We currently have unused CCGT capacity and have no OCGT currently on-line. I suspect any outage in Coventry is coincidental. Unless we’ve actually run out of gas.
Let’s watch this space. It’s probably nothing, but if it isn’t, it’ll really be something.
strativarius
January 12, 2025 2:21 am
Changing political climates
“Elon Musk enlists Dominic Cummings as ‘UK-based co-conspirator’ in ‘plot to sabotage’ Keir Starmer
Britain’s energy grid has become increasingly dominated by wind power, which reached new records for clean power generation last year. But the grid operator was forced to pay more than £20m to safeguard Britain’s electricity supplies on Wednesday when high demand for electricity combined with low wind speeds, increasing the reliance on gas power plants.
It’s idiots like the Guardian that got us here in the first place.
At least they are finally admitting wind turbines are unable to keep the lights on.
Ron Long
January 12, 2025 2:27 am
In the last days of the Biden administration, we are seeing an alarming amount of woke dreams written down by someone, signed by Biden, who then reads a written statement, which is edited and presented to the public as an Executive Order. Some of these Executive Orders, some of which cannot be simply reversed by an incoming administration, are pushing the idea of Climate Change (omitting the “Anthropogenic” part, but meaning that). For instance, Biden signed a prohibition against new federal oil and gas leases and drilling in all four offshore areas, whereas the incoming administration is saying “drill, baby, drill”. What is the standard for signing a contract or any legal instrument. It appears to vary by State, however, the main elements are: 1. able to read and understand the wording of the instrument, 2. understand the implication and intent of the instrument, and 3. understand the effect the instrument will have on them personally. Does Biden possess these three factors? Almost certainly not. Is there a standardized test for possessing these factors? Doesn’t appear so, but a variety of tests are readily available, starting with the standard 30 question Cognitive Decline test. Here’s an important factor: in all States it is against the law to present an instrument to be signed by someone you have reason to believe is not mentally adapted to sign it. The coming months are going to be very interesting.
Biden’s cognitive deficit are real and obvious. How can his signature have any lawful meaning? He is not of sound mind and body.
Biden is, as always, a petty and spiteful man. To my recollection, no outgoing administration has worked so hard to hamstring the incoming administration like this.
Have you heard the latest on pardons? Biden is waiting to see who Trump “targets” – more preemptive blanket pardons coming? The legality of the concept has never been tested.
Trump had a bunch of federal prisoners that had been on death row over 10 years executed as he was leaving office just to see haw it felt to kill someone.
Trump was friends with gangsters who controlled the labor unions at his parents hotel construction sites and that’s who he got his idea of right and wrong from.
Are you saying that Trump didn’t want these murderers, rapists.. already sentenced to death, released into the general population by a Joe Biden pardon.?
“Are you saying that Trump didn’t want these murderers, rapists.. already sentenced to death, released into the general population by a Joe Biden pardon.?”
As always you change and twist things. So, no I am not and have never said that. I’m saying scvblwxq was 100% correct when he stated that Trump did fast track the execution of a number of people waiting on death row.
Speaking of changing and twisting things, ‘scvblwxq’ said far more than Trump had fast tracked the executions! They way he said it made it sound like Trump had had the condemned men trotted out into the prison yard and executed by a firing squad immediately before Biden was installed.
Apologize for what? Asking for a citation to a claim that hasn’t received widespread coverage outside the anti-death penalty community?
The executions started in July 2019, about 6 months before Biden was installed. I wouldn’t characterize that as “as he [Trump] was leaving office.” Most importantly, I found the statement “just to see haw [sic] it felt to kill someone” to be an absurd, unsupported opinion and casting suspicion on the other things claimed. First off, how does ‘scvblwxq’ know what Trump was thinking or feeling? Does he claim mind reading powers? Such absolute claims should always be challenged. Neither of your citations support such an arrogant claim as they are logically unsupportable without Trump telling us he did it for that reason. It does not speak well of your reasoning for you to attempt to come to the support of an unsupportable claim.
Your redundant citations don’t address the second point claimed by ‘scvblwxq,’ which is similarly tainted by the absurdity of continuing to claim to know the motivations of Trump. You and ‘scvblwxq’ have managed to cement your reputations as being left-hand thread wingnuts.
The prosecutor investigating Biden for possession of classified documents that were not properly secured, and for which he had no legitimate access before becoming president, declined to prosecute based on his judgement that Biden was not mentally competent. Yet, no one questions the Executive Orders that he issues after that pronouncement. What is wrong with this picture?
One would hope so. However, Biden was neither convicted by a jury of peers nor impeached by the House. Probably the best outcome to hope for would be the prosecutor charged for dereliction of duty.
It’s because the old law invoked by Biden gave the President the authority to place areas off limits but apparently there is no provision in that law to remove an area from restriction.
It is argued that the law must be amended to give the President the power to open up an area or another standalone bill could explicitly open specific areas.
Either way, that would be a provision not allowed in a budget reconciliation (which only requires a simple majority vote). As a result, any such bill would need a cloture vote in the Senate where the Republicans lack the requisite 3/5 supermajority (60 votes).
Especially when the EO is clearly the purview of Congress, such as when Obama stated that he got tired of inaction on gun control and decided to act in their stead.
Any limitations on the right to bear arms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, so for Obama, etc., to freelance it is unconstitutional, which Obama was well aware of.
I agree with you that executive orders are out of control and inimical to the constitutional order. I am just trying to explain the difficulty we’re in, certainly not celebrating it.
Trump likewise was not able to rescind Obama’s national monument declarations in Utah because the law only addresses how an area can be placed under the restrictions authorized in the legislation. While these may be executive orders, they are actually the mechanism for implementing the legislation passed by Congress. No doubt formulated by deep state Machiavellians.
At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor. Typically, a new president reviews in-force executive orders in the first few weeks in office.
If this was not true, then we are already living in a dictatorship
Concerning the 30 question “Cognitive Decline test.”
Biden is claiming he graduated Summa Cum Dumb from college although he did not recall the college name. He also said he had scheduled the dementia test in early 2024 but forgot the date, and went to the wrong address.
The lib-prog deep state cartel that pulls Biden’s strings has a large sack of wrenches which they a feverishly throwing into the works. They are doing everything they can think of to disrupt and obstruct the incoming administration. Fortunately it appears that Trump has quite a few “engineers” available who may prove to be effective wrench removers.
It is exceptionally unlikely that global net zero emissions will be achieved by 2050, and virtually certain that atmospheric CO2 levels will not return to preindustrial levels before the end of this century. It’s highly likely that CO2 levels will be in the 600ppm to 800ppm range based on current projections. These levels are about as likely as not to have adverse impacts on global weather patterns and events.
The catastrophic climate change crew (C4’s) must accept that CO2 levels are not coming down, no matter how hard they push for net zero emissions. Screaming, fearmongering and legislation by the C4’s won’t work when half the world cannot or will not comply with their unrealistic ambitions.
The rational way to cover all outcomes is to focus on weather adaptation and damage mitigation for public protection, regardless of CO2 levels and temperatures.
That is great for flora and fauna, and I will be a small pile of ash somewhere
Based on basic radiation physics, doubling CO2 ppm in many decades will decrease upward IR radiation by 1%, which has a warming effect too small to measure, but that can be offset by a 1% increase in cloud cover, which has a cooling effect.
So put away your worry beads and enjoy increased flora and fauna.
These levels are about as likely as not to have adverse impacts on global weather patterns and events.
I’m certainly in agreement with everything else that you wrote. If there is any harm at all to be expected from higher CO2 concentration, the only practical response is adaptation.
But the correlation between weather-related deaths and CO2 concentration is strongly negative. There is no acceleration of sea level rise. Agricultural productivity continues to rise. There are more deaths from extreme cold than from extreme heat. There is no evidence that there is anything but more human flourishing to be expected from 800 to 1000ppm CO2 even if, and perhaps especially because, it might result in a couple of degrees warmer temperatures on average.
No one has to adapt to warmer winters in colder nations, the primary characteristic of greenhouse warming. That should be celebrated. Plants do not have to adapt to higher CO2 levels,
Weather in the N.H. should continue improving as the temperature differential between the Arctic and tropics continues to decline.
Bu there will still be wildfires.
175 of 195 nations don’t care about CO2 emissions and the other 20 have barely reduced their use of fossil fuels for primary energy. Nut Zero is a Trojan Horse for leftist fascism, not a real engineering project.
If the Grand Solar Minimum actually occurs as predicted temperatures will drop dramatically outside the Tropics and the CO2 levels will drop as well since a cooler ocean will absorb more CO2
Your selection of C4 as an acronym is somewhat paradoxical as C4 chains seem to like low levels of CO2 while C3s love the increased levels. Most of the earth needs even higher CO2 levels. Time to return to real science and stop dissing the gas of life, CO2.
“It is exceptionally unlikely that global net zero emissions will be achieved by 2050,” It is impossible that global net zero emmissions will EVER be achieved… fixed it.
Within one year the entire Net Zero by 2050 BS will be sh.. canned, because the subsidies will be cancelled to reduce the deficit, about 30 years overdue, and an environmental hold will be placed on everything.
From the beginning of the “climate” movement, the misconception of the atmosphere as a passive radiative insulating blanket has been the theme. This is incomplete and misleading.
The concept of potential energy helps to show why this is a misdirection concerning what the “greenhouse effect” is and what “greenhouse gases” do.
The atmosphere has a mass of about 10,300 kg per square meter. The center of mass of a column of the atmosphere is at about 5,500 meters. If you raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1K, it expands upward. The center of mass rises by about 21.5 meters, a factor of 256K/255K. This represents about 600 Watt-hours of potential energy added as the mass is raised against the force of gravity. This is just an oversimplified static case applying Charles’ Law to make the point that a portion of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere, from whatever source, is distributed throughout its entire depth.
So what? Then it becomes clearer that the horizontal heating gradient and the energy conversion that drive and maintain the general circulation are what really matter to the disposition of the energy involved in the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 (i.e. the so-called “forcing.”) Please see last week’s post here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/05/open-thread-126/#comment-4017497
It’s not a passive energy “trap.” The compressible atmosphere is a powered circulator, open at the top, driven by absorbed energy applied in the daily pulses of sunshine. And the resulting cloud formation and dissipation is an active modulator of longwave emission to space to keep things in balance.
Thank you for your understanding as I keep posting about these fundamental reasons why the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the climate question should be challenged from the skeptic side of the debate. Stop conceding the core claim.
Nice description. Your description is important from the standpoint of N2 and O2 being a heat sink that is warmed by pulses of radiation from the sun but then dissipated as the sun’s radiation disappears. No CAGW advocate seems to be aware of what happens in the atmosphere wen solar panels are not working. You can’t just look at averages and come up with an adequate answer to the atmosphere. It is a continuous process that begs for better analysis that just looking at temperature.
N2 (nitrogen) and O2 (oxygen), which make up most of the Earth’s atmosphere, are not directly warmed by the sun because they are transparent to the incoming solar radiation, meaning they do not absorb the sun’s energy and therefore do not heat up significantly from direct sunlight; instead, they are primarily warmed by the Earth’s surface which is heated by the sun.
Generally I like your comments, but I take exception here …
“ The center of mass rises by about 21.5 meters, a factor of 256K/255K. This represents about 600 Watt-hours of potential energy added as the mass is raised against the force of gravity. This is just an oversimplified static case…”
Yes, the CM of the atmosphere rises uniformly as you’ve described, but this is not potential energy that can be used to do work. It is “unavailable” as they say. It represent an aspect of the “dead state.” What matters is how the variations in the CM change when the atmosphere is warmed in some manner (how its temperature distribution changes). This is a really complex question to ponder. Does the atmosphere maintain its work potential as it warms slightly from CO2, and perhaps a little more (but we don’t know how much) from water vapor, or is this work potential, which is needed to transport heat, hampered in some way?
A person might be inclined to say that the history of the Cenozoic age shows evidence of much higher temperature and higher CO2 levels than today, and life did not perish; so there is little to worry about. This doesn’t really help one to nail down how the climate changed, though, because many other factors changed during this period as well — not the least of which is the configuration of land masses and the distribution of the cryosphere, elevated areas, vegetation and animals.
Lately I’ve been thinking about an argument that is often made here about Le Chatelier’s Principle showing that the atmosphere will negate changes in radiative balance in some way. Lots of smart people make this argument. I don’t think Le Chatelier is pertinent to the problem, though. I have been working up as essay on the topic.
Thanks for your thoughts, Kevin. Please go to last week’s post, to which I linked, and read the first page of the meteorological course material I linked to there. I am not talking about the atmosphere warming or rising uniformly across the surface. My simplified static case is just to point out that significant potential energy is involved along with internal energy as the atmosphere warms at any location. Uneven heating is experienced across the surface from the daily cycle of absorbed solar radiation. The gradient makes a portion of the [internal energy + potential energy] available for conversion to [kinetic energy].
There is also uniform contraction as it cools…returning the work to the system…we use the same basic idea as the explanation for atmospheric lapse rate.
So + to David…also Le Chatelier is a pretty weak principle in my opinion, definitely not of F=ma scope…mentioned with respect to chemistry that tends to equilibrium, but isn’t used for say a dynamite explosion….. so a + to Kevin as well.
Thanks for the brain engagement on a wintry day….
I’d be reluctant to invoke Le Chetalier also. I’ve always seen it as a neat way to claim that there are equilibrium states to be reached after disturbances, but one has little basis to rely on it in a quantitative way. Geoff S
Also “some amount” could be a negligible amount. Richard is doing argument by vagueness, which is meaningless. Claiming that our emissions have no impact whatsoever is an extremely strong claim.
Wojick claiming in prior comments that only El Ninos cause global warming is a dingbat claim. Very few scientists believe CO2 x 2 will cause less than +0.7 degrees C. warming. Whether that is negligible depends on your definition of negligible.
You could not care less about the strength of the consensus on the greenhouse effect or how CO2 emissions increase that effect. Information has been available in perhaps 100,000 scientificc papers since the 1800s that you will not read.
I have been reding conservative articles on climate science for 28 years. 12 or more a day for many years. I have only found ONE scientist, geographer Tim Ball of Caada, who denied there was a greenhouse effect.
That is how I estimate 99.9%
Among published peer reviewed climate science studies, 99.9% of studies supported AGW of some amount. The reported number of 97% understates the consensus and is falsely applied to CAGW, rather than AGW
A 2022 survey of various scientists found a 59% consensus on CAGW, not 97%
Always nice to hear from you, Richard! Glad to know that you have remained un-dead. I hope that continues for many years. But about those “scientists” – none are able to isolate the incremental radiative effect of rising CO2 to reliably confirm it to be the cause of any portion of the reported warming on land and in the oceans. Sure, most may have that opinion and expectation, but cause and effect have not been established with evidence. You really need to do better, to appreciate the difference between the valid static effect (arising from IR absorption and emission properties) and the disposition of the energy involved in it as an end result of the dynamic operation. Be well.
This represents about 600 Watt-hours of potential energy added as the mass is raised against the force of gravity.
This is a trivial component of the energy gain in the column. Also your calculation is simplistic because the added water vapour has lower density so the gain in elevation of the CoM is greater than your simple calculation.
Taking a saturated column from 29C to 30C requires 10kWh/m^2. The additional water punches well above its weight in terms of the energy contribution.
The air circulating in the Southern Pacific is at 24C off Peru, South America and will get to 30C in its 3 week journey to PNG where it reaches 30C. All that time to absorb heat by increasing the mass of water vapour in the column. Roughly a 50/50 split between latent heat and sensible heat with a small gain in potential energy.
The LA house fires are a good example of the energy content of water vapour in the atmosphere. No water vapour means low thermal inertia so the air heats readily.
The Earth is flat. Sailing beyond the Straits of Gibraltar will lead to you falling off the edge!
The Earth is the center of the Universe; the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve around it!
The continents are fixed in their positions; never moving enough to really matter!
The nadir of the Little Ice Age, when starvation was rampant, is the ideal climate!
Saturated fats and red meat are deadly! Ignore the Eskimo and Masai, and eat more veggies!
Climate computer models, that cannot credibly account for clouds, water vapor, solar cycles, and the deep oceanic currents and cycles; are accurate enough to justify societal suicide!
97% of scientists agree that they would rather get a hefty paycheck, so they will eagerly go along with providing the evidence needed to support their paymasters. Someday, hopefully soon, climate alarmists will be relegated to being the butt of darkly humored jokes, and will be allowed no say whatsoever in government policy or spending! I wear my skeptic badge proudly!! CO2 to 800ppm!
President Trump should award Buzz LightYear the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the first week of his new term, to be accepted by Tim Allen. Who knows how many millions of kids (and adults!) have been truly inspired!
Believe it or not, #1 is making a strong comeback in the modern era, even among otherwise seemingly intelligent persons (although Antarctica has replaced Gibraltar as the “edge”).
That says quite a lot about our “modern” indoctrination system!
“Keep the peasants stupid, scared, and lazy; and the we will never have to work hard to stay in power!” Quote, from every dictator ever!
Eating too many calories for the amount of exercise you get, thus storing too much fat is what kills people. Fat is the most energy-dense food. If you are not physically active, eating fat is going to potentially be a problem since it crowds out other foods from your diet unless you over-eat. You need to get several essential vitamins and minerals from the rest of your diet. Exercise more and that problem goes away.
It makes no sense that saturated fats that thousands of generations have eaten without harm are somehow suddenly deadly and the main contributor to bad health outcomes. It makes even less sense to substitute simple sugars for saturated fats while still getting too many calories and not exercising enough.
When you look at a situation where one subject ate saturated fat, got a lot of physical activity, and was healthy, while another subject ate saturated fat, got much less physical exercise, and had heart disease, the conclusion should be that not getting enough exercise is dangerous.
You should read Nina Teicholtz’s book, “A Big Fat Surprise,” before you make up your mind! The “evidence” against sat fats was only epidemiological, one of the lowest forms of scientific proof. Nutritionists look at fat, and ignore all the problems associated with sugar and HFC; much like Climastrologists looking only at CO2, and downplaying everything else!
There are many good reasons I have advocate for at least 800 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997, including the 200 scientific studies of CO2 enrichment and plant growth I have read since then.
It is also true that the history of the scientific consensus reveals most are from partially wrong to completely wrong. But that is a false argument for claiming the greenhouse effect consensus has to be wrong
100% wrong is a radical, political position, not scientific reality. That radical position loses arguments. Sorry to reveal that leftists are not always 100% wrong and conservatives are not always 100% right.
That depends on how one defines the GHE and the exact role of Co2 in this. Id rather separate H2o and particularly water vapour from the equation. The GHE is a theory which effect is dubious. It is at least questionable in our atmosphere. But then, i might be one of those ‘nutters’ that think there is at least the possibility of zero or near zero in light of the system in conjunction w H2o. H2o dynamics is complex. From first principles we can clearly see its impact on the atmosphere as far as basic physics go. That is almost impossible to do w Co2. Lots of speculation and im fine w that. It’s i think a moot point to argue over but you take the pitbull approach and go full binary. Not a lot of people are buying that. In fact it is the main societal issue plaqueing the West. Everybody is encouraged to go binary and pick a team. Not for me, i actually like diversity. In regards to Co2 and temperature i see it as a fool’s errant to make the equations stick. One can and does try..
Clouds and Upward and Downward IR Radiation The below article indicates CO2 has a very minor role regarding the greenhouse effect . Increasing CO2 by 100% Reduces Radiative Cooling to Space by an Imperceptible 1% https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increasing-co2-by-100-reduces-radiative-cooling-to-space-by-an By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer . “An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.” – van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025 The physicists detail just how insignificant CO2 is as a factor in climate change, revealing that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm – a 100% increase – hypothetically reduces radiative heat loss to space by just 1%. It would take many decades to achieve such a ppm increase, plus there are not enough fossil fuels left over to make it happen. Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point. Such a small change in upward IR radiation, over hundreds of years, is not even detectable amid the noise of outgoing radiation measurement. For example, the measured upward IR radiation has an error of about 33 W/m² This negligible CO2 greenhouse effect is a calculated value for an atmosphere that is perpetually cloud-free. As clouds are present 60-70% of the time, this clear-sky-only condition only occurs in an imaginary world – an atmosphere that doesn’t exist. Compared to the CO2 role, the greenhouse effect of clouds is tens of times more influential. As Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer point out in their conclusion, all that is needed to offset the impact of doubling CO2 is a mere 1% change in cloud cover. Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% occur routinely, both from year-to-year and decade-by-decade, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant. During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2, During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
Junk science articles with unusually low wild guesses for the effects of CO2 NOT representative of climate scientists as a group.
Kenneth Richar specializes in promoting CO2 Does Nothing articles and should be ignored,
The long term effect of CO2 emissions is unknown, with guesses usually in the range of +0.7degrees C. to +5.5 degrees C. for CO2 x 2. No one wants to say “We don’t know”
Which means ANY guess from CO2 Does Nothing to 5.5 degrees C, is not based on in atmospheric situ data.
Junk science articles with unusually low wild guesses for the effects of CO2 NOT representative of climate scientists as a group.
Ha ha ha ha. Have you been told today yet Greene? There is only one hypothesis. None of the ”group” have carried out testing the hypothesis. The just accept it because – you know – consensus. Grow up Greene.
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
All the rest of the GW is due to WV generation and cloud formation in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics, 24/7/365.
Here are four articles attesting to the small global warming role of CO2 in the atmosphere
During the daytime, H20 and CO2 absorb incoming IR. I found one graphic at Wikipedia that showed that about 48% of incoming sunlight is IR light. In the daytime H2O and CO2 absorb this IR light which results in a warming of the air. As the land surface heats up from absorption of both visible and IR
light light, it emits IR light which results in more warming of the air. Thus, H20 and CO2 are doing double greenhouse duty.
Since the amount of CO2 in is only ca. 0.8g per cubic meter pf air, it actually absorbs only a small amount of IR light.
Have you found any articles about absorption of incoming daytime IR by greenhouse gases?
On April 1 in BC, the carbon tax on fossil fuels increases to $95 from $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax has greatly increased the cost of everything, especially food. It has to go.
One needs to make a distinction between LW and SW IR..
Also, there is a whole discussion about the effect of radiation vs convection and heat flux. This is by no means settled..
Absorption / reflection of sunlight –
..
In the atmosphere, water vapor, clouds, dust particles, and certain gases like ozone and carbon dioxide are the primary components that block incoming solar energy by absorbing or reflecting it back into space;
According to NASA, approximately 30% of incoming solar energy never reaches the Earth’s surface, with around 29% being reflected back into space by clouds and bright surfaces, and the remaining portion absorbed by the atmosphere itself.
Cloud cover changes are the only plausible explanation for most of the modest “secular” warming of the past two centuries. Together with ocean current fluctuations (see URLs), cloud cover changes are also the only physical mechanism that could account for fluctuating temperature changes with time scales of a few years. . Based on fundamental physics, one should expect some warming from increasing CO2. But this warming will be too small to account for what has been observed. Cloud cover changes provide the only rational explanation that does not violate basic physics. . El Nino events typically produce cloud cover changes much greater than 1%, due to increased evaporation. See image in URLs. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption . During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2, During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
Well pointed out! People often insist that their equation is right. In Earth’s atmosphere the error margins of every variable is wide. In essense not equatable.
…”this clear-sky condition only occurs in an imaginary world—an atmosphere that doesn’t exist.”
Thus making it the ideal goal for the Pied Climateers of Hamelin to grift into the mushy brains of their victims! The poor little chilluns will be forever panicked into trying to achieve the impossible!
Claptrap comment
Happer has guessed a 0.7 to 1.0 degrees C. warming from CO2 x 2 in his papers the past few years. His guess is no better than any other guess. Anyone can pick a number. You did too.
Your claim:
“CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point”
This is just another wild guess
A radical wild guess
Below 99.9% of guesses by scientists
And likely to be claptrap
Climate changes zealots run the LA city, county and California state governments. The sitting POTUS likewise is a believer and the renamed Green New Deal is the law of the land. So how can Climate Change Deniers be at fault with the LA wildfires? How can the president elect be to blame?
Nah, the LA fires are clearly KARMA against the libtards residing there, for the mistreatment of the folks in N Carolina after the recent flooding by the libtards at FEMA and the gov in general.
It seems that a fire fighter from Oregon took exception to a delay from CAL Fire requiring an inspection of their crews and equipment in Sacramento. It appears that it was blown out of proportion but it’s hard to say what the CAL Fire bureaucrats were thinking and how publicity may have altered that.
While I can certainly believe CA would do something like that, I have not been able to find any root source other than a tweet by someone saying his brother was a firefighter in one of those trucks. All the articles I found eventually led to that same tweet.
I am more than a bit curious as to why more fire trucks were being sent to fight fires, when there is no water available (except for that large body of blue).
Answering in general, more trucks means more ability to truck in water from elsewhere. Many rural departments actually practice this “tanker brigade” regularly, with many trucks going back and forth between the fire and a water supply.
Specifically with regard to these fires – I have no idea of the logistics. 60 trucks isn’t going to help the overall picture. I can only speculate that they’re intended to help in focused areas to try to reduce property loss.
So that first link quotes Santa Monica Observer which in turn quotes the tweet by Parker Caldwell.
The second link provides new information that I have not previously seen, and quotes CalFIRE, AKD California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. Thank you for providing that!
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of something like that being done in the past.
California has wildfire almost every year and the fires go back millions of years. The Giant Sequoia trees even need the fires to open their seed pods. They have nothing to do with politics. Some of the plants make an oily substance the catches fire easily.
I don’t think anyone has claimed they do, including the post you’re responding to (karma != politics). It’s the response that has to do with politics, and the lack of preemptive efforts at mitigation.
Anyone who says crime doesn’t pay has never looked at how much the Marxists running amok in LA have looted from their tax payers! They couldn’t drive them out with rampant crime, and uncontrolled immigration and homelessness; so now they’re going to try and burn them out!! Another Utopia!
So many poor public servants went to DC and returned multimillionaires.
Keith Bennett
January 12, 2025 5:29 am
Here in Australia, I’ve just read an article from a weather site about Tasmania recently going through a heatwave, reaching 30 degrees C. It’s actually quite good overall, explaining how calling such a temperature a heatwave there is because it is unusual (unlike in the mainland states), while also referring to certain things like infrastructure particular to Tasmania that has the population less ready for weather of that type. There’s no mention of the term “climate change” (although it’s alluded to once) – until right at the end, where they predict Tasmania could reach 40c in several decades time, and be similar to certain mainland country cities in New South Wales, etc. For a while there, it was quite a refreshing read…
It’s quite common these days that articles submitted for publication to MSM outlets are returned to the authors by editors with the requirement to bookend the piece with a nod to global warming / climate change.
It’s why so many honest contributors of articles about weather, climate and/or energy options host their own platforms, or use substack, or submit works to platforms specialising in these topics like WUWT.
Penguin on the north coast of Tasmania issue an extreme heat warning when the temperature is forecast to rise above 25C.
Tasmania is surrounded by water that reaches as high as 19C in February. The tropical ocean can never sustain more than 30C and it would take millions of years to melt the ice on Antarctica so there will be sea ice for a long time. That means the water off Tasmania will not reach much above 19C in even the distant future – say a million years. Much of Tasmania is high ground. For example, the summit of Mt Wellington is about 10C cooler than Hobart at sea level. So most of Tasmania is cooler than the ocean on average. But there can be days of still air when the sun will warm the ground to more than 30C.
Launceston has reached 39C and Ross 41.6C. So above 40C is possible but it is fleeting and rare.
The planet is cooling in the high southern latitudes and warming in other latitudes due to the northward shift in peak solar intensity. The warming in Australia is due to higher minimums not higher maximums as a result of higher atmospheric water Last year was the highest average temperature in Australia for the satellite era but, as far as I know, there were no new high temperature records anywhere.
Keith,
I have studied heatwaves of duration 1, 3, 5 and 10 days in all Aussie capital cities, including Hobart, using raw daily data from BOM for all years going back to when data first is available.
There is no detectable pattern of increase in the heat of heatwaves in Hobart over the last 150 years or so.
I am currently updating these studies to include 2024, though it is slow, takes about a day per city. I do not cherry pick start dates, as do most alarmist studies, nor do I invent convoluted descriptions of heatwaves to beat data into submission to alarmist beliefs, nor do I use adjusted temperature data as is commonly done.
I hope WUWT will accept an article in a few weeks. I am hoping to raise the number of studied weather stations from 8 to 16 by including several that should have low urban heat island contamination. Geoff S
Retiredinky
January 12, 2025 6:00 am
I read Watts Up almost every day. I read the fearmongering about blackouts (in the U.S.) during extreme weather conditions. Right now most of the country is covered by snow and it is cold yet I don’t read anything about blackouts and/or lack of power. So is Watts Up feeding us a line of bs.
Direct fossil fuel (natural gas, propane, fuel oil) combustion accounts for most home/industry heating in the U.S. This energy mix diversity does not stress the grid whatsoever.
IMHO, the danger of blackouts here in the US Northwest will become acute in the early 2030’s as the coal-fired plants attached to the Western Interconnect are systematically retired without adequate replacement. Anyone who is highly proactive in raising concerns here in the mid-2020’s is now being either ridiculed or ignored.
Most of these coal-fired plants have reached the end of their service lives and there is no incentive to replace them with reliable sources of power generation.
Here in Washington State, it will be forbidden for a utility to buy power from a fossil-fueled power generation source. Which is one reason why PacificCorp is planning to retire most of its coal-fired plants in other states by the mid-2030’s, or earlier.
You bring up interesting points. There may be a showdown coming from Washington State ratepayers trying to dictate the energy choices, economies, and lifestyles of people in other states. So far, I am not able to move our PSC to ponder the bad consequences of things that PacifiCorp (Rocky Mountain Power or RMP) is suggesting, but I have gotten them to ask questions of RMP in a Necessity and Convenience hearing that are pertinent and RMP has been forthcoming with honest answers. Yet, no one is really connecting the dots and they just keep sayin’ silly stuff; like, if we need additional power we can just “call up some wind.”
We have another general rate cases coming up in March on top of an earlier rate case and a lawsuit that is eventually going to awaken the ratepayers. They were angry enough about the last rate case.
You will discover that PacifiCorp’s 2023 IRP is in close alignment with Washington State’s 2021 energy policy and plan of action for decarbonizing the US Northwest power grid.
Buried deep inside of the Washington State decarbonization strategy is a plan to cover Montana and Wyoming with wind turbines and solar panels while building new transmission capacity through Idaho to feed west coast power consumers.
Here is Page 4 from PacifiCorp’s 2023 IRP Executive Summary:
Note how the IRP’s graph is nicely structured to show how fossil-fuel resources are being removed through time (e.g., those resources below the zero MW line) and how renewable energy resources are being added through time (e.g., those resources above the zero MW line.)
I make these observations concerning what is shown on Page 4 of the 2023 IRP Executive Summary:
— Meeting the 2050 decarbonization goals requires a huge overbuild of wind and solar capacity. Moreover, some part of PacifiCorp’s coal-fired-capacity is being converted to gas-fired capacity as a means of firming up wind and solar.
— The Natrium reactor’s 500 MW capacity doesn’t really amount to much in the grand scheme of things inside PacifiCorp’s IRP. I’m of the opinion that its inclusion is mostly a public relations sop to the region’s nuclear power advocates.
— Betwen 2025 and 2032, gains in energy efficiency are treated as gains in power generation capacity and are as important in the IRP as are the additions of new wind & solar capacity.
— A huge jump in renewable energy capacity occurs between 2031 and 2032, and again between 2036 and 2037. Achieving this kind of rapid expansion is completely impossible.
Because it is impossible to expand renewable capacity in the short timeframes shown on the IRP graph, I conclude that PacifiCorp’s senior management expects the region’s decarbonization plans to collapse into a massive and visible train wreck well before the mid-2030’s arrive.
Placing myself in their shoes, and doing what senior corporate executives are paid to do, I would ride the gravy train of renewable energy subsidies just as long as I possibly could, knowing that sooner or later, the whole RE swindle will eventually fall off the tracks.
yet I don’t read anything about blackouts and/or lack of power.
A pretty good swath of Richmond, VA was without power for 2-3 days. Source: First-hand reports from people I know who live there. They haven’t told me if it’s back or not – many of them are staying with friends or relatives – because during the same time period, almost the entire city’s water supply was also out. Didn’t really see any reporting on that.
Better to read about the increasing risk of blackouts BEFORE they happen, rather than after they happen. There is some BS at WUWT, such as your comment, but the biggest BS pile is the Coming Global Warming Crisis … as actual global warming has been 100% good news for the past 50 years!
No, the warnings about potential blackouts are not BS.
All the Grid operators in the United States have been putting out warnings about possible blackouts.
I live in Oklahoma and our electric grid is the Southwest Power Pool, which operates our grid and about a dozen other States.
During this last summer, the SPP put out an alert saying they were able to handle the current high temperatures, which at the time were around 105F in the central U.S., and this temperature was supposed to last for a couple of days. The problem with this is the central U.S. has and will experience much higher temperatures than 105F, and the duration can be much longer, so if the SPP is putting out warnings at 105F, then it sounds like the grid will be in trouble if temperatures go higher than that and last longer, which is entirely possible. So the SPP is right on the verge of blackout territory right now. Fortunately, the temperatures last summer did not get brutal like they usually do.
And just a few days ago, the SPP again put out an alert saying that the grid would be able to handle this current winter storm, depending on how the wind behaved! Which shows us that the SPP grid has been put in serious jeopardy by adding too many windmills and closing too much reliable power generation. How the wind blows will determine if we have blackouts on the SPP.
And this particular winter storm is not all that cold, and they say we are on the brink. It sounds to me like we are going to be in trouble if an arctic cold front decides to come visit the United States.
No blackouts yet, but we are closer to them than ever.
Before windmills and solar were added to the various grids, there were no blackout alerts put out by the grid operators. This is a new phenomenon caused specifically by the subtraction from the grid of reliable generating capacity (coal and natural gas) and the addition of unreliable windmills and solar, that only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and when the sun is shining. And that’s not good enough!
I don’t have any links handy. You can find them if you know how to do a search. Start out with: “SPP and blackouts and wind”.
2024 the world’s hottest year, scientists say
Political will to curb emissions wanes despite rising climate disasters Kate Abnett and Alison Withers, REUTERS
BRUSSELS – Global temperatures in 2024 exceeded 1.5 Celsius above the pre-industrial era for the first time, bringing the world closer to breaching the pledge governments made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, scientists said on Friday.
The World Meteorological Organization confirmed the 1.5C breach, after reviewing data from U.S., U.K., Japan and EU scientists.
“Global heating is a cold, hard fact,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement. “There’s still time to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe. But leaders must act – now.”
The bleak assessment came as wildfires charged by fierce winds swept through Los Angeles last week. Wildfires are among the many disasters that climate change is making more frequent and severe.
The Earth is still in a 2.5 million-year ice age with 90% of the freshwater locked up in ice, in a still cold interglacial period where about 2.5 million people die from cold related causes, mainly strokes and heart attacks, compared to about 500,000 who die from heat related causes. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2821%2900081-4
Oklahoma residents rally at state Capitol for renewable energy ban
Friday
By Craig Nigrelli (Anchor), Jack Aylmer (Energy Correspondent), Ian Kennedy (Video Editor Manager)
“Oklahoma, one of the nation’s leading states in renewable energy, is now seeing a push to bar the expansion of clean power sources. On Tuesday, Jan 7, hundreds of residents gathered at the state Capitol in Oklahoma City to urge Gov. Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order banning the construction of new wind and solar facilities.”
end excerpt
I think the worm is slowly turning when it comes to windmills and solar farms.
People just don’t want to put up with these horrible windmills and solar farms. They don’t want to live near them. They don’t want to see them. They don’t want to hear them.
Oklahoma’s governor should listen to the people. The governor argues that government shouldn’t be making these decisions, but government has already decided, when it comes to windmills and solar. Windmills and solar would not exist without government subsidies. Governor Stitt is confused about which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Governor Stitt lays claim to a Free Enterprise solution so that should be his position:: That Free Enterprise should reign and windmills and solar should not be susidized. If they are not subsidized, then the problem goes away because no more windmills or solar farms will be built, and the people will be happy with you.
I should note that the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a law some time ago, which Governor Stitt signed, stopping the paying of subsidies to new windmills and solar farms, so the only subsidies they get in Oklahoma are federal subsidies. Governor Stitt should publicly oppose federal subsidies for windmills and solar, if he is true to his Free Enterprise stance.
Oklahoma has an effective Attorney General and he opposes windmills and solar, and he will take on Governor Stitt if it comes down to it. He looks to me like he would make a good future Oklahoma governor.
“I do wish people would stop calling wind and solar “clean”.”
I do, too.
It’s all part of the Climate Alarmist brainwashing technique.
Russell Cook
January 12, 2025 8:05 am
Emphasizing how there is every appearance in the world that the American “ExxonKnew” lawsuits – filed by supposedly ‘independent unrelated’ law firms/Attorneys General offices – are operating on a single central template … likely provided to them by the very same enviro-activists who’ve been hurling the same “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation ever since the 1990s:
Exxon should grow a spine sue for defamation. The other energy companies could do the same. As I detailed in my Part 2 blog post concerning the Oregon County of Multnomah v Exxon lawsuit, our own Art Robinson could potentially file a Motion to Dismiss, pointing out that not only the accusation against him is totally without merit, the main 4 point accusation narrative that’s the core of all of these lawsuits and the core argument in the collective climate issue is totally without merit. (Pt 1 detailed Multnomah‘s monstrous plagiarizing problem)
David Wojick
January 12, 2025 8:56 am
Here is a fun one. They want to build an enormous lithium battery storage facility just outside of Boston. This article, which I advised on, says that is a very bad plan because these things spontaneously explode or burn and cannot be extinguished. https://www.massfiscal.org/hazard_warning_for_everett_s_lithium_battery_park
The same issue will come to the fore when it’s time to shut down New York City’s in-city fossil fuel peaker plants. IIRC, the target date for their final closure is 2030.
Battery storage is an important component of the proposed renewable energy architecture for New York City. But where will those batteries be located? Inside the city on the former sites of the shuttered peaker plants?
That is undesirable but it is an irrelevance. Focus on the fact they can’t supply enough power long enough to do the job; a battery storage facility that could would be so far beyond unaffordable it’s unnecessary to even think about opportunity costs.
Talking about the space and the fire hazard and the short service-life concedes the fundamental point and gives a lot of people the idea we’re just nit-picking. If they conclude all we have is nits to pick then there must be no major problems in the way, so make haste; get it done, save the planet.
Yes but that is not their intended use. They are arbitrage machines that charge off daily peak and discharge on peak making money from the price difference. Pumped storage has always done this.
CFM
January 12, 2025 9:06 am
This post is about social media.
Few month ago, Facebook fact-checked my post of a link to “Climate, The Movie (the cold truth)”. You know, the one with Will Happer, Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore. The fact-checkers turned out to be some french company; all of the officers did not have identified degrees, no BS, BA, no PhD or anything else; the actual fact-checkers were unidentified sub-contractors.
This week, Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook will no longer censor people’s opinions. I’m backtracking to my old censored posts and reposting. Turns out he’s lying, at least as of today, January 12, 2025; Facebook added a notice to my movie re-post “includes information that independent fact-checkers said was false.”
Before Musk bought X/Twitter, the AGW skeptics had disappeared from the site, at least I didn’t see them. After Musk exposed the Twitter scandal and changed the algorithms, some skeptics returned to X/Twitter, and I now have found about 28. Some post regularly, some almost never.
Recently, LinkedIn skeptics have begun responding to climate terrorists (like World Meteorological Organization), debunking their claims.
I would like to help change public perception of the climate hoax, but fear my efforts are useless.
At this time I follow climate skeptics on X, LinkedIn, and Facebook. I LIKE their posts, and if the post is simple and clear then I repost. Sometimes I respond (with facts) to ignorant AGW believers. Most of the public does not understand theories, but many can read graphs of data about things like ocean temperature and ocean PH.
I think this might be a good time for many climate skeptics to flood the zones. Mark Zuckerberg has said that Facebook is no longer censoring people for opinions (so far a lie). X is wide open. I’m not sure about LinkedIn policy, but professional engineers on that site appear to be open to learning facts.
I wonder if this effort should be coordinated. The corporate media definitely coordinated on the messages they put out over the last 8 years. It worked for them.
The corporate media definitely coordinated on the messages they put out over the last 8 years. It worked for them.
That is not precisely accurate. The corporate media have been coordinated by third-parties, e.g.ibt.org.uk, to pick just one (there are many such). The corporate media has been captured.
X (twitter) is still facing some moderation issues. The automatic censorship algorithm is pretty deeply embedded so it takes time to clean it up. I suspect the same goes for FB, but also, FB still has the same moderation team, so even taking Zuck’s intent at face value, moderation will continue with minimal changes until that team changes.
Zuckerburg said he was doing away with outside fact-checkers. He is going to let the Facebook community do the fact-checking, like is done on X, or at least, that’s what he said the other day.
I think Zuckerburg has had a “come-to-Jesus” moment. He is starting to spill the beans on how Biden and the Democrats operated to censor any opinions they didn’t like.
Climate the Movie is a terrible movie that in the first 30 minutes tries to convince viewers that CO2 Does Nothing, a false anti-science position.
Facebook did conservatives a FAVOR by censoring that claptrap movie. Not only was the CO2 Does Nothing theme wrong, but by quoting famous skeptic climate scientists, with unrelated true statements, it implied they agreed with CO2 Does Nothing, which is FALSE (With the exception of Willie Soon and John Clauser who were already climate science frauds).
In the video below (surprise! surprise!) he is being interviewed by Democracy Now! He clearly blames the LA wildfires on the fossil fuel industry and what he claims is a worsening climate crisis. LA and California are supposed to be getting hotter and drier and never mind urban heat island. Also never mind the state’s less than competent Democratic leadership at both the state and local levels.
Turner, Hays Praise TransAlta’s Decision to Cut McIntosh County Wind Project
Published On: January 10, 2025By David DeatonCategories: Whatzup Politics
“OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Tim Turner, R-Kinta, and Neil Hays, R-Checotah, today applauded a decision by TransAlta to stop the Canadian River wind farm project in McIntosh County.
The company earlier reported it was in the very early stages of the project and was still completing environmental and economic feasibility studies. The project was more than likely two to three years from beginning construction.
“We have been informed today by TransAlta of their decision to cancel the Canadian Valley project,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement. “We want to express our gratitude to the citizens of House Districts 15 and 13 and the surrounding area for their active engagement and willingness to make their voices heard. Your support has been invaluable as we worked diligently with all parties involved to address concerns and evaluate the potential impact this project could have had on our community.
“Also, thank you to House Speaker Kyle Hilbert and House leadership for standing with us in through this process to assure that we are not affected by Biden’s green energy projects. This was truly a team effort.”
The lawmakers in December held a meeting with TransAlta during which they made it clear there was no pathway for the project to gain community support. They were prepared to introduce legislation this session to change feasibility study requirements to prevent the project from moving forward in their House districts.”
end excerpt
This won’t be the only successful test of windmill farms, I’ll bet.
I just looked through my news feed and I must have seen 30 headlines about how 2024 was the hottest year in human history.
That’s a lot of climate change propaganda being pumped out to the public in just one day. The word “orchestrated” comes to mind.
The year 2024 was not the hottest year in my neck of the woods. I’ll bet it wasn’t the hottest in your neck of the woods, either, no matter where you live. So just exactly what are these climate change scaremongers talking about? It’s something ordinary people cannot feel or relate to.
Skeptics are dealing with a lot of liars and a lot of dupes when it comes to challenging the climate crisis narrative. There’s a lot of money behind promoting this narrative.
The truth is we are not experiencing unprecedented warming, because of CO2 or any other reason. It was just as warm in the past as it is today.
None of the articles (I read) mentioned that the temperatures have currently cooled to levels below the high points of 1998, and 2016.
Human-caused Climate Change is such a Big, Destructive Lie.
The temperature data mannipulation by NASA and NOAA since 1998, is criminal.
They are forming a temperature trend in their computers that sells the climate crisis narrative. They erase all the cooling that took place after 1998. Instead, they mannipulate the data to make each year after 1998, look as though it was hotter than the previous year, and they did this year after year after year during the period from 2000 to 2016. But when you look at the UAH satellite temperature record (see below), you can’t find any years after 1998, that can be described as being hotter than 1998. Every year after 1998 was cooler than 1998, until we got to the year 2016.
NASA and NOAA don’t have any ability to mannipulate the UAH Satellite data for their climate crisis narrative purposes, so they don’t use it, and climate alarmists downplay its data and pretend the satellite data doesn’t represent the true picture, even though the weather balloon data correlates with the satellite data (97percent).
It’s just the Western World that is infected with this CO2-Phobia/lunacy. The rest of the world is moving on using coal, oil, and natural gas.
See if you can find any years after 1998, and before 2016, that could be described as “the hottest year ever!”. As you can see, there are no years after 1998, and before 2016, that could be described as hotter than 1998, yet NASA and NOAA mannipulated their data so that they could make the claim that each year after 1998 was hotter than the last year and therefore each year was the “hottest year ever!”, year after year after year, after year. The better to scare you with, my dear.
NASA and NOAA are perpetrating crimes on the American people with their bastardization of the temperature records. They need to be held to account.
Paranoia and ignorance.
Thinking that the remit of the UKMO is to provide pristine temperature records for purposes of accurately evaluating ongoing climate changes.
No, No and thrice no.
That is a time part of what the UKMO does
It is mandated to provide a service for the UK public, who largely fund it.
Hence they have provided constructed temperatures in locations of interest to the public, clearly stating the following ….
““These maps enable you to view maps of monthly, seasonal and annual averages for the UK. The maps are based on the 1km resolution HadUK-Grid dataset derived from station data.
*Locations displayed in this map may not be those from which observations are made. Data will be displayed from the closest available climate station, which may be a short distance from the chosen location.
We are working to improve the visualisation of data as part of this map.
Where stations are currently closed in this dataset, well-correlated observations from other nearby stations are used to help inform latest long-term average figures in order to preserve the long-term usability of the data.
Similar peer-reviewed scientific methods are used by meteorological organisations around the world to maintain the continuity of long-term datasets. “
Anything to invent in your heads supposed “fraud”.
Well, looking at the UAH satellite chart, explain how NASA and NOAA can claim that just about every year after 1998 was hotter than 1998.
That’s not what the UAH satellite chart shows.
When satellite measurements were first instituted by NASA in 1979, NASA was claiming satellites were the “Gold Standard” for temperature measurements. That’s to head off your claim that satellites don’t measure temperatures near the ground. The satellites correlate quite closely to the weather balloon data. How well do NASA and NOAA data correlate with the weather balloon data?
Jim Masterson
January 12, 2025 11:50 pm
This is fun time for stargazers. It’s not usually good for stargazers in the Pacific Northwest due to the clouds that are usually present. But today it was reasonably clear. At 6:30 pm you could see Jupiter and the Moon to the east and Venus to the southwest. Saturn is supposed to be near Venus, but I haven’t seen her yet. At 11:30 pm I was out with my dogs. Overhead was the Moon with Jupiter ahead towards the west and Mars behind the Moon towards the east. You could seen a curved line running through them–the plane of the Ecliptic. To the south you could see Sirius–very bright.
No wind today, and Coventry has a blackout. 10am Sunday
They’re keeping that quiet…
We currently have unused CCGT capacity and have no OCGT currently on-line. I suspect any outage in Coventry is coincidental. Unless we’ve actually run out of gas.
Let’s watch this space. It’s probably nothing, but if it isn’t, it’ll really be something.
Changing political climates
“Elon Musk enlists Dominic Cummings as ‘UK-based co-conspirator’ in ‘plot to sabotage’ Keir Starmer
It is not just Elon – Dom is in constant contact with major Silicon Valley figures, who are becoming increasingly anti-woke.
…
The two are understood to be in a group chat with one other American businessman, although his name has not been disclosed.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/elon-musk-enlists-dominic-cummings-uk-based-co-conspirator-sabotage-plot-starmer
Today’s rather imbecilic question?
Why have Britain’s energy costs soared and what does it mean for Labour? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/10/britain-energy-costs-labour-power-plants-uk-cold-weather
Good grief.
Second paragraph:
It’s idiots like the Guardian that got us here in the first place.
At least they are finally admitting wind turbines are unable to keep the lights on.
In the last days of the Biden administration, we are seeing an alarming amount of woke dreams written down by someone, signed by Biden, who then reads a written statement, which is edited and presented to the public as an Executive Order. Some of these Executive Orders, some of which cannot be simply reversed by an incoming administration, are pushing the idea of Climate Change (omitting the “Anthropogenic” part, but meaning that). For instance, Biden signed a prohibition against new federal oil and gas leases and drilling in all four offshore areas, whereas the incoming administration is saying “drill, baby, drill”. What is the standard for signing a contract or any legal instrument. It appears to vary by State, however, the main elements are: 1. able to read and understand the wording of the instrument, 2. understand the implication and intent of the instrument, and 3. understand the effect the instrument will have on them personally. Does Biden possess these three factors? Almost certainly not. Is there a standardized test for possessing these factors? Doesn’t appear so, but a variety of tests are readily available, starting with the standard 30 question Cognitive Decline test. Here’s an important factor: in all States it is against the law to present an instrument to be signed by someone you have reason to believe is not mentally adapted to sign it. The coming months are going to be very interesting.
Biden’s cognitive deficit are real and obvious. How can his signature have any lawful meaning? He is not of sound mind and body.
Biden is, as always, a petty and spiteful man. To my recollection, no outgoing administration has worked so hard to hamstring the incoming administration like this.
Have you heard the latest on pardons? Biden is waiting to see who Trump “targets” – more preemptive blanket pardons coming? The legality of the concept has never been tested.
Trump had a bunch of federal prisoners that had been on death row over 10 years executed as he was leaving office just to see haw it felt to kill someone.
Trump was friends with gangsters who controlled the labor unions at his parents hotel construction sites and that’s who he got his idea of right and wrong from.
I think statements like that should be accompanied by reputable citations to establish legitimacy before even being discussed.
Actually, the comments from this particular pile of excrement should just be ignored. ‘Responses’ only encourage.
Here you go.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55236260
https://apnews.com/general-news-28e44cc5c026dc16472751bbde0ead50
Seems you might owe scvblwxq and apology.
Are you saying that Trump didn’t want these murderers, rapists.. already sentenced to death, released into the general population by a Joe Biden pardon.?
Seems to be what you are suggesting.!
“Are you saying that Trump didn’t want these murderers, rapists.. already sentenced to death, released into the general population by a Joe Biden pardon.?”
As always you change and twist things. So, no I am not and have never said that. I’m saying scvblwxq was 100% correct when he stated that Trump did fast track the execution of a number of people waiting on death row.
Speaking of changing and twisting things, ‘scvblwxq’ said far more than Trump had fast tracked the executions! They way he said it made it sound like Trump had had the condemned men trotted out into the prison yard and executed by a firing squad immediately before Biden was installed.
I skimmed those articles. Nowhere did I find that Trump fast tracked these executions “just to see haw [sic] it felt to kill someone”
Hey Russia Colluuuusion clown are you ready to admit it was made up or have you found that pee pee tape?
Apologize for what? Asking for a citation to a claim that hasn’t received widespread coverage outside the anti-death penalty community?
The executions started in July 2019, about 6 months before Biden was installed. I wouldn’t characterize that as “as he [Trump] was leaving office.” Most importantly, I found the statement “just to see haw [sic] it felt to kill someone” to be an absurd, unsupported opinion and casting suspicion on the other things claimed. First off, how does ‘scvblwxq’ know what Trump was thinking or feeling? Does he claim mind reading powers? Such absolute claims should always be challenged. Neither of your citations support such an arrogant claim as they are logically unsupportable without Trump telling us he did it for that reason. It does not speak well of your reasoning for you to attempt to come to the support of an unsupportable claim.
Your redundant citations don’t address the second point claimed by ‘scvblwxq,’ which is similarly tainted by the absurdity of continuing to claim to know the motivations of Trump. You and ‘scvblwxq’ have managed to cement your reputations as being left-hand thread wingnuts.
Congratulations, scvblwxg! You are truly disgusting.
Your TDs slip is showing…have you referred to him as Hitler yet?
Using “gangsters” and “unions” in the same sentence is redundant.
The prosecutor investigating Biden for possession of classified documents that were not properly secured, and for which he had no legitimate access before becoming president, declined to prosecute based on his judgement that Biden was not mentally competent. Yet, no one questions the Executive Orders that he issues after that pronouncement. What is wrong with this picture?
Lots.
Sounds like there is a good legal case for overturning them.
One would hope so. However, Biden was neither convicted by a jury of peers nor impeached by the House. Probably the best outcome to hope for would be the prosecutor charged for dereliction of duty.
Nothing wrong, per Democrat double standard
I keep hearing that some of the XOs will be hard to reverse, but no one ever explains why. It’s just an XO, nullify it.
It’s because the old law invoked by Biden gave the President the authority to place areas off limits but apparently there is no provision in that law to remove an area from restriction.
It is argued that the law must be amended to give the President the power to open up an area or another standalone bill could explicitly open specific areas.
Either way, that would be a provision not allowed in a budget reconciliation (which only requires a simple majority vote). As a result, any such bill would need a cloture vote in the Senate where the Republicans lack the requisite 3/5 supermajority (60 votes).
Especially when the EO is clearly the purview of Congress, such as when Obama stated that he got tired of inaction on gun control and decided to act in their stead.
Any limitations on the right to bear arms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, so for Obama, etc., to freelance it is unconstitutional, which Obama was well aware of.
That makes Obama’s actions all the more egregious.
I agree with you that executive orders are out of control and inimical to the constitutional order. I am just trying to explain the difficulty we’re in, certainly not celebrating it.
Trump likewise was not able to rescind Obama’s national monument declarations in Utah because the law only addresses how an area can be placed under the restrictions authorized in the legislation. While these may be executive orders, they are actually the mechanism for implementing the legislation passed by Congress. No doubt formulated by deep state Machiavellians.
At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor. Typically, a new president reviews in-force executive orders in the first few weeks in office.
If this was not true, then we are already living in a dictatorship
Concerning the 30 question “Cognitive Decline test.”
Biden is claiming he graduated Summa Cum Dumb from college although he did not recall the college name. He also said he had scheduled the dementia test in early 2024 but forgot the date, and went to the wrong address.
Cute… thanks.
That is part of his defense “I do not recall”
The lib-prog deep state cartel that pulls Biden’s strings has a large sack of wrenches which they a feverishly throwing into the works. They are doing everything they can think of to disrupt and obstruct the incoming administration. Fortunately it appears that Trump has quite a few “engineers” available who may prove to be effective wrench removers.
I’m not sure any politicians have even one of those factors
It is exceptionally unlikely that global net zero emissions will be achieved by 2050, and virtually certain that atmospheric CO2 levels will not return to preindustrial levels before the end of this century. It’s highly likely that CO2 levels will be in the 600ppm to 800ppm range based on current projections. These levels are about as likely as not to have adverse impacts on global weather patterns and events.
The catastrophic climate change crew (C4’s) must accept that CO2 levels are not coming down, no matter how hard they push for net zero emissions. Screaming, fearmongering and legislation by the C4’s won’t work when half the world cannot or will not comply with their unrealistic ambitions.
The rational way to cover all outcomes is to focus on weather adaptation and damage mitigation for public protection, regardless of CO2 levels and temperatures.
Let’s hope an “Adaptist” movement takes off.
Maybe starting in France?
They have a cultural disposition there for rolling over when confronted with determined movements.
I’m confident that global CO2 levels will be less than or not much more than 600 ppmv in 2100.
That is great for flora and fauna, and I will be a small pile of ash somewhere
Based on basic radiation physics, doubling CO2 ppm in many decades will decrease upward IR radiation by 1%, which has a warming effect too small to measure, but that can be offset by a 1% increase in cloud cover, which has a cooling effect.
So put away your worry beads and enjoy increased flora and fauna.
I’m certainly in agreement with everything else that you wrote. If there is any harm at all to be expected from higher CO2 concentration, the only practical response is adaptation.
But the correlation between weather-related deaths and CO2 concentration is strongly negative. There is no acceleration of sea level rise. Agricultural productivity continues to rise. There are more deaths from extreme cold than from extreme heat. There is no evidence that there is anything but more human flourishing to be expected from 800 to 1000ppm CO2 even if, and perhaps especially because, it might result in a couple of degrees warmer temperatures on average.
“There are more deaths from extreme cold than from extreme heat.”
The exception to that statement is exhibited in California.
I suggest you wait till the totals statistics come out. If there is no increase in the total …..
No one has to adapt to warmer winters in colder nations, the primary characteristic of greenhouse warming. That should be celebrated. Plants do not have to adapt to higher CO2 levels,
Weather in the N.H. should continue improving as the temperature differential between the Arctic and tropics continues to decline.
Bu there will still be wildfires.
175 of 195 nations don’t care about CO2 emissions and the other 20 have barely reduced their use of fossil fuels for primary energy. Nut Zero is a Trojan Horse for leftist fascism, not a real engineering project.
Oh, give it a rest.
If the Grand Solar Minimum actually occurs as predicted temperatures will drop dramatically outside the Tropics and the CO2 levels will drop as well since a cooler ocean will absorb more CO2
Your selection of C4 as an acronym is somewhat paradoxical as C4 chains seem to like low levels of CO2 while C3s love the increased levels. Most of the earth needs even higher CO2 levels. Time to return to real science and stop dissing the gas of life, CO2.
“It is exceptionally unlikely that global net zero emissions will be achieved by 2050,”
It is impossible that global net zero emmissions will EVER be achieved… fixed it.
I was using IPCC terminology available here:
Something you can hang your hat on. Lol.
Within one year the entire Net Zero by 2050 BS will be sh.. canned, because the subsidies will be cancelled to reduce the deficit, about 30 years overdue, and an environmental hold will be placed on everything.
From the beginning of the “climate” movement, the misconception of the atmosphere as a passive radiative insulating blanket has been the theme. This is incomplete and misleading.
The concept of potential energy helps to show why this is a misdirection concerning what the “greenhouse effect” is and what “greenhouse gases” do.
The atmosphere has a mass of about 10,300 kg per square meter. The center of mass of a column of the atmosphere is at about 5,500 meters. If you raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1K, it expands upward. The center of mass rises by about 21.5 meters, a factor of 256K/255K. This represents about 600 Watt-hours of potential energy added as the mass is raised against the force of gravity. This is just an oversimplified static case applying Charles’ Law to make the point that a portion of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere, from whatever source, is distributed throughout its entire depth.
So what? Then it becomes clearer that the horizontal heating gradient and the energy conversion that drive and maintain the general circulation are what really matter to the disposition of the energy involved in the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 (i.e. the so-called “forcing.”) Please see last week’s post here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/05/open-thread-126/#comment-4017497
It’s not a passive energy “trap.” The compressible atmosphere is a powered circulator, open at the top, driven by absorbed energy applied in the daily pulses of sunshine. And the resulting cloud formation and dissipation is an active modulator of longwave emission to space to keep things in balance.
Thank you for your understanding as I keep posting about these fundamental reasons why the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the climate question should be challenged from the skeptic side of the debate. Stop conceding the core claim.
Nice description. Your description is important from the standpoint of N2 and O2 being a heat sink that is warmed by pulses of radiation from the sun but then dissipated as the sun’s radiation disappears. No CAGW advocate seems to be aware of what happens in the atmosphere wen solar panels are not working. You can’t just look at averages and come up with an adequate answer to the atmosphere. It is a continuous process that begs for better analysis that just looking at temperature.
Yep. It could even be described as a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system”.
?
Latest I heard, the PV panels do not work at night, but the systems still draw self-use energy from the grid.
As do wind turbines..
N2 (nitrogen) and O2 (oxygen), which make up most of the Earth’s atmosphere, are not directly warmed by the sun because they are transparent to the incoming solar radiation, meaning they do not absorb the sun’s energy and therefore do not heat up significantly from direct sunlight; instead, they are primarily warmed by the Earth’s surface which is heated by the sun.
David,
Generally I like your comments, but I take exception here …
Yes, the CM of the atmosphere rises uniformly as you’ve described, but this is not potential energy that can be used to do work. It is “unavailable” as they say. It represent an aspect of the “dead state.” What matters is how the variations in the CM change when the atmosphere is warmed in some manner (how its temperature distribution changes). This is a really complex question to ponder. Does the atmosphere maintain its work potential as it warms slightly from CO2, and perhaps a little more (but we don’t know how much) from water vapor, or is this work potential, which is needed to transport heat, hampered in some way?
A person might be inclined to say that the history of the Cenozoic age shows evidence of much higher temperature and higher CO2 levels than today, and life did not perish; so there is little to worry about. This doesn’t really help one to nail down how the climate changed, though, because many other factors changed during this period as well — not the least of which is the configuration of land masses and the distribution of the cryosphere, elevated areas, vegetation and animals.
Lately I’ve been thinking about an argument that is often made here about Le Chatelier’s Principle showing that the atmosphere will negate changes in radiative balance in some way. Lots of smart people make this argument. I don’t think Le Chatelier is pertinent to the problem, though. I have been working up as essay on the topic.
Thanks for your thoughts, Kevin. Please go to last week’s post, to which I linked, and read the first page of the meteorological course material I linked to there. I am not talking about the atmosphere warming or rising uniformly across the surface. My simplified static case is just to point out that significant potential energy is involved along with internal energy as the atmosphere warms at any location. Uneven heating is experienced across the surface from the daily cycle of absorbed solar radiation. The gradient makes a portion of the [internal energy + potential energy] available for conversion to [kinetic energy].
I did read it. It just sounded like you were advocating a uniform expansion which does not lead to available energy for work.
Thanks for following up.
There is also uniform contraction as it cools…returning the work to the system…we use the same basic idea as the explanation for atmospheric lapse rate.
So + to David…also Le Chatelier is a pretty weak principle in my opinion, definitely not of F=ma scope…mentioned with respect to chemistry that tends to equilibrium, but isn’t used for say a dynamite explosion….. so a + to Kevin as well.
Thanks for the brain engagement on a wintry day….
I’d be reluctant to invoke Le Chetalier also. I’ve always seen it as a neat way to claim that there are equilibrium states to be reached after disturbances, but one has little basis to rely on it in a quantitative way. Geoff S
Agreed.
An alternative explanation is 99.9% of scientists are right that CO2 emissions cause some amount of global warming, and you are wrong.
RG, you make this claim repeatedly, but despite being asked, you have yet to provide a source. I ask again: what is your source for the 99.9% figure?
Michael Creighton expressed it so well also that science is not consensus in any case.
That concept has not yet reached Richard
Not every consensus is wrong
That claim is the claim of fools.
Also “some amount” could be a negligible amount. Richard is doing argument by vagueness, which is meaningless. Claiming that our emissions have no impact whatsoever is an extremely strong claim.
Wojick claiming in prior comments that only El Ninos cause global warming is a dingbat claim. Very few scientists believe CO2 x 2 will cause less than +0.7 degrees C. warming. Whether that is negligible depends on your definition of negligible.
You could not care less about the strength of the consensus on the greenhouse effect or how CO2 emissions increase that effect. Information has been available in perhaps 100,000 scientificc papers since the 1800s that you will not read.
I have been reding conservative articles on climate science for 28 years. 12 or more a day for many years. I have only found ONE scientist, geographer Tim Ball of Caada, who denied there was a greenhouse effect.
That is how I estimate 99.9%
Among published peer reviewed climate science studies, 99.9% of studies supported AGW of some amount. The reported number of 97% understates the consensus and is falsely applied to CAGW, rather than AGW
A 2022 survey of various scientists found a 59% consensus on CAGW, not 97%
You could not care less about the strength of the consensus
Your evidence to back up that statement, based on my actual words, is?
That is how I estimate 99.9%
So, no source other than “because I said so”
Among published peer reviewed climate science studies, 99.9% of studies
Source? Other than “because I said so”
You saying it is so does not make it so, and is not a reasonable source for the claim, unless you have data to back it up.
Always nice to hear from you, Richard! Glad to know that you have remained un-dead. I hope that continues for many years. But about those “scientists” – none are able to isolate the incremental radiative effect of rising CO2 to reliably confirm it to be the cause of any portion of the reported warming on land and in the oceans. Sure, most may have that opinion and expectation, but cause and effect have not been established with evidence. You really need to do better, to appreciate the difference between the valid static effect (arising from IR absorption and emission properties) and the disposition of the energy involved in it as an end result of the dynamic operation. Be well.
BAAha ha ha ha.
This is a trivial component of the energy gain in the column. Also your calculation is simplistic because the added water vapour has lower density so the gain in elevation of the CoM is greater than your simple calculation.
Taking a saturated column from 29C to 30C requires 10kWh/m^2. The additional water punches well above its weight in terms of the energy contribution.
The air circulating in the Southern Pacific is at 24C off Peru, South America and will get to 30C in its 3 week journey to PNG where it reaches 30C. All that time to absorb heat by increasing the mass of water vapour in the column. Roughly a 50/50 split between latent heat and sensible heat with a small gain in potential energy.
The LA house fires are a good example of the energy content of water vapour in the atmosphere. No water vapour means low thermal inertia so the air heats readily.
100%
The Scientific Consensus:
97% of scientists agree that they would rather get a hefty paycheck, so they will eagerly go along with providing the evidence needed to support their paymasters. Someday, hopefully soon, climate alarmists will be relegated to being the butt of darkly humored jokes, and will be allowed no say whatsoever in government policy or spending! I wear my skeptic badge proudly!! CO2 to 800ppm!
And beyond!
President Trump should award Buzz LightYear the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the first week of his new term, to be accepted by Tim Allen. Who knows how many millions of kids (and adults!) have been truly inspired!
Mr. Dibbel: Disney would not allow Buzz to appear with Trump!
Buzz may have a different opinion on that.
Believe it or not, #1 is making a strong comeback in the modern era, even among otherwise seemingly intelligent persons (although Antarctica has replaced Gibraltar as the “edge”).
That says quite a lot about our “modern” indoctrination system!
“Keep the peasants stupid, scared, and lazy; and the we will never have to work hard to stay in power!” Quote, from every dictator ever!
It’s the combination of the cesspool of social media and too much time on one’s hands.
Leisure is bad?
No, cause-based activism on social media is bad.
The qualifier stated was “too much”.
I’m not with you on saturated fats. But, you can’t look at one thing in a vacuum.
Epileptic children only eating meat for healing…. I guess the saturated fat is killing them 😉
It might by the time they’re in their 60s.
Eating too many calories for the amount of exercise you get, thus storing too much fat is what kills people. Fat is the most energy-dense food. If you are not physically active, eating fat is going to potentially be a problem since it crowds out other foods from your diet unless you over-eat. You need to get several essential vitamins and minerals from the rest of your diet. Exercise more and that problem goes away.
It makes no sense that saturated fats that thousands of generations have eaten without harm are somehow suddenly deadly and the main contributor to bad health outcomes. It makes even less sense to substitute simple sugars for saturated fats while still getting too many calories and not exercising enough.
When you look at a situation where one subject ate saturated fat, got a lot of physical activity, and was healthy, while another subject ate saturated fat, got much less physical exercise, and had heart disease, the conclusion should be that not getting enough exercise is dangerous.
Truth!
You should read Nina Teicholtz’s book, “A Big Fat Surprise,” before you make up your mind! The “evidence” against sat fats was only epidemiological, one of the lowest forms of scientific proof. Nutritionists look at fat, and ignore all the problems associated with sugar and HFC; much like Climastrologists looking only at CO2, and downplaying everything else!
97% of Climate Scientists – don’t malign all scientists.
And I would add a question to your quote: How many of those 97% actually have a science degree?
Even many of those with that “Degree”, fail in its intended application.
Einstein, Galileo, Edison, Tesla, Marconi, etc., were part of the 3%
There are many good reasons I have advocate for at least 800 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere since 1997, including the 200 scientific studies of CO2 enrichment and plant growth I have read since then.
It is also true that the history of the scientific consensus reveals most are from partially wrong to completely wrong. But that is a false argument for claiming the greenhouse effect consensus has to be wrong
100% wrong is a radical, political position, not scientific reality. That radical position loses arguments. Sorry to reveal that leftists are not always 100% wrong and conservatives are not always 100% right.
That depends on how one defines the GHE and the exact role of Co2 in this. Id rather separate H2o and particularly water vapour from the equation. The GHE is a theory which effect is dubious. It is at least questionable in our atmosphere. But then, i might be one of those ‘nutters’ that think there is at least the possibility of zero or near zero in light of the system in conjunction w H2o. H2o dynamics is complex. From first principles we can clearly see its impact on the atmosphere as far as basic physics go. That is almost impossible to do w Co2. Lots of speculation and im fine w that. It’s i think a moot point to argue over but you take the pitbull approach and go full binary. Not a lot of people are buying that. In fact it is the main societal issue plaqueing the West. Everybody is encouraged to go binary and pick a team. Not for me, i actually like diversity. In regards to Co2 and temperature i see it as a fool’s errant to make the equations stick. One can and does try..
Clouds and Upward and Downward IR Radiation
The below article indicates CO2 has a very minor role regarding the greenhouse effect
.
Increasing CO2 by 100% Reduces Radiative Cooling to Space by an Imperceptible 1%
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increasing-co2-by-100-reduces-radiative-cooling-to-space-by-an
By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer
.
“An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.” – van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025
The physicists detail just how insignificant CO2 is as a factor in climate change, revealing that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm – a 100% increase – hypothetically reduces radiative heat loss to space by just 1%.
It would take many decades to achieve such a ppm increase, plus there are not enough fossil fuels left over to make it happen.
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
Such a small change in upward IR radiation, over hundreds of years, is not even detectable amid the noise of outgoing radiation measurement.
For example, the measured upward IR radiation has an error of about 33 W/m²
This negligible CO2 greenhouse effect is a calculated value for an atmosphere that is perpetually cloud-free.
As clouds are present 60-70% of the time, this clear-sky-only condition only occurs in an imaginary world – an atmosphere that doesn’t exist.
Compared to the CO2 role, the greenhouse effect of clouds is tens of times more influential.
As Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer point out in their conclusion, all that is needed to offset the impact of doubling CO2 is a mere 1% change in cloud cover.
Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% occur routinely, both from year-to-year and
decade-by-decade, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant.
During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2,
During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
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
Junk science articles with unusually low wild guesses for the effects of CO2 NOT representative of climate scientists as a group.
Kenneth Richar specializes in promoting CO2 Does Nothing articles and should be ignored,
The long term effect of CO2 emissions is unknown, with guesses usually in the range of +0.7degrees C. to +5.5 degrees C. for CO2 x 2. No one wants to say “We don’t know”
Which means ANY guess from CO2 Does Nothing to 5.5 degrees C, is not based on in atmospheric situ data.
More necessary learning for you, RG..
ESG = zero, or too small to measure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQt_I-RvGF4
and
BeNasty2000 IQ
Too small to measure
You know that’s AI, right?
Ha ha ha ha. Have you been told today yet Greene? There is only one hypothesis. None of the ”group” have carried out testing the hypothesis. The just accept it because – you know – consensus. Grow up Greene.
Your inferences do not compute..
How much of the calculated greenhouse effect is due to water?
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
All the rest of the GW is due to WV generation and cloud formation in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics, 24/7/365.
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
Water 50%
Clouds 25%
CO2 25%
Obviously guesses not measurements
Increased greenhouse effect directly caused only by CO2, as cloud coverage percentage has been declining and water vapor is a dependent variable.
During the daytime, H20 and CO2 absorb incoming IR. I found one graphic at Wikipedia that showed that about 48% of incoming sunlight is IR light. In the daytime H2O and CO2 absorb this IR light which results in a warming of the air. As the land surface heats up from absorption of both visible and IR
light light, it emits IR light which results in more warming of the air. Thus, H20 and CO2 are doing double greenhouse duty.
Since the amount of CO2 in is only ca. 0.8g per cubic meter pf air, it actually absorbs only a small amount of IR light.
Have you found any articles about absorption of incoming daytime IR by greenhouse gases?
On April 1 in BC, the carbon tax on fossil fuels increases to $95 from $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax has greatly increased the cost of everything, especially food. It has to go.
One needs to make a distinction between LW and SW IR..
Also, there is a whole discussion about the effect of radiation vs convection and heat flux. This is by no means settled..
What is the differentiation between long and short? When does long become short, and vice versa?
Absorption / reflection of sunlight –
..
In the atmosphere, water vapor, clouds, dust particles, and certain gases like ozone and carbon dioxide are the primary components that block incoming solar energy by absorbing or reflecting it back into space;
According to NASA, approximately 30% of incoming solar energy never reaches the Earth’s surface, with around 29% being reflected back into space by clouds and bright surfaces, and the remaining portion absorbed by the atmosphere itself.
Meaningless one-dimensional cartoons.
Excellent comments.
I hope Trump listens to Dr. Happer.
There is no reason to put our electric grids or economies at risk trying to reduce CO2 levels.
Eight more days and things will start changing for the better! 🙂
Cloud cover changes are the only plausible explanation for most of the modest “secular” warming of the past two centuries. Together with ocean current fluctuations (see URLs), cloud cover changes are also the only physical mechanism that could account for fluctuating temperature changes with time scales of a few years.
.
Based on fundamental physics, one should expect some warming from increasing CO2. But this warming will be too small to account for what has been observed.
Cloud cover changes provide the only rational explanation that does not violate basic physics.
.
El Nino events typically produce cloud cover changes much greater than 1%, due to increased evaporation. See image in URLs.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
During cloudy skies, downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms is about 340 W/m^2,
During clear skies, downward IR radiation is about 260 W/m^2, about 30% less
If the measured value is on the order of 200 W/m2, this is a relative uncertainty of over 15%!
(Because true values are generally unknowable, the term should be uncertainty instead of error.)
Well pointed out! People often insist that their equation is right. In Earth’s atmosphere the error margins of every variable is wide. In essense not equatable.
The one-dimensional energy balance cartoons are beyond useless.
…”this clear-sky condition only occurs in an imaginary world—an atmosphere that doesn’t exist.”
Thus making it the ideal goal for the Pied Climateers of Hamelin to grift into the mushy brains of their victims! The poor little chilluns will be forever panicked into trying to achieve the impossible!
Claptrap comment
Happer has guessed a 0.7 to 1.0 degrees C. warming from CO2 x 2 in his papers the past few years. His guess is no better than any other guess. Anyone can pick a number. You did too.
Your claim:
“CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1750 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point”
This is just another wild guess
A radical wild guess
Below 99.9% of guesses by scientists
And likely to be claptrap
real CO2 physicists says … NONE !!
Paul Linsay: An Analysis of Climate Model Assumptions | Tom Nelson Pod #257
If you struggle with Paul having a cold…start at 56.30
Sensitivity CO2 doubling = ZERO
Agrees with Shula and Ott
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232
Hmmm. I wonder what the 99.9% guess? Lol. Clown!
Climate changes zealots run the LA city, county and California state governments. The sitting POTUS likewise is a believer and the renamed Green New Deal is the law of the land. So how can Climate Change Deniers be at fault with the LA wildfires? How can the president elect be to blame?
Nah, the LA fires are clearly KARMA against the libtards residing there, for the mistreatment of the folks in N Carolina after the recent flooding by the libtards at FEMA and the gov in general.
It turns out that James Woods house had not burned down (yet) though so many libtards wished it so.
Did you see that 60 firetrucks donated by Oregon for use in the fires were held up in Sacramento for smog certificate issues?
Do you have a link?
Seems like public pressure has helped grease the process and there are reports that fire trucks are now getting passed through.
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/fire-trucks-held-up-for-smog-tests-as-la-burns.460543/
On James Woods:
https://www.soapcentral.com/human-interest/news-who-karen-piper-university-missouri-condemns-professor-s-offensive-remark-james-woods-palisades-house-fire
https://apnews.com/article/james-woods-wildfires-miracle-house-survived-cd1f4f655fe2d2c7bca2e9693ee0780d
Didn’t happen apparently.
It seems that a fire fighter from Oregon took exception to a delay from CAL Fire requiring an inspection of their crews and equipment in Sacramento. It appears that it was blown out of proportion but it’s hard to say what the CAL Fire bureaucrats were thinking and how publicity may have altered that.
While I can certainly believe CA would do something like that, I have not been able to find any root source other than a tweet by someone saying his brother was a firefighter in one of those trucks. All the articles I found eventually led to that same tweet.
It appears that CAL Fire forced repairs to be made to multiple vehicles but only two were delayed by more than a day.
I am more than a bit curious as to why more fire trucks were being sent to fight fires, when there is no water available (except for that large body of blue).
Answering in general, more trucks means more ability to truck in water from elsewhere. Many rural departments actually practice this “tanker brigade” regularly, with many trucks going back and forth between the fire and a water supply.
Specifically with regard to these fires – I have no idea of the logistics. 60 trucks isn’t going to help the overall picture. I can only speculate that they’re intended to help in focused areas to try to reduce property loss.
Fire Trucks Held Up for Smog Tests as LA Burns
It seems that the hold-up wasn’t for smog tests, but even the “fact check” shows that they were held up for tests:
FACT CHECK: Oregon fire engines allowed to fight wildfires in California
So that first link quotes Santa Monica Observer which in turn quotes the tweet by Parker Caldwell.
The second link provides new information that I have not previously seen, and quotes CalFIRE, AKD California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. Thank you for providing that!
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of something like that being done in the past.
California has wildfire almost every year and the fires go back millions of years. The Giant Sequoia trees even need the fires to open their seed pods. They have nothing to do with politics. Some of the plants make an oily substance the catches fire easily.
California has wildfire almost every year
Very true.
They have nothing to do with politics.
I don’t think anyone has claimed they do, including the post you’re responding to (karma != politics). It’s the response that has to do with politics, and the lack of preemptive efforts at mitigation.
Anyone who says crime doesn’t pay has never looked at how much the Marxists running amok in LA have looted from their tax payers! They couldn’t drive them out with rampant crime, and uncontrolled immigration and homelessness; so now they’re going to try and burn them out!! Another Utopia!
So many poor public servants went to DC and returned multimillionaires.
Here in Australia, I’ve just read an article from a weather site about Tasmania recently going through a heatwave, reaching 30 degrees C. It’s actually quite good overall, explaining how calling such a temperature a heatwave there is because it is unusual (unlike in the mainland states), while also referring to certain things like infrastructure particular to Tasmania that has the population less ready for weather of that type. There’s no mention of the term “climate change” (although it’s alluded to once) – until right at the end, where they predict Tasmania could reach 40c in several decades time, and be similar to certain mainland country cities in New South Wales, etc. For a while there, it was quite a refreshing read…
It’s quite common these days that articles submitted for publication to MSM outlets are returned to the authors by editors with the requirement to bookend the piece with a nod to global warming / climate change.
It’s why so many honest contributors of articles about weather, climate and/or energy options host their own platforms, or use substack, or submit works to platforms specialising in these topics like WUWT.
If they measured the temperature at Ellerslie Rd, it was probably mostly from the local air-conditioners.
And the street view.
Note the massive glass windows for reflecting the sun towards the screen.
Penguin on the north coast of Tasmania issue an extreme heat warning when the temperature is forecast to rise above 25C.
Tasmania is surrounded by water that reaches as high as 19C in February. The tropical ocean can never sustain more than 30C and it would take millions of years to melt the ice on Antarctica so there will be sea ice for a long time. That means the water off Tasmania will not reach much above 19C in even the distant future – say a million years. Much of Tasmania is high ground. For example, the summit of Mt Wellington is about 10C cooler than Hobart at sea level. So most of Tasmania is cooler than the ocean on average. But there can be days of still air when the sun will warm the ground to more than 30C.
Launceston has reached 39C and Ross 41.6C. So above 40C is possible but it is fleeting and rare.
The planet is cooling in the high southern latitudes and warming in other latitudes due to the northward shift in peak solar intensity. The warming in Australia is due to higher minimums not higher maximums as a result of higher atmospheric water Last year was the highest average temperature in Australia for the satellite era but, as far as I know, there were no new high temperature records anywhere.
Keith,
I have studied heatwaves of duration 1, 3, 5 and 10 days in all Aussie capital cities, including Hobart, using raw daily data from BOM for all years going back to when data first is available.
There is no detectable pattern of increase in the heat of heatwaves in Hobart over the last 150 years or so.
I am currently updating these studies to include 2024, though it is slow, takes about a day per city. I do not cherry pick start dates, as do most alarmist studies, nor do I invent convoluted descriptions of heatwaves to beat data into submission to alarmist beliefs, nor do I use adjusted temperature data as is commonly done.
I hope WUWT will accept an article in a few weeks. I am hoping to raise the number of studied weather stations from 8 to 16 by including several that should have low urban heat island contamination. Geoff S
I read Watts Up almost every day. I read the fearmongering about blackouts (in the U.S.) during extreme weather conditions. Right now most of the country is covered by snow and it is cold yet I don’t read anything about blackouts and/or lack of power. So is Watts Up feeding us a line of bs.
Direct fossil fuel (natural gas, propane, fuel oil) combustion accounts for most home/industry heating in the U.S. This energy mix diversity does not stress the grid whatsoever.
IMHO, the danger of blackouts here in the US Northwest will become acute in the early 2030’s as the coal-fired plants attached to the Western Interconnect are systematically retired without adequate replacement. Anyone who is highly proactive in raising concerns here in the mid-2020’s is now being either ridiculed or ignored.
Most of these coal-fired plants have reached the end of their service lives and there is no incentive to replace them with reliable sources of power generation.
Here in Washington State, it will be forbidden for a utility to buy power from a fossil-fueled power generation source. Which is one reason why PacificCorp is planning to retire most of its coal-fired plants in other states by the mid-2030’s, or earlier.
You bring up interesting points. There may be a showdown coming from Washington State ratepayers trying to dictate the energy choices, economies, and lifestyles of people in other states. So far, I am not able to move our PSC to ponder the bad consequences of things that PacifiCorp (Rocky Mountain Power or RMP) is suggesting, but I have gotten them to ask questions of RMP in a Necessity and Convenience hearing that are pertinent and RMP has been forthcoming with honest answers. Yet, no one is really connecting the dots and they just keep sayin’ silly stuff; like, if we need additional power we can just “call up some wind.”
We have another general rate cases coming up in March on top of an earlier rate case and a lawsuit that is eventually going to awaken the ratepayers. They were angry enough about the last rate case.
Kevin, take a look at PacifiCorp’s 2023 updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Then take a look at Washington State’s 2021 Energy Strategy page, including the 2023 progress report.
You will discover that PacifiCorp’s 2023 IRP is in close alignment with Washington State’s 2021 energy policy and plan of action for decarbonizing the US Northwest power grid.
Buried deep inside of the Washington State decarbonization strategy is a plan to cover Montana and Wyoming with wind turbines and solar panels while building new transmission capacity through Idaho to feed west coast power consumers.
Here is Page 4 from PacifiCorp’s 2023 IRP Executive Summary:
Note how the IRP’s graph is nicely structured to show how fossil-fuel resources are being removed through time (e.g., those resources below the zero MW line) and how renewable energy resources are being added through time (e.g., those resources above the zero MW line.)
I make these observations concerning what is shown on Page 4 of the 2023 IRP Executive Summary:
— Meeting the 2050 decarbonization goals requires a huge overbuild of wind and solar capacity. Moreover, some part of PacifiCorp’s coal-fired-capacity is being converted to gas-fired capacity as a means of firming up wind and solar.
— The Natrium reactor’s 500 MW capacity doesn’t really amount to much in the grand scheme of things inside PacifiCorp’s IRP. I’m of the opinion that its inclusion is mostly a public relations sop to the region’s nuclear power advocates.
— Betwen 2025 and 2032, gains in energy efficiency are treated as gains in power generation capacity and are as important in the IRP as are the additions of new wind & solar capacity.
— A huge jump in renewable energy capacity occurs between 2031 and 2032, and again between 2036 and 2037. Achieving this kind of rapid expansion is completely impossible.
Because it is impossible to expand renewable capacity in the short timeframes shown on the IRP graph, I conclude that PacifiCorp’s senior management expects the region’s decarbonization plans to collapse into a massive and visible train wreck well before the mid-2030’s arrive.
Placing myself in their shoes, and doing what senior corporate executives are paid to do, I would ride the gravy train of renewable energy subsidies just as long as I possibly could, knowing that sooner or later, the whole RE swindle will eventually fall off the tracks.
CA has forced brownouts mainly to non businesses because of lack of electricity. My boss rented an AirBnB in CA. For 3 of the 5 days she had no power.
yet I don’t read anything about blackouts and/or lack of power.
A pretty good swath of Richmond, VA was without power for 2-3 days. Source: First-hand reports from people I know who live there. They haven’t told me if it’s back or not – many of them are staying with friends or relatives – because during the same time period, almost the entire city’s water supply was also out. Didn’t really see any reporting on that.
Better to read about the increasing risk of blackouts BEFORE they happen, rather than after they happen. There is some BS at WUWT, such as your comment, but the biggest BS pile is the Coming Global Warming Crisis … as actual global warming has been 100% good news for the past 50 years!
“don’t read anything about blackouts and/or lack of power”
Ask yourself.. if it happened, would you really expect to read anything about it in the MSM !
No, the warnings about potential blackouts are not BS.
All the Grid operators in the United States have been putting out warnings about possible blackouts.
I live in Oklahoma and our electric grid is the Southwest Power Pool, which operates our grid and about a dozen other States.
During this last summer, the SPP put out an alert saying they were able to handle the current high temperatures, which at the time were around 105F in the central U.S., and this temperature was supposed to last for a couple of days. The problem with this is the central U.S. has and will experience much higher temperatures than 105F, and the duration can be much longer, so if the SPP is putting out warnings at 105F, then it sounds like the grid will be in trouble if temperatures go higher than that and last longer, which is entirely possible. So the SPP is right on the verge of blackout territory right now. Fortunately, the temperatures last summer did not get brutal like they usually do.
And just a few days ago, the SPP again put out an alert saying that the grid would be able to handle this current winter storm, depending on how the wind behaved! Which shows us that the SPP grid has been put in serious jeopardy by adding too many windmills and closing too much reliable power generation. How the wind blows will determine if we have blackouts on the SPP.
And this particular winter storm is not all that cold, and they say we are on the brink. It sounds to me like we are going to be in trouble if an arctic cold front decides to come visit the United States.
No blackouts yet, but we are closer to them than ever.
Before windmills and solar were added to the various grids, there were no blackout alerts put out by the grid operators. This is a new phenomenon caused specifically by the subtraction from the grid of reliable generating capacity (coal and natural gas) and the addition of unreliable windmills and solar, that only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and when the sun is shining. And that’s not good enough!
I don’t have any links handy. You can find them if you know how to do a search. Start out with: “SPP and blackouts and wind”.
2024 the world’s hottest year, scientists say
Political will to curb emissions wanes despite rising climate disasters
Kate Abnett and Alison Withers, REUTERS
BRUSSELS – Global temperatures in 2024 exceeded 1.5 Celsius above the pre-industrial era for the first time, bringing the world closer to breaching the pledge governments made under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, scientists said on Friday.
The World Meteorological Organization confirmed the 1.5C breach, after reviewing data from U.S., U.K., Japan and EU scientists.
“Global heating is a cold, hard fact,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement. “There’s still time to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe. But leaders must act – now.”
The bleak assessment came as wildfires charged by fierce winds swept through Los Angeles last week. Wildfires are among the many disasters that climate change is making more frequent and severe.
Blah, Blah, Blah. So what!!!
I’m sure the newly minted UN Tribunal of Truth will properly censure the writer of the article, and the UN Secretary, for disinformation.
Abnett and Withers promote the greatest climate lies in history. There is something telling about Guterres “cold, hard” quote.
The Earth is still in a 2.5 million-year ice age with 90% of the freshwater locked up in ice, in a still cold interglacial period where about 2.5 million people die from cold related causes, mainly strokes and heart attacks, compared to about 500,000 who die from heat related causes.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196%2821%2900081-4
That picture there, it is not in any way representative of forest fire, brush fire or climate change fire.
It is unprotected structures.
https://san.com/cc/oklahoma-residents-rally-at-state-capitol-for-renewable-energy-ban/
Oklahoma residents rally at state Capitol for renewable energy ban
Friday
By Craig Nigrelli (Anchor), Jack Aylmer (Energy Correspondent), Ian Kennedy (Video Editor Manager)
“Oklahoma, one of the nation’s leading states in renewable energy, is now seeing a push to bar the expansion of clean power sources. On Tuesday, Jan 7, hundreds of residents gathered at the state Capitol in Oklahoma City to urge Gov. Kevin Stitt to issue an executive order banning the construction of new wind and solar facilities.”
end excerpt
I think the worm is slowly turning when it comes to windmills and solar farms.
People just don’t want to put up with these horrible windmills and solar farms. They don’t want to live near them. They don’t want to see them. They don’t want to hear them.
Oklahoma’s governor should listen to the people. The governor argues that government shouldn’t be making these decisions, but government has already decided, when it comes to windmills and solar. Windmills and solar would not exist without government subsidies. Governor Stitt is confused about which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Governor Stitt lays claim to a Free Enterprise solution so that should be his position:: That Free Enterprise should reign and windmills and solar should not be susidized. If they are not subsidized, then the problem goes away because no more windmills or solar farms will be built, and the people will be happy with you.
I should note that the Oklahoma State Legislature passed a law some time ago, which Governor Stitt signed, stopping the paying of subsidies to new windmills and solar farms, so the only subsidies they get in Oklahoma are federal subsidies. Governor Stitt should publicly oppose federal subsidies for windmills and solar, if he is true to his Free Enterprise stance.
Oklahoma has an effective Attorney General and he opposes windmills and solar, and he will take on Governor Stitt if it comes down to it. He looks to me like he would make a good future Oklahoma governor.
I do wish people would stop calling wind and solar “clean”.
Their mining and manufacturing is one of the filthiest and most polluting industrial processes on the planet.
Both require large amounts of very toxic chemicals.
They are also responsible for large areas of destruction of pristine environments and farmland around the world.
And after use, are either left to rot, or become large areas of landfill, leaching out toxins into the environment.
“I do wish people would stop calling wind and solar “clean”.”
I do, too.
It’s all part of the Climate Alarmist brainwashing technique.
Emphasizing how there is every appearance in the world that the American “ExxonKnew” lawsuits – filed by supposedly ‘independent unrelated’ law firms/Attorneys General offices – are operating on a single central template … likely provided to them by the very same enviro-activists who’ve been hurling the same “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation ever since the 1990s:
GelbspanFiles, Jan 10: “List of the Climate Lawsuits Falsely Accusing Dr Willie Soon of Taking Exxon Bribes“
Sounds like Willie ought to sue them for defamation of character.
Exxon should grow a spine sue for defamation. The other energy companies could do the same. As I detailed in my Part 2 blog post concerning the Oregon County of Multnomah v Exxon lawsuit, our own Art Robinson could potentially file a Motion to Dismiss, pointing out that not only the accusation against him is totally without merit, the main 4 point accusation narrative that’s the core of all of these lawsuits and the core argument in the collective climate issue is totally without merit. (Pt 1 detailed Multnomah‘s monstrous plagiarizing problem)
Here is a fun one. They want to build an enormous lithium battery storage facility just outside of Boston. This article, which I advised on, says that is a very bad plan because these things spontaneously explode or burn and cannot be extinguished.
https://www.massfiscal.org/hazard_warning_for_everett_s_lithium_battery_park
The same issue will come to the fore when it’s time to shut down New York City’s in-city fossil fuel peaker plants. IIRC, the target date for their final closure is 2030.
Battery storage is an important component of the proposed renewable energy architecture for New York City. But where will those batteries be located? Inside the city on the former sites of the shuttered peaker plants?
That is undesirable but it is an irrelevance. Focus on the fact they can’t supply enough power long enough to do the job; a battery storage facility that could would be so far beyond unaffordable it’s unnecessary to even think about opportunity costs.
Talking about the space and the fire hazard and the short service-life concedes the fundamental point and gives a lot of people the idea we’re just nit-picking. If they conclude all we have is nits to pick then there must be no major problems in the way, so make haste; get it done, save the planet.
Yes but that is not their intended use. They are arbitrage machines that charge off daily peak and discharge on peak making money from the price difference. Pumped storage has always done this.
This post is about social media.
Few month ago, Facebook fact-checked my post of a link to “Climate, The Movie (the cold truth)”. You know, the one with Will Happer, Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore. The fact-checkers turned out to be some french company; all of the officers did not have identified degrees, no BS, BA, no PhD or anything else; the actual fact-checkers were unidentified sub-contractors.
This week, Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook will no longer censor people’s opinions. I’m backtracking to my old censored posts and reposting. Turns out he’s lying, at least as of today, January 12, 2025; Facebook added a notice to my movie re-post “includes information that independent fact-checkers said was false.”
Before Musk bought X/Twitter, the AGW skeptics had disappeared from the site, at least I didn’t see them. After Musk exposed the Twitter scandal and changed the algorithms, some skeptics returned to X/Twitter, and I now have found about 28. Some post regularly, some almost never.
Recently, LinkedIn skeptics have begun responding to climate terrorists (like World Meteorological Organization), debunking their claims.
I would like to help change public perception of the climate hoax, but fear my efforts are useless.
At this time I follow climate skeptics on X, LinkedIn, and Facebook. I LIKE their posts, and if the post is simple and clear then I repost. Sometimes I respond (with facts) to ignorant AGW believers. Most of the public does not understand theories, but many can read graphs of data about things like ocean temperature and ocean PH.
I think this might be a good time for many climate skeptics to flood the zones. Mark Zuckerberg has said that Facebook is no longer censoring people for opinions (so far a lie). X is wide open. I’m not sure about LinkedIn policy, but professional engineers on that site appear to be open to learning facts.
I wonder if this effort should be coordinated. The corporate media definitely coordinated on the messages they put out over the last 8 years. It worked for them.
That is not precisely accurate. The corporate media have been coordinated by third-parties, e.g.ibt.org.uk, to pick just one (there are many such). The corporate media has been captured.
X (twitter) is still facing some moderation issues. The automatic censorship algorithm is pretty deeply embedded so it takes time to clean it up. I suspect the same goes for FB, but also, FB still has the same moderation team, so even taking Zuck’s intent at face value, moderation will continue with minimal changes until that team changes.
Zuckerburg said he was doing away with outside fact-checkers. He is going to let the Facebook community do the fact-checking, like is done on X, or at least, that’s what he said the other day.
I think Zuckerburg has had a “come-to-Jesus” moment. He is starting to spill the beans on how Biden and the Democrats operated to censor any opinions they didn’t like.
Climate the Movie is a terrible movie that in the first 30 minutes tries to convince viewers that CO2 Does Nothing, a false anti-science position.
Facebook did conservatives a FAVOR by censoring that claptrap movie. Not only was the CO2 Does Nothing theme wrong, but by quoting famous skeptic climate scientists, with unrelated true statements, it implied they agreed with CO2 Does Nothing, which is FALSE (With the exception of Willie Soon and John Clauser who were already climate science frauds).
A greenhorn like you feels to be able to decide who is a climate fraud among scientists ?
Actually, basically everything in the movie is scientifically correct.
Based on solid scientific evidence and reality.
But hey…… I say no more. !
Yeah, I liked that movie. Everyone should see it.
Keep up the good work, Cynthia! 🙂
Nutter lashes out again..
Peter Kalmus is still at it folks.
In the video below (surprise! surprise!) he is being interviewed by Democracy Now! He clearly blames the LA wildfires on the fossil fuel industry and what he claims is a worsening climate crisis. LA and California are supposed to be getting hotter and drier and never mind urban heat island. Also never mind the state’s less than competent Democratic leadership at both the state and local levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuqXfJOrC8
I seem to recall that he sought out professional help for his mental state some years ago. Just saying.
…and on the lighter side, the Intel Lady from the UK does a satire/parody of Just Stop Oil and the climate alarmist narrative…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0swGTFUZpHc
Well done.
Talented. Here’s another good parody (< 2 mins).
He is a human turd
California has been having wildfires for millions of years. Lots of the plants produce an oily substance that easily catches fire.
The Giant Sequoia trees even use the fires to open their seed capsules, the fires have been around for so long.
It looks like the People got one windmill project cancelled:
https://okwnews.com/news/whatzup/whatzup-politics/turner-hays-praise-transaltas-decision-to-cut-mcintosh-county-wind-project/
Turner, Hays Praise TransAlta’s Decision to Cut McIntosh County Wind Project
Published On: January 10, 2025By David DeatonCategories: Whatzup Politics
“OKLAHOMA CITY – Reps. Tim Turner, R-Kinta, and Neil Hays, R-Checotah, today applauded a decision by TransAlta to stop the Canadian River wind farm project in McIntosh County.
The company earlier reported it was in the very early stages of the project and was still completing environmental and economic feasibility studies. The project was more than likely two to three years from beginning construction.
“We have been informed today by TransAlta of their decision to cancel the Canadian Valley project,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement. “We want to express our gratitude to the citizens of House Districts 15 and 13 and the surrounding area for their active engagement and willingness to make their voices heard. Your support has been invaluable as we worked diligently with all parties involved to address concerns and evaluate the potential impact this project could have had on our community.
“Also, thank you to House Speaker Kyle Hilbert and House leadership for standing with us in through this process to assure that we are not affected by Biden’s green energy projects. This was truly a team effort.”
The lawmakers in December held a meeting with TransAlta during which they made it clear there was no pathway for the project to gain community support. They were prepared to introduce legislation this session to change feasibility study requirements to prevent the project from moving forward in their House districts.”
end excerpt
This won’t be the only successful test of windmill farms, I’ll bet.
The Bloom is off the Rose.
CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere.
I just looked through my news feed and I must have seen 30 headlines about how 2024 was the hottest year in human history.
That’s a lot of climate change propaganda being pumped out to the public in just one day. The word “orchestrated” comes to mind.
The year 2024 was not the hottest year in my neck of the woods. I’ll bet it wasn’t the hottest in your neck of the woods, either, no matter where you live. So just exactly what are these climate change scaremongers talking about? It’s something ordinary people cannot feel or relate to.
Skeptics are dealing with a lot of liars and a lot of dupes when it comes to challenging the climate crisis narrative. There’s a lot of money behind promoting this narrative.
The truth is we are not experiencing unprecedented warming, because of CO2 or any other reason. It was just as warm in the past as it is today.
None of the articles (I read) mentioned that the temperatures have currently cooled to levels below the high points of 1998, and 2016.
Human-caused Climate Change is such a Big, Destructive Lie.
The temperature data mannipulation by NASA and NOAA since 1998, is criminal.
They are forming a temperature trend in their computers that sells the climate crisis narrative. They erase all the cooling that took place after 1998. Instead, they mannipulate the data to make each year after 1998, look as though it was hotter than the previous year, and they did this year after year after year during the period from 2000 to 2016. But when you look at the UAH satellite temperature record (see below), you can’t find any years after 1998, that can be described as being hotter than 1998. Every year after 1998 was cooler than 1998, until we got to the year 2016.
NASA and NOAA don’t have any ability to mannipulate the UAH Satellite data for their climate crisis narrative purposes, so they don’t use it, and climate alarmists downplay its data and pretend the satellite data doesn’t represent the true picture, even though the weather balloon data correlates with the satellite data (97percent).
It’s just the Western World that is infected with this CO2-Phobia/lunacy. The rest of the world is moving on using coal, oil, and natural gas.
See if you can find any years after 1998, and before 2016, that could be described as “the hottest year ever!”. As you can see, there are no years after 1998, and before 2016, that could be described as hotter than 1998, yet NASA and NOAA mannipulated their data so that they could make the claim that each year after 1998 was hotter than the last year and therefore each year was the “hottest year ever!”, year after year after year, after year. The better to scare you with, my dear.
NASA and NOAA are perpetrating crimes on the American people with their bastardization of the temperature records. They need to be held to account.
Related, The UK Met office fraud was pointed out recently on Tom Nelson’s podcast.
https://youtu.be/TmjGq1dVSLA?si=4RsUSiWJpyjKi–B
Paranoia and ignorance.
Thinking that the remit of the UKMO is to provide pristine temperature records for purposes of accurately evaluating ongoing climate changes.
No, No and thrice no.
That is a time part of what the UKMO does
It is mandated to provide a service for the UK public, who largely fund it.
Hence they have provided constructed temperatures in locations of interest to the public, clearly stating the following ….
““These maps enable you to view maps of monthly, seasonal and annual averages for the UK. The maps are based on the 1km resolution HadUK-Grid dataset derived from station data.
*Locations displayed in this map may not be those from which observations are made. Data will be displayed from the closest available climate station, which may be a short distance from the chosen location.
We are working to improve the visualisation of data as part of this map.
Where stations are currently closed in this dataset, well-correlated observations from other nearby stations are used to help inform latest long-term average figures in order to preserve the long-term usability of the data.
Similar peer-reviewed scientific methods are used by meteorological organisations around the world to maintain the continuity of long-term datasets. “
Anything to invent in your heads supposed “fraud”.
“NASA and NOAA are perpetrating crimes on the American people with their bastardization of the temperature records.”
Then why is the USCRN not showing up this supposed “bastardisation”
Well, looking at the UAH satellite chart, explain how NASA and NOAA can claim that just about every year after 1998 was hotter than 1998.
That’s not what the UAH satellite chart shows.
When satellite measurements were first instituted by NASA in 1979, NASA was claiming satellites were the “Gold Standard” for temperature measurements. That’s to head off your claim that satellites don’t measure temperatures near the ground. The satellites correlate quite closely to the weather balloon data. How well do NASA and NOAA data correlate with the weather balloon data?
This is fun time for stargazers. It’s not usually good for stargazers in the Pacific Northwest due to the clouds that are usually present. But today it was reasonably clear. At 6:30 pm you could see Jupiter and the Moon to the east and Venus to the southwest. Saturn is supposed to be near Venus, but I haven’t seen her yet. At 11:30 pm I was out with my dogs. Overhead was the Moon with Jupiter ahead towards the west and Mars behind the Moon towards the east. You could seen a curved line running through them–the plane of the Ecliptic. To the south you could see Sirius–very bright.
And a full Moon, too. 🙂
Story tip:
Climate change causes everything…
https://neurosciencenews.com/temperature-aging-cognition-28353/