Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”
… The economic value of entire regions – coastal, arid, wildfire-prone – will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”
I wouldn’t be taking advice from this insurance guy. He’s completely clueless.
An insurance guy, seeing what he wants to see, not what is really there, does not bode well for his insurance business. Not because of climate change, but because of basic stupidity on the part of the insurance seller.
Brainwashing works. Even on supposedly smart people. I think in the case of smart people, they already have their minds made up as to how the universe works, and climate change propaganda just confirms their beliefs. So they are sure of themselves, in their stupidity.
Hey, insurance guy, there’s not one shred of evidence connecting CO2 to anything to do with Earth’s weather or climate. It’s all a figment of your imagination. You are delusional. You *don’t* have things figured out.
All the better to sell insurance policies which never have to pay out. It bodes very well for his insurance business, but possibly not for his relations with insurance regulators or the bunco squad.
No, the best ones who should understand appliable risk factors for improved real estate properties would be the owners of particular properties themselves.
Actuaries produce probability analyses based upon ‘averaged experienced events & losses’ for groupings of similar properties and locations.
Owners have to assess the “lived experience” of their particular property conditions to decide what vulnerabilities they face.
In 1938, Guy Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of carbon dioxide was published by the Royal Meteorological Society. The “Discussion” transcript follows the paper in the original publication, a pdf of which is linked farther below.
“Sir George Simpson expressed his admiration of the amount of work Mr. Callendar had put into this paper. It was excellent work. It was difficult to criticise it, but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect…”
“Prof. Brunt [Professor David Brunt – dd] agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Callendar thought “some” warming should be expected as an inevitable result. Many skeptics of climate alarm today hold the same view, allowing for attribution of “some” of the reported warming to rising CO2
.
Simpson and Brunt had voiced no objection to the existence of the radiative effect. But they thought you can’t tell that a “warming” result must be expected, when the circulation of the atmosphere is fully considered. Some here at WUWT hold this view, that the influence of rising CO2 cannot be isolated for proper attribution of a trend.
So what? Where are we on Simpson’s “order of magnitude” point? With present-day computing power, we can readily visualize the answer. That is why I made this video. See the index mark at zero on the vertical scale? The influence of 2XCO2 is less than that. Negligible seems like a good word to describe it. A full explanation is given in the “Readme” description. This concept of energy conversion is important to understand: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy].
but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable . . .
One significant problem is the impossibility of “one way insulation”, ie. allowing more energy to pass in one direction than another. This would allow the construction of a box which would admit energy quickly, but release it slowly, allowing sunlight, say, to heat water in such a box to above boiling point, generating inexhaustible power through a steam engine or similar!
The Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. As usual, people like Callendar were unable to support their speculations by proposing a disprovable hypothesis.
Mankind generates waste heat. Thermometers respond to it.
“One significant problem is the impossibility of “one way insulation”, ie. allowing more energy to pass in one direction than another. ”
But that is what happens. As regards radiation, in the up direction relative to earth there is an infinite heat sink, outer space, which is where radiant energy from the earth ultimately goes. In the opposite direction there is air, land and water to collect the radiation received from all sources and warm as a consequence along with warming by convection of gasses and fluids and perhaps a bit of conduction as well. It is equilibrium throughout the atmosphere, land and oceans of all such energy transfers that nature continually seeks but never reaches. And climate is not a box. The top, bottom and sides of any such imaginary box are all different as regards transfer of energy in or out by any means.
“Callendar thought “some” warming should be expected as an inevitable result. Many skeptics of climate alarm today hold the same view, allowing for attribution of “some” of the reported warming to rising CO2”
Yes, I would say most climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 does add a little warmth to the atmosphere.
The question is how much warmth, and what happens to that warmth once it is input.
All indications are that the level of warmth is small, and the effects on the atmosphere are so small as to be undetectable. In other words, Nothing to see here.
And thanks for that post, David. There were “CO2 causes climate change” skeptics even back then. Nothing has changed.
Post says:”…most climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 does add a little warmth to the atmosphere.”
You also say “effects…so small as to be undetectable”. If the effects can’t be seen or measured why should I agree that warming of any amount happens? If I say it doesn’t happen you can’t show any evidence that it does.
I say that at atmospheric temperatures and pressures CO2 and WV are coolants.
“You also say “effects…so small as to be undetectable”. If the effects can’t be seen or measured why should I agree that warming of any amount happens? If I say it doesn’t happen you can’t show any evidence that it does.
I say that at atmospheric temperatures and pressures CO2 and WV are coolants”.
I am happy either way.
I take issue with those who seem to think they can prove this by stating an equation or a set of equatable parameters and variables, ie modeling. Because the underlying point is made by the article: attribution cannot be hardened. And THAT cannot be overcome, no matter how powerful computers are these and future days.
Some people get very defensive about their models. Attack mode often seems a given.
I think a good deal of humility is in order.
Was Callander aware of the dominance of water vapor as the primary “greenhouse” gas? Was he aware of the logarithmic reduction of the warming effects of all greenhouse gasses as their concentration increases? To me, one of the greatest corruptions of modern climate scientists is to measure the greenhouse effects of each gas in a water free test chamber and then claim that gas X is umpteen times more greenhousy than gas Y when the correct answer is “it depends.”
Was Callander aware of the dominance of water vapor as the primary “greenhouse” gas? Was he aware of the logarithmic reduction of the warming effects of all greenhouse gasses as their concentration increases? To me, one of the greatest corruptions of modern climate scientists is to measure the greenhouse effects of each gas in a water free test chamber and then claim that gas X is umpteen times more greenhousy than gas Y when the correct answer is “it depends.”
Thank you for your reply. No audio. There is a full explanation in the text description at Youtube. Here it is for your convenience. Readme: Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and gross static stability Of the various forms of energy present in the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often received the most attention. Often the total kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded as a measure of its intensity. The only other forms of atmospheric energy which appear to play a major role in the kinetic energy budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere are potential energy, internal energy, and the latent energy of water vapor. Potential and internal energy may be transformed directly into kinetic energy, while latent energy may be transformed directly into internal energy, which is then transformed into kinetic energy. It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic approximation that the changes of the potential energy P and the internal energy l of the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional, so that it is convenient to regard potential and internal energy as constituting a single form of energy. This form has been called total potential energy by Margules (1903). … In the long run, there must be a net depletion of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It follows that there must be an equal net generation of kinetic energy by reversible adiabatic processes; this generation must occur at the expense of total potential energy. It follows in turn that there must be an equal net generation of total potential energy by heating of all kinds. These three steps comprise the basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental characteristic of the general circulation.”
Yes, global warming, driven by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is indeed exacerbating both droughts and floods, leading to more frequent and intense extreme weather events.
So…. If warmer temps lead to less rain (drought) and more rain (flood), cooler temps must lead to more rain (flood) and less rain (drought). Have I got that right? Lol.
That’s what we want, a brainwashed AI running our lives. I guess it would really be the people brainwashing the AI who are actually running our lives. That’s why they brainwash the AI.
It has been my experience that ChatGPT and Copilot are almost always wrong with their initial responses to questions about climate and readily back-peddle when challenged. The real problem is that the naive person doesn’t know when or how to challenge the AI and stop with the first response, accepting it as Truth.
“PARIS/WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump, his Vice President JD Vance and billionaire backer Elon Musk have all voiced their support to French far-right leader Marine Le Pen after she was found guilty of embezzlement and barred from running in France’s 2027 presidential election.
Trump, who often labelled his own legal woes as a leftist witch-hunt, drew parallels with Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally (RN) party, who was widely seen as a plausible presidential winner.”
end excerpt
I foresee more criticism of the European Union’s turn toward authoritarianism from Trump and Vance.
Europeans need to give their leaders a very hard look. They are slowly eroding all your personal freedoms.
The lawfare treatment of Le Pen seems equivalent to the treatment of opponents of existing regimes in countries such as Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia and many others. Is France retreating to an absolute monarchy form of government? Let us hope not.
Well everything does appear as “far” right when your viewing position is from so far to the left end of the political spectrum that you have difficulty discerning where even “left-leaning” is, let alone the “center”.
Le Pen is NOT far-right. She is actually a rational centre-right politician.
Because she is the leader of the only party that is even remotely centrist, she will also attract some of the far-right to her party… this is how the FAR-left socialists use labels.
Speaking of inedible, I recently had some inedible octopus at a local Japanese restaurant. It was like chewing on shoe leather! After masticating it for a few minutes, I could barely see any change in the appearance. I have frequently eaten tako before without that experience. I got the charge removed from my bill.
I’d like to find a climate model for fooling around with, such as feeding in Tolkien’s world and seeing where it rains more, which way winds blow, and so on. All relative to each other, because the sun would presumably affect them all equally. Or feed in Earth as it is today, and see how opening up Panama would change temperatures.
Nothing to do with CO2 and all that, just the basic winds, ocean currents, and affects on land. The kind a sci-fi author might use for future tales, or an Oog the caveman author might use for closing the Mediterranean or Black Sea.
And I have no idea what kind of data you’d even need for it, how you’d describe continents and islands, if ocean depths or mountain ranges matter much.
tjag
April 6, 2025 7:47 am
The EPA Endangerment Finding
EPA’s Endangerment Finding quoted below:
Greenhouse gases, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, meaning that 1) their concentrations become well-mixed throughout the global atmosphere regardless of emission origin, and 2) their effects on climate are long lasting. The primary long-lived GHGs directly emitted by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Greenhouse gases have a warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space.
First: H2O is (1) well mixed throughout the atmosphere, and (2) emitted by human activity and is extremely long lived, is a ‘greenhouse gas” but is not included on EPA’s list.
What’s the EPA’s motivation to enact the Endangerment Finding and not include the biggest contributing gas – H2O?
These decisions certainly cannot be based on science. So, based on what? Politics?
Wouldn’t this omission of H2O signify that the Endangerment Finding is flawed and should be invalid?
Every article I read about the lawyers evaluating the chances of repealing this finding, the chances are judged to be slim, because of the years of precedence and how well the finding is documented. There is never any mention of the omission of H2O!
All of these definitions are vague and ambiguous and thus subject to interpretation and argument.
That said, water vapor is far from well mixed, for example its concentration varies greatly from around tropical rain forests to cold Antarctic deserts and hot deserts in between. Water, while ubiquitous, is uniquely subject to condensation and precipitation. Thus, it is neither well mixed nor long lived.
CO2 is unique in being the primary building block of all life. That, along which all of the uncertainties around its warming effect, make the endangerment finding flawed.
However, the important point is that water vapor is continuously renewed by evapotranspiration, particularly in proximity to large bodies of water and heavily vegetated areas, and also in urban areas where the burning of fossil fuels inject water vapor resulting from combustion. Thus, it helps contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect.
Thus, it helps contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect.
Actually, no. The process producing the water vapour and CO2, along with energy use of all types, generates the Urban Heat Islands. The name is a clue – heat. Heat affects thermometers, which are constructed to do just that.
That’s why they are calibrated in degrees of hotness, rather than concentrations of particular gases.
Sorry, no GHE – no matter how passionate your belief.
Trapping heat. Again.
Heat is defined as the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient (hot to cold).
IR is not heat. IR is electromagnetic energy. Heat is thermal energy (also kinetic energy).
Alan
April 6, 2025 8:19 am
I read in an article a few days ago that Willis is still banned from XTwitter. I thought God, I mean Elon had forgiven and all were welcome back. What gives?
6th former Damian Carrington has been at the native home brew, again.
Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer
And yes, it’s worse than you think
Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”
…
The economic value of entire regions – coastal, arid, wildfire-prone – will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”
It’s what utter bilge in print looks like.
Isn’t that what the left wants (except for themselves of course)?
So they say, but what they do is quite different…
The thing that is destroying capitalism is the Net Zero agenda. !
I wouldn’t be taking advice from this insurance guy. He’s completely clueless.
An insurance guy, seeing what he wants to see, not what is really there, does not bode well for his insurance business. Not because of climate change, but because of basic stupidity on the part of the insurance seller.
Brainwashing works. Even on supposedly smart people. I think in the case of smart people, they already have their minds made up as to how the universe works, and climate change propaganda just confirms their beliefs. So they are sure of themselves, in their stupidity.
Hey, insurance guy, there’s not one shred of evidence connecting CO2 to anything to do with Earth’s weather or climate. It’s all a figment of your imagination. You are delusional. You *don’t* have things figured out.
An insurance guy,
Parroting scripture
All the better to sell insurance policies which never have to pay out. It bodes very well for his insurance business, but possibly not for his relations with insurance regulators or the bunco squad.
The only ones who understand risk in the insurance business are the actuaries. Everyone else are just salesmen.
No, the best ones who should understand appliable risk factors for improved real estate properties would be the owners of particular properties themselves.
Actuaries produce probability analyses based upon ‘averaged experienced events & losses’ for groupings of similar properties and locations.
Owners have to assess the “lived experience” of their particular property conditions to decide what vulnerabilities they face.
And make their insurance decisions accordingly.
Ironically, it’s colder than normal here and the ski slopes are looking more like winter than spring.
I expected Günther to have green hair.
I dunno. Looks like a smart move in order to put insurance prices up..
In 1938, Guy Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of carbon dioxide was published by the Royal Meteorological Society. The “Discussion” transcript follows the paper in the original publication, a pdf of which is linked farther below.
“Sir George Simpson expressed his admiration of the amount of work Mr. Callendar had put into this paper. It was excellent work. It was difficult to criticise it, but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect…”
“Prof. Brunt [Professor David Brunt – dd] agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
The full original paper and comments are at this link. https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
Why I am I posting this?
Callendar thought “some” warming should be expected as an inevitable result. Many skeptics of climate alarm today hold the same view, allowing for attribution of “some” of the reported warming to rising CO2
.
Simpson and Brunt had voiced no objection to the existence of the radiative effect. But they thought you can’t tell that a “warming” result must be expected, when the circulation of the atmosphere is fully considered. Some here at WUWT hold this view, that the influence of rising CO2 cannot be isolated for proper attribution of a trend.
So what? Where are we on Simpson’s “order of magnitude” point? With present-day computing power, we can readily visualize the answer. That is why I made this video. See the index mark at zero on the vertical scale? The influence of 2XCO2 is less than that. Negligible seems like a good word to describe it. A full explanation is given in the “Readme” description. This concept of energy conversion is important to understand: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy].
Thank you for your patience.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
One significant problem is the impossibility of “one way insulation”, ie. allowing more energy to pass in one direction than another. This would allow the construction of a box which would admit energy quickly, but release it slowly, allowing sunlight, say, to heat water in such a box to above boiling point, generating inexhaustible power through a steam engine or similar!
The Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. As usual, people like Callendar were unable to support their speculations by proposing a disprovable hypothesis.
Mankind generates waste heat. Thermometers respond to it.
No mysterious GHE required.
“One significant problem is the impossibility of “one way insulation”, ie. allowing more energy to pass in one direction than another. ”
But that is what happens. As regards radiation, in the up direction relative to earth there is an infinite heat sink, outer space, which is where radiant energy from the earth ultimately goes. In the opposite direction there is air, land and water to collect the radiation received from all sources and warm as a consequence along with warming by convection of gasses and fluids and perhaps a bit of conduction as well. It is equilibrium throughout the atmosphere, land and oceans of all such energy transfers that nature continually seeks but never reaches. And climate is not a box. The top, bottom and sides of any such imaginary box are all different as regards transfer of energy in or out by any means.
No it doesn’t. That’s why the surface loses all the heat of the day at night (plus a little interior heat).
That’s why the surface has cooled, despite four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
No GHE to be seen.
“Callendar thought “some” warming should be expected as an inevitable result. Many skeptics of climate alarm today hold the same view, allowing for attribution of “some” of the reported warming to rising CO2”
Yes, I would say most climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 does add a little warmth to the atmosphere.
The question is how much warmth, and what happens to that warmth once it is input.
All indications are that the level of warmth is small, and the effects on the atmosphere are so small as to be undetectable. In other words, Nothing to see here.
And thanks for that post, David. There were “CO2 causes climate change” skeptics even back then. Nothing has changed.
Post says:”…most climate skeptics acknowledge that CO2 does add a little warmth to the atmosphere.”
You also say “effects…so small as to be undetectable”. If the effects can’t be seen or measured why should I agree that warming of any amount happens? If I say it doesn’t happen you can’t show any evidence that it does.
I say that at atmospheric temperatures and pressures CO2 and WV are coolants.
“You also say “effects…so small as to be undetectable”. If the effects can’t be seen or measured why should I agree that warming of any amount happens? If I say it doesn’t happen you can’t show any evidence that it does.
I say that at atmospheric temperatures and pressures CO2 and WV are coolants”.
I am happy either way.
I take issue with those who seem to think they can prove this by stating an equation or a set of equatable parameters and variables, ie modeling. Because the underlying point is made by the article: attribution cannot be hardened. And THAT cannot be overcome, no matter how powerful computers are these and future days.
Some people get very defensive about their models. Attack mode often seems a given.
I think a good deal of humility is in order.
“I think a good deal of humility is in order.”
A good reminder!
Thank you for this reply, Tom.
“The question is how much warmth, and what happens to that warmth once it is input.”
That is exactly the point.
Was Callander aware of the dominance of water vapor as the primary “greenhouse” gas? Was he aware of the logarithmic reduction of the warming effects of all greenhouse gasses as their concentration increases? To me, one of the greatest corruptions of modern climate scientists is to measure the greenhouse effects of each gas in a water free test chamber and then claim that gas X is umpteen times more greenhousy than gas Y when the correct answer is “it depends.”
Was Callander aware of the dominance of water vapor as the primary “greenhouse” gas? Was he aware of the logarithmic reduction of the warming effects of all greenhouse gasses as their concentration increases? To me, one of the greatest corruptions of modern climate scientists is to measure the greenhouse effects of each gas in a water free test chamber and then claim that gas X is umpteen times more greenhousy than gas Y when the correct answer is “it depends.”
David, I think that your video could use some dialog to provide context for what we are seeing.
Thank you for your reply. No audio. There is a full explanation in the text description at Youtube. Here it is for your convenience.
Readme: Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”
Thank you for the thorough reply.
AI says….
So…. If warmer temps lead to less rain (drought) and more rain (flood), cooler temps must lead to more rain (flood) and less rain (drought). Have I got that right? Lol.
Ai said that?
AI has been brainwashed.
That’s what we want, a brainwashed AI running our lives. I guess it would really be the people brainwashing the AI who are actually running our lives. That’s why they brainwash the AI.
It has been my experience that ChatGPT and Copilot are almost always wrong with their initial responses to questions about climate and readily back-peddle when challenged. The real problem is that the naive person doesn’t know when or how to challenge the AI and stop with the first response, accepting it as Truth.
Clyde
It’s amazing how AI is wrong 40% of the time on subjects I know something about, but it’s right all the time on everything else!
🙂
As Ian Gillan once asked:
Can we have everything louder than everything else?
The first record I ever bought.
Best live album I’ve ever heard.
Which AI?
A fun experiment is to ask the same question (literally the identical prompt) to different AIs and compare results.
One common prompting technique is to proceed each session with a framing sentence, such as You are an expert [blank].
For example:
You are an expert climate scientist. What are the climate effects of bovine flatulence?
Now try it by altering the You are [blank].Replace [blank] with geologist, astrophysicist, etc, and review the results.
You must start a new session each time. You don’t want to influence the results with a previous interaction.
Finally, try substituting expert with skeptical or dumbass.
BTW: I have not tried this experiment.
Did you tell the “AI” that data doesn’t support that claim?
President Trump and Vice President Vance say, ‘Free Le Pen!”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-offers-support-french-far-right-leader-le-pen-after-her-conviction-2025-04-04/
‘Free Le Pen!’ Trump, Musk and Vance voice support for French far-right leader
By Gabriel Stargardter and Kanishka Singh
April 4, 20254:50 AM CDTUpdated 2 days ago
“PARIS/WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump, his Vice President JD Vance and billionaire backer Elon Musk have all voiced their support to French far-right leader Marine Le Pen after she was found guilty of embezzlement and barred from running in France’s 2027 presidential election.
Trump, who often labelled his own legal woes as a leftist witch-hunt, drew parallels with Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally (RN) party, who was widely seen as a plausible presidential winner.”
end excerpt
I foresee more criticism of the European Union’s turn toward authoritarianism from Trump and Vance.
Europeans need to give their leaders a very hard look. They are slowly eroding all your personal freedoms.
The lawfare treatment of Le Pen seems equivalent to the treatment of opponents of existing regimes in countries such as Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia and many others. Is France retreating to an absolute monarchy form of government? Let us hope not.
You forgot Biden’s Admin.
It’s always “far right”, there’s never just “right”.
“Right” alone connotes that they are correct. “Far right” conjures up goose-stepping military parades.
That’s the Left’s objective, to make the Right out to be Nazis.
Well everything does appear as “far” right when your viewing position is from so far to the left end of the political spectrum that you have difficulty discerning where even “left-leaning” is, let alone the “center”.
Le Pen is NOT far-right. She is actually a rational centre-right politician.
Because she is the leader of the only party that is even remotely centrist, she will also attract some of the far-right to her party… this is how the FAR-left socialists use labels.
Right is right, left is what’s left.
What’s left is generally wrong.
The use of “Far-Right” is just another method the Far-Left uses to demonize the Right.
I’m not saying Far-Left to try to demonize the Left, because they really are Far-Left, as in Marxist/Authoritarian, so I’m just speaking the truth. 🙂
The law of. [add name here]
If there is a government grant for it you can bank on it not working.
The law of intended corruptions?
The Law of Inedible Pot Noodles.
Speaking of inedible, I recently had some inedible octopus at a local Japanese restaurant. It was like chewing on shoe leather! After masticating it for a few minutes, I could barely see any change in the appearance. I have frequently eaten tako before without that experience. I got the charge removed from my bill.
Sounds like they were subbing squid to save a few cents per order.
The pieces did look more like mantle than tentacle.
https://www.space.com/blaze-star-coronae-borealis-where-to-look-march-2025
Story Tip
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eu-issues-458-million-euro-fine-car-manufacturers-over-vehicle-recycling-cartel-2025-04-01/
Oh dear, car makers up against it again. I don’t think they can last much longer.
I’d like to find a climate model for fooling around with, such as feeding in Tolkien’s world and seeing where it rains more, which way winds blow, and so on. All relative to each other, because the sun would presumably affect them all equally. Or feed in Earth as it is today, and see how opening up Panama would change temperatures.
Nothing to do with CO2 and all that, just the basic winds, ocean currents, and affects on land. The kind a sci-fi author might use for future tales, or an Oog the caveman author might use for closing the Mediterranean or Black Sea.
And I have no idea what kind of data you’d even need for it, how you’d describe continents and islands, if ocean depths or mountain ranges matter much.
The EPA Endangerment Finding
EPA’s Endangerment Finding quoted below:
Greenhouse gases, once emitted, can remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, meaning that 1) their concentrations become well-mixed throughout the global atmosphere regardless of emission origin, and 2) their effects on climate are long lasting. The primary long-lived GHGs directly emitted by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Greenhouse gases have a warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space.
First: H2O is (1) well mixed throughout the atmosphere, and (2) emitted by human activity and is extremely long lived, is a ‘greenhouse gas” but is not included on EPA’s list.
What’s the EPA’s motivation to enact the Endangerment Finding and not include the biggest contributing gas – H2O?
These decisions certainly cannot be based on science. So, based on what? Politics?
Wouldn’t this omission of H2O signify that the Endangerment Finding is flawed and should be invalid?
Every article I read about the lawyers evaluating the chances of repealing this finding, the chances are judged to be slim, because of the years of precedence and how well the finding is documented.
There is never any mention of the omission of H2O!
All of these definitions are vague and ambiguous and thus subject to interpretation and argument.
That said, water vapor is far from well mixed, for example its concentration varies greatly from around tropical rain forests to cold Antarctic deserts and hot deserts in between. Water, while ubiquitous, is uniquely subject to condensation and precipitation. Thus, it is neither well mixed nor long lived.
CO2 is unique in being the primary building block of all life. That, along which all of the uncertainties around its warming effect, make the endangerment finding flawed.
However, the important point is that water vapor is continuously renewed by evapotranspiration, particularly in proximity to large bodies of water and heavily vegetated areas, and also in urban areas where the burning of fossil fuels inject water vapor resulting from combustion. Thus, it helps contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect.
Actually, no. The process producing the water vapour and CO2, along with energy use of all types, generates the Urban Heat Islands. The name is a clue – heat. Heat affects thermometers, which are constructed to do just that.
That’s why they are calibrated in degrees of hotness, rather than concentrations of particular gases.
Sorry, no GHE – no matter how passionate your belief.
Trapping heat. Again.
Heat is defined as the flow of thermal energy across a temperature gradient (hot to cold).
IR is not heat. IR is electromagnetic energy. Heat is thermal energy (also kinetic energy).
I read in an article a few days ago that Willis is still banned from XTwitter. I thought God, I mean Elon had forgiven and all were welcome back. What gives?
He was telling truths about Islam. I guess some of the old guard of Twitter are still lurking there.
Humans are more advanced cousins of chimpanzees. Illogically, burning of more Teslas will continue until morale and freedom of speech improves.
Revised edition of climate change 101:
When it’s not working out as planned blame Trump-
Starmer to relax green rules to boost UK car industry