increased-plant-productivity-the-first-key-benefit-of-atmospheric-co2-enrichment/
.
Plants are on a starvation diet with CO2 at 420 ppm
The image shows plant growth at 420 ppm; at 420 +150; at 420 +300; at 420+450
Clock on URL to see image
.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/d7fc1154-1842-41b9-9aae-6aedd86ed136
.
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.
Credit where credit is due – China is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to restoring the CO2 balance. But the biomass is hard at it offsetting most of Chinas’s hard work.
“not enough fossil fuel is left over” “left over” from what?? My understanding is that the World is sittiing on still vast retrievable quantities of what is called “fossil fuels”.
I’m not sure about the first doubling, Willem (280-560ppm). We’re basically at halftime already.
How much is “left” is a nebulous quantity because many deposits once thought useless have been developed with new technology, and we could reasonably expect similar innovation in the future. It also depends on how quickly we develop nuclear power and at what cost.
To complete the first doubling and then re-double from 560 to 1120ppm would require that we find and extract three times the fossil fuels that we have already burned. Even if that’s possible, it seems unlikely if we make rational choices with nuclear power.
If the equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is less than 2°, as empirically determined, then it seems reasonable to say that the upper limit on warming due to fossil fuels emissions would be around 4° above what it was in 1850.
Just as a point of reference, the average high temperatures in December up and down the US east coast:
Godthåb Greenland -3°C
Bangor ME 1°C
Portsmouth NH 4°C
Atlantic City NJ 8°C
Wilmington NC 16°C
Jacksonville FL 20°C
Miami FL 24°C
Why the scare quotes on fossil fuels, sturmudgeon? Are you a believer in/promoter of abiotic oil?
So many countries have no significant oil reserves. Wouldn’t some of them have invested in trying to prove abiogenesis theory and have succeeded? How would that knowledge have been suppressed?
I can’t say that abiotic oil doesn’t exist, and certainly low molecular weight hydrocarbons do exist elsewhere in the solar system. While abiogenesis may exist, it seems to me that biogenesis is at least the major process for the formation of the oil we have recovered so far if not the only process.
There must eventually come a time when it is too expensive to extract biogenic oil. It won’t mean that we have exhausted supplies. It will be when another energy source becomes more cost effective. We still have some whales but we don’t harvest them for oil lamps anymore.
Even taking the very contrarian position that oil is effectively unlimited due to abiotic deep recharge, it will take over two centuries to reach 1120ppm CO2 at current emission rates. In the next 50 years it should be obvious what ECS is. There is more than enough time to transition to next gen nuclear and thorium breeder reactors if that proves to be necessary.
Even after a large-scale shift to nuclear, we will most likely continue to use liquid hydrocarbons as the most practical transportation fuel. We may at that point need to synthesize them from biomass using nuclear heat.
The future should be bright. The only risk is the infinite stupidity of humanity.
There are so many potential uses for biomass that there could never be enough for all. Maybe GMO could be applied to humans so they would not have to eat but would get their subsistence directly from the soil, air, and sunlight. But then, humans and the vegetable kingdom might be at war for Lebensraum.
Me thinks you are misunderstanding some actions of ocean and atmosphere and events such as the existence of deserts determined by the Intertropical Convergence Zone, which changes significantly with obliquity and precession.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Role in the Atmosphere https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
. In the tropics and subtropics, CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by about 27400/420 = 65 to 1 by water vapor, WV, a strong photon absorber. Plus, WV, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it rises and condenses into clouds at about 2000 meter elevation. The clouds, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter. That means the WV and clouds we see up north, from the 37th parallel upwards, come from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate much water. Any evaporation is from near or on the ground, such as from as dew, ground fog, snow and ice. But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because WV outnumbers CO2 by about 17700/420 = 42 to 1. . Above the Clouds CO2 begins to play a measurable role when the presence of WV is lower, say 3 to 1, at about 3000 m elevation, which is above the clouds. WV freezes on all dry air molecules and on CO2, pollen, aerosols, etc. Any sunlight photons are reflected, refracted. The some of the photons will be absorbed by the frozen WV molecules. Photons will not absorbed by the CO2 molecules, because they are covered with ice. The thermal effect of that absorption is miniscule, compared to the absorption near the earth surface. The atmosphere heat content, aka Enthalpy, is 358 kJ / m^3 near the surface, decreases to 19.5 KJ / m^3 at 20 km. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming . At colder temperatures above the clouds, any emitted photons would have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window. However, WV would absorb these photons, because it has a much wider window starting at about 15 micrometer.
. NOTE: A photon, a vibrating package of energy with a wavelength, has no mass, moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of molecules . At higher elevation, temperature is less, density is less, there are fewer molecules/m^3 or moles/m^3, there are fewer collisions, because molecules are further apart. The average kinetic energy of molecules decreases with temperature. See URL KE = 3/2 RT = 3/2 x 8.314 J / (mol K) https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-albany-chemistry/chapter/the-kinetic-molecular-theory/#:~:text=Key%20Concepts%20and%20Summary,the%20mass%20of%20its%20molecules
1) CO2 does emit photons towards the surface which are absorbed. They cannot cause the surface to warm because they come from within an area which exists in near thermal equilibrium with the surface skin (10 meters or less). Conduction controls the energy balance in this region. Any increases in IR towards the surface is balanced by an increase in conduction back into the atmosphere.
One exception, this energy can induce evaporation which cools the surface and enhances convection.
2) True, but those same molecules also bump into CO2 molecules leading to the emission of a photon in a random direction. The energy in 1) is due to this effect. Energy is also radiated upward.
Because of the changing density of the atmosphere, any radiated energy which does not go back to the surface moves upward over time. The rate of that energy flow is proportional to density changes (aka gravity) due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
3) The emission to space by CO2 molecules occurs all throughout the atmosphere. The rate is, as I stated in 2), proportional to the gravitation force just like the lapse rate. That means the effective radiation height is also fixed. It cannot move upward. This is true only for well mixed radiative gases.
4) Energy cannot “accumulate” in the lower atmosphere due to 2) and convection. The lower atmosphere is warmed mostly by surface radiation and conduction. That energy then moves upward towards space with the amount reabsorbed becoming smaller along the way (that’s why it gets colder).
5) When CO2 increases you will also see a broadening of the absorption window. Energy which previously escaped directly to space is now absorbed low in the atmosphere. This is really a corollary to 2) and the only way increases in CO2 can cause warming.
As it turns out, the enhanced convection mentioned in 1) leads to a reduction in high altitude water vapor. That is a cooling effect which is nullified by this warming.
Point 5: That broadening ( and i suppose you are referring to frequency bands) is too small for the wee Co2 mouse to overcome the H2O elephant. You have to remember the context. H2O to CO2 molecules in the troposphere: 15/20 to 1. Vibrational modes: 3 to 1. Plus frequency response/ atmospheric window. This mouse cannot move the elephant one inch..it’s physics. It’s mainly convection. It’s fluid dynamics and circulation, wind.
I think the broadening comes out to around 0.24 C per doubling as mentioned in a comment above by Wilpost. So yeah, it’s mostly irrelevant but just trying to be accurate.
The “fluid dynamics” would be a negative feedback, but as I indicated, the slight warming is already offset by induced evaporation. It isn’t even necessary.
The WV to CO2 molecule ratio is about 65 at the surface in the tropics.
In the subtropics it is a little less. Evaporation is 24/7/365
Those two areas produce about 80% of all WV
I will not speak to mechanisms but one can easily demonstrate that the air inside a microwave oven becomes warmer if the oven is run for a few minutes with nothing inside it.
That makes sense to me but I’m reluctant to try it. I read somewhere that it’s not good to do that. (Not sure why, might be a myth, but I don’t want to have to replace it 🙂 )
Ireneusz
December 22, 2024 10:32 am
Daily temperature anomalies in the northeastern US.
I suspect Australian anomaly will be a up a bit when UAH December data comes in.
Ireneusz
December 22, 2024 12:11 pm
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Hudson Bay is freezing fast.
Ireneusz
December 22, 2024 1:55 pm
Niño Index 3.4 is falling.
sherro01
December 22, 2024 4:26 pm
A small comment on presentation of data. We are seeing many depictions of data that purport to show trends over time. Following is an example where the overall impression is one of variability when there is, in a different presentation, little variability.
All I have done is to use computer graphics to move the annual bars down so that coal data are set to zero. Not much variability is left.
This is a common problem with presentation of graphs. I hope that authors will try to avoid it. Geoff S
Actually it was a nice consolidation of failed climate predictions as well as predictions yet to fail, complete with hyperlinks to the stories which made the predictions. What I really liked was links to web archives for when people try to bury the failed predictions by pulling down the link.
Ireneusz
December 23, 2024 12:44 am
Frozen New York.
WUNDERMAP
James Washburn
December 23, 2024 7:47 am
if it’s generally accepted that climate can change in theoretical world where carbon PPM was steady, where in the climate models is the naturally occurring change accounted for? New guy here… love the discussions
Why not get in on the petition thing? Start one against Mandy…
Why Washington could reject Mandelson as Britain’s next US ambassador
the process known in diplomatic lingo as agrément – or vetting and approval of a new ambo by the host country – won’t complete for at least two weeks, and possibly longer.
That is why Mandelson’s disclosure and confirmation as ambassador was so surprising. Such senior announcements almost never happen till after agrément.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-12-21/why-washington-could-reject-mandelson-as-britains-next-us-ambassador
We won’t miss him!
UK ambassadors to the US are often high-level politicos, with a career diplomat as an understudy to do all the hard work. The trick Starmer needs to pull off is to find a high-level Labour grandee who has not already piddled in Trump’s soup—repeatedly.
Good point.
As Trump often says, if he only talked to people who say nice things about him, he wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. I’m sure Sir Stalin will find somebody to send to Washington.
The variation in equatorial Pacific relative sea levels in response to El Niño/La Niña cycles has been often reported in WUWT posts. The best example that I could find in the Gloss Core Network site is from the Kwajalein Tide Gauge, with monthly mean readings starting from the late 1940’s to present.
What makes this site unique is the recognisable sea level response to every El Niño/La Niña cycle from the 1950’s as summarised here.
As noted in earlier blogs, El Niños are characterised by low relative sea level responses in the western Pacific, and by high relative sea levels in the east.
Is there a sharper focussed pic somewhere? This one unfortunately is almost impossible to read.
Opening the image in a new window and zooming in gave a readable version for me.
Just click on the image and it will expand and become sharp. To return to the original image, click on “X” in the lower right corner.
Thanks! Silly me, just woken up.
OK, as long as you don’t get woke. 🙂
click on image
I hold the view that refuting the core claim of the climate movement – which is that rising CO2 ends up forcing energy to accumulate down here as sensible heat – requires first understanding the circulating atmosphere (including clouds) as a variable emitter of longwave radiation. Overall, of the longwave radiation emitted to space, how much of it came from the land + ocean surface without being first absorbed by the atmosphere or clouds? In 2009, NASA said this amount is 12% of incident solar radiation. From the atmosphere and clouds, the amount is 59% of incident solar radiation. This is based on 29% of incident solar energy being reflected (i.e. an albedo of 0.29).
Which is the emitter, therefore, that matters most? The atmosphere, including clouds, is responsible for nearly 5 times as much energy delivered to space (i.e.,59/12) as longwave radiation, than the land + ocean surface.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.839 grams of CO2 and has a mass 1.29 kg.
In air at 70 deg. F and with a RH of 70%, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 11.9 grams of H2O and 0.78 grams of CO2, and has a mass
of 1.20 kg. To the first approximation and all things being equal, the proportion of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O Is given by:
GHE for H2O = moles H2O / moles H2O + moles = 0.66 / 0.66 + 0.018 = 0.97 or 97%.
This simple calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and molecule of CO2 absorb ca. the same amount IR light. Actually H2O absorbs more light than CO2.
The claim by the IPPC is the cause of recent global warming is a lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification of distributing donor funds ,via the UNFCCC and the IPCC, from the rich countries to the poor countries to help the cope with global warming and climate change. At the COP29 conference the poor came clamoring not for billions but trillions of funds.
Hopefully, president-elect Donald Trump will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown man.
Harold, let me first stipulate that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, and that I share your opinion that the IPCC is corrupt (to which I would add, like all UN bodies).
However, I am not convinced that you are disproving any actual claim of the climate change fraudsters here. They never claimed that CO2 is the sole greenhouse gas or even the most significant one.
Even if 97% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, it has always been the most significant greenhouse gas. Their claims are that the natural GHE is enhanced by the addition of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, and that this warming causes a rise in the amount of water vapor, which is a stronger GHG.
Making a weak claim doesn’t help the cause of skepticism.
The empirical data shows that even if the cause of recent warming has been the enhancement of the natural GHE by CO2 from fossil fuel emissions, it is not a dangerous effect, and is indeed probably a net benefit.
Am I wrong to believe that IPCC and others infer and try to convince us that CO2 is the control knob for climate?
No, not at all. But that claim isn’t disproven by what Harold wrote. The alarmists claim that a small amount of non-condensing GHG can induce a large amount of water vapor.
“… non-condensing GHG can induce a large amount of water vapor.”
This is the proposed “positive water feed back”, but it is nonsense. 71 % of the earth’s surface is covered by water and it does not any help from CO2.
The major process transporting water from the oceans into air and onto the land is the wind. Climate models don’t take into account the wind for putting into the air.
About others, an X (fka Twitter) user with a profile that says, “Climate scientist at NASA GISS,” whom I will not name here, posted this yesterday 12/21/24.
“No amount of paid shilling from (***another X user***)
will change that CO2 is in fact the main control knob of climate change on Earth since pre-industrial and on many other timescales, we do control the future evolution of Earth’s climate.”
So even our own taxpayer-funded government employees are actively making this exact claim.
I am not saying that it’s true that CO2 is a climate control knob, nor am I saying that alarmists don’t talk about CO2 being a climate control knob.
What Harold says is correct but it doesn’t refute what the alarmists claim. They acknowledge the role of water vapor. They make erroneous and empirically unsupported claims about the extent to which warming from CO2 will drive higher water vapor and thus amplify the warming effect of CO2.
Forty-five years of satellite data dispute their claims. The equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is less than 2°C even if the only thing driving warming is an enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect from fossil fuel emissions, which is probably not true.
A less than 4° warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age would be beneficial to human flourishing. But if that requires finishing the first doubling to 560ppm and then redoubling to 1120ppm, it’s not very likely that we have that much economically extractible fossil fuel remaining. Thus my claim that it’s not a concern even if some of their hypothesis is correct.
I was just reponding to Scissor’s reply, “…that IPCC and others infer and try to convince us that CO2 is the control knob for climate?” to give a near-real-time example of exactly that claim.
In your reply here, “What Harold says is correct but it doesn’t refute what the alarmists claim” – I don’t disagree.
Well, you can of course state that Co2 is the ‘enforcer’, you have to provide proof outside of the assumption and that’s a problem, both from a physics standpoint as well in the context of the climate system. Give us the data, please. None forthcoming. Just a series of constructs.
You are totally missing the point.
I don’t subscribe to the alarmist viewpoint. As one who opposes the alarmists’ political program and wants to see it defeated, I’m saying that the argument that 97% of the GHE comes from water vapor doesn’t contradict the alarmists’ hypothesis. If it doesn’t discredit their ‘series of constructs’ then how is it going to persuade people that they are wrong to say it is a danger?
On the other hand, I point to data as analyzed in Lewis and Curry, that even when all observed warming is attributed to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, the observed warming amounts to an ECS less than 2°C which is only beneficial.
Mr. Davis makes an Important Point, one that is consistently missed by most commenters here: Warmer Is Better.
Regardless of the putative cause (CO2, water vapor, the sun, Milankovitch cycles, stellar dust, Jupiter, fairies, etc.) more warmth is, or would be, a Good Thing for humanity and Life Itself.
Much palaver is spent on this site in an effort to prove warmer isn’t (or will not be) happening. Okay. Be that way. Spin your wheels. Maybe you’re right. If so, it’s a stone cold bummer because warmer is entirely preferable.
Fear is our enemy. Fear turns independent sovereign people into malleable sheep. We should dispel fear as best we can for the good of society. One such dispelling is to convince the masses that warmth is nothing to be afraid of.
“Making a weak claim doesn’t help the cause of skepticism.”
With all due respect to your opinions, Rich, I assert that the position of the self-identified “lukewarmer” skeptic – that “some” accumulation of energy down here as sensible heat should be expected from rising CO2 concentration, but it’s not harmful and probably beneficial – is itself a weak claim. There is no means available to us to reliably attribute ANY of the reported warming to the computed incremental static radiative effect of any of the non-condensing GHGs.
A strong argument is one that logically excludes the key conclusions of the opponent. A weak argument fails to address some or all of the important claims of the opponent.
The claim that I seek to refute is that society must stop burning fossil fuels to avoid dangerous heating of the earth.
The key thing to be excluded is dangerous heating.
I don’t care if CO2’s net effect is zero and 100% of observed warming has been due to variations in cloud cover driven in some way by solar variations; or if it’s all explained by meridional flow changes; or nucleation sites seeded by galactic cosmic rays; or is effectively negated by emergent phenomena; or some combination of all of the above.
If any of those devilishly difficult to prove hypotheses should prove accurate, well, my premise that there’s no dangerous warming will be supported. I’ll be pleased to see that we have a better understanding of why there’s no danger.
To logically exclude the alarmist viewpoint, it is my strategy to accept per argumentum that the mechanism that the alarmists propose could be real and then demonstrate that the instrumental evidence doesn’t support a dangerous outcome.
And for the record, I am not a self-identified “lukewarmer”.
I define a lukewarmer as one who believes that fossil fuels emissions are definitely the primary cause of warming temperature observations. I do not.
The lukewarmer view is also usually that CO2 emissions, while not catastrophic, are nevertheless a problem. I consider enhanced CO2 to be most likely beneficial whether it contributes to warming or not.
I am convinced by the satellite evidence that the earth has been observed to be mildly warming from some causes which I can’t definitively establish.
I am convinced by the logic of the mass balance argument that the burning of fossil fuels has raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over a period of many decades.
I accept the conventional science that water vapor and a few non-condensing gases maintain liveable surface temperatures on earth. The natural greenhouse effect is real.
I observe that warmer temperatures are generally better for human flourishing.
I observe that we live on a homeostatic planet that has numerous emergent thermoregulatory phenomena.
I don’t know if enhancing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere on balance has a warming effect or not.
Where do we disagree?
Thanks for your replies and clarification. I will not refer to your opinions as those of the “lukewarmer” position any longer.
Our disagreement, in a nutshell, is about the validity of the core claim about rising concentrations of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs.
If I am stating this correctly, you are saying there is no reason to think the claimed GHG warming will be dangerous; that the GHG warming itself and other effects are likely beneficial anyway; and that when we know more, it might turn out that the GHGs were not a factor at all. This position cedes the core claim.
I am saying that we already have a sufficient basis in observation from space, and in computed estimates of atmospheric dynamics, to conclude that the incremental static radiative effect of rising GHGs is fundamentally not capable of forcing absorbed energy to accumulate on land and in the oceans as sensible heat – most certainly not to any extent harmful. This, in my view, refutes the core claim directly and is therefore a stronger argument against the climate movement’s many branches of “impacts” and demands for “action.”
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful replies. We do disagree somewhat about how best to counter the destructive “climate” movement.
Might I suggest that there is a time and a place for both approaches? That the argument satisfying (and comprehensible) to one audience may be unconvincing and/or inscrutable to another audience. Taken together there is a synergy of persuasion.
True. But let me suggest that when agreeing with others about the “greenhouse effect” and its “enhanced” condition with increased CO2, it should be noted that no one “knows” that an accumulation of energy down here as sensible heat has occurred or should be expected to occur as a result. In other words, the static effect does not control the dynamic end result.
“… to the poor countries to help the cope with global warming and climate change.”
Some argue that those high-minded folks {HMF} blame all the ills of Africa, Mid-East, Asian, & Americas south of the USA to be caused by colonialism. Thus, it is the duty of the European (& US) to redress the ills with loads of money and unlimited migration (no borders).
Others {O} believe CO2 is equivalent to witches that must be found and eliminated.
Some think the ‘Os’ are funded and controlled by the ‘HMFs’.
It’s complicated.
Sure it’s complicated. Most if not all of your ‘HMFs’ are hypocritical moronic f**ks getting rich off their virtue signaling.
Actually H2O absorbs more light than CO2.
The molecules absorb photons, which are vibration packages of energy with a frequency and a wavelength, with no mass, moving at the speed of light in a vacuum
Water vapor absorbs about 2.5 times more photons than CO2
In particular, water vapor absorbs UVB radiation, which increases in the troposphere when ozone production in the upper stratosphere decreases.
So, the question is, what is the net effect on the surface UVB flux?
See graphic. No warming near the surface.
Wilpost, that means CO2 is responsible for 40% of the GHE….is that what you really want to say ?
“The claim by the IPPC (sic) is the cause of recent global warming is a lie.”
Even using a more charitable description that the IPCC is seriously mistaken rather than lying, there remains no good scientific reason to have ever supposed that the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 could be isolated to properly quantify a climate system response.
David, on reading your numbers here, I plugged some numbers into a spreadsheet I did a few years back. Basically a Planck curve calc of how much electromagnetic radiation is emitted by a black body of known temperature between 2 chosen wavelengths. The wave lengths I used were 8 to 14 microns, the “atmospheric window” (So Weins Law temp +88 to -66 C covering the Earthly surface temperature range).
Radiation at these wavelengths is transmitted directly to outer space by a clear atmosphere. Then I took 80% of that value as the normal transparency of the atmospheric window. Then I used 1/3 of that value to allow for 66% cloud cover blocking IR in the physical window of surface to outer space.
The results are for a single square meter:
Surface temp.(K) Fraction of EMR 8-14 micron _____ Watts direct to outer space
310 (~body temp). .382____________52.8
300. .376____________45.6
290 (~room temp). .367____________38.9
280 .358_____________32.9
270 (~freezing). .346_____________27.5
260. .332_____________22.7
250 ( ~polar temp). .316_____________18.4
So one can see that as an “average” square meter of surface heats up or cools down, the amount it radiates to outer space significantly changes. And surface loss of heat by radiation is about half of heat loss by convection and evaporation combined.
Since the incoming solar only averages 340 watts of which 100 is reflected away, mostly by clouds, with only actually about 170 actually heating the surface, one can see that there is a very strong push back to an equilibrium surface temperature when some change drives the surface hotter or colder, all resulting from the way the atmospheric window behaves with temperature….and not so obviously from these numbers, how much cloud cover opens and closes the physical surface to outer space window….something your GOES satellite imaging shows in an enlightening manner.
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ?si=Qpg0gwlMG1hg4KUb
Best to you this morning…going back to my now cold coffee….
Thanks for your reply. NASA must have likewise had a method of arriving at those numbers I quoted.
And all the best to you also.
The brightest place on Earth most years occurs over Kansas. Almost no solar EMR penetrates the cloud that forms over Kansas at certain times of the year.
Ice in the atmosphere, on the land and on the ocean surface controls Earth’s energy balance. Work out what is going on with the ice and you have a reasonable handle on climate.
Despite the claim that CO2 would cause the ice to melt on the tropical peaks, it is still;l there above 5,000m. Very persistent stuff ice.
“Very persistent stuff ice.”
Indeed so.
Net zero
Net-zero ‘grocery tax’ on packaging set to push up bills by £1.4bn a year – as retail chiefs warn costs of anti-plastic levy will be passed to shoppers
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14217407/net-zero-grocery-tax-anti-plastic-levy.html
Their way of bringing down the cost of living…
The Left prefers to reduce the cost of living by reducing living rather than the more troublesome approach of reducing prices.
The net cost of living eventually goes down upon death.
I see where Trump is saying the United States may have to take back control of the Panama Canal.
Trump doesn’t like the exorbitant fees U.S. vessels are charged for passage through the Canal, and he doesn’t like the Chinese butting their noses into it, either.
Trump does seem to get along with the new leader of Panama.
Trump says if prices are not lowered for U.S. shipments, he may have to reclaim the Canal.
You gotta love this guy!
I bet there is a lot of conversation going on in Panama right now. Next thing you know, the Panamanian leader will be having dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
“On November 6, 1903, the United States recognized the Republic of Panama, and on November 18 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed with Panama, granting America exclusive and permanent possession of the Panama Canal Zone.
In exchange, Panama received $10 million and an annuity of $250,000 beginning nine years later. The treaty, negotiated by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and French engineer Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country’s new national sovereignty.”
https://www.history.com/topics/landmarks/panama-canal
****
If I recall correctly, Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal to Panama when he was in the White House back in the 1970s. I didn’t agree with it then, and I still don’t now.
We in the U.S. spent a lot of time, money and hard work building the damn thing back in the early 1900’s, so I should think we should rightfully claim it as our own. Panama may want some kind of compensation from the U.S. for taking it back, but maybe Trump could work out some kind of arrangement for joint ownership and operation of it. Don’t know that I would agree with that, but if that is what it takes……
IIRC, the area around the canal used to be a U.S. territory called the Canal Zone. Maybe it will be again. At any rate, U.S. shipping deserves lower fees for using the canal since we built it in the first place.
The Panama Canal, which was completed by the United States in 1914, was returned to the Central American country in 1999 under a 1977 deal signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter
Maybe we should support Colombia reclaiming their lost territory that became Panama.
We could maybe send a warship to Panama City and another one to Colón, or something.
US should return California to Mexico and demand our money back
From the river to the sea, all of Canaan will be free? (Get those Arabs and Jews out of Canaan. Who was God to promise it to the Jews?)
And Europe must be returned to the Neanderthals?
Do the exorbitant fees apply to shipments to/from the US or US ships? There aren’t a lot of the latter, thanks to the Jones Act.
The Jones Act is to encourage cross country road, rail, pipelines and air freight, so was and remains to encourage lower 48 commerce. The country has benefitted greatly on the whole. Ocean freighters not so much.
But if Trump thinks the Jones act should be repealed, say, for US flagged ships….he might do something. Except US corporate income tax makes most US ship owning non-competitive, and the need to keep consumer costs low for US’s consumer society takes precedence. When Trump gets around to talking to his various departments about his plans to put tariffs on imports, he is going to find he hasn’t quite thought through all the angles.
I read somewhere that this has more to do with the military ships access/costs.
Trump has made far too many statements that sound like a dictator speaking.
Now he wants to tell Panama what to charge privately owned ships passing through THEIR canal?
Trump seems to have less interest in the US Constitution than Biden had, and Biden had little interest.
Trump wants to rule like a dictator with executive orders and no Congressional approval of his arbitrary actions.
Conservatives cheer for Trump’s bluster. But when Biden tried to rule with executive orders, conservatives were against him.
It seems that BOTH Democrats and Republicans want an even stronger executive branch … as long as they get what they want.
RG:
I acknowledge that Trump isn’t perfect. No president ever is. However, I suggest to you that you are confusing what you call a “dictator” with what is actually a display of strong leadership skills and capabilities from Trump. That is something that was seriously lacking in Biden and Harris. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Trump (or any President) from becoming what you might call a “dictator” as seen and practiced in non-democratic countries. Perhaps Trump will try to go over the top once in a while, but it is better than being a weak and feeble president such as what we have seen in Biden.
If you and others have a problem with presidents having too much authority with the issuance of executive orders, then perhaps the incoming Congress should introduce and pass legislation to curb that authority. Then more of what the president would want to do would require the approval of Congress. I however am not going to hold my breath waiting for such legislation to find its way to the president’s desk for his signature.
From Day 1, Biden in-the-basement/on-the-beach was always a marionette-type puppet, never a President
You don’t know what you’re talking about Richard. There’s a treaty that says Panama won’t discriminate against any country in setting the tolls. The Neutrality Treaty.
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-11/neutrality_panama_canal.html
More like President Teddy Roosevelt.
The canal is owned by China
My understanding is that China does manage ports on either end of the canal, but China doesn’t own the canal.
Check Wiki
“After a period of joint American–Panamanian control, the Panamanian government took control in 1999. It is now managed and operated by the Panamanian government-owned Panama Canal Authority.”
Panama Canal – Wikipedia
It is easy to find deficiencies in the US Constitution. It’s a game anyone can play.
One of my takes is that the founders overlooked the proper range of executive power, which they only envisioned as enforcing the laws passed by the legislature. Executive orders should be only of two types.
#1, the primary power is that executive orders can only apply to operations and employees of the executive branch. They cannot have any force or effect on any individual, business, organization, etc. that is not part of the Federal executive branch.
#2, is the emergency declaration which is subject to strict limitations. Orders can apply to more or less everyone if the president declares that a genuine emergency for the United States has come into being and restrictions or other special provisions are necessary. The order expires after 60 days unless approved by congress within that 60 days. If so approved it is valid for 6 months from the date of declaration. Any further extension must be approved by the same vote of Congress and is only valid for 6 months each time.
I would argue that the vote approving must be 3/4 of Congress but we would probably have to settle for the more common 2/3. Any appropriate regulations could be declared by the executive during the emergency but all such regulations become null and void at the expiration of the emergency. Congress could of course pass emergency laws that would not, unless expressed within the law, expire, but any such emergency enabling laws would require the same 2/3 approval (or better, 3/4). No special midnight before holiday leave or end of session, etc. votes would have any force or effect unless voted on by 2/3 (or 3/4) of all of Congress.
Love your alternate universe, but in an evenly divided country that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment, it is almost unthinkable that we will ever see a 28th Amendment on any topic whatsoever, unless it is a destructive one made possible by giving votes to tens of millions of socialist illegal immigrants.
15 states that would NEVER ratify an amendment that you or I would like:
Massachusetts
California
New York
Illinois
Hawaii
Minnesota
Oregon
Washington
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Maryland
Colorado
New Jersey
Delaware
Vermont
Only 13 needed to block adoption.
Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia are also highly dubious.
Let’s hope that the other 31 can muster 13 to oppose the changes we would despise.
We Are in a CO2 Famine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
By Willem Post
.
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
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/increased-plant-productivity-the-first-key-benefit-of-atmospheric-co2-enrichment/
.
Plants are on a starvation diet with CO2 at 420 ppm
The image shows plant growth at 420 ppm; at 420 +150; at 420 +300; at 420+450
Clock on URL to see image
.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/d7fc1154-1842-41b9-9aae-6aedd86ed136
.
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.
Credit where credit is due – China is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to restoring the CO2 balance. But the biomass is hard at it offsetting most of Chinas’s hard work.
“not enough fossil fuel is left over” “left over” from what?? My understanding is that the World is sittiing on still vast retrievable quantities of what is called “fossil fuels”.
We used a good portion of the world’s fossil fuels since 1850, and a good portion is left, but not enough to double CO2 ppm
I’m not sure about the first doubling, Willem (280-560ppm). We’re basically at halftime already.
How much is “left” is a nebulous quantity because many deposits once thought useless have been developed with new technology, and we could reasonably expect similar innovation in the future. It also depends on how quickly we develop nuclear power and at what cost.
To complete the first doubling and then re-double from 560 to 1120ppm would require that we find and extract three times the fossil fuels that we have already burned. Even if that’s possible, it seems unlikely if we make rational choices with nuclear power.
If the equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is less than 2°, as empirically determined, then it seems reasonable to say that the upper limit on warming due to fossil fuels emissions would be around 4° above what it was in 1850.
Just as a point of reference, the average high temperatures in December up and down the US east coast:
Godthåb Greenland -3°C
Bangor ME 1°C
Portsmouth NH 4°C
Atlantic City NJ 8°C
Wilmington NC 16°C
Jacksonville FL 20°C
Miami FL 24°C
Colón Panama 28°C
Macapá Brazil 33°C (0° 2’ N)
4° catastrophe? Hardly!
Why the scare quotes on fossil fuels, sturmudgeon? Are you a believer in/promoter of abiotic oil?
So many countries have no significant oil reserves. Wouldn’t some of them have invested in trying to prove abiogenesis theory and have succeeded? How would that knowledge have been suppressed?
I can’t say that abiotic oil doesn’t exist, and certainly low molecular weight hydrocarbons do exist elsewhere in the solar system. While abiogenesis may exist, it seems to me that biogenesis is at least the major process for the formation of the oil we have recovered so far if not the only process.
There must eventually come a time when it is too expensive to extract biogenic oil. It won’t mean that we have exhausted supplies. It will be when another energy source becomes more cost effective. We still have some whales but we don’t harvest them for oil lamps anymore.
Even taking the very contrarian position that oil is effectively unlimited due to abiotic deep recharge, it will take over two centuries to reach 1120ppm CO2 at current emission rates. In the next 50 years it should be obvious what ECS is. There is more than enough time to transition to next gen nuclear and thorium breeder reactors if that proves to be necessary.
Even after a large-scale shift to nuclear, we will most likely continue to use liquid hydrocarbons as the most practical transportation fuel. We may at that point need to synthesize them from biomass using nuclear heat.
The future should be bright. The only risk is the infinite stupidity of humanity.
“We may at that point need to synthesize them from biomass using nuclear heat.”
Plenty of coal still, coal to liquid fuel is a known process.
Sure, basically the same idea. Synthesis gas. But coal is still a finite resource that will eventually get too expensive. Biomass is forever.
There are so many potential uses for biomass that there could never be enough for all. Maybe GMO could be applied to humans so they would not have to eat but would get their subsistence directly from the soil, air, and sunlight. But then, humans and the vegetable kingdom might be at war for Lebensraum.
Me thinks you are misunderstanding some actions of ocean and atmosphere and events such as the existence of deserts determined by the Intertropical Convergence Zone, which changes significantly with obliquity and precession.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
.
In the tropics and subtropics, CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by about 27400/420 = 65 to 1 by water vapor, WV, a strong photon absorber.
Plus, WV, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it rises and condenses into clouds at about 2000 meter elevation.
The clouds, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter.
That means the WV and clouds we see up north, from the 37th parallel upwards, come from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate much water.
Any evaporation is from near or on the ground, such as from as dew, ground fog, snow and ice.
But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because WV outnumbers CO2 by about 17700/420 = 42 to 1.
.
Above the Clouds
CO2 begins to play a measurable role when the presence of WV is lower, say 3 to 1, at about 3000 m elevation, which is above the clouds. WV freezes on all dry air molecules and on CO2, pollen, aerosols, etc.
Any sunlight photons are reflected, refracted. The some of the photons will be absorbed by the frozen WV molecules. Photons will not absorbed by the CO2 molecules, because they are covered with ice.
The thermal effect of that absorption is miniscule, compared to the absorption near the earth surface.
The atmosphere heat content, aka Enthalpy, is 358 kJ / m^3 near the surface, decreases to 19.5 KJ / m^3 at 20 km.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
At colder temperatures above the clouds, any emitted photons would have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window. However, WV would absorb these photons, because it has a much wider window starting at about 15 micrometer.
.
NOTE: A photon, a vibrating package of energy with a wavelength, has no mass, moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of molecules
.
At higher elevation, temperature is less, density is less, there are fewer molecules/m^3 or moles/m^3, there are fewer collisions, because molecules are further apart.
The average kinetic energy of molecules decreases with temperature. See URL
KE = 3/2 RT = 3/2 x 8.314 J / (mol K)
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-albany-chemistry/chapter/the-kinetic-molecular-theory/#:~:text=Key%20Concepts%20and%20Summary,the%20mass%20of%20its%20molecules
Here are four articles attesting to the small global warming role of CO2 in the atmosphere
Eight Taiwanese Engineers Determine Climate Sensitivity to a 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eight-taiwanese-engineers-determine-climate-sensitivity-to-a-300
By Kenneth Richard
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
By Fred F. Mueller
Achieving ‘Net Zero by 2050’ Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/achieving-net-zero-by-2050-reduces-temps-by-0-28-c-costing-tens
By Kenneth Richard
German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doubling-of-atmospheric-co2-causes-only-0-24-c
By P Gosselin on 19. November 2024
Thanks for posting this, Wil.
It confirms my argument that there is no measurable warming from CO2, certainly not over the last 45 years of satellite data.
It also explains the fact than no-one has ever been able produce any measurement of said warming.
(and I have asked quite often 😉 )
I wish at least one of them had the guts to admit they cannot produce the evidence. !
There are 4 versions of human induced GHE.
Which one do you think most plausible? Least plausible?
Harold’s comment not with standing why can a microwave boil water but not warm the air inside if empty?
1) CO2 does emit photons towards the surface which are absorbed. They cannot cause the surface to warm because they come from within an area which exists in near thermal equilibrium with the surface skin (10 meters or less). Conduction controls the energy balance in this region. Any increases in IR towards the surface is balanced by an increase in conduction back into the atmosphere.
One exception, this energy can induce evaporation which cools the surface and enhances convection.
2) True, but those same molecules also bump into CO2 molecules leading to the emission of a photon in a random direction. The energy in 1) is due to this effect. Energy is also radiated upward.
Because of the changing density of the atmosphere, any radiated energy which does not go back to the surface moves upward over time. The rate of that energy flow is proportional to density changes (aka gravity) due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
3) The emission to space by CO2 molecules occurs all throughout the atmosphere. The rate is, as I stated in 2), proportional to the gravitation force just like the lapse rate. That means the effective radiation height is also fixed. It cannot move upward. This is true only for well mixed radiative gases.
4) Energy cannot “accumulate” in the lower atmosphere due to 2) and convection. The lower atmosphere is warmed mostly by surface radiation and conduction. That energy then moves upward towards space with the amount reabsorbed becoming smaller along the way (that’s why it gets colder).
5) When CO2 increases you will also see a broadening of the absorption window. Energy which previously escaped directly to space is now absorbed low in the atmosphere. This is really a corollary to 2) and the only way increases in CO2 can cause warming.
As it turns out, the enhanced convection mentioned in 1) leads to a reduction in high altitude water vapor. That is a cooling effect which is nullified by this warming.
Point 5: That broadening ( and i suppose you are referring to frequency bands) is too small for the wee Co2 mouse to overcome the H2O elephant. You have to remember the context. H2O to CO2 molecules in the troposphere: 15/20 to 1. Vibrational modes: 3 to 1. Plus frequency response/ atmospheric window. This mouse cannot move the elephant one inch..it’s physics. It’s mainly convection. It’s fluid dynamics and circulation, wind.
But hey, i must be a ‘nutter’, right? That is your default position.
‘But hey, i must be a ‘nutter’, right?’
Have you got the right Richard?
I think the broadening comes out to around 0.24 C per doubling as mentioned in a comment above by Wilpost. So yeah, it’s mostly irrelevant but just trying to be accurate.
The “fluid dynamics” would be a negative feedback, but as I indicated, the slight warming is already offset by induced evaporation. It isn’t even necessary.
The WV to CO2 molecule ratio is about 65 at the surface in the tropics.
In the subtropics it is a little less. Evaporation is 24/7/365
Those two areas produce about 80% of all WV
Too small to overcome the gravity thermal gradient, either.. !
H2O is the only substance that alters the cooling lapse rate. (and it take latent heat with it to compensate)
CO2 is totally insignificant.
but not warm the air inside if empty?
I will not speak to mechanisms but one can easily demonstrate that the air inside a microwave oven becomes warmer if the oven is run for a few minutes with nothing inside it.
the air inside a microwave oven becomes warmer
That makes sense to me but I’m reluctant to try it. I read somewhere that it’s not good to do that. (Not sure why, might be a myth, but I don’t want to have to replace it 🙂 )
Daily temperature anomalies in the northeastern US.
Looks cold but hard to know without a scale.
The little numbers on the map are anomalies in °C for temperature 2m above the surface. -11 in my neck of the woods.
I can confirm that brass monkeys have had critical body parts frozen off today in northern Connecticut.
Forecast for tomorrow morning. Temperature in C.
Darn, no thanks..
It rarely gets below 0ºC here. 🙂
Some “toasty” days ahead, though..
First real “summer” for a few years.
I suspect Australian anomaly will be a up a bit when UAH December data comes in.
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Hudson Bay is freezing fast.
Niño Index 3.4 is falling.
A small comment on presentation of data. We are seeing many depictions of data that purport to show trends over time. Following is an example where the overall impression is one of variability when there is, in a different presentation, little variability.
All I have done is to use computer graphics to move the annual bars down so that coal data are set to zero. Not much variability is left.
This is a common problem with presentation of graphs. I hope that authors will try to avoid it. Geoff S
Anyone know why https://extinctionclock.org/ is now a dead link?
Don’t know why you would bother with such a bogus piece of nonsense !
Actually it was a nice consolidation of failed climate predictions as well as predictions yet to fail, complete with hyperlinks to the stories which made the predictions. What I really liked was links to web archives for when people try to bury the failed predictions by pulling down the link.
Frozen New York.
WUNDERMAP
if it’s generally accepted that climate can change in theoretical world where carbon PPM was steady, where in the climate models is the naturally occurring change accounted for? New guy here… love the discussions