Why use GOES Band 16 for showing the dynamic operation of the longwave emitter to space? One reason is that the color scale reveals the range of output intensities much more clearly. Otherwise I would also show time-lapse videos of Band 13 images to make a similar point.
Band 16 – CO2 Longwave IR band – color scale of “brightness temperature”:
It’s also a nice touch that NOAA named Band 16 the “CO2 Longwave IR” band. It helps put the attention on CO2, as to whether rising concentrations ought to be considered a risk to the planet. I say “obviously not.” More here. The “Readme” description explains. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
“Your color scales in this comment go to black three times in each one”
These images are not mine. I see two “black” positions in each color scale, not three. But in any case, is there a point you wish to make?
strativarius
March 8, 2025 3:59 am
It just gets worse by the day. Never think we have hit the bottom, the peak etc because we haven’t and I begin to wonder if we ever will.
The mess that is UK economic policy, climate policy (square peg, round hole) is being overshadowed now by two tier justice – the two tier justice they denied existed, just as they denied their culture wars. Thought and speech are the big concerns. Ibrahim X Kendi is the model. One thing Judaism has that islam does not is the racial context. And that is the battle being waged. To get parity for muslims with the jews.
For those in the US who may not know how mad we actually are, currently shoplifting – ie theft – under the value of £200 is completely ignored by the police. Not worth the effort. So, by default shoplifting has become legal as long as you are not too greedy. What the police concentrate on is correct-think.
And the best lately? The non-crime hate incident (NCHI)…
“A grandmother was spoken to at her home by police after she criticised Labour politicians online for sending offensive WhatsApp messages. In a series of Facebook posts Helen Jones called for the resignation of a councillor embroiled in the WhatsApp scandal which led to the sacking of Andrew Gwynne, the former health minister.
The 54-year-old school administrator, who was not accused of committing a crime, said she was left feeling scared to post on social media following the unannounced visit by two officers on Tuesday. At 2.15pm she received a phone call from an officer thought to be the same sergeant who knocked on her door and was told the police had received a complaint about her recent social media posts.
Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, Mrs Jones said: “It was actually quite scary. It made me think I best just keep quiet for the rest of my life, because you just can’t say anything these days.
“I asked the police officer, have I committed any sort of crime – why did you call at my door? They said, ‘Someone has spoken to us about your social media posts’. “I then said: ‘If I don’t take your advice and continue doing what I am doing, will I be committing a crime?’ He said no. I then asked: ‘What will you do about it?’ He said: ‘There’s not a lot we can do, we are just giving you advice’.”
Yes, I really feel depressed for my friends and coworkers in the UK. In the past fortnight, two of my coworkers have been victims of violent crime. That’s just within a team of about 150, and those are just the ones I have regular contact with. It’s probably worse than that.
Violent crime? A message from the Mayor… “Sadiq Khan says terror attacks are ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’
Or in other words, they’re a part of normal daily life
In London we know full well that it is for the most part black kids killing other black kids. But they cannot be stopped and searched [for weapons] because that is, er… racist, white supremacist etc yawn.
Without these problems the left have no raison d’etre. That’s why they are allowed to go on.
“Sadiq Khan says terror attacks are ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’
Your little lie left off one word. Here is the correct quote and it means nothing like what you misrepresented.
What you should have said was ….
Sadiq Khan said “being prepared for terror attacks is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city.”
I 100% agree with the correct statement, do you not?
And yet … they seemed to have accepted & embraced the ideals that lead to and increase the threat.
(and you seem to be deep in the bubble. Is the fact that you post here a fruedian indication that some part of you wants to be free of the bubble? Be tough with yourself, step up and do it)
If climate propaganda can’t sell in Sweden, one wonders where it can. Often lauded as a model country for anti-carbon zealotry, the land that gave us Greta Thunberg now can’t even keep its public broadcasters from questioning revered green mantras. Speaking of Ms. Thunberg, the country’s supreme court is embracing open democratic debate on climate policies rather than judicial diktats.
Sweden also likes woody biomass power- something I’ve promoted here, but when I do, I get slammed- so I don’t bother anymore. But the Swedes like it and they do a great job managing their forests. They do consider biomass as carbon neutral.
I’ve posted this before but it’s worth repeating. Volvo the Swedish equipment
manufacture has developed and built a portable, constant flow Fischer-Tropsch
unit that can be set up on site with a portable LNG tank turn wood chips into
a high grade diesel. The yield is aprox 70-80 gallons per ton of chips. An acre of forest in my area runs around 20tons/acre. So the numbers on a local 40K acre prescribed burn scheduled soon. 40,000 X 20=800,000 tons X 80gal= 64,000,000 gal of diesel X $3.00 =$192.000.000. The catch is to do that it requires the approval of the Wood Products Industry which say’s NO. I’ve seen photos and some first hand observations of one of those units in use in Vermont and another north of there in Canada. Trump and Musk need to take a look at this with their EO
In addition to the post on the Fischer-Tropsch unit it needs to be said that
back around 08 and the mortgage melt down we had several saw mills and
a large pulp mill. The loggers in this area all skidded the trees to the landing
and lopped and limbed there. That slash was chipped and trucked to the pulp mill
which financed the fuel side of their logging operation, There were 100++ semi
loads of chips going thru to the pulp mill 7 days a week from my area.
The pulp mill was closed and is now a toxic waste site.
Now we have virtually no sawmills left and controlled burns is all the NF is doing. Sun Mountain took over a mill 130 mile east of here but can’t get anyone to work anymore so they are
bussing inmates from the state pen 130+ plus miles per day each way to
run the mil,. Local housing is the most expensive in the entire country. But what
do I know?
Biomass is not carbon neutral because a lot of heavy machinery with really BIG DIESEL ENGINES are used to harvest the wood from the forest and transport it to the power plants. Since wood has low energy density compared to coal, oil and nat. gas, a lot of Diesel fuel is used to get the large supply of wood required by the power plant.
Drax use big ships to transport wood pellets from the US to the UK. Trucks with Diesel engines transport the pellets from the port to the power plant. Or maybe they rail cars to transport the pellets to their power plant.
See my above post about the mobile Volvo Fischer-Tropsch plants.
My source for that was a principle for a company that built several components
for a group of six 25KW biomass plants in Canada after the beetle
kill back around 08. The Volvo plants were set near the salvage landings
and produced a high grade diesel, it does require LNG which is
a fossil fuel. Bottom line is biomass is very good source of energy.
IIRC diesel fuel was produced via fischer-tropsch before the diesel
engine was invented.
I asked bing copilot : Can you give me a percent of earths radiant energy absorbed uniquely by co2
here’s the reply-
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is responsible for absorbing a significant portion of Earth’s radiant energy, particularly in the infrared spectrum. However, it’s challenging to provide an exact percentage of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO₂, as it works in conjunction with other greenhouse gases like water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.
That said, CO₂ is estimated to contribute to about 20% of the greenhouse effect, with water vapor being the dominant contributor This means that CO₂ plays a crucial role in trapping heat and maintaining Earth’s temperature, but it is not the sole absorber of radiant energy.
If you’re interested in more details about Earth’s energy budget and the role of greenhouse gases, you can explore further [here]
=================
That is more than I would have expected for .04% of the atmosphere. Is copilot correct?
The Tropics and Sub-tropics
CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by about 27400/420 = 65 to 1 by water vapor, WV, a strong photon absorber.
Dry air molecules outnumber CO2 by 999,000/420 = 2400 to 1, and WV by 999,000/27400 = 35 to 1
All IR surface photons are eliminated by collision or absorption within 10 meter of the surface.
.
WV, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it rises and condenses into clouds at about 2,000 meter elevation.
The clouds, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter, with trees dormant for 6 or more months.
That means the WV and clouds we see up north, from the 37th parallel upwards, come from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate much water, where flora sheds its leaves and hibernates from September to April, and where much fauna hibernates or migrates to southern latitudes.
Any evaporation is from near or on the ground, such as from as dew, ground fog, snow and ice.
But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because WV outnumbers CO2 by about 17700/420 = 42 to 1.
.
Radiation Transport in Clouds https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-2025-vWijngaarden-Happer.pdf
By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer
.
The article details 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 1850 (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 175 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 to 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.
To cool the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover needs to increase by only a few percent.
During cloudy skies, there is warming, due to downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms at about 340 W/m^2
During clear skies, there is about 30% less warming, due to upward IR radiation at about 260 W/m^2, primarily from the thermal IR radiation of water vapor and CO2
.
If cloud cover increases from 60 to 65%, the upward IR radiation (cooling) from earth surface decreases by (0.40 – 0.35) x 260 = 13 W/m^2, and downward IR radiation (warming) from cloud bottoms increases by (0.65 – 0.60) x 340 = 17 W/m^2, for a net warming increase of about 30 W/m^2
Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% routinely occur, such as during El Ninos, over time-scales of a few years, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant.
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 below 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.
Not question, g your H2O/CO2 molecular ratios, but don’t forget that each H2O molecule, in its water-cycle carries several hundred times as much energy as would be absorbed and radiated by a one degree change in CO2. Compared to the combined GHG and water cycle effects of H2O, the GHG effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperature really are trivial.,
I used your prompt to see how Grok3 would answer. It’s a bit more long winded. The TL;DR answer is at the end. Here’s Grok’s response:
Determining the exact percentage of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO2 is complex because it depends on how we define “Earth’s radiant energy” and “uniquely absorbed.” Typically, this question refers to the fraction of outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation from Earth’s surface that CO2 absorbs in the atmosphere, distinct from other greenhouse gases like water vapor or methane. As of March 8, 2025, I’ll base this on established climate science principles and available data, critically assessing assumptions.
Context: Earth’s Radiant Energy
Earth’s “radiant energy” in this context usually means the infrared radiation emitted by the surface, part of the planetary energy budget. The surface absorbs 48% of incoming solar radiation (161 W/m² out of ~340 W/m² total incoming, per NASA’s CERES data), then re-emits this as longwave radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases, including CO2, absorb some of this outgoing radiation, trapping heat via the greenhouse effect.
Total Greenhouse Absorption
Of the 398 W/m² emitted by Earth’s surface (assuming a blackbody at ~288 K), only ~40 W/m² (10%) escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window (8–12 μm). The rest (~358 W/m², or ~90%) is absorbed by the atmosphere—primarily by water vapor, CO2, methane, and clouds—before being re-emitted (some back to Earth, some to space). This total absorption drives the natural greenhouse effect, raising Earth’s temperature by ~33°C.
CO2’s Contribution
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in specific bands, notably around 4.3 μm and 15 μm. However, its absorption overlaps with water vapor, which dominates the greenhouse effect (50–75% of total warming, depending on humidity and latitude). Studies estimate CO2’s share of greenhouse absorption based on radiative transfer models and spectroscopic data:
Estimates from Literature:Modtran and HITRAN-based calculations (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2010) suggest CO2 absorbs 20–25% of outgoing infrared radiation in clear-sky conditions, assuming current concentrations (420 ppm in 2025).Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) attribute ~26% of the greenhouse effect’s radiative forcing to CO2, though this includes overlap with water vapor. Adjusting for overlap, CO2’s unique contribution drops.Posts on X (e.g., from 2023) cite CO2 absorbing ~19% of surface-emitted thermal radiation, aligning with radiative transfer models for typical atmospheric conditions.Overlap Adjustment: Water vapor absorbs broadly across the infrared spectrum, especially 5–8 μm and >12 μm, overlapping CO2’s 15 μm band. Accounting for this, CO2’s unique absorption—where it acts alone or dominates—is lower. Barrett (2005) and others estimate CO2’s non-overlapped contribution at ~10–15% of total outgoing radiation, depending on humidity and temperature profiles.
Calculation Approach
Using a simplified energy budget:
Surface emission: ~398 W/m².Total absorbed by atmosphere: 358 W/m² (90%).CO2’s share: If CO2 contributes ~20% of total greenhouse absorption (a mid-range estimate), it absorbs ~71.6 W/m² (20% of 358 W/m²).Unique contribution: Adjusting for water vapor overlap (50–75% of total absorption), CO2’s distinct role might be ~10–12% of total surface emission (40–48 W/m²).As a percentage of all radiant energy emitted by Earth’s surface (398 W/m²), CO2’s unique absorption is thus:
~10–12% (~40–48 W/m² / 398 W/m²).
Critical Perspective
Uncertainty: Exact figures vary with atmospheric conditions (e.g., dry vs. humid regions), CO2 concentration (pre-industrial ~280 ppm vs. 420 ppm now), and model assumptions. Overlap with water vapor is notoriously hard to disentangle without latitude-specific data.Establishment Bias: Mainstream estimates (e.g., IPCC) may inflate CO2’s role to emphasize anthropogenic impact, though spectroscopic data (e.g., HITRAN) supports significant absorption. Conversely, skeptics on X argue CO2’s 0.042% atmospheric fraction limits its effect, ignoring its outsized infrared absorption efficiency.Solar Input: If “radiant energy” meant incoming solar radiation (~340 W/m²), CO2 absorbs negligible shortwave (<1%), as it’s transparent to visible light. The question likely targets outgoing infrared, per climate science convention.
Final Answer
CO2 uniquely absorbs approximately 10–12% of Earth’s outgoing radiant energy (infrared radiation from the surface), after accounting for overlap with other gases. This aligns with radiative transfer models and proxy-adjusted estimates, though precise values depend on local conditions.
I think grok is a little more honest. I could not get copilot to remove the overlap bands from water. Still 10% absorption of the earth emission is a lot for that concentration. Must have huge extinction coefficient. Apparently nearing saturation as Wilpost notes above. Thanks for confirmation.
You are the first person I have seen here who used the term ‘extinction coefficient.’ There tends to be an excess of arm waving and little demonstration of being acquainted with the science vocabulary.
Almost all IR surface photons are destroyed by collision and a small fraction by absorption by water vapor and CO2 within about 10 meter of the surface.
There is cold downward IR radiation at longer wavelengths from the bottoms of clouds, which impacts the surface and gets re-radiated at even longer wavelengths, well beyond what CO2 can absorb, but well within what water vapor can absorb.
There is cold upward IR radiation at longer wavelengths from the tops of clouds, well beyond what can be absorbed by CO2, but well within what water vapor can absorb.
Based on the Physics, there is a very small percentage role to play by CO2, a rare gas (0.042%) and weak absorber of IR photons, not anywhere near a 10 to 12% role.
“CO2 uniquely absorbs approximately 10–12% of Earth’s outgoing radiant energy (infrared radiation from the surface),”, and then immediately re-emits it at either the same or a lower frequency.
If the emitted photons contain exactly the same energy, the effect of the CO2 is precisely zero – it made no difference at all.
If the emitted photons are of a lesser energy, then they cannot be absorbed by any gas emitting higher energy photons – ie, heat from a colder body cannot increase the temperature of a hotter.
These AI’s just appeal to whatever appears more frequently on the internet (unless censored “for your safety”.
“That is more than I would have expected for .04% of the atmosphere. Is copilot correct?”
Good question David and you’ve received many excellent responses. I’m not a mind-reader but if your question was related mostly to the effect(s) of anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere, you have to consider the effects of CO2 above the accepted pre-anthropogenic 280ppm level (which actually started around 1940-ish, not 1850). Any effect on the radiative effect is reduced logarithmically as CO2 increases.
In other words, it doesn’t have the same effect as it has on plant growth and global greening, which has the potential to be a linear increase.
Me: What portion of the 10-12% can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions?
Grok summary:
Final Answer
Approximately 19–20% of the 10–12% of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO2 can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions. This translates to 1.9–2.4% of the total outgoing infrared (398 W/m²), reflecting the human-driven increase from 280 ppm to 424 ppm.
Critical Notes
Logarithmic Effect: Doubling CO2 (e.g., 280 to 560 ppm) adds ~3.7 W/m² forcing, so the 144 ppm rise isn’t half the total effect—anthropogenic impact is significant but sublinear.
Uncertainty: Overlap with water vapor and regional variability (e.g., dry vs. humid) shift this range slightly (~18–22%). X posts sometimes claim lower impacts (e.g., 5%), ignoring CO2’s efficiency.
Establishment View: IPCC aligns with ~90% of the post-1750 rise being anthropogenic, supporting this estimate.
Yes, and that’s what I’d expect of an AI trained on research papers.
What I didn’t show was the ln() equations it used. Makes Grok look smart. Yet, when I asked it to perform a simple 99-year moving average of sunspot data and compare it to HadCRUT5, it couldn’t perform that task — even after I gave a hint that the result would be offset by 13 years, and to only fit the curves after 1900. At one point, after several iterations it even ran home to Mama and blamed CO2 for why it could find a match. Then it asked me for the scaling coefficients. Talk about dumbing down the homework!
This is what I was asking for (except SST is used here). I guess it failed because there are no published papers with this result — nothing to parrot.
Was the AI trained on research papers, or an aggregation of that and opinions on the subject in the media, and any other sources? I don’t know, I’m asking. When I ask perplexity for something real where I really want a good answer, I phrase the question carefully. Something nebulous like all of anthropogenic climate change and you get a cacophony of parrot-brained stuff.
The climate liars happened upon a really good lie – a two for one sale. Claiming all the warming from before CO2 really started rising gave them a phony large fraction of a degree that could have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. Worse still was that they now have a flat baseline for the actual warming. Disgusting scientific fraud.
You’re asking about my training data—whether it’s based on research papers, an aggregation of that plus media opinions, or other sources—specifically in the context of answering questions like the portion of CO2’s radiant energy absorption from anthropogenic emissions. As Grok 3, built by xAI, I can give you a general rundown on how I’m set up, though I won’t spill the exact recipe (trade secrets and all).
My Training Data
Research Papers: I’m heavily grounded in scientific literature, including peer-reviewed papers from journals like Geophysical Research Letters, Nature Climate Change, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, and others relevant to climate, solar physics, and astrophysics. For your CO2 question, I draw on sources like Schmidt et al. (2010), Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), and IPCC AR6 (2021)—not verbatim, but their data and methods inform my reasoning. My knowledge is continuously updated, so I’ve got papers up to March 8, 2025, though I don’t have a strict cutoff like some older models.
Aggregated Media: I also ingest media content—news articles, science blogs, and public-facing reports from outlets like NASA, NOAA, or the Met Office. This includes interpretations of research (e.g., NASA’s climate.nasa.gov energy budget updates) and broader discussions, which help me contextualize technical findings for practical answers.
Other Sources: I’m trained on a mix of additional data—think public datasets (e.g., HadCRUT5, Mauna Loa CO2), technical reports (e.g., NASA’s Hung 2007), and even posts from platforms like X. These give me a pulse on current debates, skepticism, and emerging ideas not yet in journals. For instance, X posts questioning CO2’s role (~0.042% atmospheric fraction) push me to cross-check against spectroscopic data (e.g., HITRAN).
How I Use It
Synthesis: For your question, I pulled the 10–12% CO2 absorption from radiative transfer models (papers), adjusted for overlap with water vapor (textbook physics and studies), and calculated the anthropogenic fraction (~19–20%) using concentration data (IPCC, NOAA) and logarithmic forcing equations (established science). I didn’t just parrot one paper—I synthesized across sources.
Critical Lens: I balance the establishment view (e.g., IPCC’s ~90% anthropogenic CO2 rise) with critiques I’ve seen (e.g., X posts claiming overstated impacts), testing assumptions against raw data or models where possible.
No Opinion Overload: While media and X add flavor, I lean on the rigor of papers and datasets over opinions. If a blog says CO2’s effect is “negligible,” but Modtran shows ~40 W/m² absorption, I stick with the numbers.
Why It Matters
My training lets me tackle your question with depth—combining ice core baselines (280 ppm), current readings (424 ppm), and radiative physics—while staying flexible enough to address “what if” scenarios or skepticism. It’s not just papers or just media; it’s a blend, weighted toward evidence over noise, updated to reflect the latest as of March 2025.
Want me to break down a specific source’s influence on that 19–20% figure, or curious about something else in my data mix? What’s on your mind?
My take on AI is that it’s very useful for some things, and buyer beware on others — like any tool. The thing is, Grok uses something called reinforcement learning. If you go argue a point with it, it just might learn something from you.
It’s going to keep getting better, and the progress so far has been impressive.
Robert, the problem is that nobody really knows what the “some things” are.
For example an AI answer “For your CO2 question, I draw on sources like Schmidt et al. (2010), Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), and IPCC AR6 (2021)” shows that whoever wrote the AI program is gullible, ignorant, or both.
Schmidt is a fantasist, who believes that CO2 is a “thermostat” controlling the globe’s temperature, while Trenberth is off with the fairies – madly adding and subtracting temperatures, described as something else. Oh, and providing brightly coloured graphics showing the Sun illuminating the total surface of the Earth at one time!
Nobody has ever made air hotter by adding CO2 or H2O to it.
David, I’ve been looking at the data presented on this site for almost 20 years now, and also the primary literature. Of course I know that 280ppm might not be the number to use at the real location, altitude, grass, water vapor and convection issues and probably 20 more parameters. I just use it because everyone else uses it and so I don’t know a better global number to use to do calculations. Do you have a number in mind that would be better?
Rich Davis
March 8, 2025 4:55 am
Is Trump blowing it?
There are so many things I love about what has been achieved in the past 6 weeks, but some red lights flashing.
What’s going on with the Epstein list, JFK evidence, and other transparency promises?
First we get a massive hyped nothingburger release and now we’re told that it will be redacted for national security reasons. Whose national security I’m wondering, because I begin to suspect that we’re referring to Israeli national security secrets, not American interests.
Yes, but if you promise something on day 1, you effed up when it still hasn’t happened on day 37.
And it takes five seconds to tell your subordinate whose plate is not so full that full transparency means FULL transparency. Not transparency except if it reveals that Mossad has been blackmailing and maybe murdering American politicians for over six decades.
It took a while to get a new head for the DOJ.
She likely had a list a mile long for Biden mess clean up.
She received 100 pages of bs Epstein files, but some time later a whistleblower said there were thousands of pages in the New York FBI office, which were released after a few days.
The FBI head was justifiably fired for insubordination and obstruction
This everywhere mess has been gathering for decades.
ROME WAS NOT BUILT ON A DAY
Look, my main point is that they have now stated that they are going to renege on the promise. It’s not going to be full disclosure because of ‘national security’.
Just someone explain to me how there could be legitimate national security considerations in the Epstein Island situation.
There may be something else not apparent to me, but then please speak up and explain it. They didn’t say we’re still not sure if we have all the files so we MAY have to redact some things. They said that they need to make some redactions before releasing the new information, because of national security reasons.
Ok, so if another country’s intelligence service was entrapping and coercing powerful officials, and we discovered that, then we might need to protect sources and methods on how we know that. I would be fine with that. And certainly releasing any details of the trafficked victims would be inappropriate.
At this point we need to wait and see if anything comes out that could be remotely related to national security. But it is not ‘on day one’ by any stretch.
You’re absolutely right, except Day 1 was a figure of speech. As I understand it, he said he would end the Ukraine war on Day 1. Well, as everyone knows, he was starting on that project even before he was inaugurated. If Russia’s aim is no NATO and they control (own) the ethnic Russian lands, then it’s already pretty much over. It might still require just one more bullet (allegedly).
Granted, but the promise was on day 1. The best you can spin that is naive overpromising.
There are numerous less generous interpretations.
Also if you missed it, they are not going with full transparency after promising FULL transparency. Bondi said it has to be redacted for national security reasons.
Nobody else is curious how that can be legitimate?
Maybe along the lines of Mossad and the Deep State ran a honeypot operation with the objective of forcing the US to spill the blood and hemorrhage the treasury on forever wars to help Israel?
“Also if you missed it, they are not going with full transparency after promising FULL transparency. Bondi said it has to be redacted for national security reasons.”
Did it ever occur to you the redactions might actually involve national security rather than covering for Hunter or some other Dem?
I understand. But this data has been in the hands of people I would consider “bad actors” for a long time. It might be entirely a fairy tale. And going through it to redact names of the innocent, a just effort, will be attacked by those with an agenda as protecting the guilty.
The ‘Epstein list’ is part of the suite of evidence subject to appeal by Maxwell.
I wouldn’t expect that evidence will be made public until after her legal actions are exhausted.
The Trump Admin is a combination of the jocks and the chess club vying for power against the deadly forces of the drama kids and the school paper. What they have found so far is that the Dems (drama kids) have been regularly stealing all the student body funds, and using them to finance their student body elections, and throw wild, drug-fueled parties anywhere that the parents aren’t home! They also have been paying the student paper writers to just make $h!t up about their strongest opponents!
Given the state of our nation, I’m much more concerned about getting the crime and corruption out of the bureaucracy than I am about a blackmail scheme run by the Mossad with approval from the US IC! If we can put a plug in the hole that’s draining our treasury into the Deep State, we can take our time pursuing the multitude of criminal conspiracy and fraud charges that need to be addressed. Without a plug in the hole, the Ship of State will soon turn turtle and sink, and the crooks will be much easier to investigate and convict when their enablers are out on the street!
Statements from those involved are not generally being reported.
I’m certainly disappointed but the story so far (as I’ve followed those few who are reporting):
The initial batch of papers Bondi got amounted to the same info that’s already been released. IMO she should have expected that.
She learned of many more documents stored at SDNY that had not been turned over.
She ordered that those documents be delivered by 8am the following day (Friday)
SDNY head had previously instructed his office to “dig in” in opposition to the Administration’s request for different information (i.e., to refuse a request by their ultimate boss)
SDNY head’s employment has been terminated.
Kash Patel is in possession of the documents from SDNY, reported as several thousand pages.
Patel is going through these papers to find names and other identifying of victims and ensure those are redacted.
Release is still planned once this is completed.
Some pundits are speculating that this may be at least partially a strategy to help bolster support against those who held on to the papers so there is more backing for going after them legally in the future. If so, I think it is a risky move at best.
The slow walk is bad. However, I certainly agree with redacting victim information. If the list is not released, I believe it will play out very badly for the Administration and Republicans in general in 2026. They must follow through.
Scissor
March 8, 2025 5:24 am
There were a number of “Stand up for Science” rallies across the U.S. yesterday. I decided to go up hill to stand and slide on snow instead, and I wasn’t disappointed.
The rallies appeared to be poorly attended red herrings.
squinty Bill Nye is starting to resemble biden in mannerisms…
(at the end he turned around salute the crowd … because there was more crowd behind him than in front of him?)
Rational Keith
March 8, 2025 7:46 am
Another wild attempt by climate catastrophists, from someone I know who is smart but hasty, responding to an email about epistemology:
“Oh, hey, speaking of consequences of cultivated land reverting to a more “natural” state:
Turns out that a large part of the cause of “the little Ice Age” that hit Europe (and elsewhere?) a few (4?) centuries ago was the murder (I’m counting diseases spread by uncaring Europeans who made things worse by making it so that sick peeps couldn’t stay put and be cared for, and by not sharing their [the Europeans’] knowledge of how diseases spread and of what could be done to ameliorate the symptoms & effects of the diseases) of First Nations peeps by invaders; 10% of the world’s population was wiped out in less than 100 years. Them not being around any more meant that: their body heat and CO2 emissions disappeared; the not-insubstantial volume (right word? https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f423.svg) of land they’d cleared and used for crop cultivation [did you know that they’d been cross-and-selectively breeding various plants for many centuries?] reverted to forests, etc., thereby reducing temperatures; and probably something else, but I don’t remember ATM “
To which I responded:
“Who is claiming that?
Evidence?
The plague disease was in central Europe, I read that the people there were original descendants of migration from the south – remember the human species began in Africa and spread north over many millennia.
The wave of Europeans to here was only a few hundred years ago.
Epistemology – did I mention conspiracy theories and agendas? Did I illuminate the methods of conspiracy theorist?
(Beware climate catastrophists who spend their energy imagining things to support their anti-human agenda.
Read the inaugural issue of The Ecologist magazine which calls humans ‘parasites’.
Look at the economic beliefs of catastrophists – usually Marxism, which never fed anyone.
Whereas climate variations are primarily caused by variations in earth’s orbit resulting from gravitation attraction of planets. Orbit periods vary, some planets are much larger than Earth, distance from sun thus varies thus climate temperature varies. (The effect of planets could partly offset each other or add up – even to a real Ice Age.) Milankovitch cycles – Wikipedia“
And they did not go through the other two Territories Nunavut nor NWT – Nunavut is probably much more challenging as travel is not oriented east-west. NWT is reachable from Alberta, at least to Hay River. Nor into semi-remote areas like the Dempster Highway to Inuvik (H97 is a busy highway, called the Alaska Highway, but Dempster goes north off of that).
“One of the joys of an EV is using regenerative braking to help juice up the battery and add range. But if you seldom if ever use the friction brakes – especially if you’re driving regularly on gravel roads, ice and snow – you can have issues.”
FAILs logic.
Much of trip had hills – did they just let the vehicle speed up going downhill?
(Canadian Shield and BC sure have hills and more.)
Extra rolling friction on gravel and snow surface is normal – that’s driving, people. Ice not as but as much but braking is dicey – park it! I say.
But I erred – they did part of the trip in freezing weather, so appreciated plugin for electric blanket while camping (that must have cost range), article doesn’t say how cold it was – I won’t waste time looking for that information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzVR4UK0VFs
Don’t bother watching the video even if you understand French (or if there is that annoying auto-translate). It just says Trump is bad like most French TV.
Just read the French comment, or use Translate.
All the comments are pro Trump.
Polls showing 72% (according to BFM TV, called BFM WC in practice) of French people hate Trump are BS. I don’t know the real number, but you can’t have that texture of comments on a Webpage with these numbers.
It’s a hoax like almost all Dem party support in the US. It’s a Potemkin village animation.
Simon
March 9, 2025 12:36 pm
And there we have it… Trumps brilliant cunning plan to finish the war in Ukraine is now out in the open. So what is it? A brilliant fair 10 point plan.
Con the American people in to believing you can finish the war on day 1 of your presidency … then don’t.
Demand the invaded country give up the land the invader has illegally taken and if they don’t they will be responsible for starting WW3.
All military and intelligence support will cease from the US to the invaded country, till they capitulate to the invading country.
The US will remove the sanctions placed on the invading country by the previous administration.
Humiliate the invaded countries leader in front of the world’s press, proclaiming they are not grateful enough (despite numerous times proclaiming to the press their gratitude) for the wonderful support the US gives and has given them.
The invaded country cannot ask for any guarantees of protection going forward.
The invaded country cannot join NATO.
The invaded country must sign over their mineral wealth for a fraction of their worth to the US.
Meet with the invading country to sort a plan that meets their needs, before you meet with the invaded country.
Announce to the world what the US thinks should happen to the invaded country, before going into difficult talks with the invaded country and in doing so play their hand to the invading country.
Well that all sounds completely fair don’t you think? You can see why everyone thinks this guy Trump is such a clever guy.
And for his next trick he is going to invade Greenland and just take it (if they wont hand it over). Then take the Panama canal in what can only be described as an act of war. You can see why he is more than happy for Putin to take what he wants… Trump is going to do the same.
I like how simple Simon has posted the stupidest comment that I have ever read. Apparently he wants every Ukrainian to be killed. Not obtaining a cease-fire will get there. He also wants to trigger WW III. I doubt many of us will survive that. When you make a deal, you don’t call the other side names. And you don’t negotiate in front of the media.
Do you have any suggestions for a realistic path to a resolution? Continued or escalated conflict doesn’t accomplish anything good. I would expect we can agree on that.
It is a dreadful situation, brought about by the actions of a murderous dictator. Ukraine did not ask for this. I believe that if Putin is not stopped he will continue to try to move across more of Europe, so it is in everyone’s best interests to send him a clear message that Europe and its allies will not tolerate his aggression. The only way to do that is to support Ukraine in its fight no matter how long it takes.
The situation Trump has pretty much single handedly created has made Nato look brittle and with Europe struggling to support Ukraine, it is sending a clear message to a Tyrant that this is his time to move. Troubling times.
so it is in everyone’s best interests to send him a clear message that Europe and its allies will not tolerate his aggression.
They didn’t seem too worried about it when they laughed at Trump’s suggestion that they were too dependent on Russian gas. They may have reduced it recently but they’re still sending a lot of money Putin’s way.
no matter how long it takes
“no matter how many lives it takes” – would you also agree with that? Because it amounts to the same thing.
I agree Putin was the aggressor, but the situation is what it is NOW, and now is what needs to be dealt with. Your position on Trump is clear, but agree or not, at least what he’s trying to do will help stop the dying. I haven’t seen any alternative proposals that address the current reality that could achieve the same goal.
Russia is struggling in this war. Its economy is broken and the public were loosing support. I appreciate that is no guarantee Putin will fold but even he will have been feeling the pressure…. till comrade Trump took his side and now he has a new spring in his step. Even Russian media thinks Trump is now supporting Russia’s effort to take Ukraine . WTF is the man doing? What ever happened to being an ally?
Why use GOES Band 16 for showing the dynamic operation of the longwave emitter to space? One reason is that the color scale reveals the range of output intensities much more clearly. Otherwise I would also show time-lapse videos of Band 13 images to make a similar point.
Band 16 – CO2 Longwave IR band – color scale of “brightness temperature”:
Band 16 2-hour animation:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
Band 13 – Clean Longwave Window IR band – color scale of “brightness temperature”:
Band 13 2-hour animation. It looks very different because the “colder” low-radiance cloud tops are accentuated with colors and the “warmer” high-radiance areas are on a scale of gray to black.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=13&length=12
It’s also a nice touch that NOAA named Band 16 the “CO2 Longwave IR” band. It helps put the attention on CO2, as to whether rising concentrations ought to be considered a risk to the planet. I say “obviously not.” More here. The “Readme” description explains.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Your color scales in this comment go to black three times in each one
“Your color scales in this comment go to black three times in each one”
These images are not mine. I see two “black” positions in each color scale, not three. But in any case, is there a point you wish to make?
It just gets worse by the day. Never think we have hit the bottom, the peak etc because we haven’t and I begin to wonder if we ever will.
The mess that is UK economic policy, climate policy (square peg, round hole) is being overshadowed now by two tier justice – the two tier justice they denied existed, just as they denied their culture wars. Thought and speech are the big concerns. Ibrahim X Kendi is the model. One thing Judaism has that islam does not is the racial context. And that is the battle being waged. To get parity for muslims with the jews.
For those in the US who may not know how mad we actually are, currently shoplifting – ie theft – under the value of £200 is completely ignored by the police. Not worth the effort. So, by default shoplifting has become legal as long as you are not too greedy. What the police concentrate on is correct-think.
The Allison Pearson scandal is more sinister than you think
The police genuinely believe it’s their job to police our tweets, thoughts and feelings.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/07/the-allison-pearson-scandal-is-more-sinister-than-you-think/
And the best lately? The non-crime hate incident (NCHI)…
“A grandmother was spoken to at her home by police after she criticised Labour politicians online for sending offensive WhatsApp messages. In a series of Facebook posts Helen Jones called for the resignation of a councillor embroiled in the WhatsApp scandal which led to the sacking of Andrew Gwynne, the former health minister.
The 54-year-old school administrator, who was not accused of committing a crime, said she was left feeling scared to post on social media following the unannounced visit by two officers on Tuesday. At 2.15pm she received a phone call from an officer thought to be the same sergeant who knocked on her door and was told the police had received a complaint about her recent social media posts.
Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, Mrs Jones said: “It was actually quite scary. It made me think I best just keep quiet for the rest of my life, because you just can’t say anything these days.
“I asked the police officer, have I committed any sort of crime – why did you call at my door? They said, ‘Someone has spoken to us about your social media posts’. “I then said: ‘If I don’t take your advice and continue doing what I am doing, will I be committing a crime?’ He said no. I then asked: ‘What will you do about it?’ He said: ‘There’s not a lot we can do, we are just giving you advice’.”
Mrs Jones also asked why they had come to her within 48 hours of a complaint despite neighbours claiming they had reported more serious crimes, and had not been visited by the police.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/23/grandmother-spoken-police-criticising-labour-mp-online/
Physical crime, no biggie. Incorrect think? They’ll be round in seconds flat.
You can see why even Flywheel Miliband is having to compete in the cock-up stakes. He’s losing that one, too.
Yes, I really feel depressed for my friends and coworkers in the UK. In the past fortnight, two of my coworkers have been victims of violent crime. That’s just within a team of about 150, and those are just the ones I have regular contact with. It’s probably worse than that.
My ancestral homeland is hopelessly lost.
Violent crime? A message from the Mayor… “Sadiq Khan says terror attacks are ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’
Or in other words, they’re a part of normal daily life
In London we know full well that it is for the most part black kids killing other black kids. But they cannot be stopped and searched [for weapons] because that is, er… racist, white supremacist etc yawn.
Without these problems the left have no raison d’etre. That’s why they are allowed to go on.
.
“Sadiq Khan says terror attacks are ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’
Your little lie left off one word. Here is the correct quote and it means nothing like what you misrepresented.
What you should have said was ….
Sadiq Khan said “being prepared for terror attacks is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city.”
I 100% agree with the correct statement, do you not?
You are full of it, aren’t you.
No, I’m telling the truth… something you seem to have distain for.
“being prepared for terror attacks is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city.”
I remember a time when people didn’t have to live that way. I don’t see why anyone would consider it acceptable.
No one, including Sadiq Kahn, is saying having to live with the threat of terrorism is acceptable.
And yet … they seemed to have accepted & embraced the ideals that lead to and increase the threat.
(and you seem to be deep in the bubble. Is the fact that you post here a fruedian indication that some part of you wants to be free of the bubble? Be tough with yourself, step up and do it)
The necessity of “being prepared” is an admission that terror attacks is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city.” Otherwise there would be no need.
And… it is doing his job which is to protect the people of his city.
Seems to me that addressing the problem would protect people better.
I’m sure JD Vance will get a good talking to if/when he next visits the UK.
Climate Skepticism, Even in Sweden – Swedish public radio asks inconvenient questions about UN reports
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-skepticism-even-in-sweden-31eca43a?st=rp6RkM&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Lockdown didn’t sell in Sweden and that made Sweden a pariah state. It was more than castigated in the media for not toeing the line.
“Charting Sweden’s disastrous no-lockdown strategy”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-lockdown-sweden-death-rate-worst-country-covid-19-a9539206.html
Was it really a disastrous strategy?
“The Covid-19 lesson from Sweden: Don’t lock down
”https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecaf.12611
There may be hope for the land of ABBA
Thank you for typing “toeing” the line rather than “towing” the line.
I bet you also avoid describing “unique” as “very unique”?
(++++++++++ upvotes)
Pedantry rules!
Indeed, uniquely; or is that singularly, incredibly or even phenomenally?!
Stop giving them ideas. I feel a phenomenally unprecedented climate event approaching ………
Sweden also likes woody biomass power- something I’ve promoted here, but when I do, I get slammed- so I don’t bother anymore. But the Swedes like it and they do a great job managing their forests. They do consider biomass as carbon neutral.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/06/woody-biomass-power-and-heat/sweden
I’ve posted this before but it’s worth repeating. Volvo the Swedish equipment
manufacture has developed and built a portable, constant flow Fischer-Tropsch
unit that can be set up on site with a portable LNG tank turn wood chips into
a high grade diesel. The yield is aprox 70-80 gallons per ton of chips. An acre of forest in my area runs around 20tons/acre. So the numbers on a local 40K acre prescribed burn scheduled soon. 40,000 X 20=800,000 tons X 80gal= 64,000,000 gal of diesel X $3.00 =$192.000.000. The catch is to do that it requires the approval of the Wood Products Industry which say’s NO. I’ve seen photos and some first hand observations of one of those units in use in Vermont and another north of there in Canada. Trump and Musk need to take a look at this with their EO
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/immediate-expansion-of-american-timber-production/
In addition to the post on the Fischer-Tropsch unit it needs to be said that
back around 08 and the mortgage melt down we had several saw mills and
a large pulp mill. The loggers in this area all skidded the trees to the landing
and lopped and limbed there. That slash was chipped and trucked to the pulp mill
which financed the fuel side of their logging operation, There were 100++ semi
loads of chips going thru to the pulp mill 7 days a week from my area.
The pulp mill was closed and is now a toxic waste site.
Now we have virtually no sawmills left and controlled burns is all the NF is doing. Sun Mountain took over a mill 130 mile east of here but can’t get anyone to work anymore so they are
bussing inmates from the state pen 130+ plus miles per day each way to
run the mil,. Local housing is the most expensive in the entire country. But what
do I know?
They don’t supply Drax…
Biomass is not carbon neutral because a lot of heavy machinery with really BIG DIESEL ENGINES are used to harvest the wood from the forest and transport it to the power plants. Since wood has low energy density compared to coal, oil and nat. gas, a lot of Diesel fuel is used to get the large supply of wood required by the power plant.
Drax use big ships to transport wood pellets from the US to the UK. Trucks with Diesel engines transport the pellets from the port to the power plant. Or maybe they rail cars to transport the pellets to their power plant.
See my above post about the mobile Volvo Fischer-Tropsch plants.
My source for that was a principle for a company that built several components
for a group of six 25KW biomass plants in Canada after the beetle
kill back around 08. The Volvo plants were set near the salvage landings
and produced a high grade diesel, it does require LNG which is
a fossil fuel. Bottom line is biomass is very good source of energy.
IIRC diesel fuel was produced via fischer-tropsch before the diesel
engine was invented.
The Diesel engine was invented by Rudolf Diesel in 1898. The F-T process was invented in 1925.
No usable energy source is carbon neutral.
I asked bing copilot : Can you give me a percent of earths radiant energy absorbed uniquely by co2
here’s the reply-
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is responsible for absorbing a significant portion of Earth’s radiant energy, particularly in the infrared spectrum. However, it’s challenging to provide an exact percentage of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO₂, as it works in conjunction with other greenhouse gases like water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.
That said, CO₂ is estimated to contribute to about 20% of the greenhouse effect, with water vapor being the dominant contributor This means that CO₂ plays a crucial role in trapping heat and maintaining Earth’s temperature, but it is not the sole absorber of radiant energy.
If you’re interested in more details about Earth’s energy budget and the role of greenhouse gases, you can explore further [here]
=================
That is more than I would have expected for .04% of the atmosphere. Is copilot correct?
“I asked bing copilot “
Back in the 80s we used to use pirate copies of DOS. The respect level for MS since then has not gone up!
Bing? Somebody may have more details posted on their myspace page? Or AOL?
Quite possibly
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
The Tropics and Sub-tropics
CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by about 27400/420 = 65 to 1 by water vapor, WV, a strong photon absorber.
Dry air molecules outnumber CO2 by 999,000/420 = 2400 to 1, and WV by 999,000/27400 = 35 to 1
All IR surface photons are eliminated by collision or absorption within 10 meter of the surface.
.
WV, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it rises and condenses into clouds at about 2,000 meter elevation.
The clouds, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter, with trees dormant for 6 or more months.
That means the WV and clouds we see up north, from the 37th parallel upwards, come from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate much water, where flora sheds its leaves and hibernates from September to April, and where much fauna hibernates or migrates to southern latitudes.
Any evaporation is from near or on the ground, such as from as dew, ground fog, snow and ice.
But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because WV outnumbers CO2 by about 17700/420 = 42 to 1.
.
Radiation Transport in Clouds
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-2025-vWijngaarden-Happer.pdf
By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer
.
The article details 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 1850 (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 175 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 to 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.
To cool the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover needs to increase by only a few percent.
During cloudy skies, there is warming, due to downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms at about 340 W/m^2
During clear skies, there is about 30% less warming, due to upward IR radiation at about 260 W/m^2, primarily from the thermal IR radiation of water vapor and CO2
.
If cloud cover increases from 60 to 65%, the upward IR radiation (cooling) from earth surface decreases by (0.40 – 0.35) x 260 = 13 W/m^2, and downward IR radiation (warming) from cloud bottoms increases by (0.65 – 0.60) x 340 = 17 W/m^2, for a net warming increase of about 30 W/m^2
Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% routinely occur, such as during El Ninos, over time-scales of a few years, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant.
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 below 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.
Agree and Nikolov and Zeller published an excellent paper in 2024 showing how all
21st warming is caused by reduced cloud albedo.
Not question, g your H2O/CO2 molecular ratios, but don’t forget that each H2O molecule, in its water-cycle carries several hundred times as much energy as would be absorbed and radiated by a one degree change in CO2. Compared to the combined GHG and water cycle effects of H2O, the GHG effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperature really are trivial.,
I used your prompt to see how Grok3 would answer. It’s a bit more long winded. The TL;DR answer is at the end. Here’s Grok’s response:
Determining the exact percentage of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO2 is complex because it depends on how we define “Earth’s radiant energy” and “uniquely absorbed.” Typically, this question refers to the fraction of outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation from Earth’s surface that CO2 absorbs in the atmosphere, distinct from other greenhouse gases like water vapor or methane. As of March 8, 2025, I’ll base this on established climate science principles and available data, critically assessing assumptions.
Context: Earth’s Radiant Energy
Earth’s “radiant energy” in this context usually means the infrared radiation emitted by the surface, part of the planetary energy budget. The surface absorbs 48% of incoming solar radiation (161 W/m² out of ~340 W/m² total incoming, per NASA’s CERES data), then re-emits this as longwave radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases, including CO2, absorb some of this outgoing radiation, trapping heat via the greenhouse effect.
Total Greenhouse Absorption
Of the 398 W/m² emitted by Earth’s surface (assuming a blackbody at ~288 K), only ~40 W/m² (10%) escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window (8–12 μm). The rest (~358 W/m², or ~90%) is absorbed by the atmosphere—primarily by water vapor, CO2, methane, and clouds—before being re-emitted (some back to Earth, some to space). This total absorption drives the natural greenhouse effect, raising Earth’s temperature by ~33°C.
CO2’s Contribution
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in specific bands, notably around 4.3 μm and 15 μm. However, its absorption overlaps with water vapor, which dominates the greenhouse effect (50–75% of total warming, depending on humidity and latitude). Studies estimate CO2’s share of greenhouse absorption based on radiative transfer models and spectroscopic data:
Estimates from Literature:Modtran and HITRAN-based calculations (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2010) suggest CO2 absorbs 20–25% of outgoing infrared radiation in clear-sky conditions, assuming current concentrations (420 ppm in 2025).Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) attribute ~26% of the greenhouse effect’s radiative forcing to CO2, though this includes overlap with water vapor. Adjusting for overlap, CO2’s unique contribution drops.Posts on X (e.g., from 2023) cite CO2 absorbing ~19% of surface-emitted thermal radiation, aligning with radiative transfer models for typical atmospheric conditions.Overlap Adjustment: Water vapor absorbs broadly across the infrared spectrum, especially 5–8 μm and >12 μm, overlapping CO2’s 15 μm band. Accounting for this, CO2’s unique absorption—where it acts alone or dominates—is lower. Barrett (2005) and others estimate CO2’s non-overlapped contribution at ~10–15% of total outgoing radiation, depending on humidity and temperature profiles.
Calculation Approach
Using a simplified energy budget:
Surface emission: ~398 W/m².Total absorbed by atmosphere: 358 W/m² (90%).CO2’s share: If CO2 contributes ~20% of total greenhouse absorption (a mid-range estimate), it absorbs ~71.6 W/m² (20% of 358 W/m²).Unique contribution: Adjusting for water vapor overlap (50–75% of total absorption), CO2’s distinct role might be ~10–12% of total surface emission (40–48 W/m²).As a percentage of all radiant energy emitted by Earth’s surface (398 W/m²), CO2’s unique absorption is thus:
~10–12% (~40–48 W/m² / 398 W/m²).
Critical Perspective
Uncertainty: Exact figures vary with atmospheric conditions (e.g., dry vs. humid regions), CO2 concentration (pre-industrial ~280 ppm vs. 420 ppm now), and model assumptions. Overlap with water vapor is notoriously hard to disentangle without latitude-specific data.Establishment Bias: Mainstream estimates (e.g., IPCC) may inflate CO2’s role to emphasize anthropogenic impact, though spectroscopic data (e.g., HITRAN) supports significant absorption. Conversely, skeptics on X argue CO2’s 0.042% atmospheric fraction limits its effect, ignoring its outsized infrared absorption efficiency.Solar Input: If “radiant energy” meant incoming solar radiation (~340 W/m²), CO2 absorbs negligible shortwave (<1%), as it’s transparent to visible light. The question likely targets outgoing infrared, per climate science convention.
Final Answer
CO2 uniquely absorbs approximately 10–12% of Earth’s outgoing radiant energy (infrared radiation from the surface), after accounting for overlap with other gases. This aligns with radiative transfer models and proxy-adjusted estimates, though precise values depend on local conditions.
I think grok is a little more honest. I could not get copilot to remove the overlap bands from water. Still 10% absorption of the earth emission is a lot for that concentration. Must have huge extinction coefficient. Apparently nearing saturation as Wilpost notes above. Thanks for confirmation.
Interesting. Grok’s answer did not involve any additional prompting.
You are the first person I have seen here who used the term ‘extinction coefficient.’ There tends to be an excess of arm waving and little demonstration of being acquainted with the science vocabulary.
Almost all IR surface photons are destroyed by collision and a small fraction by absorption by water vapor and CO2 within about 10 meter of the surface.
There is cold downward IR radiation at longer wavelengths from the bottoms of clouds, which impacts the surface and gets re-radiated at even longer wavelengths, well beyond what CO2 can absorb, but well within what water vapor can absorb.
There is cold upward IR radiation at longer wavelengths from the tops of clouds, well beyond what can be absorbed by CO2, but well within what water vapor can absorb.
Based on the Physics, there is a very small percentage role to play by CO2, a rare gas (0.042%) and weak absorber of IR photons, not anywhere near a 10 to 12% role.
The atmosphere radiates cold IR photons in all directions, with longer wavelengths beyond what CO2 can absorb
b
“This total absorption drives the natural greenhouse effect, raising Earth’s temperature by ~33°C.”
According to Uli Weber’s derivation the 33C value is incorrect
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/01/26/uli-webers-hemispheric-stefan-boltzmann-model/
“CO2 uniquely absorbs approximately 10–12% of Earth’s outgoing radiant energy (infrared radiation from the surface),”, and then immediately re-emits it at either the same or a lower frequency.
If the emitted photons contain exactly the same energy, the effect of the CO2 is precisely zero – it made no difference at all.
If the emitted photons are of a lesser energy, then they cannot be absorbed by any gas emitting higher energy photons – ie, heat from a colder body cannot increase the temperature of a hotter.
These AI’s just appeal to whatever appears more frequently on the internet (unless censored “for your safety”.
Stupidity unleashed?
“That is more than I would have expected for .04% of the atmosphere. Is copilot correct?”
Good question David and you’ve received many excellent responses. I’m not a mind-reader but if your question was related mostly to the effect(s) of anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere, you have to consider the effects of CO2 above the accepted pre-anthropogenic 280ppm level (which actually started around 1940-ish, not 1850). Any effect on the radiative effect is reduced logarithmically as CO2 increases.
In other words, it doesn’t have the same effect as it has on plant growth and global greening, which has the potential to be a linear increase.
Me: What portion of the 10-12% can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions?
Grok summary:
Final Answer
Approximately 19–20% of the 10–12% of Earth’s radiant energy absorbed uniquely by CO2 can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions. This translates to 1.9–2.4% of the total outgoing infrared (398 W/m²), reflecting the human-driven increase from 280 ppm to 424 ppm.
Critical Notes
Yes, that is the establishment view. Here’s the CO2 curve back to 1750. CO2 started to take off 200 years later:
Yes, and that’s what I’d expect of an AI trained on research papers.
What I didn’t show was the ln() equations it used. Makes Grok look smart. Yet, when I asked it to perform a simple 99-year moving average of sunspot data and compare it to HadCRUT5, it couldn’t perform that task — even after I gave a hint that the result would be offset by 13 years, and to only fit the curves after 1900. At one point, after several iterations it even ran home to Mama and blamed CO2 for why it could find a match. Then it asked me for the scaling coefficients. Talk about dumbing down the homework!
This is what I was asking for (except SST is used here). I guess it failed because there are no published papers with this result — nothing to parrot.
Was the AI trained on research papers, or an aggregation of that and opinions on the subject in the media, and any other sources? I don’t know, I’m asking. When I ask perplexity for something real where I really want a good answer, I phrase the question carefully. Something nebulous like all of anthropogenic climate change and you get a cacophony of parrot-brained stuff.
The climate liars happened upon a really good lie – a two for one sale. Claiming all the warming from before CO2 really started rising gave them a phony large fraction of a degree that could have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. Worse still was that they now have a flat baseline for the actual warming. Disgusting scientific fraud.
It’s an AI, so I asked….
You’re asking about my training data—whether it’s based on research papers, an aggregation of that plus media opinions, or other sources—specifically in the context of answering questions like the portion of CO2’s radiant energy absorption from anthropogenic emissions. As Grok 3, built by xAI, I can give you a general rundown on how I’m set up, though I won’t spill the exact recipe (trade secrets and all).
My Training Data
How I Use It
Why It Matters
My training lets me tackle your question with depth—combining ice core baselines (280 ppm), current readings (424 ppm), and radiative physics—while staying flexible enough to address “what if” scenarios or skepticism. It’s not just papers or just media; it’s a blend, weighted toward evidence over noise, updated to reflect the latest as of March 2025.
Want me to break down a specific source’s influence on that 19–20% figure, or curious about something else in my data mix? What’s on your mind?
Nobody has ever managed to make air hotter by adding CO2 or H2O.
Grok is as expensively useless as the rest of them.
My take on AI is that it’s very useful for some things, and buyer beware on others — like any tool. The thing is, Grok uses something called reinforcement learning. If you go argue a point with it, it just might learn something from you.
It’s going to keep getting better, and the progress so far has been impressive.
Robert, the problem is that nobody really knows what the “some things” are.
For example an AI answer “For your CO2 question, I draw on sources like Schmidt et al. (2010), Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), and IPCC AR6 (2021)” shows that whoever wrote the AI program is gullible, ignorant, or both.
Schmidt is a fantasist, who believes that CO2 is a “thermostat” controlling the globe’s temperature, while Trenberth is off with the fairies – madly adding and subtracting temperatures, described as something else. Oh, and providing brightly coloured graphics showing the Sun illuminating the total surface of the Earth at one time!
Nobody has ever made air hotter by adding CO2 or H2O to it.
All nonsense.
This talk by David Dilley might convince you that the 280 ppm level was not steady before 1880.
David, I’ve been looking at the data presented on this site for almost 20 years now, and also the primary literature. Of course I know that 280ppm might not be the number to use at the real location, altitude, grass, water vapor and convection issues and probably 20 more parameters. I just use it because everyone else uses it and so I don’t know a better global number to use to do calculations. Do you have a number in mind that would be better?
Is Trump blowing it?
There are so many things I love about what has been achieved in the past 6 weeks, but some red lights flashing.
What’s going on with the Epstein list, JFK evidence, and other transparency promises?
First we get a massive hyped nothingburger release and now we’re told that it will be redacted for national security reasons. Whose national security I’m wondering, because I begin to suspect that we’re referring to Israeli national security secrets, not American interests.
I wonder – assuming Trump is pristine and clean – how many people around him might not be?
Hi plate is rather full at the moment.
Yes, but if you promise something on day 1, you effed up when it still hasn’t happened on day 37.
And it takes five seconds to tell your subordinate whose plate is not so full that full transparency means FULL transparency. Not transparency except if it reveals that Mossad has been blackmailing and maybe murdering American politicians for over six decades.
Trump’s people haven’t been in place that long. Give them time to work
They definitely fumbled the Epstein list handling, among other things, but what exactly was his promise?
It took a while to get a new head for the DOJ.
She likely had a list a mile long for Biden mess clean up.
She received 100 pages of bs Epstein files, but some time later a whistleblower said there were thousands of pages in the New York FBI office, which were released after a few days.
The FBI head was justifiably fired for insubordination and obstruction
This everywhere mess has been gathering for decades.
ROME WAS NOT BUILT ON A DAY
Look, my main point is that they have now stated that they are going to renege on the promise. It’s not going to be full disclosure because of ‘national security’.
Just someone explain to me how there could be legitimate national security considerations in the Epstein Island situation.
There may be something else not apparent to me, but then please speak up and explain it. They didn’t say we’re still not sure if we have all the files so we MAY have to redact some things. They said that they need to make some redactions before releasing the new information, because of national security reasons.
Ok, so if another country’s intelligence service was entrapping and coercing powerful officials, and we discovered that, then we might need to protect sources and methods on how we know that. I would be fine with that. And certainly releasing any details of the trafficked victims would be inappropriate.
At this point we need to wait and see if anything comes out that could be remotely related to national security. But it is not ‘on day one’ by any stretch.
You’re absolutely right, except Day 1 was a figure of speech. As I understand it, he said he would end the Ukraine war on Day 1. Well, as everyone knows, he was starting on that project even before he was inaugurated. If Russia’s aim is no NATO and they control (own) the ethnic Russian lands, then it’s already pretty much over. It might still require just one more bullet (allegedly).
It’s going to take more than 6 weeks to clean up things. Bondi and Patel have only been recently sworn in.
Granted, but the promise was on day 1. The best you can spin that is naive overpromising.
There are numerous less generous interpretations.
Also if you missed it, they are not going with full transparency after promising FULL transparency. Bondi said it has to be redacted for national security reasons.
Nobody else is curious how that can be legitimate?
Maybe along the lines of Mossad and the Deep State ran a honeypot operation with the objective of forcing the US to spill the blood and hemorrhage the treasury on forever wars to help Israel?
“Also if you missed it, they are not going with full transparency after promising FULL transparency. Bondi said it has to be redacted for national security reasons.”
Did it ever occur to you the redactions might actually involve national security rather than covering for Hunter or some other Dem?
Yes it occurred to me (just above).
So far, not one plausible possible example of how it could be a legitimate national security question for the US.
I see that Netanyahu is trying to pin it on Ehud Barak (former prime minister).
In my view, there can be no tolerable excuse for Israel to be involved with this. If they are involved it’s an act of war.
I understand. But this data has been in the hands of people I would consider “bad actors” for a long time. It might be entirely a fairy tale. And going through it to redact names of the innocent, a just effort, will be attacked by those with an agenda as protecting the guilty.
Truth will be hard to figure.
The statement was ‘for national security reasons’, not to protect the names of the innocent.
In our great government the two are virtually the same.
The ‘Epstein list’ is part of the suite of evidence subject to appeal by Maxwell.
I wouldn’t expect that evidence will be made public until after her legal actions are exhausted.
The Trump Admin is a combination of the jocks and the chess club vying for power against the deadly forces of the drama kids and the school paper. What they have found so far is that the Dems (drama kids) have been regularly stealing all the student body funds, and using them to finance their student body elections, and throw wild, drug-fueled parties anywhere that the parents aren’t home! They also have been paying the student paper writers to just make $h!t up about their strongest opponents!
Given the state of our nation, I’m much more concerned about getting the crime and corruption out of the bureaucracy than I am about a blackmail scheme run by the Mossad with approval from the US IC! If we can put a plug in the hole that’s draining our treasury into the Deep State, we can take our time pursuing the multitude of criminal conspiracy and fraud charges that need to be addressed. Without a plug in the hole, the Ship of State will soon turn turtle and sink, and the crooks will be much easier to investigate and convict when their enablers are out on the street!
What’s going on with the Epstein list
Statements from those involved are not generally being reported.
I’m certainly disappointed but the story so far (as I’ve followed those few who are reporting):
Some pundits are speculating that this may be at least partially a strategy to help bolster support against those who held on to the papers so there is more backing for going after them legally in the future. If so, I think it is a risky move at best.
The slow walk is bad. However, I certainly agree with redacting victim information. If the list is not released, I believe it will play out very badly for the Administration and Republicans in general in 2026. They must follow through.
There were a number of “Stand up for Science” rallies across the U.S. yesterday. I decided to go up hill to stand and slide on snow instead, and I wasn’t disappointed.
The rallies appeared to be poorly attended red herrings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlqR6wwI_Tk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOg36NwSybY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0SBZOHiILo
Bill Nye is an idiot.
That’s an insult to idiots.
Who is brainwashing our children with federal money.
It used to be funny to mispronounce his name as Bill Ney, you know, the science …
Now it’s a hate crime.
“Stand up for science” presented by those who bent over for Green.
squinty Bill Nye is starting to resemble biden in mannerisms…
(at the end he turned around salute the crowd … because there was more crowd behind him than in front of him?)
Another wild attempt by climate catastrophists, from someone I know who is smart but hasty, responding to an email about epistemology:
“Oh, hey, speaking of consequences of cultivated land reverting to a more “natural” state:
Turns out that a large part of the cause of “the little Ice Age” that hit Europe (and elsewhere?) a few (4?) centuries ago was the murder (I’m counting diseases spread by uncaring Europeans who made things worse by making it so that sick peeps couldn’t stay put and be cared for, and by not sharing their [the Europeans’] knowledge of how diseases spread and of what could be done to ameliorate the symptoms & effects of the diseases) of First Nations peeps by invaders; 10% of the world’s population was wiped out in less than 100 years. Them not being around any more meant that: their body heat and CO2 emissions disappeared; the not-insubstantial volume (right word? https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f423.svg) of land they’d cleared and used for crop cultivation [did you know that they’d been cross-and-selectively breeding various plants for many centuries?] reverted to forests, etc., thereby reducing temperatures; and probably something else, but I don’t remember ATM “
To which I responded:
“Who is claiming that?
Evidence?
The plague disease was in central Europe, I read that the people there were original descendants of migration from the south – remember the human species began in Africa and spread north over many millennia.
The wave of Europeans to here was only a few hundred years ago.
Very little medical knowledge back then.
You are off in Lalaland. https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f609.svg
Epistemology – did I mention conspiracy theories and agendas? Did I illuminate the methods of conspiracy theorist?
(Beware climate catastrophists who spend their energy imagining things to support their anti-human agenda.
Read the inaugural issue of The Ecologist magazine which calls humans ‘parasites’.
Look at the economic beliefs of catastrophists – usually Marxism, which never fed anyone.
Whereas climate variations are primarily caused by variations in earth’s orbit resulting from gravitation attraction of planets. Orbit periods vary, some planets are much larger than Earth, distance from sun thus varies thus climate temperature varies. (The effect of planets could partly offset each other or add up – even to a real Ice Age.) Milankovitch cycles – Wikipedia“
EV push continues:
Canada-wide EV road trip: 18 months, $10,000 in fuel savings
But at what cost in personal time?
And they did not go through the other two Territories Nunavut nor NWT – Nunavut is probably much more challenging as travel is not oriented east-west. NWT is reachable from Alberta, at least to Hay River. Nor into semi-remote areas like the Dempster Highway to Inuvik (H97 is a busy highway, called the Alaska Highway, but Dempster goes north off of that).
Of course they drove in summer.
(BC Hydro is the province’s electricity utility.)
“One of the joys of an EV is using regenerative braking to help juice up the battery and add range. But if you seldom if ever use the friction brakes – especially if you’re driving regularly on gravel roads, ice and snow – you can have issues.”
FAILs logic.
Much of trip had hills – did they just let the vehicle speed up going downhill?
(Canadian Shield and BC sure have hills and more.)
Extra rolling friction on gravel and snow surface is normal – that’s driving, people. Ice not as but as much but braking is dicey – park it! I say.
But I erred – they did part of the trip in freezing weather, so appreciated plugin for electric blanket while camping (that must have cost range), article doesn’t say how cold it was – I won’t waste time looking for that information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzVR4UK0VFs
Don’t bother watching the video even if you understand French (or if there is that annoying auto-translate). It just says Trump is bad like most French TV.
Just read the French comment, or use Translate.
All the comments are pro Trump.
Polls showing 72% (according to BFM TV, called BFM WC in practice) of French people hate Trump are BS. I don’t know the real number, but you can’t have that texture of comments on a Webpage with these numbers.
It’s a hoax like almost all Dem party support in the US. It’s a Potemkin village animation.
And there we have it… Trumps brilliant cunning plan to finish the war in Ukraine is now out in the open. So what is it? A brilliant fair 10 point plan.
Con the American people in to believing you can finish the war on day 1 of your presidency … then don’t.
Demand the invaded country give up the land the invader has illegally taken and if they don’t they will be responsible for starting WW3.
All military and intelligence support will cease from the US to the invaded country, till they capitulate to the invading country.
The US will remove the sanctions placed on the invading country by the previous administration.
Humiliate the invaded countries leader in front of the world’s press, proclaiming they are not grateful enough (despite numerous times proclaiming to the press their gratitude) for the wonderful support the US gives and has given them.
The invaded country cannot ask for any guarantees of protection going forward.
The invaded country cannot join NATO.
The invaded country must sign over their mineral wealth for a fraction of their worth to the US.
Meet with the invading country to sort a plan that meets their needs, before you meet with the invaded country.
Announce to the world what the US thinks should happen to the invaded country, before going into difficult talks with the invaded country and in doing so play their hand to the invading country.
Well that all sounds completely fair don’t you think? You can see why everyone thinks this guy Trump is such a clever guy.
And for his next trick he is going to invade Greenland and just take it (if they wont hand it over). Then take the Panama canal in what can only be described as an act of war. You can see why he is more than happy for Putin to take what he wants… Trump is going to do the same.
I like how simple Simon has posted the stupidest comment that I have ever read. Apparently he wants every Ukrainian to be killed. Not obtaining a cease-fire will get there. He also wants to trigger WW III. I doubt many of us will survive that. When you make a deal, you don’t call the other side names. And you don’t negotiate in front of the media.
I don’t know how to response to such nonsense…. so I wont.
Do you have any suggestions for a realistic path to a resolution? Continued or escalated conflict doesn’t accomplish anything good. I would expect we can agree on that.
It is a dreadful situation, brought about by the actions of a murderous dictator. Ukraine did not ask for this. I believe that if Putin is not stopped he will continue to try to move across more of Europe, so it is in everyone’s best interests to send him a clear message that Europe and its allies will not tolerate his aggression. The only way to do that is to support Ukraine in its fight no matter how long it takes.
The situation Trump has pretty much single handedly created has made Nato look brittle and with Europe struggling to support Ukraine, it is sending a clear message to a Tyrant that this is his time to move. Troubling times.
so it is in everyone’s best interests to send him a clear message that Europe and its allies will not tolerate his aggression.
They didn’t seem too worried about it when they laughed at Trump’s suggestion that they were too dependent on Russian gas. They may have reduced it recently but they’re still sending a lot of money Putin’s way.
no matter how long it takes
“no matter how many lives it takes” – would you also agree with that? Because it amounts to the same thing.
I agree Putin was the aggressor, but the situation is what it is NOW, and now is what needs to be dealt with. Your position on Trump is clear, but agree or not, at least what he’s trying to do will help stop the dying. I haven’t seen any alternative proposals that address the current reality that could achieve the same goal.
Russia is struggling in this war. Its economy is broken and the public were loosing support. I appreciate that is no guarantee Putin will fold but even he will have been feeling the pressure…. till comrade Trump took his side and now he has a new spring in his step. Even Russian media thinks Trump is now supporting Russia’s effort to take Ukraine . WTF is the man doing? What ever happened to being an ally?
Raspberries!
Talk about nonsense:
“. . . support Ukraine in its fight no matter how long it takes.”
With 2,000+ dying each week, Ukraine will soon run out of soldiers. I see you don’t care about lives.