What will happen as a result of increasing concentrations of the IR-active gases CO2, CH4, N2O in the atmosphere, in respect to sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere itself? That was the question to be investigated, and it remains open.
One way to state the “warming” hypothesis is that the Earth system’s longwave emitter to space will experience a de-rating as an end result, requiring a higher temperature at the land + ocean interface with the atmosphere to maintain the longwave emitter output to space.
On the other hand, the valid null hypothesis is that there will be no significant de-rating as an end result; i.e. the emitter output to space is insensitive to the incremental change in the clear-sky IR absorbing power of the atmosphere.
I hold that the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the investigation pre-supposes the de-rating and then treats the implied direct “warming” influence as a driver of amplification through “feedbacks.” Semantics? Maybe, but using the word “forcing” presumes capability.
This is why I keep posting comments that the entire climate modeling exercise is circular. If you use pre-stabilized, parameter-tuned general circulation models and apply radiative “forcings” computed from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – you have hard-coded the de-rating of the emitter, and the “warming” result is baked in. This is the outcome, despite the inherent inability of any of the models to directly compute cloud formation and dissipation, which is already known to be the main controller of the longwave emitter output to space.
This is why I also encourage skeptics of climate alarm to stop conceding the “forcing” + “feedback” semantic framing of the investigation. This does not dispute the concept of IR-active gases or that a static radiative effect at the surface can be computed. It simply recognizes that the hypothesized end result cannot be assumed at the outset.
Has the null hypothesis been falsified? No. Not even close.
You left out the only greenhouse gas that matters, H2O. Currently civil aviation is dumping 95+ billion gallons of liquid water equivalency into the Tropopause / Lower Stratosphere boundary annually. The climate is currently artificially warmed by around 0.9C (since the late 60’s) by this constant and increasing feed of water vapor coming from the 1000’s of aircraft constantly in flight. Cut it in half, global temps will fall .45 degrees in less than 12 months. Drop it by 100% and the world will cool to such an extent that the multi-crop seasons will not be possible in many agricultural centric areas in the Northern Hemisphere and 10 billion people will be difficult feed.
I just ignore all the banter, and model it, to find the truth.
I often wondered if part of the the UHI is from the massive amount of H2O pumped into the air by combustion. I know having been to the US south western deserts that the air temperature plummets when the sun goes down due to absence of H2O
I built a climate model that uses the Stephboltzman that is used for CO2 that I rearranged for H2O as the forcing and made an empirical model that uses reported aviation fuel burnt as the forcing trend and explains why the climate deviated from the solar trend in the 1970’s. It also explains the Texas killer freeze, the Arctic breach was very likely caused by the drop of 50% drop in aviation during the pandemic no-fly period.
Researchers are still scratching their heads about the cause of the rare triple-dip La-Nina that preceded the HT eruption. The most likely explanation, is the huge 50% drop in aviation forcing at the Tropopause that caused a global cooling trend, and not anything to do with Enso-Cycles.
The Stratospheric H2O from HT eruption took over a year to make it to the Northern Hemisphere, set record low Antarctic Sea Ice, searing Global temperatures. And currently is still in effect, however it would appear that the excess Stratospheric H2O is around 30-40% above pre-HT eruption levels.
Those two experiments, one by nature and one by humanity, lend strong credibility to the possibility of civil aviation being the thermostat to the planet, at this juncture.
Where is isn’t influenced by the numerous, well-watered golf courses, residential swimming pools, and ubiquitous misters throughout large urban areas like Phoenix.
The planes should be restricted to the troposphere so only fly between the latitudes of 40 degrees.
The HT eruption shows us how persistent stratospheric water is.
Here is a long article by radiation physicists, that describes in detail:
1) CO2 ppm in atmosphere does minimally contribute to global warming, and
2) any increase of CO2 ppm has a diminishing temperature increase impact.
.
PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/physics-demonstrates-increasing-greenhouse-gases-cannot-cause https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf
By Richard Lindzen and William Happer
.
The IPCC, etc., would never admit to this, because it would collapse “their proprietary science”
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the available low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
“Here is a long article by radiation physicists, that describes in detail:
1) CO2 ppm in atmosphere does minimally contribute to global warming, and
2) any increase of CO2 ppm has a diminishing temperature increase impact.”
While I have great respect for Lindzen and Happer, I am also disappointed that they stop at the radiation topic and do not mention that the dynamics of the general circulation demonstrate that the attribution of ANY of the observed warming to incremental CO2 has been unsound all along. You have seen this time lapse video before. NO ONE KNOWS that there is ANY actual contribution from the static radiative effect (of an increase of CO2 ppm) to a sensible heat gain result.
I agree with your conclusions, but I encourage you to more fully consider the dynamics of energy conversion in the general circulation, as explained in the description text at that short video.
“CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.” OK, but I would also say its influence cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by any means we have available to us.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, The tables in the AR5
show GWPs all over the map some are single digit.
Next observation is, “Why does the IPCC calculate
using mass instead of volume?” Anyone who has an
eleventh grade education knows that the gas laws
use volume in chemical equations. I’m not the only
one to question whether that was done just to get
a bigger GWP number. And it’s only CH4 that sees
a bigger GWP because its gram formula weight is
less than CO2, and CH4 is the target because it’s a
fossil fuel.
I was thinking that it might just be easier for them to use mass units. In fact, I’m in the process of making some VOC calibration standards in liquid CO2 and I decided to use mass because I can weigh both on a scale.
In any case, units are readily interchangeable, although in CO2 at high pressure, the ideal gas equation falls apart especially around its critical points.
On CH4 rise, researchers around me indicate that it’s mostly due to emissions from agriculture (rice) and wetlands.
And a year or two ago Sri Lanka’s government decided to ban nitrogenous fertilizes because Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 273. That policy produced a double digit percent reduction in Sri Lank’a tea crop but once again neither climate science nor the so called “Legacy Press” says anything about how much warming N2O will actually produce.
___________________________________________________________
By the way:
The so-called main stream media now trying to rebrand itself as
“The Legacy Press” is in its 45th year of crusading against CO2..
Rarely is the integration time mentioned in the ‘news’ media articles. They typically cite the shorter time-integration because it results in a larger GWP.
Steve, I think that one of the justifiable reasons for using mass, beyond the bigger numbers effect, is that it is impossible to distinguish ‘natural’ CO2 from anthro’ CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, to assign attribution, one has to do a bottoms-up integration of the anthro’ emissions, based on sales taxes as a proxy for tonnage.
However, as I’ve remarked, one should then convert the mass to an equivalent mole-fraction PPMv. The approach is still flawed, however, because the numbers don’t balance and what the alarmists do is assume, without incontrovertible proof, that roughly half of the presumed anthro’ CO2 goes into the oceans, despite the oceans having a much larger volume than the atmosphere.
It has to do with the way the numbers work….if you add an additional tonne of some component that has a very low concentration to start with, it is going to have much more “warming potential per tonne” as GWP is defined. Plus multipliers for radiative efficiency (actually the important one which is much higher than CO2 for big chlorofluorocarbons with many excitation modes)…and lifetime in the atmosphere.
Sir John Houghton was largely responsible for development of GWP ratings, and he succeeded in coming up with a rating system that is comparative for the different gases…plus sounds pretty scary if politicians decide to legislate emissions of refrigerants, propellants, foaming agents, and such.
And the narrative always stops there. Climate Science doesn’t continue on with the point that CH4 is 86 times more powerful than CO2 and as such will produce x.x ºC of warming over the next 20, 50, or 100 years or by 2100 or if it doubles in concentration.
That question about how much warming will CH4 produce by 2100 has been addressed here at WUWT and it’s less than an unmeasurable 0.01° Doubling CH4 is maybe 0.3°C.
And here we are feeding cattle Bovaer to reduce methane emissions from dairy farms and cattle ranches.
The meat of some predators, such as brown bears, often acquire the taste of what they have been feeding on, such as berries versus salmon. Does the Bovaer affect the taste of the meat or milk?
points to a paper by K.-Y. Li and W. Liu (LL25) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02403-0
Weakened Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation causes the historical North Atlantic Warming Hole
where they note “a majority of climate models were reported to simulate a weakened historical AMOC from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)35, but a strengthened AMOC during the twentieth century from the sixth phase (CMIP6)36. Such distinct historical AMOC changes between two-generation climate models are owing largely to different AMOC responses to anthropogenic aerosol forcing and aerosol-cloud interactions in models”
then they “compare model and observation, we exploit historical simulations with 41 CMIP5 models and 53 CMIP6 models (see “Methods”) and look into each model’s ensemble mean”
and
“divide the 94 CMIP5/6 models into two categories: weakened AMOC (51 models, referred to as AMOC- thereafter) and strengthened AMOC (43 models, referred to as AMOC+ thereafter)”
they also use older CMIP3 models to validate their method.
There seems so much wrong with this approach..
We know and they acknowledge that CMIP5 and older models have issues with the cloud parametization, for example K. Wyser et al. (https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3465/2020/) write about their EC-model and CMIP 5/6:
“the ECS increase can be attributed to the more advanced treatment of aerosols, with the largest contribution coming from the effect of aerosols on cloud microphysics”
this means CMIP5 and older models are wrong in that regards and using them in any analysis MUST include a mathematical description of that effect, missing in LL25
for comparison of statistical data with a real world experiment not the “ensemble mean”, but the spread is the important parameter (see for example also figure 3 in the latest ReealClimate post (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/predicted-arctic-sea-ice-trends-over-time/), where G. Schmidt calls CMIP6 results mean “spot on” whereas the shown 95% spread of the models reveals that for march anything from no trend to tripple the observed trend is predicted as 95% likely)
sub-selecting data from the results of a series of a statistical series is questionable, as Williams writes in the comment sections of that RC article “Where’s the evidence that these improvements stem from first-principles physics, and not just smarter curve-fitting or scenario tweaking”
There is also the question if these sub-selected models share other features, for example I could imagine that they are all in the unrealistically high corner of climate feed backs only models, but not reality show making the finding dubious.
Given these rather trivial to spot errors I cannot help, but wonder how this article passed reviewing and editing.
You cannot use models known to be wrong without discussing that potential effect of the error, use the mean without discussing the spread in a real world comparison of models or use the difference of models to support your claim without discussing what their physical differences are and an evaluation how these differences relate to the real world.
Especially the latest point should be well known in climate alarmism, after more than a decade of hyping the findings of the unrealistic RCP8.5 models.
I can make a wild guess why a “likelihood characterization” of the models finally used in this study is missing . .
strativarius
June 22, 2025 3:30 am
It’s a nice day for a change…
Climate change blamed for UK heatwave amid 32C temperatures
“A rapid study by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group”
This is the group that presents speculation as established fact. This is NOT science.
There is no established connection between CO2 and any extreme weather event, despite what the WWA says. None, whatsoever. The WWA is just making things up. Typical for Alarmist Climate Science. All they have are distortions and lies.
Careful there Tom. Fredi is so sincere she couldn’t possibly be wrong 🙂 She absolutely knows climate change is catastrophic and is “costing thousands ,perhaps millions, of deaths globally every year”
The high temperature figure’s given by the Met Office should always be treated with caution. As they always quote the extreme high temperature what was reached and not what would have been the more typical temperatures reached across the UK.
Here are the Maximum temperatures reached in Scunthorpe over the last 10 days. Which will have been more typical of the daily highs reached across eastern England.
12th 22.5C
13th 25.5C
14th 24.5C
15th 22.9C
16th 25.6C
17th 26.0C
18th 25.2C
19th 23.4C
20th 28.6C
21st 28.6C
22nd 24.3C (up until 14.50 BST time).
Humberside airport was only more than a degree warmer on 3 of the days, cooler 2.
The average for Scunthorpe for this period is 18-19C, reaching 25C is uncommon. So you confirm it was very warm.
On the day in 1976 Southampton matched the June record, my location just down the coast was 8C cooler.
The MO temperatures are not all vastly warmer, and the weather still isn’t exactly the same all the time even in relatively nearby places; no matter how many times you post banging the same drum
No one is in doubt that it’s been warm over the lastweek at least here in eastern England. What l do question is when the Met Office uses a isolated extreme high temperature recorded at a weather station and then try’s to use this extreme temperature recording as if it was the typical temperature that were been reached across the UK. So l have posted my data to make it clear to UK posters that this is simply not the case.
Also there is nothing rare about the temperature hitting 25C during summer here in N Lincolnshire away from the coast. Its typically happens a number of days each summer.
No one is in doubt that it’s been warm over the lastweek at least here in eastern England.
“Warm” is in the body of the beholder. I just went for a quick bike ride around the neighborhood. The temperature, shortly after sunset, was very pleasant, being about 28 deg C.
This so called heatwave has largely been confined to the SE and the Eastern side of the UK. Over on the western side and especially the NW side of the UK, the temperatures have been much closer to the average maximum temperatures for this time of year.
Yesterday the Met Office issued a yellow warning for thunderstorms here in NE Wales from 3pm Saturday to 4am Sunday. We had one clap of thunder and a tiny bit of rain which didn’t even deter the cat from going out.
Don’t forget the ‘torrential’ downpours, ready to pounce. Downpours are at least 90% ‘torrential’ according to what i gather from the Met Office reports. Funnily enough there is very little footage of those biblical poundings. But hey, they are potential, right? A win- win situations. We warned you!!!🤭
He is not a Republican, he is a stealth radical Democrat. If you vote with Radical Democrats, then you are a Radical Democrat. He should be voted out of office in the 2026 elections. All he does is impede progress and help the Radical Democrats.
Massie and the Radical Democrats think they understand the U.S. Constitution and think President Trump cannot legally take military action without the consent of Congress. They are all dead wrong. We go over this bullshit every time a president takes military action. The appeasers and cowards come out of the woodwork.
If you want to know what the U.S. Constitution really says about the president’s War Powers, listen to Mark Levin’s tv show on Fox News this evening (Sunday night). He will straighten everyone out.
If the United States were suddenly attacked by a foreign enemy, would the president have to wait for a vote of Congress before taking action? Of course not.
The U.S. Congress passed the War Powers Act back after the Vietnam war in an effort to hamstring the president’s ability to defend the United States. This law has never been scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court and, imo, would be found to be unconstitutional, and we may get a test of it this time around.
And, even so, the War Powers Act allows for the president to have freedom of action for a certain amount of time BEFORE he goes to Congress for permission to proceed further.
Listen to Mark Levin. He knows what he is talking about. The Radical Democrats and Rep. Massie are full of shit.
A few cowardly thoughts from out of the woodwork, Tom. We have 40,000 young Americans in harm’s way in the region. Israel-First patriot Mark Levin is just one in a long line of propagandists who have scammed sincere American patriots like yourself into conflating what is (perceived by them to be) good for Israel with what is good for America.
We’re hearing all the same confident predictions as we heard in the big Zionist/Military Industrial Complex operation of 2003.
How well we all remember the Iraqis greeting our soldiers as liberators. Look at how much Baghdad resembles Geneva today, now that Democracy has spread throughout the lands we have liberated at a mere pittance cost of 9 trillion dollars.
And the fruits of our labors in Afghanistan! Libya! Sudan and Syria. Let’s not forget the great benefits of our glorious Syrian efforts which have carried the religion of peace to the precipice of dominating Europe.
Yes, bring us more war, to the everlasting glory of Israel and Blackrock.
Naively, one might ask why can’t we all get along?
Reality is too complicated, with too many variables for most to comprehend. We only get a fraction of the story and much is disinformation, and of course the future is ever difficult to predict. It does appear that bad things befall BRICSs stepping out of line with the U.S.
With regard to Europe, they there have to take some responsibility for their own death wish. Trump is doing what he can to prevent the U.S. from following them down the drain.
Tribalism built the world and tribalism will eventually destroy it. Maybe sooner than later. We cannot all just get along, that is unnatural. Everyone seeks peace, the peace that comes from annihilating the other tribe and enforcing his own opinions.
We aren’t allowed to know 10% of the truth. About the only thing we can be confident of is that whatever is being said is a lie.
Are you truly naive enough to believe that an airstrike is all it takes to eliminate a nuclear weapons program if as you apparently are convinced one does exist?
Do you suppose that all the nuclear scientists in Iran were in one location waiting to be assassinated?
Do you imagine that a tricksy regime prepared to blatantly lie about their intentions would shrink from hiding some of their enrichment facilities?
This situation must now escalate to regime change and boots on the ground. Failure to go there would be more dangerous than never having acted.
Say goodbye to every hope of economic prosperity once the Straits of Hormuz are closed down and oil is at $130/bbl. (Say, I wonder why Putin isn’t too interested in supporting Iran?)
Are you truly naive enough to believe that a nuclear weapons program can function with no uranium , no enrichment allowed and no operating facilities to
do the job ???
Are you truly naive enough to believe the happy talk that in one attack any of those outcomes have been achieved, sob?
A) the enriched uranium that they allowed the inspectors to see was almost certainly not the full extent of it;
B) the enriched uranium that was in the sites by all evidence of there being no increased radiation was not left at the target sites;
C) just as it is highly unlikely that all the enriched uranium was disclosed to the IAEA, it is highly unlikely that all of the enrichment facilities (centrifuges) were disclosed.
So they most likely still have their enriched uranium and they most likely still have their secret final stage enrichment facilit(ies).
The only way that gets sorted is with a long and bloody land war against a large country with 92 million people. A country that just so happens to be in a position to block a substantial amount of the world’s oil supply.
Now consider the actions of the other hostile powers, Russia and China.
Russia is happy to see us embroiled in a new quagmire. It means two things to them: triple or quadruple the profit on their oil sales and no capacity to spare for us to keep supplying Ukraine. Huge win for them.
China is hurt by the oil market disruption no doubt, but with the US navy tied down in Iran, what better opportunity will they have to take Taiwan?
To some extent I trust Trump’s judgement, and I don’t know probably 90% of what he knows about the situation. But on the basis of publicly available information and some basic common sense, this looks like the event that derails his second and final term and dooms MAGA.
It hasn’t been one attack. It’s been many attacks, first by Israel, then by the US on a facility too deep for Israel to get to. Is it all gone? Probably not, but it’s seriously crippled.
We’ve just damaged some evacuated sites. Where is the enriched uranium? No doubt at least some of the centrifuges were evacuated as well. Now like cutting into a tumor, it metastasizes.
Far from the end, this is the beginning of the beginning.
There would now be even more eyes-in-the-skies covering every square inch of the islamic republic of Iran.
I reckon if they had had trucking operations out of the nuke plants areas, the IDF and US would have picked it up on precision CCTV before the bombers were deployed.
Logically the Iranians have been lying about having a weapons program for decades. At the very least, they intended to maintain a fiction of a weapons program by over-enrichment as a deterrent to being attacked. Do I have a gun on my dresser or don’t I? The NRA bumper sticker could imply it? But you’ll have to try me to find out for sure.
Now if you were planning to build a bomb in 2015, but your cover story was going to be that you’re just enriching for commercial power purposes, then you have no qualms about telling a blatant lie, right? Are you also going to keep all of your enrichment capability in the sites that the IAEA know about? That’s absurd.
Are you going to develop and/or purchase centrifuge technology but not have some in totally secret locations? Is the gun on my dresser my only weapon? I wonder how far you can tunnel in a decade? You’re certain that the entrance that the IAEA inspectors pass through is the only way in and out?
According to the latest IAEA reports, Iran has 604.4 kg of 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride, with a volume of approximately 0.119 m³. Source is Grok.
Twelve percent of a cubic meter. Picture 60 two-liter soda bottles each weighing about 10kg (22 lbs). And that’s across all their sites.
You’ve penetrated 300 feet into the ground with 60,000 lbs of high explosives. How many tons of hot gases does that entail? If you actually hit the UF6, it would vaporize and most of it would end up in the air above the mountain. Yet supposedly there’s no sign of increased radiation.
Isn’t it obvious? If you’re expecting an imminent attack that would potentially expose your population to the equivalent of a dirty bomb, wouldn’t you move it?
What point do you think you’re pressing with me? That the Iranians had highly enriched uranium hexafluoride isn’t in doubt by anyone. The threat of attack by Israel or the US has been in the news for literally a decade.
Even in the absurd case that Iran was only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear power, any sane government would try to mitigate the risk of a dirty bomb scenario under the threat of attack.
So actually the Jerusalem Post is now reporting that the US gave Iran prior warning and that the Iranians removed “most” of the enriched uranium and partially evacuated the sites.
Not exactly an unbiased source, but take it for what it’s worth.
I’m an analytical chemist and I’m not sure. It’s probably not easy in the midst of bombed site and certainly more difficult than detecting radiological metals.
I know it hydrolyzes once it gets into the environment, making a mess, HF and oxides.
These are not cowardly thoughts at all. The basis for disagreement is that the foreign policy decisions we make today are too often forced upon us by the awful decisions of our former so-called leaders. Regardless, the only relevant question today is whether the Iranian regime seeks a nuclear weapon simply to stave off Western meddling / regime change efforts, or to provide itself with ‘immunity’ while it continues its own efforts to meddle and promote regime change within the region.
Of course the bad decisions of prior leaders constrain us. But it is not obvious to me that this attack was the least bad option. We never attacked the Soviet Union though we were under greater threat. If this gamble pays off, no one could be happier than I will be.
The world grows ever more dangerous as we add the AI factor. Israel’s strategy of vicious revenge for any attack is not sustainable. Eventually every tinpot dictator will have sufficient means to inflict hideous carnage and inevitably terrorist groups will be the actors. I am not sure that I see any path away from that dystopia.
The least bad decision only becomes apparent in retrospect, if even then. The elites of both the US and the Soviet Union wasted many lives, mostly foreign, and much treasure in striving for global hegemony. The main differences between now and then are that both sides respected the consequences of ‘MAD’ and there were always ‘off-ramps’ when tensions became too heated. I don’t know if that applies to the Iranian regime.
Right. By claiming that they have not been trying to build a bomb, that’s what they were clearly saying, Jeff. I see your point. 😝
But you merely underline my point. This is Israel’s problem. If Trump can pull off a one-and-done to help Israel without dragging us into another forever war, then I will applaud him. My objection is based on prudence not some principle.
It isn’t JUST Isreal’s problem. If Iran gets bombs and uses them, the radioactive fallout will effect the whole Earth, particularly the Northern Hemisphere. It is everyone’s problem!
However, apparently, only the USA has the technological capability to at least delay the enrichment program.
I think you just did a “does not follow” comment. Tom’s comment was about the U.S. Constitution and a President’s taking military action without the consent of Congress. Your mentioning of 40,000 Americans in harm’s way, while valid and important, does not clarify the Constitution-President issue.
John, I happen to agree with Tom on the constitutional question to a large degree. Mine is not a disagreement on whether Trump has the authority to act as he has. It’s a disagreement about whether Trump has made a good decision for American interests. This is an open thread. We’re free to steer the discussion however we like. I chose to address Tom’s oblique accusation of cowardice rather than to agree with him on a point that is of little concern to me.
If Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him.* IMHO, the good Citizens of the USA should be glad to have its elected Congress debate & hold a vote pertaining to the War Powers Act. (Why were they taking the long weekend off, WTH?) And then let the Supreme Court address whether that (WPA) is constitutional at all.
That part of Kentucky (4th District) is an interesting place. It extends along the mighty Ohio River from the great city Cincinnati-OH (the Kentucky suburbs on the south side of the River) to another great city, Louisville-KY; and in the other direction, all the way to West Virginia (his birth state).
A breeding ground for contrarians, think JDV, for better or worse. All organized political parties hate Libertarians & for members of the Radical (Constitutional) Orthodoxy.
He’s probably one of the best-educated members of Congress, back when MIT stood for something real.
Has anyone heard if the Indonesian Lewotobi eruption injected any significant ash into the Stratosphere, usually there will be some telemetry coming from various government institutions, but they have been quiet. Maybe Dodge got them.
” … ejecting an ash column up to 16 km (~10 miles) ” The stratosphere is said to start at 10k., so the answer is yes.
“Ash” in this case seems to be a generic term including the glass-like material and lots of gases, such as H2O, CO2, H2, SO2, and others.
I have not found reports of the relative amounts.
After World War II the United States rebuilt Europe, and saved South Korea from the Communists in the 1950’s, and then built the beautiful nation of South Korea and gave them the chance for freedom.
Does anyone think the United States should not have done those things?
So why do so many Americans wring their hands over the thought of doing “nation-building”?
The reason is because they have associated nation-building with the debacles in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the real problem is not nation-building. The real problem is giving Delusional Democrats control of the situations.
It is the Delusional Democrats who turned all three successful military operations in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan into debacles. They were not debacles before the Delusional Democrats gained control.
The U.S. military defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefields of Vietnam, to the point that eventually the North Vietnamese signed a peace agreement in 1973, and withdrew their troops from South Vietnam.
South Vietnam was in good shape, and ready to become a nation like South Korea became, and would have done so given half a chance, but unfortunately for them, the Delusional Anti-war Democrats had control of the United States at that time, and instead of leaving a U.S. Combat Division in South Vietnam, as was done in South Korea, to assure the peace treaty held, the Delusional, Appeaser Democrats threw South Vietnam to the Communist Wolves by cutting the assistance to South Vietnam to the bone, and then, when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and again attacked South Vietnam, the Uncaring Democrats refused to come to their aid, even though the United States was legally and morally obligated to do so. And so we sat and watched as South Vietnam was overrun by North Vietnam. Joe Biden spoke out against helping South Vietnam at the time. He started out his political career doing damage to the United States.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed South Vietnam and turned it into a failure, it was Delusional Democrats turning their backs on our allies.
Delusional Democrats are not fit to defend the United States. They live in a False Reality that makes them dangerous to U.S. national security.
In Iraq, the U.S. military defeated the enemy. Iraq was in good shape. I remember seeing the Iraqi citizens proudly displaying the ink-stained fingers to show that they had voted in the first free election in Iraq in many decades. Iraqis were setting up small businesses all over the place and hope was in the air.
And then the Delusional Democrats in the form of Barack Obama and Joe Biden took control in the United States, and they promptly allowed the Mad Mullahs of Iran to take over the nation of Iraq, and that’s why Iraq became a failure.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed a free Iraq, it was Delusional Democrats who did that.
Afghanistan was brought under control by the U.S. military. After President Trump threatened the Taliban leader over any future killing of American troops in Afghanistan, not another American troop was killed over the next 18 months, and then Trump left office and the Traitor Joe Biden took control and immediately threw all the progress made in Afghanistan to the Wolves by aburptly withdrawing from Afghanistan without even a coherent plan.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed any chance for freedom in Afghanistan. It was Delusional Democrats who did that.
It wasn’t nation-building or military failures that caused the failures in South Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, it was Delusional Democrats with their Delusional Thinking that was the cause.
The Delusional Democrats are not suited psychologically to defend the United States. They run away every time.
Those people who fear nation-building should realize where the problem lies: With Delusional Democrats who don’t have a clue as to how to protect and defend the United States. They prove it every time they are put in charge. We should stop putting Delusional Democrats in charge if we know what’s good for us, and what’s good for millions of innocent people all over the world.
Delusional Democrats are Poison to the Nation, and the World.
We can successfully build nations, we just have to keep the Delusional Democrats out of it.
A lot of people have learned the wrong lessons from history.
Democrats were against genital mutilation before they were for it, they were for the KKK before they were against it, they were against illegal immigration before they were for it, etc…
Yes, and Republicans were against protectionist tariffs before they were for them. Against unions before they were for them. For a federal ban on abortion until they were against it.
The blue team is for what the blue team leaders say, whatever that is. The red team is for whatever the red team leaders say, whatever that is. In addition, the blue team is against anything that the red team supports no matter how sane, and vice versa.
Tom, the objection to nation building is that we’re closing in on $40 trillion in debt but a routine blood test costs $200 out of pocket even though you have insurance and the nation’s schools turn out illiterates and the mentally ill are left on the streets.
Sure the America-Last Democrats sabotaged things, but you can’t be serious if you think that the population currently ravaging Germany and other parts of Europe was on the verge of turning into Minnesota on the Euphrates? Wait a sec, have you checked out what happened to Minnesota when those same angels showed up there?
Yes, very close to 2010 though….last year’s El Niño has upped the average temp….now on its way down….will be interesting to watch how the ice extent changes over the next two or three years.
subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,”
story tip perhaps?
Tom Shula
June 22, 2025 11:44 am
Would Schwarzschild Apply his “Radiative Equilibrium” to the Earth’s Atmosphere?
Schwarzschild posited the concept of “radiative equilibrium” in his seminal 1906 paper, investigating the phenomenon of “limb darkening” of the image of the Sun’s disk, where the edge appeared darker than the center.
The 1906 paper can be found in the original German with a bit of effort, but I have yet to find a “legacy” translation into English online. To make Schwarzschild’s paper accessible to those with an interest, Andy May has posted an English translation from my colleague, Markus Ott. You can find it at (link):
A description of Schwarzschild’s work on this problem can be found in Curtis Mobley’s book “A Short History of Radiative Transfer Theory” (Guang Shiu Press, July 2024, available on Amazon.com.) I strongly encourage anyone who has an interest in the discipline of radiative transfer theory to read this book. Parts of the brief description below are excerpted from Mobley’s book.
Schwarzschild began his investigation of radiative equilibrium by using Schuster’s “two-stream” radiative transfer equation (RTE) to calculate the temperature profiles of the Sun’s photosphere in the cases of an adiabatic (convective) equilibrium as well as a radiative equilibrium. He then derived a differential equation for radiance as a function of depth and direction assuming the Sun’s atmosphere only absorbed radiation and emitted black body radiation. He neglected scattering in this first simple model. His calculations showed that the “radiative equilibrium” case provided a closer match to the limb darkening than the adiabatic equilibrium. He concludes his 1906 paper with the statement, “Thereby the introduction of radiative equilibrium has found a certain empirical justification.”
Schwarzschild returned to the topic in a second paper 8 years later in 1914, “Uber Diffusion und Absorption in der Sonnenatmosphare”, (“On Scattering and Absorption in the Sun’s Atmosphere.”) In this treatise, he examined the earlier work of Shuster in this area and developed a set of equations for upwelling and downwelling radiance, including the effect of isotropic scattering. He then considered cases of absorption and emission only vs scattering only to explain the appearance of two calcium Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum as the viewing angle went from the center of the solar disk to the limb. He concluded that the effects of scattering provided a better match, but did not speculate in the paper regarding the cause.
Curtis Mobley in his book summarized Schwarzschild’s contributions to radiative transfer theory as follows:
He introduced the concept of radiative equilibrium, which is fundamental for understanding stellar structure.He developed fully modern radiative transfer equations for upwelling and downwelling radiance in stellar atmospheres.He used his equations to compute the angular distribution of radiance leaving the Sun’s atmosphere.He compared his predictions with observation to show the importance of radiative equilibrium and scattering as a cause of limb darkening.The “Schwarzschild equation” has become the template for modern programs that calculate the TOA atmospheric spectra that we see regularly in scientific papers and are used by some to calculate “energy balance” in the atmosphere. How does this relate to the Earth?
Schwarzschild’s model is enabled by the Sun’s intrinsic structure. The Sun is spherically symmetric, and (on average) time invariant. This means that one can model the processes in a single atmospheric column, and it is a good approximation of what is happening on the entire globe. This enables the use of a plane-parallel, one-dimensional model.
Schwarzschild’s “radiative equilibrium” requires a highly structured atmosphere with a smooth temperature profile and no convection. In his paper, he states clearly:
“Radiation equilibrium will occur in a strongly radiating and absorbing atmosphere, in which the mixing effect of ascending and descending currents [convection] is insignificant compared to heat exchange by radiation.”
Similarly, in the Appendix of Mobley’s book he defines “Radiative Equilibrium” in this way:
“Radiative Equilibrium refers to a state of matter in which there are no mechanisms for the transfer of thermal energy other than radiation. That is, convection and conduction play a negligible role. In this case, the net flux of radiation is constant.”
One more quote from Mobley, in his Preface:
“Radiative transfer theory is the physical and mathematical framework that describes how light travels THROUGH matter.” (emphasis added)
Would Schwarzschild apply this model to the Earth’s atmosphere?.
No. This is exactly what Planck did in his Theory of Heat Radiation. In order for the math to work, the bodies must be homogeneous, isotropic, the same view factors, and lastly, no convection or conduction even within a body.
Fundamentally, if you want to find the basics of radiation, you must deal only with radiation. Anything else makes setting up system impossible because of the variables are not constant.
The Epoch Times has rebutted alarmism about honey bees: ‘Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees Are Not Disappearing—They’re Thriving’, 20Jun25.
Besides the usual eco-activism, I read remarks I consider whining by people making excuses or wanting subsidies.
Two frequent causes:
if overwintering hives, they may need more food if winter is colder or longer than usual, happens in Ontario and Quebec
housekeeping is essential in cool moist climates such as the midcoast of North America, to minimize fungi and stress on bees
An eco-fallacy is insecticides. Commercial beekeepers coordinate with customer to avoid use at blossom time (Hives are moved to match, north and inland as the season progresses).
Recently, many of the Open Thread articles on WUWT have been graced with rather nice artistic images at their start.
There could be some influence from recent AI developments, but can we hope that modesty by the artists does not stop them from one day writing detailed descriptions of how they did it, so we readers can chance our own hands?
Cheers Geoff S
What will happen as a result of increasing concentrations of the IR-active gases CO2, CH4, N2O in the atmosphere, in respect to sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere itself? That was the question to be investigated, and it remains open.
One way to state the “warming” hypothesis is that the Earth system’s longwave emitter to space will experience a de-rating as an end result, requiring a higher temperature at the land + ocean interface with the atmosphere to maintain the longwave emitter output to space.
On the other hand, the valid null hypothesis is that there will be no significant de-rating as an end result; i.e. the emitter output to space is insensitive to the incremental change in the clear-sky IR absorbing power of the atmosphere.
I hold that the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the investigation pre-supposes the de-rating and then treats the implied direct “warming” influence as a driver of amplification through “feedbacks.” Semantics? Maybe, but using the word “forcing” presumes capability.
This is why I keep posting comments that the entire climate modeling exercise is circular. If you use pre-stabilized, parameter-tuned general circulation models and apply radiative “forcings” computed from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – you have hard-coded the de-rating of the emitter, and the “warming” result is baked in. This is the outcome, despite the inherent inability of any of the models to directly compute cloud formation and dissipation, which is already known to be the main controller of the longwave emitter output to space.
This is why I also encourage skeptics of climate alarm to stop conceding the “forcing” + “feedback” semantic framing of the investigation. This does not dispute the concept of IR-active gases or that a static radiative effect at the surface can be computed. It simply recognizes that the hypothesized end result cannot be assumed at the outset.
Has the null hypothesis been falsified? No. Not even close.
Thank you for listening.
A picture of “forcing” at work.
Waste of white line paint.
Perfect — Loving this!
You left out the only greenhouse gas that matters, H2O. Currently civil aviation is dumping 95+ billion gallons of liquid water equivalency into the Tropopause / Lower Stratosphere boundary annually. The climate is currently artificially warmed by around 0.9C (since the late 60’s) by this constant and increasing feed of water vapor coming from the 1000’s of aircraft constantly in flight. Cut it in half, global temps will fall .45 degrees in less than 12 months. Drop it by 100% and the world will cool to such an extent that the multi-crop seasons will not be possible in many agricultural centric areas in the Northern Hemisphere and 10 billion people will be difficult feed.
I just ignore all the banter, and model it, to find the truth.
I often wondered if part of the the UHI is from the massive amount of H2O pumped into the air by combustion. I know having been to the US south western deserts that the air temperature plummets when the sun goes down due to absence of H2O
I built a climate model that uses the Stephboltzman that is used for CO2 that I rearranged for H2O as the forcing and made an empirical model that uses reported aviation fuel burnt as the forcing trend and explains why the climate deviated from the solar trend in the 1970’s. It also explains the Texas killer freeze, the Arctic breach was very likely caused by the drop of 50% drop in aviation during the pandemic no-fly period.
Researchers are still scratching their heads about the cause of the rare triple-dip La-Nina that preceded the HT eruption. The most likely explanation, is the huge 50% drop in aviation forcing at the Tropopause that caused a global cooling trend, and not anything to do with Enso-Cycles.
The Stratospheric H2O from HT eruption took over a year to make it to the Northern Hemisphere, set record low Antarctic Sea Ice, searing Global temperatures. And currently is still in effect, however it would appear that the excess Stratospheric H2O is around 30-40% above pre-HT eruption levels.
Those two experiments, one by nature and one by humanity, lend strong credibility to the possibility of civil aviation being the thermostat to the planet, at this juncture.
Where is isn’t influenced by the numerous, well-watered golf courses, residential swimming pools, and ubiquitous misters throughout large urban areas like Phoenix.
The planes should be restricted to the troposphere so only fly between the latitudes of 40 degrees.
The HT eruption shows us how persistent stratospheric water is.
Here is a long article by radiation physicists, that describes in detail:
1) CO2 ppm in atmosphere does minimally contribute to global warming, and
2) any increase of CO2 ppm has a diminishing temperature increase impact.
.
PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/physics-demonstrates-increasing-greenhouse-gases-cannot-cause
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf
By Richard Lindzen and William Happer
.
The IPCC, etc., would never admit to this, because it would collapse “their proprietary science”
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the available low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
Thank you for your reply.
“Here is a long article by radiation physicists, that describes in detail:
1) CO2 ppm in atmosphere does minimally contribute to global warming, and
2) any increase of CO2 ppm has a diminishing temperature increase impact.”
While I have great respect for Lindzen and Happer, I am also disappointed that they stop at the radiation topic and do not mention that the dynamics of the general circulation demonstrate that the attribution of ANY of the observed warming to incremental CO2 has been unsound all along. You have seen this time lapse video before. NO ONE KNOWS that there is ANY actual contribution from the static radiative effect (of an increase of CO2 ppm) to a sensible heat gain result.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
I agree with your conclusions, but I encourage you to more fully consider the dynamics of energy conversion in the general circulation, as explained in the description text at that short video.
“CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.” OK, but I would also say its influence cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by any means we have available to us.
The Greenhouse gas GWP numbers seem to be based
on concentration and not on their absorption spectrums:
CH4 1932 ppb GWP 86
N20 337 ppb GWP 273
CFC 4 ppb GWP ~8000
SF6 0.007 ppb GWP 17500
It’s just a spurious correlation and not a very good one at that.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, The tables in the AR5
show GWPs all over the map some are single digit.
Next observation is, “Why does the IPCC calculate
using mass instead of volume?” Anyone who has an
eleventh grade education knows that the gas laws
use volume in chemical equations. I’m not the only
one to question whether that was done just to get
a bigger GWP number. And it’s only CH4 that sees
a bigger GWP because its gram formula weight is
less than CO2, and CH4 is the target because it’s a
fossil fuel.
You might be on to something.
I was thinking that it might just be easier for them to use mass units. In fact, I’m in the process of making some VOC calibration standards in liquid CO2 and I decided to use mass because I can weigh both on a scale.
In any case, units are readily interchangeable, although in CO2 at high pressure, the ideal gas equation falls apart especially around its critical points.
On CH4 rise, researchers around me indicate that it’s mostly due to emissions from agriculture (rice) and wetlands.
And a year or two ago Sri Lanka’s government decided to ban nitrogenous fertilizes because Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 273. That policy produced a double digit percent reduction in Sri Lank’a tea crop but once again neither climate science nor the so called “Legacy Press” says anything about how much warming N2O will actually produce.
___________________________________________________________
By the way:
The so-called main stream media now trying to rebrand itself as
“The Legacy Press” is in its 45th year of crusading against CO2..
It is worth noting the GWP100 is 273+/- 130.
IPCC AR6 p.1017.
That is a bloody big uncertainty.
Rarely is the integration time mentioned in the ‘news’ media articles. They typically cite the shorter time-integration because it results in a larger GWP.
Steve, I think that one of the justifiable reasons for using mass, beyond the bigger numbers effect, is that it is impossible to distinguish ‘natural’ CO2 from anthro’ CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, to assign attribution, one has to do a bottoms-up integration of the anthro’ emissions, based on sales taxes as a proxy for tonnage.
However, as I’ve remarked, one should then convert the mass to an equivalent mole-fraction PPMv. The approach is still flawed, however, because the numbers don’t balance and what the alarmists do is assume, without incontrovertible proof, that roughly half of the presumed anthro’ CO2 goes into the oceans, despite the oceans having a much larger volume than the atmosphere.
It has to do with the way the numbers work….if you add an additional tonne of some component that has a very low concentration to start with, it is going to have much more “warming potential per tonne” as GWP is defined. Plus multipliers for radiative efficiency (actually the important one which is much higher than CO2 for big chlorofluorocarbons with many excitation modes)…and lifetime in the atmosphere.
Sir John Houghton was largely responsible for development of GWP ratings, and he succeeded in coming up with a rating system that is comparative for the different gases…plus sounds pretty scary if politicians decide to legislate emissions of refrigerants, propellants, foaming agents, and such.
“…sounds pretty scary…”
_________________________________
And the narrative always stops there. Climate Science doesn’t continue on with the point that CH4 is 86 times more powerful than CO2 and as such will produce x.x ºC of warming over the next 20, 50, or 100 years or by 2100 or if it doubles in concentration.
That question about how much warming will CH4 produce by 2100 has been addressed here at WUWT and it’s less than an unmeasurable 0.01° Doubling CH4 is maybe 0.3°C.
And here we are feeding cattle Bovaer to reduce methane emissions from dairy farms and cattle ranches.
If it sounds sciency and beneficial, somebody will try to make a buck off it…
SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
“LESS THAN AN UNMEASURABLE 0.1°C” ( not 0.01° )
duh!
The meat of some predators, such as brown bears, often acquire the taste of what they have been feeding on, such as berries versus salmon. Does the Bovaer affect the taste of the meat or milk?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
I have the potential to become filthy rich, but I’m not.
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-strange-atlantic-cold-ocean-slowdown.html
Strange Atlantic cold spot linked to century-long slowdown of major ocean current
points to a paper by K.-Y. Li and W. Liu (LL25) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02403-0
Weakened Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation causes the historical North Atlantic Warming Hole
where they note “a majority of climate models were reported to simulate a weakened historical AMOC from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)35, but a strengthened AMOC during the twentieth century from the sixth phase (CMIP6)36. Such distinct historical AMOC changes between two-generation climate models are owing largely to different AMOC responses to anthropogenic aerosol forcing and aerosol-cloud interactions in models”
then they “compare model and observation, we exploit historical simulations with 41 CMIP5 models and 53 CMIP6 models (see “Methods”) and look into each model’s ensemble mean”
and
“divide the 94 CMIP5/6 models into two categories: weakened AMOC (51 models, referred to as AMOC- thereafter) and strengthened AMOC (43 models, referred to as AMOC+ thereafter)”
they also use older CMIP3 models to validate their method.
There seems so much wrong with this approach..
We know and they acknowledge that CMIP5 and older models have issues with the cloud parametization, for example K. Wyser et al. (https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3465/2020/) write about their EC-model and CMIP 5/6:
“the ECS increase can be attributed to the more advanced treatment of aerosols, with the largest contribution coming from the effect of aerosols on cloud microphysics”
Given these rather trivial to spot errors I cannot help, but wonder how this article passed reviewing and editing.
You cannot use models known to be wrong without discussing that potential effect of the error, use the mean without discussing the spread in a real world comparison of models or use the difference of models to support your claim without discussing what their physical differences are and an evaluation how these differences relate to the real world.
Especially the latest point should be well known in climate alarmism, after more than a decade of hyping the findings of the unrealistic RCP8.5 models.
I can make a wild guess why a “likelihood characterization” of the models finally used in this study is missing . .
It’s a nice day for a change…
Climate change blamed for UK heatwave amid 32C temperatures
A rapid study by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group…
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/climate-change/climate-change-blamed-for-uk-heatwave-amid-32c-temperatures/ar-AA1H4nh
The solution to this nice weather?
Get a fan and shut curtains https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jun/20/how-to-keep-cool-uk-heatwave-tips
Or get some beers in and have a bbq
“A rapid study by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group”
This is the group that presents speculation as established fact. This is NOT science.
There is no established connection between CO2 and any extreme weather event, despite what the WWA says. None, whatsoever. The WWA is just making things up. Typical for Alarmist Climate Science. All they have are distortions and lies.
They are funny. They do take themselves (and their pseudoscience) so very seriously.
And they get paid for it, too.
That’s why they take it seriously!
Our heat wave in Colorado is waning too. Compared to the record high temperatures of the 1930’s and 1950’s, it was relatively pleasant.
Careful there Tom. Fredi is so sincere she couldn’t possibly be wrong 🙂 She absolutely knows climate change is catastrophic and is “costing thousands ,perhaps millions, of deaths globally every year”
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-people/fredi-otto
The high temperature figure’s given by the Met Office should always be treated with caution. As they always quote the extreme high temperature what was reached and not what would have been the more typical temperatures reached across the UK.
Here are the Maximum temperatures reached in Scunthorpe over the last 10 days. Which will have been more typical of the daily highs reached across eastern England.
12th 22.5C
13th 25.5C
14th 24.5C
15th 22.9C
16th 25.6C
17th 26.0C
18th 25.2C
19th 23.4C
20th 28.6C
21st 28.6C
22nd 24.3C (up until 14.50 BST time).
Humberside airport was only more than a degree warmer on 3 of the days, cooler 2.
The average for Scunthorpe for this period is 18-19C, reaching 25C is uncommon. So you confirm it was very warm.
On the day in 1976 Southampton matched the June record, my location just down the coast was 8C cooler.
The MO temperatures are not all vastly warmer, and the weather still isn’t exactly the same all the time even in relatively nearby places; no matter how many times you post banging the same drum
No one is in doubt that it’s been warm over the lastweek at least here in eastern England. What l do question is when the Met Office uses a isolated extreme high temperature recorded at a weather station and then try’s to use this extreme temperature recording as if it was the typical temperature that were been reached across the UK. So l have posted my data to make it clear to UK posters that this is simply not the case.
Also there is nothing rare about the temperature hitting 25C during summer here in N Lincolnshire away from the coast. Its typically happens a number of days each summer.
“Warm” is in the body of the beholder. I just went for a quick bike ride around the neighborhood. The temperature, shortly after sunset, was very pleasant, being about 28 deg C.
It’s 19C here in Cheshire, less heat wave, more not quite warm enough wave
Newsflash, heatwave’s over for now, dragging it’s heels a bit in the east as per Taxed’s Scunthorpe temp. reading.
This so called heatwave has largely been confined to the SE and the Eastern side of the UK. Over on the western side and especially the NW side of the UK, the temperatures have been much closer to the average maximum temperatures for this time of year.
Just underpants, or the whole shebang?
Underpants? Pffft.
Yesterday the Met Office issued a yellow warning for thunderstorms here in NE Wales from 3pm Saturday to 4am Sunday. We had one clap of thunder and a tiny bit of rain which didn’t even deter the cat from going out.
Don’t forget the ‘torrential’ downpours, ready to pounce. Downpours are at least 90% ‘torrential’ according to what i gather from the Met Office reports. Funnily enough there is very little footage of those biblical poundings. But hey, they are potential, right? A win- win situations. We warned you!!!🤭
Forest blamed for trees.
So ‘rapid’ the press release was ready before the thermometers were read.
If the atmosphere was as good at trapping infrared as the warmistas claim, then this wouldn’t work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zW9_ztTiw8
Representative Massie (R) Kentucky has to go.
He is not a Republican, he is a stealth radical Democrat. If you vote with Radical Democrats, then you are a Radical Democrat. He should be voted out of office in the 2026 elections. All he does is impede progress and help the Radical Democrats.
Massie and the Radical Democrats think they understand the U.S. Constitution and think President Trump cannot legally take military action without the consent of Congress. They are all dead wrong. We go over this bullshit every time a president takes military action. The appeasers and cowards come out of the woodwork.
If you want to know what the U.S. Constitution really says about the president’s War Powers, listen to Mark Levin’s tv show on Fox News this evening (Sunday night). He will straighten everyone out.
If the United States were suddenly attacked by a foreign enemy, would the president have to wait for a vote of Congress before taking action? Of course not.
The U.S. Congress passed the War Powers Act back after the Vietnam war in an effort to hamstring the president’s ability to defend the United States. This law has never been scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court and, imo, would be found to be unconstitutional, and we may get a test of it this time around.
And, even so, the War Powers Act allows for the president to have freedom of action for a certain amount of time BEFORE he goes to Congress for permission to proceed further.
Listen to Mark Levin. He knows what he is talking about. The Radical Democrats and Rep. Massie are full of shit.
A few cowardly thoughts from out of the woodwork, Tom. We have 40,000 young Americans in harm’s way in the region. Israel-First patriot Mark Levin is just one in a long line of propagandists who have scammed sincere American patriots like yourself into conflating what is (perceived by them to be) good for Israel with what is good for America.
We’re hearing all the same confident predictions as we heard in the big Zionist/Military Industrial Complex operation of 2003.
How well we all remember the Iraqis greeting our soldiers as liberators. Look at how much Baghdad resembles Geneva today, now that Democracy has spread throughout the lands we have liberated at a mere pittance cost of 9 trillion dollars.
And the fruits of our labors in Afghanistan! Libya! Sudan and Syria. Let’s not forget the great benefits of our glorious Syrian efforts which have carried the religion of peace to the precipice of dominating Europe.
Yes, bring us more war, to the everlasting glory of Israel and Blackrock.
Naively, one might ask why can’t we all get along?
Reality is too complicated, with too many variables for most to comprehend. We only get a fraction of the story and much is disinformation, and of course the future is ever difficult to predict. It does appear that bad things befall BRICSs stepping out of line with the U.S.
With regard to Europe, they there have to take some responsibility for their own death wish. Trump is doing what he can to prevent the U.S. from following them down the drain.
Tribalism built the world and tribalism will eventually destroy it. Maybe sooner than later. We cannot all just get along, that is unnatural. Everyone seeks peace, the peace that comes from annihilating the other tribe and enforcing his own opinions.
We aren’t allowed to know 10% of the truth. About the only thing we can be confident of is that whatever is being said is a lie.
The climate lockdowns didn’t work out, queue WW3.
It could really be scary if AI forms its own tribes.
“conflating what is (perceived by them to be) good for Israel with what is good for America.”
Like no mushroom clouds over us ???
Are you truly naive enough to believe that an airstrike is all it takes to eliminate a nuclear weapons program if as you apparently are convinced one does exist?
Do you suppose that all the nuclear scientists in Iran were in one location waiting to be assassinated?
Do you imagine that a tricksy regime prepared to blatantly lie about their intentions would shrink from hiding some of their enrichment facilities?
This situation must now escalate to regime change and boots on the ground. Failure to go there would be more dangerous than never having acted.
Say goodbye to every hope of economic prosperity once the Straits of Hormuz are closed down and oil is at $130/bbl. (Say, I wonder why Putin isn’t too interested in supporting Iran?)
Are you truly naive enough to believe that a nuclear weapons program can function with no uranium , no enrichment allowed and no operating facilities to
do the job ???
Are you truly naive enough to believe the happy talk that in one attack any of those outcomes have been achieved, sob?
A) the enriched uranium that they allowed the inspectors to see was almost certainly not the full extent of it;
B) the enriched uranium that was in the sites by all evidence of there being no increased radiation was not left at the target sites;
C) just as it is highly unlikely that all the enriched uranium was disclosed to the IAEA, it is highly unlikely that all of the enrichment facilities (centrifuges) were disclosed.
So they most likely still have their enriched uranium and they most likely still have their secret final stage enrichment facilit(ies).
The only way that gets sorted is with a long and bloody land war against a large country with 92 million people. A country that just so happens to be in a position to block a substantial amount of the world’s oil supply.
Now consider the actions of the other hostile powers, Russia and China.
Russia is happy to see us embroiled in a new quagmire. It means two things to them: triple or quadruple the profit on their oil sales and no capacity to spare for us to keep supplying Ukraine. Huge win for them.
China is hurt by the oil market disruption no doubt, but with the US navy tied down in Iran, what better opportunity will they have to take Taiwan?
To some extent I trust Trump’s judgement, and I don’t know probably 90% of what he knows about the situation. But on the basis of publicly available information and some basic common sense, this looks like the event that derails his second and final term and dooms MAGA.
It hasn’t been one attack. It’s been many attacks, first by Israel, then by the US on a facility too deep for Israel to get to. Is it all gone? Probably not, but it’s seriously crippled.
The beginning of the beginning, friends. Said in sadness, not in anger.
How I hope to be wrong!
Iran has been playing the UN off a break for decades.
The USA just put an end to their bullshit.
Next!
We’ve just damaged some evacuated sites. Where is the enriched uranium? No doubt at least some of the centrifuges were evacuated as well. Now like cutting into a tumor, it metastasizes.
Far from the end, this is the beginning of the beginning.
That’s the question I wonder. Did they just truck it out? Maybe banked it in China temporarily? Israeli intel is ususally good. Fingers crossed.
There would now be even more eyes-in-the-skies covering every square inch of the islamic republic of Iran.
I reckon if they had had trucking operations out of the nuke plants areas, the IDF and US would have picked it up on precision CCTV before the bombers were deployed.
Such wishful and illogical thinking.
Logically the Iranians have been lying about having a weapons program for decades. At the very least, they intended to maintain a fiction of a weapons program by over-enrichment as a deterrent to being attacked. Do I have a gun on my dresser or don’t I? The NRA bumper sticker could imply it? But you’ll have to try me to find out for sure.
Now if you were planning to build a bomb in 2015, but your cover story was going to be that you’re just enriching for commercial power purposes, then you have no qualms about telling a blatant lie, right? Are you also going to keep all of your enrichment capability in the sites that the IAEA know about? That’s absurd.
Are you going to develop and/or purchase centrifuge technology but not have some in totally secret locations? Is the gun on my dresser my only weapon? I wonder how far you can tunnel in a decade? You’re certain that the entrance that the IAEA inspectors pass through is the only way in and out?
According to the latest IAEA reports, Iran has 604.4 kg of 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride, with a volume of approximately 0.119 m³. Source is Grok.
Twelve percent of a cubic meter. Picture 60 two-liter soda bottles each weighing about 10kg (22 lbs). And that’s across all their sites.
Use your head for more than a hat rack.
We see your hat .
Will we see any cattle ?
C’mon sob, lighten up! We’re only talking about Armageddon here.
We’ve just damaged some evacuated sites.
That is what Iran said. If true, why had those sites been evacuated?
Where is the enriched uranium?
Under several tons of rubble? I wouldn’t expect it to be right there easy to find after such an attack.
You’ve penetrated 300 feet into the ground with 60,000 lbs of high explosives. How many tons of hot gases does that entail? If you actually hit the UF6, it would vaporize and most of it would end up in the air above the mountain. Yet supposedly there’s no sign of increased radiation.
I don’t know the details of the bomb’s penetration or exactly how things would have played out, so your speculation may well be valid.
That still leaves the question of why were they evacuated?
Isn’t it obvious? If you’re expecting an imminent attack that would potentially expose your population to the equivalent of a dirty bomb, wouldn’t you move it?
What point do you think you’re pressing with me? That the Iranians had highly enriched uranium hexafluoride isn’t in doubt by anyone. The threat of attack by Israel or the US has been in the news for literally a decade.
Even in the absurd case that Iran was only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear power, any sane government would try to mitigate the risk of a dirty bomb scenario under the threat of attack.
What point do you think you’re pressing with me?
I’m not pressing any point, i’m just asking questions.
So actually the Jerusalem Post is now reporting that the US gave Iran prior warning and that the Iranians removed “most” of the enriched uranium and partially evacuated the sites.
Not exactly an unbiased source, but take it for what it’s worth.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-858546
They have been under Israeli attack for days now.
They have been under Israeli attack for days now.
Yeah, obvious in retrospect, plus the “within two weeks”. I just didn’t think it through. Thank you.
Looks like a cease fire, perhaps? We’ll see what happens over the next 24 hours.
U-235 is relatively weakly radioactive, half life of something like 700 million years.
Sure, but certainly detectable if 600 kgs of UF6 went up in a plume over Qom?
I’m an analytical chemist and I’m not sure. It’s probably not easy in the midst of bombed site and certainly more difficult than detecting radiological metals.
I know it hydrolyzes once it gets into the environment, making a mess, HF and oxides.
I’m talking about detecting radiation, not some kind of chemical analysis for uranium content.
These are not cowardly thoughts at all. The basis for disagreement is that the foreign policy decisions we make today are too often forced upon us by the awful decisions of our former so-called leaders. Regardless, the only relevant question today is whether the Iranian regime seeks a nuclear weapon simply to stave off Western meddling / regime change efforts, or to provide itself with ‘immunity’ while it continues its own efforts to meddle and promote regime change within the region.
Of course the bad decisions of prior leaders constrain us. But it is not obvious to me that this attack was the least bad option. We never attacked the Soviet Union though we were under greater threat. If this gamble pays off, no one could be happier than I will be.
The world grows ever more dangerous as we add the AI factor. Israel’s strategy of vicious revenge for any attack is not sustainable. Eventually every tinpot dictator will have sufficient means to inflict hideous carnage and inevitably terrorist groups will be the actors. I am not sure that I see any path away from that dystopia.
The least bad decision only becomes apparent in retrospect, if even then. The elites of both the US and the Soviet Union wasted many lives, mostly foreign, and much treasure in striving for global hegemony. The main differences between now and then are that both sides respected the consequences of ‘MAD’ and there were always ‘off-ramps’ when tensions became too heated. I don’t know if that applies to the Iranian regime.
The Soviet Union never explicitly stated: “We are going to nuke you as soon as we have the capability”. Iran has said as much to Israel.
Right. By claiming that they have not been trying to build a bomb, that’s what they were clearly saying, Jeff. I see your point. 😝
But you merely underline my point. This is Israel’s problem. If Trump can pull off a one-and-done to help Israel without dragging us into another forever war, then I will applaud him. My objection is based on prudence not some principle.
It isn’t JUST Isreal’s problem. If Iran gets bombs and uses them, the radioactive fallout will effect the whole Earth, particularly the Northern Hemisphere. It is everyone’s problem!
However, apparently, only the USA has the technological capability to at least delay the enrichment program.
I think you just did a “does not follow” comment. Tom’s comment was about the U.S. Constitution and a President’s taking military action without the consent of Congress. Your mentioning of 40,000 Americans in harm’s way, while valid and important, does not clarify the Constitution-President issue.
John, I happen to agree with Tom on the constitutional question to a large degree. Mine is not a disagreement on whether Trump has the authority to act as he has. It’s a disagreement about whether Trump has made a good decision for American interests. This is an open thread. We’re free to steer the discussion however we like. I chose to address Tom’s oblique accusation of cowardice rather than to agree with him on a point that is of little concern to me.
If Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him.* IMHO, the good Citizens of the USA should be glad to have its elected Congress debate & hold a vote pertaining to the War Powers Act. (Why were they taking the long weekend off, WTH?) And then let the Supreme Court address whether that (WPA) is constitutional at all.
That part of Kentucky (4th District) is an interesting place. It extends along the mighty Ohio River from the great city Cincinnati-OH (the Kentucky suburbs on the south side of the River) to another great city, Louisville-KY; and in the other direction, all the way to West Virginia (his birth state).
A breeding ground for contrarians, think JDV, for better or worse. All organized political parties hate Libertarians & for members of the Radical (Constitutional) Orthodoxy.
He’s probably one of the best-educated members of Congress, back when MIT stood for something real.
Spouse: Rhonda Massie (m. 1993–2024)
Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Electrical Engineering 1996), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mechanical Engineer 1993)
Speaking as a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, I can vouch for that claim.
Lindsey Graham is far worse.
A snake in the grass
Rummaging through an old box of vinyl yesterday, I came across an old classic, the Pat Travers Band meets Trapeze… N.B Turn it up to 11
Hold out your life, best as you can
The whole world’s burnin’ down
But if it comes together, I’ll be in your town
We can work it out, out, out
Thanks for that. I enjoy that genre very much. They have a certain synchronicity with the Police. Timeless.
For the B2 bombers.
Has anyone heard if the Indonesian Lewotobi eruption injected any significant ash into the Stratosphere, usually there will be some telemetry coming from various government institutions, but they have been quiet. Maybe Dodge got them.
Good question. It shut down the Bali airport the other day.
I wish the Mauna Loa Transmission data could be provided daily instead of having to wait weeks sometimes for last months value.
” … ejecting an ash column up to 16 km (~10 miles) ” The stratosphere is said to start at 10k., so the answer is yes.
“Ash” in this case seems to be a generic term including the glass-like material and lots of gases, such as H2O, CO2, H2, SO2, and others.
I have not found reports of the relative amounts.
Nation-Building is Good.
After World War II the United States rebuilt Europe, and saved South Korea from the Communists in the 1950’s, and then built the beautiful nation of South Korea and gave them the chance for freedom.
Does anyone think the United States should not have done those things?
So why do so many Americans wring their hands over the thought of doing “nation-building”?
The reason is because they have associated nation-building with the debacles in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the real problem is not nation-building. The real problem is giving Delusional Democrats control of the situations.
It is the Delusional Democrats who turned all three successful military operations in South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan into debacles. They were not debacles before the Delusional Democrats gained control.
The U.S. military defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefields of Vietnam, to the point that eventually the North Vietnamese signed a peace agreement in 1973, and withdrew their troops from South Vietnam.
South Vietnam was in good shape, and ready to become a nation like South Korea became, and would have done so given half a chance, but unfortunately for them, the Delusional Anti-war Democrats had control of the United States at that time, and instead of leaving a U.S. Combat Division in South Vietnam, as was done in South Korea, to assure the peace treaty held, the Delusional, Appeaser Democrats threw South Vietnam to the Communist Wolves by cutting the assistance to South Vietnam to the bone, and then, when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and again attacked South Vietnam, the Uncaring Democrats refused to come to their aid, even though the United States was legally and morally obligated to do so. And so we sat and watched as South Vietnam was overrun by North Vietnam. Joe Biden spoke out against helping South Vietnam at the time. He started out his political career doing damage to the United States.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed South Vietnam and turned it into a failure, it was Delusional Democrats turning their backs on our allies.
Delusional Democrats are not fit to defend the United States. They live in a False Reality that makes them dangerous to U.S. national security.
In Iraq, the U.S. military defeated the enemy. Iraq was in good shape. I remember seeing the Iraqi citizens proudly displaying the ink-stained fingers to show that they had voted in the first free election in Iraq in many decades. Iraqis were setting up small businesses all over the place and hope was in the air.
And then the Delusional Democrats in the form of Barack Obama and Joe Biden took control in the United States, and they promptly allowed the Mad Mullahs of Iran to take over the nation of Iraq, and that’s why Iraq became a failure.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed a free Iraq, it was Delusional Democrats who did that.
Afghanistan was brought under control by the U.S. military. After President Trump threatened the Taliban leader over any future killing of American troops in Afghanistan, not another American troop was killed over the next 18 months, and then Trump left office and the Traitor Joe Biden took control and immediately threw all the progress made in Afghanistan to the Wolves by aburptly withdrawing from Afghanistan without even a coherent plan.
It wasn’t nation-building that killed any chance for freedom in Afghanistan. It was Delusional Democrats who did that.
It wasn’t nation-building or military failures that caused the failures in South Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, it was Delusional Democrats with their Delusional Thinking that was the cause.
The Delusional Democrats are not suited psychologically to defend the United States. They run away every time.
Those people who fear nation-building should realize where the problem lies: With Delusional Democrats who don’t have a clue as to how to protect and defend the United States. They prove it every time they are put in charge. We should stop putting Delusional Democrats in charge if we know what’s good for us, and what’s good for millions of innocent people all over the world.
Delusional Democrats are Poison to the Nation, and the World.
We can successfully build nations, we just have to keep the Delusional Democrats out of it.
A lot of people have learned the wrong lessons from history.
“A lot of people have learned the wrong lessons from history”.
Including yourself apparently..😁
Democrats were against genital mutilation before they were for it, they were for the KKK before they were against it, they were against illegal immigration before they were for it, etc…
Yes, and Republicans were against protectionist tariffs before they were for them. Against unions before they were for them. For a federal ban on abortion until they were against it.
The blue team is for what the blue team leaders say, whatever that is. The red team is for whatever the red team leaders say, whatever that is. In addition, the blue team is against anything that the red team supports no matter how sane, and vice versa.
Tribalism
Certainly a strange understanding of history there Tom
Tom, the objection to nation building is that we’re closing in on $40 trillion in debt but a routine blood test costs $200 out of pocket even though you have insurance and the nation’s schools turn out illiterates and the mentally ill are left on the streets.
Sure the America-Last Democrats sabotaged things, but you can’t be serious if you think that the population currently ravaging Germany and other parts of Europe was on the verge of turning into Minnesota on the Euphrates? Wait a sec, have you checked out what happened to Minnesota when those same angels showed up there?
“NSIDC Charctic” (for your search) shows Arctic sea ice extent about 5% below “average of the last decade”…. for 3rd week of June.
What’s more the NSIDC’s Charctic currently shows Arctic sea ice extent to be “lowest ever” (since 1979) for the date:
Yes, very close to 2010 though….last year’s El Niño has upped the average temp….now on its way down….will be interesting to watch how the ice extent changes over the next two or three years.
Of interest to those following AI news: MIT study finds AI use appears to lead to cognitive decline: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5360220-chatgpt-use-linked-to-cognitive-decline-mit-research/
subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,”
story tip perhaps?
Would Schwarzschild Apply his “Radiative Equilibrium” to the Earth’s Atmosphere?
Schwarzschild posited the concept of “radiative equilibrium” in his seminal 1906 paper, investigating the phenomenon of “limb darkening” of the image of the Sun’s disk, where the edge appeared darker than the center.
The 1906 paper can be found in the original German with a bit of effort, but I have yet to find a “legacy” translation into English online. To make Schwarzschild’s paper accessible to those with an interest, Andy May has posted an English translation from my colleague, Markus Ott. You can find it at (link):
Karl Schwarzschild – “On the Equilibrium of the Solar Atmosphere”
A description of Schwarzschild’s work on this problem can be found in Curtis Mobley’s book “A Short History of Radiative Transfer Theory” (Guang Shiu Press, July 2024, available on Amazon.com.) I strongly encourage anyone who has an interest in the discipline of radiative transfer theory to read this book. Parts of the brief description below are excerpted from Mobley’s book.
Schwarzschild began his investigation of radiative equilibrium by using Schuster’s “two-stream” radiative transfer equation (RTE) to calculate the temperature profiles of the Sun’s photosphere in the cases of an adiabatic (convective) equilibrium as well as a radiative equilibrium. He then derived a differential equation for radiance as a function of depth and direction assuming the Sun’s atmosphere only absorbed radiation and emitted black body radiation. He neglected scattering in this first simple model. His calculations showed that the “radiative equilibrium” case provided a closer match to the limb darkening than the adiabatic equilibrium. He concludes his 1906 paper with the statement, “Thereby the introduction of radiative equilibrium has found a certain empirical justification.”
Schwarzschild returned to the topic in a second paper 8 years later in 1914, “Uber Diffusion und Absorption in der Sonnenatmosphare”, (“On Scattering and Absorption in the Sun’s Atmosphere.”) In this treatise, he examined the earlier work of Shuster in this area and developed a set of equations for upwelling and downwelling radiance, including the effect of isotropic scattering. He then considered cases of absorption and emission only vs scattering only to explain the appearance of two calcium Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum as the viewing angle went from the center of the solar disk to the limb. He concluded that the effects of scattering provided a better match, but did not speculate in the paper regarding the cause.
Curtis Mobley in his book summarized Schwarzschild’s contributions to radiative transfer theory as follows:
He introduced the concept of radiative equilibrium, which is fundamental for understanding stellar structure.He developed fully modern radiative transfer equations for upwelling and downwelling radiance in stellar atmospheres.He used his equations to compute the angular distribution of radiance leaving the Sun’s atmosphere.He compared his predictions with observation to show the importance of radiative equilibrium and scattering as a cause of limb darkening.The “Schwarzschild equation” has become the template for modern programs that calculate the TOA atmospheric spectra that we see regularly in scientific papers and are used by some to calculate “energy balance” in the atmosphere. How does this relate to the Earth?
Schwarzschild’s model is enabled by the Sun’s intrinsic structure. The Sun is spherically symmetric, and (on average) time invariant. This means that one can model the processes in a single atmospheric column, and it is a good approximation of what is happening on the entire globe. This enables the use of a plane-parallel, one-dimensional model.
Schwarzschild’s “radiative equilibrium” requires a highly structured atmosphere with a smooth temperature profile and no convection. In his paper, he states clearly:
“Radiation equilibrium will occur in a strongly radiating and absorbing atmosphere, in which the mixing effect of ascending and descending currents [convection] is insignificant compared to heat exchange by radiation.”
Similarly, in the Appendix of Mobley’s book he defines “Radiative Equilibrium” in this way:
“Radiative Equilibrium refers to a state of matter in which there are no mechanisms for the transfer of thermal energy other than radiation. That is, convection and conduction play a negligible role. In this case, the net flux of radiation is constant.”
One more quote from Mobley, in his Preface:
“Radiative transfer theory is the physical and mathematical framework that describes how light travels THROUGH matter.” (emphasis added)
Would Schwarzschild apply this model to the Earth’s atmosphere?.
No. This is exactly what Planck did in his Theory of Heat Radiation. In order for the math to work, the bodies must be homogeneous, isotropic, the same view factors, and lastly, no convection or conduction even within a body.
Fundamentally, if you want to find the basics of radiation, you must deal only with radiation. Anything else makes setting up system impossible because of the variables are not constant.
‘Would Schwarzschild apply this model to the Earth’s atmosphere?’
No, mainly because it seems wholly inconsistent with an atmosphere where ’emergent phenomena’ predominates.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/21/the-emergence-of-emergence/
My potato crop was good today.
The Epoch Times has rebutted alarmism about honey bees: ‘Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees Are Not Disappearing—They’re Thriving’, 20Jun25.
Besides the usual eco-activism, I read remarks I consider whining by people making excuses or wanting subsidies.
Two frequent causes:
An eco-fallacy is insecticides. Commercial beekeepers coordinate with customer to avoid use at blossom time (Hives are moved to match, north and inland as the season progresses).
I’d appreciate any critiques of this video. It addresses MODTRAN.
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
Recently, many of the Open Thread articles on WUWT have been graced with rather nice artistic images at their start.
There could be some influence from recent AI developments, but can we hope that modesty by the artists does not stop them from one day writing detailed descriptions of how they did it, so we readers can chance our own hands?
Cheers Geoff S
Story tip.
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2025/06/hochul-orders-new-york-power-authority-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant-in-upstate-ny-report.html