Every day I go to the NSIDC “Charctic” website and look at the Arctic and Antarctic interactive graphs. It just so happens that there is a coincident short-term excursion toward lower extent at both poles. It does not indicate anything more than a chance combination of numbers from separate processes, in my opinion. https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
I use the ftp sites rather than the charts. The brief weather related drop in the Arctic extent is starting to recover, and is now above the extent of 2018 for this day.
All the cold seems to be down over the USA… only so much freezing to go around, y’know ! 😉
The Arctic sea ice extent this time of year is very dependent on winds. They can compress the ice leading to lower extents or spread the ice out. Over the years I’ve noticed the lower extents due to compression often lead to higher summer extents.
Link to graph in the BBC article (which makes it “public domain / free use” ???), which with a bit of luck will “auto-magically” be rendered below …
My version of the graph, with an X-axis widened to 14 months and updated to 15/2/2025, is attached to the end of this post.
“Close enough for government work”, as the saying goes …
NB : The NSIDC sea-ice data can be found in the “./north/daily/data/” and “./south/daily/data/” sub-directories starting from the following link : https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
What if the climate models have been the instrument of an utterly circular exercise?
That is what is implied by the successful emulation of the model outputs, in terms of the global average surface temperature projections, by simplified computation from the so-called “forcings.”
It is trivially true that any increase or decrease in the amount of solar energy that is absorbed instead of reflected will result in sensible heat gain or loss down here. But is NOT in evidence at the outset that the static longwave radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. is capable of de-rating the dynamically variable emitter to space, therefore requiring a higher temperature at the surface to restore the previous output. The hypothesized de-rating, if any, is what you are supposedly investigating.
This is why it is wrong to concede that the incremental “greenhouse gases” represent a climate “forcing.” Once you include it in the specified forcing scenarios, the models will respond accordingly because they are coded and tuned for stability with no forcing, and for response to the forcing. You will get a rising surface temperature projection, and your hindcasting will have roughly followed the “forcing” history. Circular.
It is to the great credit of both Willis Eschenbach and Patrick Frank to have so successfully demonstrated the simplified emulation.
What to do? Expose the circular exercise. Stop conceding the core claim that emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. are capable of any perturbing climate “forcing” at all. No one knows that.
Simply refusing to concede is insufficient. It is mere obstinance. If there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space that compensates for a change in the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, then we need to have a hypothesis that explains its mechanism.
Also, you can refuse to concede effective warming due to enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect as an established fact while simultaneously acknowledging that it is an unproven hypothesis that might be correct but is nevertheless not harmful.
My view is that there is a natural greenhouse effect, mostly dependent on water vapor, and therefore it could be perturbed to have some warming or cooling effect. However, the dynamic variability which you posit also exists and exerts powerful homeostatic influence. That is why CO2 has a slight beneficial impact on global temperatures, an impact that cannot practically speaking become too much of a good thing due to the economic limits on extracting and burning sufficient fossil fuels.
“If there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space that compensates for a change in the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, then we need to have a hypothesis that explains its mechanism.”
Watch from space, Rich. It is not “obstinance” to first take account of the base operation of the thing you are trying to investigate – the performance of the emitter. It’s not “if” dynamic variation, overturning circulation, and the formation and dissipation of clouds dominate the visualized IR scene. The working of the entire mechanism is in plain sight. Stop thinking of it as “compensation” (i.e. “feedback”) for an assumed perturbation. There is no obligation to propose an alternative hypothesis. It is the null hypothesis of “no effect” that is to be falsified if the “warming” claim is to have any validity. My point in this post is that the modeling attempts to do so – i.e. to falsify the null hypothesis – are circular, and thus fundamentally unsound. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
“My view is that there is a natural greenhouse effect, mostly dependent on water vapor, and therefore it could be perturbed to have some warming or cooling effect.”
What is the potential for such a theorized perturbing effect to ever be realized as a result?
Negligible. It’s not that hard to evaluate, when you realize what the modelers know about the physics of compressible fluids to compute the atmosphere’s circulation. You’ve seen this before, but maybe you just haven’t picked up on the importance of it yet. https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
I fear that I haven’t expressed myself very well here. To clarify, I agree that there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space which you have ably documented, but the mere fact that it is variable does not guarantee that it perfectly counteracts every perturbation. Without a rigorous description of a mechanism that does do that, then ‘nobody knows’ is the best we can achieve. But ‘nobody knows’ is not very satisfying.
Well, anyway, it seems to me to be unnecessary to prove zero or negligible effect when empirical data show at most a mild benefit. The important thing is not to commit economic suicide over an imagined emergency that doesn’t exist.
And I do appreciate your tone and humorous handling of the troll, even though I would advise ignoring him!
“Well, anyway, it seems to me to be unnecessary to prove zero or negligible effect when empirical data show at most a mild benefit.” Yes, I understand. As you know, I disagree somewhat, seeing both persuasion and scientific value in re-setting the entire question back to the core claim. So without disputing the computed radiative effect, there is no empirical evidence that can be isolated to support an expectation or attribution of a sensible heat gain result. This is most powerfully demonstrated in the computed energy conversion values. One description of the implied mechanism is that the atmosphere is already known to be motion-energized throughout the depth of the tropospheric circulation. It is not a static radiative insulating layer to begin with. Therefore, it is problematic to treat the minor radiative change as a perturbation or forcing as though the atmosphere were passive. Thanks again for the non-argumentative exchange.
The small increase in opacity caused by CO2 increases is countered by an equivalent reduction in the water vapor opacity. The mechanism was described by Dr. Bill Gray and NOAA radiosonde agrees. See Miskolczi 2023.
“Stop conceding the core claim that emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. are capable of any perturbing climate “forcing” Dave Drivel
Great way to self-identify as a wacky science denier (Nutter, in the UK) and get ignored because you deserve to be ignored
Please send an e-mail to Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, telling them they are fools. Tell them to shut up about greenhouse gases. Because you are smarter than them and “know” CO2 Does Nothing. Mention all the other “armchair scientists” such as BeNice2000 who support your great “knowledge” if there are any.
Re “Please send an e-mail to Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, telling them they are fools.“ So sayeth the Man (Richard Greene) who quite recently called Happer a Clown, based on his Feb.-2021 lecture (Phoenix AZ) & its transcript published… The Man seems to suffer from a bad case of Correlation-Causation-Confusion plus a severe infection of TDS-Virus, which totally destroys one’s commons sense, Let us pray for his miraculous recovery. Cheers to All, — RLW P.S. Happy USA-Presidents’ Day from The Gulf region
I made a correct commet about a false claim by Happer at the end of his presentation. He claimed climate models overstated actual warming by 2x to 3 x. That was a lie.
As a group average, climate models since 1975 using actual CO2 growth, matched the surface warming statistic. The climate models predicted much more CO2 warming than the current Happer guess of the ECS of CO2. but that is not what he said.
Unlike you, I am interested in facts, data and logic. I don’t care if the article is by a conservative or leftist. I do care about the truth, if it is known.
I do not ignore their BS simply because I generally like Happer’s science, or because I voted for Trump two times. That appears to be a rare characteristic. Most people who did a great job criticizing Biden are doing a terrible job criticizing Trump doing things they would have hated if Biden was doing them
I am so glad you replied, Richard! I was concerned about you for a while this morning. But here you are, thankfully, still undead. On the other hand, you still apparently have no interest in responding to the point of my post. About those notable scientists, I do hope to move the needle toward the position that “no one knows” even as I have great respect for their contributions as skeptics of climate alarm.
Be well.
[Edit – Actually, Happer has said this – i.e. the equivalent of “no one knows” – but nevertheless the CO2 Coalition documents he co-authored do not put it this way.]
Again we have CO2 “cult-like believer” relying totally on consensus of radiation calculators, and having absolutely no evidence to counter David’s totally correct summation of reality that any mythical and theoretical radiative effect is totally swamped by other movements of energy in the atmosphere.
I read enough DD to know that HE does not
understand what he is talking about.
I read 4 hours a day
DD is on my Do Not Read list after I read his first comment. I don’t waste time on the CO2 Does Nothing cult. That ship sailed over a century ago.
Re “utterly circular exercise”; “Expose the circular exercise”; and ““forcing” history. Circular.”
Dear David Dibbell,
your posting today is excellent, much needed. May I suggest that you include the term ‘Tautology‘ in tandem with ‘Circular‘, as a fallacy in reasoning, or logic?
They may not be precisely synonymous but are close enough to the same meaning.
Students of various fields are frequently surprised (after being fooled) by instances of ‘confirmation bias’ that have their roots in circular reasoning / tautologies.
Best wishes, — RLW
Climate confuser games are just guesses, mainly of the effects of CO2 emissions and the water vapor positive feedback. Mainly guesses about the feedback which allegedly multiplies the lab measured effect of CO2 by from almost 4x to almost 6x (from +0.7 to +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.).
I know you don’t believe CO2 does anything but I have summarized what the confuser games represent..
Unfortunately, the confuser games, when averaged, and using the actual CO2 growth rate since 1975 (not RCP8.5) … the average prediction of about +0.2 degrees C. warming per decade matches the surface warming of +0.2 degrees C. per decade. (Which is why the consensus rejects an ignores UAH at +0.15 degrees C. per decade).
That coincidence makes it appear the models, which as a group represent the consensus, are accurate.
That is why arguing the models are wrong is a difficult argument for laymen to understand.
“I know you don’t believe CO2 does anything…” Incorrect. I do not take issue with the confirmed IR absorption and emission properties of CO2. My reference to the GOES Band 16 images and the computed ERA5 reanalysis values is to help re-frame and re-direct the entire question away from the misconception of the atmosphere as a passive radiating insulating layer. It is only within that imagined framing that one would expect a warmer surface to be necessary to restore the original energy “balance”. “That is why arguing the models are wrong is a difficult argument for laymen to understand.” Perhaps so. But the fallacy of circular reasoning is widely understood, even if many have not yet identified it as such in the commotion about climate. I hope to bring more attention to it. As a side note, one could make a good case that the models are “not even wrong.”
Be well. And remember, no one knows that a warming result must be expected from the incremental radiative effect.
If Greenland were to ever become a territory of the United States, it would happen because the people of Greenland had declared and won their freedom, and then they could make an agreement of one kind or another, with the United States.
Trump said Denmark ought to sell the U.S. Greenland now, before Greenland independence is declared, because, otherwise, Denmark won’t get anything.
It’s not right in my view for us to buy citizens. I would rather see the indigenous population assert independence and offer the few Danes there options to be compensated for their land or be naturalized as citizens. Then a free and fair election monitored by objective third parties should allow the citizens to decide whether they want to associate as a US territory or remain independent.
Statehood is an impractical option due to there being less than 10% of the population of Wyoming (our least populous state) in Greenland. (57k vs 590k)
Things were simpler in the olden days.
Some foreign ruffians would just come ashore, pillage all the crops, burn all the women, and rape all the cattle.
Trump is offering Canada statehood with only 1/8 the population of the US (Really Donald the offer should be 7 states), he can probably offer to make Greenland a county.
DMac,
If Canada joined the Union, at 41.5m, it would be the most populous state, greater than California’s 39.4m.
It would guarantee Democrat dominance and I’d be adamantly opposed to it. Adding 14 senators (instead of 2), who would be overwhelmingly left-wing, would only make matters worse.
No matter how you slice it, I don’t see how admitting any part of Canada to the Union would be a good thing politically. Rather than giving Canadians lower taxes, we’d all be ruled by California and Canada. President Newscum and VP Truedope.
Trump should STFU and stop making enemies faster than any President in history. For no purpose.
He has verbally attacked:
Canada
Mexico
Columbia
Panama
Denmark
Gaza
EU
China
Congress, by ignoring them
Courts, by ignoring them
Constitution, by ignoring it
Worst US president since Lincoln who was the worst of all. Read the link to understand why. But then Trump has four more years to catch up with Lincoln:
Trump continues to ignore Congress and courts: The Constitutional limits on executive powers, with his unprecedented power grab. This precedent is far more important to our freedom and the future of the United States than money wasted on Net Zero!
Let the usual angry character attack comments and mindless downvotes begin. Don’t try to refute any claims I’ve made — that’s too much trouble.
“The Man seems to suffer from a bad case of Correlation-Causation-Confusion plus a nasty infection of TDS*-Virus, which totally destroys one’s commons sense…
… Let us pray for a miracle recovery, barring which Abandon All Hope!
— RLW”
P.S. And to all, a most pleasant USA-Presidents-Holiday, from The Gulf (that shall not be named) Region
[you-know-who]-Derangement-Syndrome
Do you have any examples of actual laws that Trump has not ‘faithfully executed’?
Please save yourself (and us) some time and don’t include the holding up of non-Congressionally authorized expenditures made by executive branch bureaucrats, all of whom, according to the Constitution, report to Trump.
It’s true that a solid majority of 53% give him a positive job rating and a supermajority of 70% acknowledge that he is doing what he promised. And a majority of Democrats want to see their party take more moderate positions.
But don’t be deceived that we have achieved unity. The deranged Left is spinning out of the solar system.
Mr. Greene: I accept your invitation. I won’t try to refute any claims you’ve made- that’s too much trouble, when I can just wait a few secs and let you contradict yourself. Again.
You do this to harvest downvotes?!
paul,
It would seem that RG gets paid for each downvote he receives, and he must get bonuses for every strawman and red herring he injects into the discussion.
Yes, so we must ask ourselves, why would someone exert so much energy riling up others and being unfazed by the negative response. Clearly the purpose is disruption.
And JD Vance has done a fine job of upsetting the rest of Europe. But Trump is determined to outdo Vance by meeting with his old mate Vlad over the coming weeks.without any EU involvement.
You missed UN but I disagree on Congress. He has all his nominated cabinet through confirmation. That requires support from Congress.
I am all for common sense and against the climate hoax so a firm supporter of Trump. My only problem with him is that he is not stirring the pot in Australia. He actually stated he had a good conversation with Albanesee. That is hard to accept.
Tom
The people of Greenland probably don’t want to be part of the US. The people of Canada certainly don’t. The people of Gaza want no part of Trumps act of war and if he tries it, they will make sure any buildings placed on their land will never see peace. The People of Panama will fight if he tries to take their land. The countries in Europe are banding together to stop any illegal grab of Ukraine’s land by Russia (supported by a rogue US). And this is the guy who campaigned on not starting any wars? WTF!!!!
At your suggestion, I re-read Willis’ post. Now that I’m older and wiser (or, at least, older), it seems to me that he’s spot on. The earth’s climate is incredibly complex. It’s influenced by millennial time scale orbital dynamics, down to minute-by-minute cloud passages, and everything in between. Yet, living here in Hill country, the climate in my back yard is totally different from that of my neighbor across the street.
Climate models, though, as finite element models of the entire earth’s atmosphere, are computationally intensive, but are dominated by but a few favored so-called “forcings”, the most favored being CO2. These few are usually organized, parameterized, linearized, hind-casted, and maybe even prayed upon, in order to converge to a stable output. Meanwhile, other key “forcings”, like clouds, solar variability, thunderstorms, ocean currents, etc., are left out.
This all could certainly lead one to a conclusion that a “one line” equation using the favored “forcings” might closely approximate the climate models (though not the climate).
‘Own’ is a pretty loaded word – I wouldn’t say, for example, that the US owns Texas. Let’s just say that Greenland is in a voluntary union with Denmark.
President Trump says he is going to implement a “Reciprocal Tariff” on all nations that have applied tariffs to American products. If some nation charges the U.S. a 10 percent tariff, then Trump will charge them a 10 percent tariff on their products.
Trump plans on talking to each of these nations to see if he can get those nations to reduce their tariffs to zero, and then Trump won’t impose any tariffs on them. The deadline for Trump’s team to gather all the data is around April 2, 2025, and then they will start talking to the other nations about tariffs..
If nations don’t want to pay tariffs to the United States, then they should do something about their own tariffs, because that is the reason Trump is looking to implement reciprocal tariffs. Trump thinks the U.S. is getting a bad deal from a lot of nations, and this is the way he is going to level the playing field.
He is explicitly counting VAT as a tariff. In the UK we’d expect to pay 20% VAT on products from China, the US, and even from right here. I dislike VAT, and the rate enrages me. (I don’t see why the government is entitled to profit four times more richly from my sales than I do.) But how VAT can be deemed a tariff escapes me. Does Trump expect to sell US products more cheaply in the UK than domestic UK producers can?
I suppose it’s possible he knows perfectly well that no country with a value-added consumption tax is going to give it up. So calling VAT a “tariff” is just a fig-leaf for introducing his own pseudo-VAT. The argument would go something like, “Hey UK government: you feel entitled to a 20% taste of everything. I’m getting in on that too when the product comes from the UK.”
The goal: Zero tariffs from all nations.
I am not persuaded. In the case of VAT-seen-as-tariff it is just a cash grab.
A VAT is like a sales tax in that ultimately only the end consumer is taxed. It differs from the sales tax in that, with the latter, the tax is collected and remitted to the government only once, at the point of purchase by the end consumer.
The VAT applies to goods and services sold in a European country, regardless of where they are from. An imported, American-made car faces the same VAT as a European-made car. A tariff, on the other hand, only applies to imports, favoring local produce
VAT is not a tariff
A tariff is a tax on imports only
This observation seems to have attracted a few down-votes. Could someone post a rebuttal instead of just a down-vote? Richard seems correct to me, but maybe there is something I’m not understanding.
Richard attracts down votes because of his inflammatory style, which is unfortunate because he sometimes makes very reasonable additions to discussions here, including the one he just made on VAT vs. tariffs.
Tom, I think that reciprocal tariffs is a fine carrot and stick (and/or negotiating position) to achieve free trade. However, I think that you’re mistaken that Trump has free trade as the goal.
There has been a lot of talk about ‘protection’ (protectionism being a tainted word). The Protectionist tariff is a traditional 19th Century Republican platform. The argument being that America should not be content to have our fellow citizens on par with Bangladesh and Burundi just because we revere free trade. Free trade would render most of our industries non-competitive.
I have always been an Adam Smith free-trade advocate, and very leery of tariffs that allow industry and unions to produce shoddy overpriced shlock. However, recent history should educate us on a serious deficiency in the free trade absolutist position. We have lost our industrial base and we have turned China into a rival peer or near peer with a stranglehold over many critical supply chains.
There is an argument being made that government should be funded by tariffs rather than income tax as was the case until 1913. It’s a bit schizophrenic that Trump mentions funding the government through tariffs and eliminating the IRS in favor of an “External Revenue Service”, but (I have to say) disingenuously claims that CHAI-nuh pays the tariffs. I don’t think he’s stupid so it irks me that he thinks the public will be stupid enough to buy that story. It’s a tax passed on to the consumer. If it’s an alternative way to fund the government that is intended to make the country more self-sufficient and less at risk of extortion by hostile powers, that’s a fair argument. But let’s be honest that it’s a tax on consumers.
Start with ending the US 25% tariff on imported trucks that has existed since 1964 to protect the US auto industry. It was in retribution for tarifs on chicken exports from the US.
The “Chicken Tax” is a 25 percent tariff on light trucks (and originally on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy) imposed in 1964 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.
The US had an average external tariff of 3.3% in 2023. That was slightly lower than the UK’s average tariff of 3.8%. It was also below the European Union’s average tariff of 5% and China’s average tariff of 7.5%
The US imposes a 25% tariff on imported trucks, including from the EU. But the EU’s own tariff on imported trucks, including from the US, is only 10%. So a US reciprocal tariff with the EU on imported trucks would, in theory, mean the US lowering its tariff here.
Japan does not impose tariffs on imported cars, trucks and buses, while the U.S. government levies tariffs of 2.5 percent on passenger vehicles ad 25 percent on trucks .
Tariffs are taxes
The US Constitution says Congress levies all taxes
Trump ignores Congress
Sets tariffs arbitrarily, at will
Trump is a dictator.
As of September 27, 2024, the United States (Biden) has imposed tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, including:
Syringes and needles: 100% tariff
Ship-to-shore gantry cranes: 25% tariff
Solar cells: 50% tariff
Steel and aluminum products: 25% tariff
Critical minerals: 0% or 7.5% tariff
Semiconductors: 50% tariff on January 1, 2025
Rubber medical and surgical gloves: 50% tariff on January 1, 2025
Disposable textile facemasks: 50% tariff on January 1, 2026
Surgical and non-surgical respirators and facemasks: 50% tariff on January 1, 2026
Lithium-ion non-electrical vehicle batteries: 25% tariff on January 1, 2026
Comparing New and Current U.S. Tariffs on Chinese Imports
The Biden administration has imposed these tariffs to counter what it considers to be unfair trade practices from China. The tariffs target specific sectors where the U.S. is expanding domestic production.
The U.S. has also retained tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on $360 billion in Chinese goods.
Mr. Greene you have given me a hard time about my CO2 emissivity charts and claimed CO2 had a 1 at the 15 um line. You don’t seem to understand who Professor Hoyt Hottel is nor his charts.
Here is what Grok AI says about the emissivity of CO2 based on the charts using 30 C temperature and pressures less than 1 atmosphere.
”Emissivity would be near zero or very close to it because the energy in the photons of radiation is not sufficient to excite the CO2 molecules into higher vibrational or rotational states, which are necessary for significant absorption or emission.”
So every lab experiment using infrared spectroscopy has been wrong and you are right?
The emissivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) is significantly less than 1, typically around 0.23, meaning it only emits a fraction of the radiation a perfect blackbody would at the same temperature; this value is often referenced using the “Hottel Charts” used in heat transfer calculations.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a high emissivity at specific wavelengths within the infrared spectrum, meaning it readily absorbs and emits infrared radiation at those particular wavelengths, primarily around 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers, which is why it’s considered a potent greenhouse gas.
At a temperature of 30°C and pressures below 1 atmosphere, the emissivity of CO2 is relatively low, typically around 0.05 to 0.1; meaning it only emits a small fraction of the maximum possible thermal radiation at that temperature.
But the atmosphere is NOT 30 degrees C.
No part of the troposphere is typically 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit);
The average temperature in the troposphere decreases with altitude, ranging from around 15°C (59°F) at sea level to approximately -55°C (-67°F) at the tropopause, while the average pressure at sea level is around 1013 millibars and decreases with increasing altitude throughout the troposphere.
Richard, as I understand it, all the IR spectroscopy results were gotten with experiments in the “Standard Atmosphere”, i.e., zero humidity. If so, what would be the results be if conducted in an atmosphere representative of the Earth’s atmosphere, with representative levels of humidity?
Emissivity would be near zero or very close to it because the energy in the photons of radiation is not sufficient to excite the CO2 molecules into higher vibrational or rotational states, which are necessary for significant absorption or emission.
That is a fact. However, to be completely fair to Trump, even though I disagree with his messaging here, when demand for an imported product is elastic, the price may rise by less than the amount of the tariff, with the exporter choosing to lower the selling price to maintain volume.
Having said that, it’s still absurd to claim that China paid tariffs.
One day this will be remembered as the “Green Clearances” , with as much shame and sorrow as the Highland Clearances.
The government has confirmed that it wants tough new energy efficiency targets for the private rental sector. It says that up to 500,000 private rental households will be “lifted out of poverty” by 2030, with tenants “£240 better off per year.”
Not just insane but utterly blind and ignorant. Many if not most of those private rental households will be put on the street. They will be destitute not better off. The economics don’t make sense for the landlords and the architectural limitations of much of the UK housing stock make it technically infeasible to achieve EPC-C. The only way out is to evict sitting tenants and hope to sell the houses while there are still willing lenders.
The #1 “Top Tech” for 2025 according to the IEEE Spectrum, Jan. 2025:
Build a giant floating factory to suck in seawater, chemically processes it to remove carbon dioxide, and spit it back out. Because the oceans soak up CO2 from the air, this will solve the “climate problem”, or so it is hoped. No one really knows.
No mention of what this might do to sea life.
No mention of the energy required to remove the CO2.
This is a really dumb proposal. There is little free CO2 in sea water which has pH of ca. 8.2. In sea water, the proportions of CO2, HCO3^-1, and CO3^-2 are 0.5, 89, and10.5.
The bicarbonate and carbonate anions are used to make shells of animals and coral. When CO2 is absorbed by sea water, a large portion is fixed by plants ranging from alga to seaweed and kelp.
There several genera of microorganisms which construct a shell of CaCO3. When these die, their shells sink to ocean floor. The vast deposits of limestone and marble are formed from these shells over millions of years.
THE DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS WITH GIANT BATTERIES
A recent announcement is to install a statewide, 4-h battery system, installed capacity 5000 MW/20,000 MWh.
Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The delivered capacity would be 20,000 MWh x 0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor = 10,800 MWh
The batteries would 1) absorb midday solar peaks and deliver the electricity during peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, and 2) stabilize the grid, due to varying W/S output, 24/7/365
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 10.8 million kWh = $6.48 billion, about every 15 years.
I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.
If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $3.24 billion at 6% over 15 years = $344 million/y
If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $3.24 billion at 10% over 15 years = $438 million/y The two items total $782 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy to W/S https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
No banks will finance W/S projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the woke bureaucrats in are pronouncing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for the New England, the US and Europe
Correction
I should have used installed capacity to calculate turnkey capital cost
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 20 million kWh = $12.0 billion, about every 15 years.
I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.
If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 6% over 15 years = $608 million/y
If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 10% over 15 years = $774 million/y The two items total $1,382 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy to W/S https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
Ireneusz
February 16, 2025 8:33 am
By the evening, frost will return throughout the Northeast.
Pat Smith
February 18, 2025 11:19 am
An article appeared on the WUWT facebook page today. It referred to the article below which stated:
‘Still no one was checking Arrhenius’s calculations, indeed they were actually using them! In the Apollo missions thermometers were left on the moon’s surface. The results were quietly published by NASA at the time – I suppose they thought that the moon’s surface temperatures were hardly headline news. But there was a mammoth surprise! The moon also showed a 30deg temperature excess above that expected which, by Arrhenius’s calculations, should not be there as there is no air and therefore NO greenhouse gases on the moon!’
Is this true? Have thermometers been left on the moon shown similar temperatures to the surface of the earth, even without an atmosphere? Does anyone know anything about this?
Hi Pat, I personally didn’t know anything about this so I used the Microsoft AI chat-bot Copilot to scour the internet for possible information about it. I asked it whether there are any surviving records of the NASA publications referred to in your quote from the TCW-article. It replied:
“Yes, there are surviving records of the NASA publications regarding the thermal environment on the moon’s surface during the Apollo missions. One such document is the Apollo Experience Report: Thermal Design of Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. This report discusses the thermal design and performance of the experiments conducted on the lunar surface, including temperature measurements.
Thirteen more oil and gas licences could be cancelled as ministers decide new guidance for fossil fuel extraction after a landmark court case
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/13/thirteen-more-oil-and-gas-licences-could-be-cancelled-after-rosebank-court-ruling
Whoever heard of a wind farm making an unsubsidised profit?
Windfarm profits should be used to screen Scots for rare diseases, says scientist https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/13/windfarm-profits-screen-scottish-island-rare-diseases-community-benefit-funds
That JD Vance speech on speech etc was quite the tonic.
Is this true? Is it relevant? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgeydkz08go
No and no.
Yes at the moment, who knows.
Do they know if there has been growth of Antarctic ice, but merely a slower rate of transport to the sea? Geoff S
Every day I go to the NSIDC “Charctic” website and look at the Arctic and Antarctic interactive graphs. It just so happens that there is a coincident short-term excursion toward lower extent at both poles. It does not indicate anything more than a chance combination of numbers from separate processes, in my opinion.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
I use the ftp sites rather than the charts. The brief weather related drop in the Arctic extent is starting to recover, and is now above the extent of 2018 for this day.
All the cold seems to be down over the USA… only so much freezing to go around, y’know ! 😉
The Arctic sea ice extent this time of year is very dependent on winds. They can compress the ice leading to lower extents or spread the ice out. Over the years I’ve noticed the lower extents due to compression often lead to higher summer extents.
Yes.
Link to graph in the BBC article (which makes it “public domain / free use” ???), which with a bit of luck will “auto-magically” be rendered below …
My version of the graph, with an X-axis widened to 14 months and updated to 15/2/2025, is attached to the end of this post.
“Close enough for government work”, as the saying goes …
NB : The NSIDC sea-ice data can be found in the “./north/daily/data/” and “./south/daily/data/” sub-directories starting from the following link :
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/
Probably not, but it’s too soon to tell.
See my “zoomed in” graph below, limited to the range 1st of January to 28th of February for each year.
.
Auxiliary, but still relevant, question that should be considered here :
What are the differences between the terms “weather (events)”, “inter-annual (/ natural) variability” and “climate (change)” ?
Possibly true but irrelevant since nothing the UK does, either in the North Sea or anywhere else, will have the slightest effect on Antarctic Ice.
What if the climate models have been the instrument of an utterly circular exercise?
That is what is implied by the successful emulation of the model outputs, in terms of the global average surface temperature projections, by simplified computation from the so-called “forcings.”
It is trivially true that any increase or decrease in the amount of solar energy that is absorbed instead of reflected will result in sensible heat gain or loss down here. But is NOT in evidence at the outset that the static longwave radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. is capable of de-rating the dynamically variable emitter to space, therefore requiring a higher temperature at the surface to restore the previous output. The hypothesized de-rating, if any, is what you are supposedly investigating.
This is why it is wrong to concede that the incremental “greenhouse gases” represent a climate “forcing.” Once you include it in the specified forcing scenarios, the models will respond accordingly because they are coded and tuned for stability with no forcing, and for response to the forcing. You will get a rising surface temperature projection, and your hindcasting will have roughly followed the “forcing” history. Circular.
It is to the great credit of both Willis Eschenbach and Patrick Frank to have so successfully demonstrated the simplified emulation.
Willis here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/03/climate-sensitivity-deconstructed/
And Pat Frank here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
What to do? Expose the circular exercise. Stop conceding the core claim that emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. are capable of any perturbing climate “forcing” at all. No one knows that.
Thank you for listening.
Simply refusing to concede is insufficient. It is mere obstinance. If there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space that compensates for a change in the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, then we need to have a hypothesis that explains its mechanism.
Also, you can refuse to concede effective warming due to enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect as an established fact while simultaneously acknowledging that it is an unproven hypothesis that might be correct but is nevertheless not harmful.
My view is that there is a natural greenhouse effect, mostly dependent on water vapor, and therefore it could be perturbed to have some warming or cooling effect. However, the dynamic variability which you posit also exists and exerts powerful homeostatic influence. That is why CO2 has a slight beneficial impact on global temperatures, an impact that cannot practically speaking become too much of a good thing due to the economic limits on extracting and burning sufficient fossil fuels.
“If there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space that compensates for a change in the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, then we need to have a hypothesis that explains its mechanism.”
Watch from space, Rich. It is not “obstinance” to first take account of the base operation of the thing you are trying to investigate – the performance of the emitter. It’s not “if” dynamic variation, overturning circulation, and the formation and dissipation of clouds dominate the visualized IR scene. The working of the entire mechanism is in plain sight. Stop thinking of it as “compensation” (i.e. “feedback”) for an assumed perturbation. There is no obligation to propose an alternative hypothesis. It is the null hypothesis of “no effect” that is to be falsified if the “warming” claim is to have any validity. My point in this post is that the modeling attempts to do so – i.e. to falsify the null hypothesis – are circular, and thus fundamentally unsound.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
“My view is that there is a natural greenhouse effect, mostly dependent on water vapor, and therefore it could be perturbed to have some warming or cooling effect.”
What is the potential for such a theorized perturbing effect to ever be realized as a result?
Negligible. It’s not that hard to evaluate, when you realize what the modelers know about the physics of compressible fluids to compute the atmosphere’s circulation. You’ve seen this before, but maybe you just haven’t picked up on the importance of it yet.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Be well.
I fear that I haven’t expressed myself very well here. To clarify, I agree that there is a dynamically-variable emitter to space which you have ably documented, but the mere fact that it is variable does not guarantee that it perfectly counteracts every perturbation. Without a rigorous description of a mechanism that does do that, then ‘nobody knows’ is the best we can achieve. But ‘nobody knows’ is not very satisfying.
Well, anyway, it seems to me to be unnecessary to prove zero or negligible effect when empirical data show at most a mild benefit. The important thing is not to commit economic suicide over an imagined emergency that doesn’t exist.
And I do appreciate your tone and humorous handling of the troll, even though I would advise ignoring him!
“Well, anyway, it seems to me to be unnecessary to prove zero or negligible effect when empirical data show at most a mild benefit.”
Yes, I understand. As you know, I disagree somewhat, seeing both persuasion and scientific value in re-setting the entire question back to the core claim. So without disputing the computed radiative effect, there is no empirical evidence that can be isolated to support an expectation or attribution of a sensible heat gain result. This is most powerfully demonstrated in the computed energy conversion values. One description of the implied mechanism is that the atmosphere is already known to be motion-energized throughout the depth of the tropospheric circulation. It is not a static radiative insulating layer to begin with. Therefore, it is problematic to treat the minor radiative change as a perturbation or forcing as though the atmosphere were passive. Thanks again for the non-argumentative exchange.
“Therefore, it is problematic to treat the minor radiative change as a perturbation or forcing as though the atmosphere were passive.”
Precisely. !
Static radiative calculations are meaningless in an atmosphere that is always moving.
The small increase in opacity caused by CO2 increases is countered by an equivalent reduction in the water vapor opacity. The mechanism was described by Dr. Bill Gray and NOAA radiosonde agrees. See Miskolczi 2023.
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
“Stop conceding the core claim that emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. are capable of any perturbing climate “forcing” Dave Drivel
Great way to self-identify as a wacky science denier (Nutter, in the UK) and get ignored because you deserve to be ignored
Please send an e-mail to Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, telling them they are fools. Tell them to shut up about greenhouse gases. Because you are smarter than them and “know” CO2 Does Nothing. Mention all the other “armchair scientists” such as BeNice2000 who support your great “knowledge” if there are any.
Re “Please send an e-mail to Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, telling them they are fools.“
So sayeth the Man (Richard Greene) who quite recently called Happer a Clown, based on his Feb.-2021 lecture (Phoenix AZ) & its transcript published…
The Man seems to suffer from a bad case of Correlation-Causation-Confusion plus a severe infection of TDS-Virus, which totally destroys one’s commons sense,
Let us pray for his miraculous recovery.
Cheers to All, — RLW P.S. Happy USA-Presidents’ Day from The Gulf region
I made a correct commet about a false claim by Happer at the end of his presentation. He claimed climate models overstated actual warming by 2x to 3 x. That was a lie.
As a group average, climate models since 1975 using actual CO2 growth, matched the surface warming statistic. The climate models predicted much more CO2 warming than the current Happer guess of the ECS of CO2. but that is not what he said.
Unlike you, I am interested in facts, data and logic. I don’t care if the article is by a conservative or leftist. I do care about the truth, if it is known.
I do not ignore their BS simply because I generally like Happer’s science, or because I voted for Trump two times. That appears to be a rare characteristic. Most people who did a great job criticizing Biden are doing a terrible job criticizing Trump doing things they would have hated if Biden was doing them
Yeah?…Nah.
I am so glad you replied, Richard! I was concerned about you for a while this morning. But here you are, thankfully, still undead. On the other hand, you still apparently have no interest in responding to the point of my post. About those notable scientists, I do hope to move the needle toward the position that “no one knows” even as I have great respect for their contributions as skeptics of climate alarm.
Be well.
[Edit – Actually, Happer has said this – i.e. the equivalent of “no one knows” – but nevertheless the CO2 Coalition documents he co-authored do not put it this way.]
‘But here you are, thankfully, still undead.’
Nosferatu seems like a good metaphor.
Again we have CO2 “cult-like believer” relying totally on consensus of radiation calculators, and having absolutely no evidence to counter David’s totally correct summation of reality that any mythical and theoretical radiative effect is totally swamped by other movements of energy in the atmosphere.
JFC
You love your KFC… just need to learn to type better.
RG, obviously you haven’t read enough of Dibbell’s commentary at WUWT to understand what he is talking about. Try this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/17/open-thread-86/
I read enough DD to know that HE does not
understand what he is talking about.
I read 4 hours a day
DD is on my Do Not Read list after I read his first comment. I don’t waste time on the CO2 Does Nothing cult. That ship sailed over a century ago.
RG, for an investment of less than 5 percent of your reading time tomorrow, try withdrawing your DNR order long enough to read this from 2022. It explains a bit more about where I’m coming from.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
You waste vast amounts of time coming here everyday. No one cares.
I have two, genuine, questions for you :
1) How many times has the person receiving such an e-mail from you responded positively / constructively ?
2) How many times have you responded positively / constructively after receiving such an e-mail from a complete stranger ?
I don’t write or read emails so it does not matter.
My point was the CO2 Does Nothing Cult contradicts all the most popular skeptic climate scientists ON OUR SIDE. That is counterproductive.
There are no ”CO2 does nothing” people here but many say the effect is too small to see and/or worry about (which is true). Ask the IPCC.
Re “utterly circular exercise”; “Expose the circular exercise”; and ““forcing” history. Circular.”
Dear David Dibbell,
your posting today is excellent, much needed. May I suggest that you include the term ‘Tautology‘ in tandem with ‘Circular‘, as a fallacy in reasoning, or logic?
They may not be precisely synonymous but are close enough to the same meaning.
Students of various fields are frequently surprised (after being fooled) by instances of ‘confirmation bias’ that have their roots in circular reasoning / tautologies.
Best wishes, — RLW
THE EFFECTS OF CO2 ARE BASED ON 128 YEARS OF EVIDENCE INCLUDING PREDICTIONS OF WARMING THAT DID HAPPEN
THEY ARE NOT CIRCUAR REASONING OR A TAUTOLOGY.
Oh? And what ”effects” might they be? Do tell!
what ”effects” might they be?
EXTINCTION OF LOWERCASE LETTERS
Climate confuser games are just guesses, mainly of the effects of CO2 emissions and the water vapor positive feedback. Mainly guesses about the feedback which allegedly multiplies the lab measured effect of CO2 by from almost 4x to almost 6x (from +0.7 to +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.).
I know you don’t believe CO2 does anything but I have summarized what the confuser games represent..
Unfortunately, the confuser games, when averaged, and using the actual CO2 growth rate since 1975 (not RCP8.5) … the average prediction of about +0.2 degrees C. warming per decade matches the surface warming of +0.2 degrees C. per decade. (Which is why the consensus rejects an ignores UAH at +0.15 degrees C. per decade).
That coincidence makes it appear the models, which as a group represent the consensus, are accurate.
That is why arguing the models are wrong is a difficult argument for laymen to understand.
“I know you don’t believe CO2 does anything…” Incorrect. I do not take issue with the confirmed IR absorption and emission properties of CO2. My reference to the GOES Band 16 images and the computed ERA5 reanalysis values is to help re-frame and re-direct the entire question away from the misconception of the atmosphere as a passive radiating insulating layer. It is only within that imagined framing that one would expect a warmer surface to be necessary to restore the original energy “balance”.
“That is why arguing the models are wrong is a difficult argument for laymen to understand.” Perhaps so. But the fallacy of circular reasoning is widely understood, even if many have not yet identified it as such in the commotion about climate. I hope to bring more attention to it. As a side note, one could make a good case that the models are “not even wrong.”
Be well. And remember, no one knows that a warming result must be expected from the incremental radiative effect.
Greene is a confirmed idiot.
Would Trump/Vance be interested if the EU offered Greenland in exchange for a security guarantee for Europe and Ukraine?
If Greenland were to ever become a territory of the United States, it would happen because the people of Greenland had declared and won their freedom, and then they could make an agreement of one kind or another, with the United States.
Trump said Denmark ought to sell the U.S. Greenland now, before Greenland independence is declared, because, otherwise, Denmark won’t get anything.
It’s not right in my view for us to buy citizens. I would rather see the indigenous population assert independence and offer the few Danes there options to be compensated for their land or be naturalized as citizens. Then a free and fair election monitored by objective third parties should allow the citizens to decide whether they want to associate as a US territory or remain independent.
Statehood is an impractical option due to there being less than 10% of the population of Wyoming (our least populous state) in Greenland. (57k vs 590k)
Things were simpler in the olden days.
Some foreign ruffians would just come ashore, pillage all the crops, burn all the women, and rape all the cattle.
And plant a flag of course.
“Where’s that (Amerind Woman) I’m supposed to kill?”.
Great old joke.
Trump is offering Canada statehood with only 1/8 the population of the US (Really Donald the offer should be 7 states), he can probably offer to make Greenland a county.
DMac,
If Canada joined the Union, at 41.5m, it would be the most populous state, greater than California’s 39.4m.
It would guarantee Democrat dominance and I’d be adamantly opposed to it. Adding 14 senators (instead of 2), who would be overwhelmingly left-wing, would only make matters worse.
No matter how you slice it, I don’t see how admitting any part of Canada to the Union would be a good thing politically. Rather than giving Canadians lower taxes, we’d all be ruled by California and Canada. President Newscum and VP Truedope.
Trump should STFU and stop making enemies faster than any President in history. For no purpose.
He has verbally attacked:
Canada
Mexico
Columbia
Panama
Denmark
Gaza
EU
China
Congress, by ignoring them
Courts, by ignoring them
Constitution, by ignoring it
Worst US president since Lincoln who was the worst of all. Read the link to understand why. But then Trump has four more years to catch up with Lincoln:
Happy Worst President’s Day – LewRockwell
Trump continues to ignore Congress and courts: The Constitutional limits on executive powers, with his unprecedented power grab. This precedent is far more important to our freedom and the future of the United States than money wasted on Net Zero!
Let the usual angry character attack comments and mindless downvotes begin. Don’t try to refute any claims I’ve made — that’s too much trouble.
“The Man seems to suffer from a bad case of Correlation-Causation-Confusion plus a nasty infection of TDS*-Virus, which totally destroys one’s commons sense…
… Let us pray for a miracle recovery, barring which Abandon All Hope!
— RLW”
P.S. And to all, a most pleasant USA-Presidents-Holiday, from The Gulf (that shall not be named) Region
[you-know-who]-Derangement-Syndrome
Seems someone gets his “opinions” from MSNBC, specifically “The View” 😉
That would be ABC, bnice. Not that it makes much difference.
‘Trump continues to ignore Congress and courts.’
Do you have any examples of actual laws that Trump has not ‘faithfully executed’?
Please save yourself (and us) some time and don’t include the holding up of non-Congressionally authorized expenditures made by executive branch bureaucrats, all of whom, according to the Constitution, report to Trump.
Trump is doing exactly what the people elected him to do.
He has not gone against Congress
He has not gone against the constitution,
He has not gone against the courts (unlike Biden/Swamp did all the time)
Trudope deserves every bit of bad-comment he gets.. he is petty little twerp
Mexico is now taking their illegal immigrants back.
etc etc
Trump is on a quadruple WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN cycle and the American people are behind him all the way.
You are deluded and living in a
Trump Cheerleading Fantasyland
It’s true that a solid majority of 53% give him a positive job rating and a supermajority of 70% acknowledge that he is doing what he promised. And a majority of Democrats want to see their party take more moderate positions.
But don’t be deceived that we have achieved unity. The deranged Left is spinning out of the solar system.
Mr. Greene: I accept your invitation. I won’t try to refute any claims you’ve made- that’s too much trouble, when I can just wait a few secs and let you contradict yourself. Again.
You do this to harvest downvotes?!
paul,
It would seem that RG gets paid for each downvote he receives, and he must get bonuses for every strawman and red herring he injects into the discussion.
Yes, so we must ask ourselves, why would someone exert so much energy riling up others and being unfazed by the negative response. Clearly the purpose is disruption.
Ignore the troll.
And JD Vance has done a fine job of upsetting the rest of Europe. But Trump is determined to outdo Vance by meeting with his old mate Vlad over the coming weeks.without any EU involvement.
You missed UN but I disagree on Congress. He has all his nominated cabinet through confirmation. That requires support from Congress.
I am all for common sense and against the climate hoax so a firm supporter of Trump. My only problem with him is that he is not stirring the pot in Australia. He actually stated he had a good conversation with Albanesee. That is hard to accept.
Who ever follows in Trump’s glow will enjoy his successes in rooting evil around the world because the American People like what he is doing:
“And JD Vance has done a fine job of upsetting the rest of Europe.”
The EU needed to be woken up. JD Vance has got them all thinking now.
The far-left, of course, don’t like the reality of what he said.
Let me ease your mind.
A good conversation with Albanese:
Trump: Tony, you’re my bitch now.
Albanese: Yes, Mr. President
Trump: That’s ‘Yes, sir’
Albanese: Yes, sir, Mr. President, sir.
Is there any evidence of a Free Greenland movement, or are the citizens of Greenland perfectly happy with their current situation?
Tom
The people of Greenland probably don’t want to be part of the US. The people of Canada certainly don’t. The people of Gaza want no part of Trumps act of war and if he tries it, they will make sure any buildings placed on their land will never see peace. The People of Panama will fight if he tries to take their land. The countries in Europe are banding together to stop any illegal grab of Ukraine’s land by Russia (supported by a rogue US). And this is the guy who campaigned on not starting any wars? WTF!!!!
At your suggestion, I re-read Willis’ post. Now that I’m older and wiser (or, at least, older), it seems to me that he’s spot on. The earth’s climate is incredibly complex. It’s influenced by millennial time scale orbital dynamics, down to minute-by-minute cloud passages, and everything in between. Yet, living here in Hill country, the climate in my back yard is totally different from that of my neighbor across the street.
Climate models, though, as finite element models of the entire earth’s atmosphere, are computationally intensive, but are dominated by but a few favored so-called “forcings”, the most favored being CO2. These few are usually organized, parameterized, linearized, hind-casted, and maybe even prayed upon, in order to converge to a stable output. Meanwhile, other key “forcings”, like clouds, solar variability, thunderstorms, ocean currents, etc., are left out.
This all could certainly lead one to a conclusion that a “one line” equation using the favored “forcings” might closely approximate the climate models (though not the climate).
Thank you for this reply. I assume you were responding to my post above rather than to jayrow.
The EU doesn’t own Greenland. Denmark does.
‘Own’ is a pretty loaded word – I wouldn’t say, for example, that the US owns Texas. Let’s just say that Greenland is in a voluntary union with Denmark.
Don’t mess with Texas.
President Trump says he is going to implement a “Reciprocal Tariff” on all nations that have applied tariffs to American products. If some nation charges the U.S. a 10 percent tariff, then Trump will charge them a 10 percent tariff on their products.
Trump plans on talking to each of these nations to see if he can get those nations to reduce their tariffs to zero, and then Trump won’t impose any tariffs on them. The deadline for Trump’s team to gather all the data is around April 2, 2025, and then they will start talking to the other nations about tariffs..
If nations don’t want to pay tariffs to the United States, then they should do something about their own tariffs, because that is the reason Trump is looking to implement reciprocal tariffs. Trump thinks the U.S. is getting a bad deal from a lot of nations, and this is the way he is going to level the playing field.
The goal: Zero tariffs from all nations.
He is explicitly counting VAT as a tariff. In the UK we’d expect to pay 20% VAT on products from China, the US, and even from right here. I dislike VAT, and the rate enrages me. (I don’t see why the government is entitled to profit four times more richly from my sales than I do.) But how VAT can be deemed a tariff escapes me. Does Trump expect to sell US products more cheaply in the UK than domestic UK producers can?
I suppose it’s possible he knows perfectly well that no country with a value-added consumption tax is going to give it up. So calling VAT a “tariff” is just a fig-leaf for introducing his own pseudo-VAT. The argument would go something like, “Hey UK government: you feel entitled to a 20% taste of everything. I’m getting in on that too when the product comes from the UK.”
I am not persuaded. In the case of VAT-seen-as-tariff it is just a cash grab.
A VAT is like a sales tax in that ultimately only the end consumer is taxed. It differs from the sales tax in that, with the latter, the tax is collected and remitted to the government only once, at the point of purchase by the end consumer.
The VAT applies to goods and services sold in a European country, regardless of where they are from. An imported, American-made car faces the same VAT as a European-made car. A tariff, on the other hand, only applies to imports, favoring local produce
VAT is not a tariff
A tariff is a tax on imports only
This observation seems to have attracted a few down-votes. Could someone post a rebuttal instead of just a down-vote? Richard seems correct to me, but maybe there is something I’m not understanding.
Richard attracts down votes because of his inflammatory style, which is unfortunate because he sometimes makes very reasonable additions to discussions here, including the one he just made on VAT vs. tariffs.
Tom, I think that reciprocal tariffs is a fine carrot and stick (and/or negotiating position) to achieve free trade. However, I think that you’re mistaken that Trump has free trade as the goal.
There has been a lot of talk about ‘protection’ (protectionism being a tainted word). The Protectionist tariff is a traditional 19th Century Republican platform. The argument being that America should not be content to have our fellow citizens on par with Bangladesh and Burundi just because we revere free trade. Free trade would render most of our industries non-competitive.
I have always been an Adam Smith free-trade advocate, and very leery of tariffs that allow industry and unions to produce shoddy overpriced shlock. However, recent history should educate us on a serious deficiency in the free trade absolutist position. We have lost our industrial base and we have turned China into a rival peer or near peer with a stranglehold over many critical supply chains.
There is an argument being made that government should be funded by tariffs rather than income tax as was the case until 1913. It’s a bit schizophrenic that Trump mentions funding the government through tariffs and eliminating the IRS in favor of an “External Revenue Service”, but (I have to say) disingenuously claims that CHAI-nuh pays the tariffs. I don’t think he’s stupid so it irks me that he thinks the public will be stupid enough to buy that story. It’s a tax passed on to the consumer. If it’s an alternative way to fund the government that is intended to make the country more self-sufficient and less at risk of extortion by hostile powers, that’s a fair argument. But let’s be honest that it’s a tax on consumers.
I suspect the clue to Trump’s disruption of trade conventions is to be found by taking a deep dive into the writings of Sun Tsu.
Start with ending the US 25% tariff on imported trucks that has existed since 1964 to protect the US auto industry. It was in retribution for tarifs on chicken exports from the US.
The “Chicken Tax” is a 25 percent tariff on light trucks (and originally on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy) imposed in 1964 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.
The US had an average external tariff of 3.3% in 2023. That was slightly lower than the UK’s average tariff of 3.8%. It was also below the European Union’s average tariff of 5% and China’s average tariff of 7.5%
The US imposes a 25% tariff on imported trucks, including from the EU. But the EU’s own tariff on imported trucks, including from the US, is only 10%. So a US reciprocal tariff with the EU on imported trucks would, in theory, mean the US lowering its tariff here.
Japan does not impose tariffs on imported cars, trucks and buses, while the U.S. government levies tariffs of 2.5 percent on passenger vehicles ad 25 percent on trucks .
Tariffs are taxes
The US Constitution says Congress levies all taxes
Trump ignores Congress
Sets tariffs arbitrarily, at will
Trump is a dictator.
As of September 27, 2024, the United States (Biden) has imposed tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, including:
Syringes and needles: 100% tariff
Ship-to-shore gantry cranes: 25% tariff
Solar cells: 50% tariff
Steel and aluminum products: 25% tariff
Critical minerals: 0% or 7.5% tariff
Semiconductors: 50% tariff on January 1, 2025
Rubber medical and surgical gloves: 50% tariff on January 1, 2025
Disposable textile facemasks: 50% tariff on January 1, 2026
Surgical and non-surgical respirators and facemasks: 50% tariff on January 1, 2026
Lithium-ion non-electrical vehicle batteries: 25% tariff on January 1, 2026
Comparing New and Current U.S. Tariffs on Chinese Imports
The Biden administration has imposed these tariffs to counter what it considers to be unfair trade practices from China. The tariffs target specific sectors where the U.S. is expanding domestic production.
The U.S. has also retained tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on $360 billion in Chinese goods.
Mr. Greene you have given me a hard time about my CO2 emissivity charts and claimed CO2 had a 1 at the 15 um line. You don’t seem to understand who Professor Hoyt Hottel is nor his charts.
Here is what Grok AI says about the emissivity of CO2 based on the charts using 30 C temperature and pressures less than 1 atmosphere.
”Emissivity would be near zero or very close to it because the energy in the photons of radiation is not sufficient to excite the CO2 molecules into higher vibrational or rotational states, which are necessary for significant absorption or emission.”
CO2 can’t do what is claimed.
So every lab experiment using infrared spectroscopy has been wrong and you are right?
The emissivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) is significantly less than 1, typically around 0.23, meaning it only emits a fraction of the radiation a perfect blackbody would at the same temperature; this value is often referenced using the “Hottel Charts” used in heat transfer calculations.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a high emissivity at specific wavelengths within the infrared spectrum, meaning it readily absorbs and emits infrared radiation at those particular wavelengths, primarily around 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers, which is why it’s considered a potent greenhouse gas.
At a temperature of 30°C and pressures below 1 atmosphere, the emissivity of CO2 is relatively low, typically around 0.05 to 0.1; meaning it only emits a small fraction of the maximum possible thermal radiation at that temperature.
But the atmosphere is NOT 30 degrees C.
No part of the troposphere is typically 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit);
The average temperature in the troposphere decreases with altitude, ranging from around 15°C (59°F) at sea level to approximately -55°C (-67°F) at the tropopause, while the average pressure at sea level is around 1013 millibars and decreases with increasing altitude throughout the troposphere.
Richard, as I understand it, all the IR spectroscopy results were gotten with experiments in the “Standard Atmosphere”, i.e., zero humidity. If so, what would be the results be if conducted in an atmosphere representative of the Earth’s atmosphere, with representative levels of humidity?
Thank you for fully agreeing with me.
mr. Greene how about this:
Emissivity would be near zero or very close to it because the energy in the photons of radiation is not sufficient to excite the CO2 molecules into higher vibrational or rotational states, which are necessary for significant absorption or emission.
Trump ignores Congress
Sets tariffs arbitrarily, at will
Trump is a dictator.
United States (Biden) has imposed tariffs
The Biden administration has imposed these tariffs
So Biden was a dictator?
Nations don’t pay tariffs on the goods that they export. Tariffs are paid by the importing entity to it.s own Government.
That is a fact. However, to be completely fair to Trump, even though I disagree with his messaging here, when demand for an imported product is elastic, the price may rise by less than the amount of the tariff, with the exporter choosing to lower the selling price to maintain volume.
Having said that, it’s still absurd to claim that China paid tariffs.
One day this will be remembered as the “Green Clearances” , with as much shame and sorrow as the Highland Clearances.
The government has confirmed that it wants tough new energy efficiency targets for the private rental sector. It says that up to 500,000 private rental households will be “lifted out of poverty” by 2030, with tenants “£240 better off per year.”
Not just insane but utterly blind and ignorant. Many if not most of those private rental households will be put on the street. They will be destitute not better off. The economics don’t make sense for the landlords and the architectural limitations of much of the UK housing stock make it technically infeasible to achieve EPC-C. The only way out is to evict sitting tenants and hope to sell the houses while there are still willing lenders.
Exactly right and the idea that the government can say people will be “£240 better off per year” in 5 years time is utter rubbish.
Shelter closing in San Diego because of lack of illegal immigrants, making vetting easier.
https://thepostmillennial.com/san-diego-migrant-shelter-closes-after-decrease-in-residents-in-trump-term
A quick thought: Why not hang wind mills from blimps? No messing with oceans and fish etc.
Why not hang the windmills proponents from blimps?
Now THAT would be air and visual pollution that I would find tolerable.
More Time Traveller Soon:
https://rumble.com/v6j7y1j-timetraveller-vikings.html?e9s=src_v1_upp
story tip
The #1 “Top Tech” for 2025 according to the IEEE Spectrum, Jan. 2025:
Build a giant floating factory to suck in seawater, chemically processes it to remove carbon dioxide, and spit it back out. Because the oceans soak up CO2 from the air, this will solve the “climate problem”, or so it is hoped. No one really knows.
No mention of what this might do to sea life.
No mention of the energy required to remove the CO2.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ocean-carbon-removal
Great idea! I think all it will do is soak up money for nothing.
If biofilms and algae don’t do them in, the energy costs for compression, transportation and storage of CO2 will.
How will any of these startups ever find anyone willing to pay for what they do?
Government is the only possible customer.
This is a really dumb proposal. There is little free CO2 in sea water which has pH of ca. 8.2. In sea water, the proportions of CO2, HCO3^-1, and CO3^-2 are 0.5, 89, and10.5.
The bicarbonate and carbonate anions are used to make shells of animals and coral. When CO2 is absorbed by sea water, a large portion is fixed by plants ranging from alga to seaweed and kelp.
There several genera of microorganisms which construct a shell of CaCO3. When these die, their shells sink to ocean floor. The vast deposits of limestone and marble are formed from these shells over millions of years.
The IEEE should quit pushing the greenie agenda, it makes them look stupid.
THE DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS WITH GIANT BATTERIES
A recent announcement is to install a statewide, 4-h battery system, installed capacity 5000 MW/20,000 MWh.
Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The delivered capacity would be 20,000 MWh x 0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor = 10,800 MWh
The batteries would 1) absorb midday solar peaks and deliver the electricity during peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, and 2) stabilize the grid, due to varying W/S output, 24/7/365
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 10.8 million kWh = $6.48 billion, about every 15 years.
I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.
If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $3.24 billion at 6% over 15 years = $344 million/y
If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $3.24 billion at 10% over 15 years = $438 million/y
The two items total $782 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy to W/S
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
No banks will finance W/S projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the woke bureaucrats in are pronouncing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for the New England, the US and Europe
Ugh.
Correction
I should have used installed capacity to calculate turnkey capital cost
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 20 million kWh = $12.0 billion, about every 15 years.
I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.
If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 6% over 15 years = $608 million/y
If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 10% over 15 years = $774 million/y
The two items total $1,382 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy to W/S
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
By the evening, frost will return throughout the Northeast.
An article appeared on the WUWT facebook page today. It referred to the article below which stated:
‘Still no one was checking Arrhenius’s calculations, indeed they were actually using them! In the Apollo missions thermometers were left on the moon’s surface. The results were quietly published by NASA at the time – I suppose they thought that the moon’s surface temperatures were hardly headline news. But there was a mammoth surprise! The moon also showed a 30deg temperature excess above that expected which, by Arrhenius’s calculations, should not be there as there is no air and therefore NO greenhouse gases on the moon!’
Is this true? Have thermometers been left on the moon shown similar temperatures to the surface of the earth, even without an atmosphere? Does anyone know anything about this?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/global-warming-the-fallacy-built-on-a-120-year-old-blunder/
Hi Pat, I personally didn’t know anything about this so I used the Microsoft AI chat-bot Copilot to scour the internet for possible information about it. I asked it whether there are any surviving records of the NASA publications referred to in your quote from the TCW-article. It replied:
“Yes, there are surviving records of the NASA publications regarding the thermal environment on the moon’s surface during the Apollo missions. One such document is the Apollo Experience Report: Thermal Design of Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. This report discusses the thermal design and performance of the experiments conducted on the lunar surface, including temperature measurements.
You can find more detailed information and access these records through NASA’s technical reports server (NTRS) or their official website: (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220015275/downloads/ACD-50044%20Lunar%20Surface%20Data%20Book_100622.pdf ).”
Happy investigating!
Current temperature in Texas.
