Hynde was born in 1951 in Arron OH, and so missed the “Great Smoke Pall of 1950”, and would not remember the region-wide heat of the mid-1950s. I was 100 miles east of Akron and that period was the hottest I remember – well, except for being in Tucson AZ once in June. [? 1976] 🥵
The hottest I’ve ever been was just north of there in a Cleveland suburb. I was there for a pig roast where I was the chef. It is a simple job. I simply had to do what ever was necessary to roast two pigs. A couple of NASA rocket scientists had built the roasting device and spits. A bicycle chain ran through a stationary bicycle to sprockets on the two spits. All I had to do was light the fire and drive the bicycle.
The radio was reporting triple digit temperatures – well over 100 that day. I was perched between two roaring fires pedaling the bicycle. The first surprise was when I started pedaling. instead of rotating, the spits simply fell over. The rocket scientists were prepared with a chain and chain binder to anchor the spits to the ground. Shortly after that came the second surprise. The pigs started rotating, but for only a short angle before the chain slipped off the drive sprocket.
I was able to diagnose that, and found that I could spin the pigs by pedaling backward. I spent the rest of the day pedaling backward in 100-+ temperatures between two roaring fires.
The hottest, though, was that night. I had driven there in a Chevy van, in order to spend the night there. It was too hot to sleep in the van, so I tried running the air conditioning. All that did was heat up the powertrain and get all the other campers complaining of the noise.
Consider the idea that incremental CO2 promotes reduced cloud cover, ending up warming the planet through increased ASR (absorbed solar radiation). Is it reasonable to think that the climate models could ever represent clouds and precipitation with sufficient fidelity to support this concept? Short answer – No.
About the uncertainty of measured precipitation data, I found a web page for NOAA’s “Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product” and generated this image for May 2025. ?timestamp=1751121820995
I asked Grok, the X AI agent: “For the “Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product” generated by NOAA’s Physical Sciences Laboratory, please explain the meaning of the “Monthly Error Surface Precipitation” values in mm/day.”
An excerpt from the response:
“Example
If a grid cell in the GPCP Version 2.3 Monthly Analysis Product reports a precipitation rate of 3 mm/day with a monthly error of 0.5 mm/day for a given month, this indicates:
The best estimate of average daily precipitation for that month is 3 mm.
The true precipitation rate could reasonably range between 2.5 and 3.5 mm/day, based on the error estimate.
This uncertainty could affect applications like validating climate models or studying precipitation trends, so users should account for it in their analyses.”
I followed up: “Please compute the thermal flux uncertainty of a +/- 1 mm/day estimated error in the monthly precipitation value. Report the answer in units of +/- W/m^2.”
The response, summarized at the end:
“The thermal flux uncertainty corresponding to a ±1 mm/day error in the monthly precipitation value is approximately ±29 W/m².” https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1938952771492864329
Have ANY of the climate models ever had ANY diagnostic or prognostic authority concerning the overall response of clouds and precipitation to the minor longwave radiative effect of incremental CO2? No.
How can this be so confidently stated? Because the models must inherit the large uncertainty in the observed data, which is involved in tuning the simulation of precipitation, which necessarily involves the tuning of cloud parameters.
The implication is that no one knows – whether by models or not – that the computed radiative influence of incremental CO2 has anything to do with the reported trends of reduced cloud cover and increased ASR from the satellite data.
What do the models say are the effects on rainfall (mm/day) of cutting down half the Amazonian-, Equatorial African- and Southern Asian rainforests?
Rather than fixating on a trace gas, perhaps they should focus more on the water vapour budget, the effect of the loss of enormous amounts of transpiration’ the loss of overnight condensation on leaf surfaces; the overall reflectivity of incoming radiation on the earth’s surface; the spontaneous expansion of biodiversity under the protective cover of those trees best adapted to the strongest intensities of sunlight; etc etc.
Similar analysis concerning the effect on rainfall of covering 10% of coastal areas with concrete?
Land usage changes are a far more cogent hypothesis for ‘warming since 1977’ than ‘increased carbon dioxide’.
That doesn’t even examine the role of multidecadal oceanic oscillations…..
It should also be noted that commercial aviation is exhausting 95+ billion gallons of water vapor equivalency into the Tropopause / Lower Stratosphere and this forcing has been growing each year since the 60’s.
Considering that the daily precipitation on the earth is around 1.3*10^12 metric tonnes, an increase of 10^11 gallons (<10^9 tonnes per year?) is hardly determinative.
One should be wary of AI doing its search, finding 3 or 4 papers that seem “good” according to whatever algorithm it uses to assess a “confidence level”, paraphrasing them to avoid copyright issues, and then very confidently relaying to you answers that are only correct to narrow consensus of deluded paper authors…..plus storing its results for the next similar inquiry….
Consider the idea that incremental CO2 promotes reduced cloud cover, ending up warming the planet through increased ASR (absorbed solar radiation). Is it reasonable to think that the climate models could ever represent clouds and precipitation with sufficient fidelity to support this concept? Short answer – No.
By what mechanism would CO2 alter clouds? If you can demonstrate that concept, you may be on to something, because incoming radiation is what is causing the warming, not CO2 trapping outgoing radiation. https://app.screencast.com/hQSOZQaptm6XY
“By what mechanism would CO2 alter clouds?”
Perhaps I should have been clearer at the outset of my post that I do not think the idea that CO2 alters clouds is supported by the evidence. The reason I was thinking about it was the recent article here at WUWT, the comments to the article, and the paper to which the article referred. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/23/bombshell-study-reveals-climate-warming-driven-by-receding-cloud-cover/
Mr. Layman here.
I’ll just throw this in.
Rain comes from clouds. Rain dissolves gases in the atmosphere as it falls, including CO2.
Fewer clouds. Less rain. More CO2 remains in the atmosphere.
So which came first? The chicken or the egg?
I suspect the mechanism is similar to what would cause a tropical hot spot. With warmer temps at higher altitudes you would get less condensation and thus fewer clouds.
Of course, this also requires surface warming first since it’s a feedback.
A decision on Wednesday by the Berlin Constitutional Court allows a long-stalled initiative by the advocacy group Volksentscheid Berlin Autofrei (“Ballot Measure for an Auto-Free Berlin) to continue gathering signatures for a referendum to create a zone in the center of the German capital that would be free of almost all private automobiles.
I don’t have an enormous problem with huge cities doing this, as the population density is such that good public transportation networks will make the city function well.
I have a huge problem when city nerds who never ever lived in a rural setting miraculously think that they are fit to rule the world, transposing what they want for their local environment into what the entire world must have imposed upon them to expiate their climate sins…..
15 minute cities will never work for 15 hrs a day farming communities.
I’ve never seen any of them make allowances for deliveries, or for bad weather, or for grocery shopping every day instead of once a week. This idea that people can walk anywhere in 15 minutes means grocery shopping has to be a daily occurrence, and that’s half an hour travel time every single day, rain or shine, snow or heat wave, carrying groceries, instead of a 10-15 minute drive each way once a week. It doesn’t consider that the car can carry coolers for the frozen and cold food. Ice cream would become a winter treat only.
As for deliveries, 15 minute cities require lots of small groceries scattered all over, and deliveries by big trucks just won’t work. They’d need ten times as many delivery trucks just to get food to the grocers.
What about getting purchases delivered to homes? Even small end tables and weed eaters are too much for a 15 minute walk. A hammer and box of nails? Sure, possible, but who buys just a hammer and a box of nails? Want tiles for a kitchen counter? All that will require more deliveries.
15 minute cities won’t work anywhere except towns so small that you have to drive 10 miles to get to the stores you want.
More deliveries to more small food centers also means more food insecurity since even small obstacles, e.g. a water main break, can foul deliveries up. Small food centers won’t be able to afford keeping an overhead inventory so short-notice demand peaks won’t be able to be met – more food insecurity.
15 minute cities.
Would each have a water plant? A wastewater plant?
A hospital that could handle a bypass operation?
How far apart would they be?
How soon would inbreeding become a problem for the population?
“I don’t have an enormous problem with huge cities doing this, as the population density is such that good public transportation networks will make the city function well.”
I remember once doing a google maps to get directions for my wife to go outside the a close suburb. I would take about 20 minutes to drive it. It actually said about 2 days+ to go by city bus. (It would have been quicker to walk it!)
When will troublesome Germans learn that they have been centrally involved since 1900 in numerous wrong decisions that led to the loss of millions of lives?
Germany since 1980s has now been centrally involved in creating and promoting an extremist view of alarmist climate change through places like Potsdam Institute. They are boots and all into more international discord that will not end well. Even the German Eagle symbolism is being shredded by windmills. What does it take to get them to bug out of the business of telling others what they can and cannot do? Why not try a reversion to excellence like their Beethoven was to music? Geoff S
Khan is pushing for similar measures on Oxford Street – a major artery as well as a high end shopping and theatrical area. Where all those buses, taxis etc etc will go, nobody knows…
We left London in the early 1990s to move to NE Wales for job reasons. Oxford Street then had been nose to tail traffic for many years. Where is the traffic going to go if it is pedestrianised?
The handicapped parking spaces [aka “accessible”] at my favorite grocery store get lots of use. Often, I see folks that can barely make it inside to the powered carts. They would be home-bound without an automobile. A 15-minute city would be a non-starter. Admittedly, a few folks arrive from nearby care facilities on their own electric carriers.
Over the last few decades, we’ve elected more than enough incompetent, narcissistic British chumps, we don’t want another one.
rtj1211
June 29, 2025 4:00 am
Is it a matter of convenience that heatwaves are occurring in Western Europe and the E. Coast of the USA (places where climate zealots tend to congregate, run MSM channels etc etc)?
Is it even worth mentioning that other places on earth have experienced unusual cold, highly unusual early patterns of snowfall etc etc?
I wouldn’t want to think that heat domes are geo-engineering endpoints and the consequences of them are manifested across other global geographies, after all….
Other than 3 or 4 hot days, the weather has been most pleasant the spring and so far this summer in Colorado. I should leave for my bike ride before it warms too much but I still have coffee to drink.
Jamaica NYC
June 29, 2025 4:21 am
I have been reading this site for years and am perplexed by the paucity of articles about glaciation. We know it happens and that its effects would be much worse than warming and yet, nothing. Why do we chase the red dot of CO2? Perhaps the best approach to debunking CO2 would be from the opposite direction. Proving CO2 can’t prevent, initiate or reverse glaciation would wreck CO2 as important to earth’s climate.
These are thoughts I have. Why do we never discuss glaciation as a way to attack the CO2 argument?
‘Proving CO2 can’t prevent, initiate or reverse glaciation would wreck CO2 as important to earth’s climate.’
Compelling evidence that temperature always leads CO2 concentration based upon ice cores from both poles obviously has had no impact on a Left that fully knows that CO2 IS the ‘control knob’ of Western civilization.
The only way to ‘wreck’ the Left’s ability to weaponize CO2 in this manner would be for ‘mainstream’ skeptics to come to grips with the idea that radiant transfer by so-called GHGs in the lower troposphere doesn’t actually occur due to the overwhelming ‘thermalization’ of these molecules via collision with non-GHG molecules within meters of the Earth’s surface.
Better inform the owners of radiation models such as MODTRAN. It still shows low atmosphere “radiant transfer” even though this thermalization is understood.
‘It still shows low atmosphere “radiant transfer” even though this thermalization is understood.’
If I recall correctly, David Dibbell looked into this not too long ago and concluded that deactivations of GHG molecules via thermalization / collision were NOT considered in the MODTRAN program. And while we’re on the subject, maybe someone can confirm that the holy-of-holies, the so-called HITRANS database actually takes into account the differences in line spectra between GHGs in their pure state vs when they are combined with non-GHGs that make up most of the atmosphere.
Again, if there is no evidence from the ice cores or the DSDP carbonate cores that varying CO2 concentration, aka a ‘radiative forcing’, has any effect on the Earth’s climate, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that there is something wrong with the assumption that radiative transfer is applicable in the lower troposphere.
Richard, what is the use of MODTRAN? Or HITRAN, for that matter?
Certainly, for the purposes of weather forecasting, neither has any utility at all. GHE worshippers present all sorts of supposedly relevant data to support a GHE which cannot be described in any consistent and unambiguous manner.
The plain fact is that the surface heats during the day, and cools at night – losing all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. No amount of running around saying “but HITRAN says . . . ” can change physical fact.
Sorry, no GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and will presumably continue to do so.
Thermometers respond to heat – no matter what HITRAN or MODTRAN might say.
Climate science, for some reason, can only focus on temperature when it is HEAT that is gained and lost, not temperature.
The meme that “CO2 slows cooling” is a canard. It slows temperature decay. Actual heat loss is the integral of the temperature curve. A slower temperature decay dumps MORE heat loss over time, not less. The heat loss is proportional to 1/λ where λ is the decay factor of the temperature curve. The smaller the decay factor, i.e. the slower the decay, the greater amount of heat that is released. (1/λ gets larger as λ gets smaller).
It’s what Planck calls “compensation” for reflected heat. Reflected heat slows temperature decay thus dumping more heat. That “more heat” is the reflected heat input. Reflected heat that gets absorbed gets re-emitted, not by the temperature being raised but by the temperature not cooling off as fast.
Climate science *really* needs to start using enthalpy instead of temperature. Temperature is *NOT* enthalpy, especially when it comes to moist air. Temperature is just plain a piss poor proxy for enthalpy. Enthalpy is heat, not temperature. This has been possible for over 40 years with the use of newer digital measurement devices. Climate science needs to join the 21st century!
Radiative balances based on a static analysis are also wrong. Heat transfer is a *time* function. It is a stateful function where what happened in the past determines where you are in the present. You can’t just pick a moment in time, add up the in/out fluxes, and then say things aren’t in balance and heat is being “trapped”. Reality doesn’t work that way!
When the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, everything is a nail.
Or in this case, when the only tool is first world guilt, everything can be solved by removing the enabler, cost effective fuel.
Can Anyone Disagree with the Logic detailed in this Video? How does anything pass peer review in this “science?” This mistakes are so obvious. https://app.screencast.com/nvBbopmgleFm1
““We didn’t want to have to rely on private philanthropy forever,” she said.” Yep, the government (taxpayers) will take care of all of your needs; after all of the lawyers get rich on the endless litigation.
In case of an Election,
UK Labor Party, with dysfunctional Starmer, would get less than 20% of the vote
UK Reform Party, with Farage, would get over 50%, take over the Parliament and throw all the bureaucrat leeches out.
Give that man a chainsaw to cut waste, fraud and abuse.
.
Because, the survival of the Labor Party is at stake Miliband just cancelled 1) the £2 Billion UK Hydrogen Plant, and 2) the £24 Billion ($32 Billion) Sahara Desert Power Fantasy
.
The UK should cut defense spending; 10 nuclear attack submarines would cost at least $150 billion, including financing cost.
Throw all the illegals and grooming gangs out
All that is about 60 years overdue.
Make the UK Great Again.
.
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.
Liberal arts enviros tumbling over each other while promoting the latest irrational measures.
.
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.
.
The moneyed elites have their own generators on their multiple estates
Never is there a hint regarding restrictions on yachts, private planes and estate sizes; witness the extravagant $1 billion Bozos wedding. It is time to boycott Amazon.
The elites just want to collect never-ending streams of untaxed money, at the expense of all others, just like European Royalty.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, 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, 2) increased fauna, and 3) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
. At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, killed birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, viewsheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the jet-setting elites who live in the poshest places.
.
Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations are further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, inexperienced poor folks from all over; a chaotic, culture-clashing burden the native populations never voted for.
lfb81526
June 29, 2025 11:07 am
This site is excellent. The managers are knowledgeable and honest and continue to correct the exaggerations and lies perpetrated by the MSM and others. You win every argument but to no avail. We are still lossing the war. The MSM and the democrats just continue to perpetuate the myth that AGW is a threat. All I want to say is thanks, and keep up the good work. Maybe truth will prevail someday.
I wouldn’t say “we’re losing the war”.
Lots of things were in play in the US the last election. Many of those thing that the MSM and most of Dems promoted lost, including CAGW, their most recent lever to power.
Now they are losing their funding.
Long road ahead still but things are moving in the correct direction.
The lamestream media have been beating this CAGW drum for nearly forty years. Until recently the wasteful spending has not really been noticed by the majority of the public. They have lives to live and little interest in things that don’t directly impinge on their daily routine.
They are willing to pay lip service to whichever religion the elite are promoting at the moment, so long as its demands are not too severe. Sorting recycle is a relatively painless sacrament to observe, as was weekly church attendance in generations past. They pretend to believe whatever makes them socially acceptable.
But in recent years, people begin to see their electricity bill skyrocketing, and the cost of heating in winter likewise becoming unaffordable. Add to this the prospect of nationwide power blackouts coupled with unaffordable EVs that make it clear that many will lose their freedom of movement.
As it becomes clear to everyone that the promise of high-paying Green jobs was a blatant lie, and NetZero is a path to socialist misery, I think the game will finally be over. By then no doubt the grifters will have moved on to new scams.
Seems like no one has noticed that the global temperatures have dropped 0,5c from January to the end of June this year, medias exaggerations about the heatwaves in USA and western Europe seems out of place when you see the whole globe.
The “We broke 1.5 last year on our way to 2” is a meme that just can’t be repeated often enough….despite a drop that’s probably going to be 0.6 next UAH report….
It’s so absurd that anyone takes seriously the claim that a 2-5° rise would be anything but beneficial for human flourishing.
It’s especially absurd if the bed-wetting hand-wringers hail from Canada, Scotland, or Scandinavia as so many do. Not many Siberians are so anti-human for some reason.
If we have raised temperatures by 1-2° over a period of 175 years, it’s a very modest achievement. More nothing than an actual achievement. Is it going to forestall the next glaciation? Wouldn’t that be a disaster?
The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for at most 0.5 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
“BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C”
That’s the inaccuracy from manual reading. It doesn’t include the inaccuracy of the thermometer itself. Total measurement uncertainty is probably more like +/- 2C. (how often were these measurement devices calibrated against a standard?)
Yes, the error band became less, as time elapsed, and frequency of measurements increased.
Robert T Evans
June 30, 2025 12:33 am
The BBC has just said that the European Commission joint research council have reported its findings on Urban heat effect. saying that Towns and Cities are now 4 – 6 C warmer than surrounding areas and in some cases, with little wind up to 10 C warmer.especially at night.
The UK Met Office recognised this back in 1970 and made an allowance of 0.4 C but as far as I know it has not increased this.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of 50 units per year
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each. China, Russia and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
It would require:
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each system,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
Here comes summer
The Pretenders’ Chrissie Hynde is giving her two cents about the impact of global warming on the festival season.
…
It was so hot I had to strap ice packs around my waist. And I realized then that outdoor events are going to come to an end. It’s too hot.”
https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/guitarists/chrissie-hynde-future-of-outdoor-summer-shows
As Iron Maiden’s Bruce Dickinson put it:
I always said I’d turn Glastonbury down if we were ever invited. I don’t want to go play in front of Gwyneth Paltrow and a perfume-infested yurt.”
https://hellorayo.co.uk/planet-rock/news/rock-news/iron-maiden-glastonbury
She’s 74 years old! I’m glad she’s still able to perform, but her anecdote concerning the weather is meaningless.
She’s 74 years old
Then, she should know better.
Hynde was born in 1951 in Arron OH, and so missed the “Great Smoke Pall of 1950”, and would not remember the region-wide heat of the mid-1950s. I was 100 miles east of Akron and that period was the hottest I remember – well, except for being in Tucson AZ once in June. [? 1976] 🥵
The hottest I’ve ever been was just north of there in a Cleveland suburb. I was there for a pig roast where I was the chef. It is a simple job. I simply had to do what ever was necessary to roast two pigs. A couple of NASA rocket scientists had built the roasting device and spits. A bicycle chain ran through a stationary bicycle to sprockets on the two spits. All I had to do was light the fire and drive the bicycle.
The radio was reporting triple digit temperatures – well over 100 that day. I was perched between two roaring fires pedaling the bicycle. The first surprise was when I started pedaling. instead of rotating, the spits simply fell over. The rocket scientists were prepared with a chain and chain binder to anchor the spits to the ground. Shortly after that came the second surprise. The pigs started rotating, but for only a short angle before the chain slipped off the drive sprocket.
I was able to diagnose that, and found that I could spin the pigs by pedaling backward. I spent the rest of the day pedaling backward in 100-+ temperatures between two roaring fires.
The hottest, though, was that night. I had driven there in a Chevy van, in order to spend the night there. It was too hot to sleep in the van, so I tried running the air conditioning. All that did was heat up the powertrain and get all the other campers complaining of the noise.
Consider the idea that incremental CO2 promotes reduced cloud cover, ending up warming the planet through increased ASR (absorbed solar radiation). Is it reasonable to think that the climate models could ever represent clouds and precipitation with sufficient fidelity to support this concept? Short answer – No.
About the uncertainty of measured precipitation data, I found a web page for NOAA’s “Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product” and generated this image for May 2025.
?timestamp=1751121820995
I asked Grok, the X AI agent: “For the “Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product” generated by NOAA’s Physical Sciences Laboratory, please explain the meaning of the “Monthly Error Surface Precipitation” values in mm/day.”
An excerpt from the response:
“Example
If a grid cell in the GPCP Version 2.3 Monthly Analysis Product reports a precipitation rate of 3 mm/day with a monthly error of 0.5 mm/day for a given month, this indicates:
The best estimate of average daily precipitation for that month is 3 mm.
The true precipitation rate could reasonably range between 2.5 and 3.5 mm/day, based on the error estimate.
This uncertainty could affect applications like validating climate models or studying precipitation trends, so users should account for it in their analyses.”
I followed up: “Please compute the thermal flux uncertainty of a +/- 1 mm/day estimated error in the monthly precipitation value. Report the answer in units of +/- W/m^2.”
The response, summarized at the end:
“The thermal flux uncertainty corresponding to a ±1 mm/day error in the monthly precipitation value is approximately ±29 W/m².”
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1938952771492864329
Have ANY of the climate models ever had ANY diagnostic or prognostic authority concerning the overall response of clouds and precipitation to the minor longwave radiative effect of incremental CO2? No.
How can this be so confidently stated? Because the models must inherit the large uncertainty in the observed data, which is involved in tuning the simulation of precipitation, which necessarily involves the tuning of cloud parameters.
The implication is that no one knows – whether by models or not – that the computed radiative influence of incremental CO2 has anything to do with the reported trends of reduced cloud cover and increased ASR from the satellite data.
Thank you for listening.
What do the models say are the effects on rainfall (mm/day) of cutting down half the Amazonian-, Equatorial African- and Southern Asian rainforests?
Rather than fixating on a trace gas, perhaps they should focus more on the water vapour budget, the effect of the loss of enormous amounts of transpiration’ the loss of overnight condensation on leaf surfaces; the overall reflectivity of incoming radiation on the earth’s surface; the spontaneous expansion of biodiversity under the protective cover of those trees best adapted to the strongest intensities of sunlight; etc etc.
Similar analysis concerning the effect on rainfall of covering 10% of coastal areas with concrete?
Land usage changes are a far more cogent hypothesis for ‘warming since 1977’ than ‘increased carbon dioxide’.
That doesn’t even examine the role of multidecadal oceanic oscillations…..
It should also be noted that commercial aviation is exhausting 95+ billion gallons of water vapor equivalency into the Tropopause / Lower Stratosphere and this forcing has been growing each year since the 60’s.
Considering that the daily precipitation on the earth is around 1.3*10^12 metric tonnes, an increase of 10^11 gallons (<10^9 tonnes per year?) is hardly determinative.
One should be wary of AI doing its search, finding 3 or 4 papers that seem “good” according to whatever algorithm it uses to assess a “confidence level”, paraphrasing them to avoid copyright issues, and then very confidently relaying to you answers that are only correct to narrow consensus of deluded paper authors…..plus storing its results for the next similar inquiry….
nice analysis. don’t expect to see any changes to the modeling however.
The “comment image” link seems to be broken.
Here is a fresh image. It must time out after a certain period.
?timestamp=1751224901537
The new link isn’t working either.
Consider the idea that incremental CO2 promotes reduced cloud cover, ending up warming the planet through increased ASR (absorbed solar radiation). Is it reasonable to think that the climate models could ever represent clouds and precipitation with sufficient fidelity to support this concept? Short answer – No.
By what mechanism would CO2 alter clouds? If you can demonstrate that concept, you may be on to something, because incoming radiation is what is causing the warming, not CO2 trapping outgoing radiation.
https://app.screencast.com/hQSOZQaptm6XY
“By what mechanism would CO2 alter clouds?”
Perhaps I should have been clearer at the outset of my post that I do not think the idea that CO2 alters clouds is supported by the evidence. The reason I was thinking about it was the recent article here at WUWT, the comments to the article, and the paper to which the article referred.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/23/bombshell-study-reveals-climate-warming-driven-by-receding-cloud-cover/
Mr. Layman here.
I’ll just throw this in.
Rain comes from clouds. Rain dissolves gases in the atmosphere as it falls, including CO2.
Fewer clouds. Less rain. More CO2 remains in the atmosphere.
So which came first? The chicken or the egg?
The dinosaur.
The feathered variety?
Start with “given the assumption that…. is correct (and that is not verified) then…”
I suspect the mechanism is similar to what would cause a tropical hot spot. With warmer temps at higher altitudes you would get less condensation and thus fewer clouds.
Of course, this also requires surface warming first since it’s a feedback.
Here is a permanent link to that same image, which apparently timed out.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FpucVfLY-uh76GdAwlHmrlhDZ2WrDK9-/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for your persistence, David.
Story Tip
Berlin Moves Closer to Banning Cars From A Zone Bigger Than Manhattan
Berlin-based advocates are one step closer to creating a car-free zone in their city that’s bigger than the entirety of Manhattan.
A decision on Wednesday by the Berlin Constitutional Court allows a long-stalled initiative by the advocacy group Volksentscheid Berlin Autofrei (“Ballot Measure for an Auto-Free Berlin) to continue gathering signatures for a referendum to create a zone in the center of the German capital that would be free of almost all private automobiles.
I don’t have an enormous problem with huge cities doing this, as the population density is such that good public transportation networks will make the city function well.
I have a huge problem when city nerds who never ever lived in a rural setting miraculously think that they are fit to rule the world, transposing what they want for their local environment into what the entire world must have imposed upon them to expiate their climate sins…..
15 minute cities will never work for 15 hrs a day farming communities.
+100
I’ve never seen any of them make allowances for deliveries, or for bad weather, or for grocery shopping every day instead of once a week. This idea that people can walk anywhere in 15 minutes means grocery shopping has to be a daily occurrence, and that’s half an hour travel time every single day, rain or shine, snow or heat wave, carrying groceries, instead of a 10-15 minute drive each way once a week. It doesn’t consider that the car can carry coolers for the frozen and cold food. Ice cream would become a winter treat only.
As for deliveries, 15 minute cities require lots of small groceries scattered all over, and deliveries by big trucks just won’t work. They’d need ten times as many delivery trucks just to get food to the grocers.
What about getting purchases delivered to homes? Even small end tables and weed eaters are too much for a 15 minute walk. A hammer and box of nails? Sure, possible, but who buys just a hammer and a box of nails? Want tiles for a kitchen counter? All that will require more deliveries.
15 minute cities won’t work anywhere except towns so small that you have to drive 10 miles to get to the stores you want.
What they are planning isn’t a 15 minutes city looking at the foreseen area, that’s much, much more.
More deliveries to more small food centers also means more food insecurity since even small obstacles, e.g. a water main break, can foul deliveries up. Small food centers won’t be able to afford keeping an overhead inventory so short-notice demand peaks won’t be able to be met – more food insecurity.
15 minute cities.
Would each have a water plant? A wastewater plant?
A hospital that could handle a bypass operation?
How far apart would they be?
How soon would inbreeding become a problem for the population?
“I don’t have an enormous problem with huge cities doing this, as the population density is such that good public transportation networks will make the city function well.”
I remember once doing a google maps to get directions for my wife to go outside the a close suburb. I would take about 20 minutes to drive it. It actually said about 2 days+ to go by city bus. (It would have been quicker to walk it!)
Sounds about right for Germany – authoritarian block on referendum measure lifted in order to allow referendum on authoritarian measure.
When will troublesome Germans learn that they have been centrally involved since 1900 in numerous wrong decisions that led to the loss of millions of lives?
Germany since 1980s has now been centrally involved in creating and promoting an extremist view of alarmist climate change through places like Potsdam Institute. They are boots and all into more international discord that will not end well. Even the German Eagle symbolism is being shredded by windmills. What does it take to get them to bug out of the business of telling others what they can and cannot do? Why not try a reversion to excellence like their Beethoven was to music? Geoff S
Of all the things plaguing Germany…
Khan is pushing for similar measures on Oxford Street – a major artery as well as a high end shopping and theatrical area. Where all those buses, taxis etc etc will go, nobody knows…
“Sadiq Khan says residents must not ‘dictate’ Oxford Street decision
London mayor willing to take the ‘flak’ from locals who want to block pedestrianisation”
https://www.ft.com/content/307cf024-1f21-4386-b0e4-757ce597f4f0
What do residents know, anyway?
I visited Oxford Street once. I feel no urgent need to return.
That said, Kahn is more interested in the appearance of virtue than the economics of retail.
It has gone down since the 1970s No question about it. It once had a lot of musical instrument shops – like Shaftesbury Avenue and Denmark Street.
If you force it, it will come. With huge unintended consequences for those having to live with government insanities.
there is no such thing as unintended consequences
there is only cause and effect
the consequences were and are fully known and intended, just not fully disclosed
The insanities will continue until sufficient damage is accrued.
Says London’s dictator
I think of him as the [would be] Caliph of London
We left London in the early 1990s to move to NE Wales for job reasons. Oxford Street then had been nose to tail traffic for many years. Where is the traffic going to go if it is pedestrianised?
“…that would be free of almost all private automobiles.”
The handicapped parking spaces [aka “accessible”] at my favorite grocery store get lots of use. Often, I see folks that can barely make it inside to the powered carts. They would be home-bound without an automobile. A 15-minute city would be a non-starter. Admittedly, a few folks arrive from nearby care facilities on their own electric carriers.
The city taxi commission payola schemes will be very profitable for a number of those bureaucrats pushing “emissions reductions”…
one step closer to creating a car-free zone
Pretty sure we’ve been told repeatedly (by some around here) that this was never going to happen.
It will, unless you elect a British Trump.
Over the last few decades, we’ve elected more than enough incompetent, narcissistic British chumps, we don’t want another one.
Is it a matter of convenience that heatwaves are occurring in Western Europe and the E. Coast of the USA (places where climate zealots tend to congregate, run MSM channels etc etc)?
Is it even worth mentioning that other places on earth have experienced unusual cold, highly unusual early patterns of snowfall etc etc?
I wouldn’t want to think that heat domes are geo-engineering endpoints and the consequences of them are manifested across other global geographies, after all….
Other than 3 or 4 hot days, the weather has been most pleasant the spring and so far this summer in Colorado. I should leave for my bike ride before it warms too much but I still have coffee to drink.
I have been reading this site for years and am perplexed by the paucity of articles about glaciation. We know it happens and that its effects would be much worse than warming and yet, nothing. Why do we chase the red dot of CO2? Perhaps the best approach to debunking CO2 would be from the opposite direction. Proving CO2 can’t prevent, initiate or reverse glaciation would wreck CO2 as important to earth’s climate.
These are thoughts I have. Why do we never discuss glaciation as a way to attack the CO2 argument?
‘Proving CO2 can’t prevent, initiate or reverse glaciation would wreck CO2 as important to earth’s climate.’
Compelling evidence that temperature always leads CO2 concentration based upon ice cores from both poles obviously has had no impact on a Left that fully knows that CO2 IS the ‘control knob’ of Western civilization.
The only way to ‘wreck’ the Left’s ability to weaponize CO2 in this manner would be for ‘mainstream’ skeptics to come to grips with the idea that radiant transfer by so-called GHGs in the lower troposphere doesn’t actually occur due to the overwhelming ‘thermalization’ of these molecules via collision with non-GHG molecules within meters of the Earth’s surface.
Better inform the owners of radiation models such as MODTRAN. It still shows low atmosphere “radiant transfer” even though this thermalization is understood.
‘It still shows low atmosphere “radiant transfer” even though this thermalization is understood.’
If I recall correctly, David Dibbell looked into this not too long ago and concluded that deactivations of GHG molecules via thermalization / collision were NOT considered in the MODTRAN program. And while we’re on the subject, maybe someone can confirm that the holy-of-holies, the so-called HITRANS database actually takes into account the differences in line spectra between GHGs in their pure state vs when they are combined with non-GHGs that make up most of the atmosphere.
Again, if there is no evidence from the ice cores or the DSDP carbonate cores that varying CO2 concentration, aka a ‘radiative forcing’, has any effect on the Earth’s climate, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that there is something wrong with the assumption that radiative transfer is applicable in the lower troposphere.
Richard, what is the use of MODTRAN? Or HITRAN, for that matter?
Certainly, for the purposes of weather forecasting, neither has any utility at all. GHE worshippers present all sorts of supposedly relevant data to support a GHE which cannot be described in any consistent and unambiguous manner.
The plain fact is that the surface heats during the day, and cools at night – losing all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. No amount of running around saying “but HITRAN says . . . ” can change physical fact.
Sorry, no GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and will presumably continue to do so.
Thermometers respond to heat – no matter what HITRAN or MODTRAN might say.
Climate science, for some reason, can only focus on temperature when it is HEAT that is gained and lost, not temperature.
The meme that “CO2 slows cooling” is a canard. It slows temperature decay. Actual heat loss is the integral of the temperature curve. A slower temperature decay dumps MORE heat loss over time, not less. The heat loss is proportional to 1/λ where λ is the decay factor of the temperature curve. The smaller the decay factor, i.e. the slower the decay, the greater amount of heat that is released. (1/λ gets larger as λ gets smaller).
It’s what Planck calls “compensation” for reflected heat. Reflected heat slows temperature decay thus dumping more heat. That “more heat” is the reflected heat input. Reflected heat that gets absorbed gets re-emitted, not by the temperature being raised but by the temperature not cooling off as fast.
Climate science *really* needs to start using enthalpy instead of temperature. Temperature is *NOT* enthalpy, especially when it comes to moist air. Temperature is just plain a piss poor proxy for enthalpy. Enthalpy is heat, not temperature. This has been possible for over 40 years with the use of newer digital measurement devices. Climate science needs to join the 21st century!
Radiative balances based on a static analysis are also wrong. Heat transfer is a *time* function. It is a stateful function where what happened in the past determines where you are in the present. You can’t just pick a moment in time, add up the in/out fluxes, and then say things aren’t in balance and heat is being “trapped”. Reality doesn’t work that way!
When the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, everything is a nail.
Or in this case, when the only tool is first world guilt, everything can be solved by removing the enabler, cost effective fuel.
A google search on “site:https://wattsupwiththat.com glaciation” brings up about 100 posts …
w.
That would include reader posts.
Can Anyone Disagree with the Logic detailed in this Video? How does anything pass peer review in this “science?” This mistakes are so obvious.
https://app.screencast.com/nvBbopmgleFm1
Here is another one. How do the Peer Reviewers miss such obvious flaws?
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
Seriously, how does this field get to culturally appropriate the title science? It isn’t science.
https://app.screencast.com/ZMpNTvkLD7DDJ
Let the lawfare over revoked EPA funding
begincontinue:https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/climate-movement-first-of-its-kind-class-action-lawsuit-against-epa/
But but but we were promised goes the whine…
Who knew, even plants are bad for the atmosphere:
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-pesticide-atmosphere.amp
Now even more phun with goal driven models and suspect data, humans could have been cooling the stratosphere even s[ner than expected:
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-human-stratospheric-cooling-early.amp
You know, because it couldn’t happen without AGW..
““We didn’t want to have to rely on private philanthropy forever,” she said.” Yep, the government (taxpayers) will take care of all of your needs; after all of the lawyers get rich on the endless litigation.
In case of an Election,
UK Labor Party, with dysfunctional Starmer, would get less than 20% of the vote
UK Reform Party, with Farage, would get over 50%, take over the Parliament and throw all the bureaucrat leeches out.
Give that man a chainsaw to cut waste, fraud and abuse.
.
Because, the survival of the Labor Party is at stake Miliband just cancelled 1) the £2 Billion UK Hydrogen Plant, and 2) the £24 Billion ($32 Billion) Sahara Desert Power Fantasy
.
The UK should cut defense spending; 10 nuclear attack submarines would cost at least $150 billion, including financing cost.
Throw all the illegals and grooming gangs out
All that is about 60 years overdue.
Make the UK Great Again.
.
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.
Liberal arts enviros tumbling over each other while promoting the latest irrational measures.
.
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.
.
The moneyed elites have their own generators on their multiple estates
Never is there a hint regarding restrictions on yachts, private planes and estate sizes; witness the extravagant $1 billion Bozos wedding. It is time to boycott Amazon.
The elites just want to collect never-ending streams of untaxed money, at the expense of all others, just like European Royalty.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, 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, 2) increased fauna, and 3) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, killed birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, viewsheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the jet-setting elites who live in the poshest places.
.
Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations are further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, inexperienced poor folks from all over; a chaotic, culture-clashing burden the native populations never voted for.
This site is excellent. The managers are knowledgeable and honest and continue to correct the exaggerations and lies perpetrated by the MSM and others. You win every argument but to no avail. We are still lossing the war. The MSM and the democrats just continue to perpetuate the myth that AGW is a threat. All I want to say is thanks, and keep up the good work. Maybe truth will prevail someday.
I wouldn’t say “we’re losing the war”.
Lots of things were in play in the US the last election. Many of those thing that the MSM and most of Dems promoted lost, including CAGW, their most recent lever to power.
Now they are losing their funding.
Long road ahead still but things are moving in the correct direction.
The lamestream media have been beating this CAGW drum for nearly forty years. Until recently the wasteful spending has not really been noticed by the majority of the public. They have lives to live and little interest in things that don’t directly impinge on their daily routine.
They are willing to pay lip service to whichever religion the elite are promoting at the moment, so long as its demands are not too severe. Sorting recycle is a relatively painless sacrament to observe, as was weekly church attendance in generations past. They pretend to believe whatever makes them socially acceptable.
But in recent years, people begin to see their electricity bill skyrocketing, and the cost of heating in winter likewise becoming unaffordable. Add to this the prospect of nationwide power blackouts coupled with unaffordable EVs that make it clear that many will lose their freedom of movement.
As it becomes clear to everyone that the promise of high-paying Green jobs was a blatant lie, and NetZero is a path to socialist misery, I think the game will finally be over. By then no doubt the grifters will have moved on to new scams.
Maybe we should start calling it NatZiro?
Seems like no one has noticed that the global temperatures have dropped 0,5c from January to the end of June this year, medias exaggerations about the heatwaves in USA and western Europe seems out of place when you see the whole globe.
https://postimg.cc/Mv1hsPcK
https://postimg.cc/MXgn0TRJ
Looks like the biggest part of the change occurs in early July. It must be a prediction.
The “We broke 1.5 last year on our way to 2” is a meme that just can’t be repeated often enough….despite a drop that’s probably going to be 0.6 next UAH report….
It’s so absurd that anyone takes seriously the claim that a 2-5° rise would be anything but beneficial for human flourishing.
It’s especially absurd if the bed-wetting hand-wringers hail from Canada, Scotland, or Scandinavia as so many do. Not many Siberians are so anti-human for some reason.
If we have raised temperatures by 1-2° over a period of 175 years, it’s a very modest achievement. More nothing than an actual achievement. Is it going to forestall the next glaciation? Wouldn’t that be a disaster?
The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for at most 0.5 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
“BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C”
That’s the inaccuracy from manual reading. It doesn’t include the inaccuracy of the thermometer itself. Total measurement uncertainty is probably more like +/- 2C. (how often were these measurement devices calibrated against a standard?)
Yes, the error band became less, as time elapsed, and frequency of measurements increased.
The BBC has just said that the European Commission joint research council have reported its findings on Urban heat effect. saying that Towns and Cities are now 4 – 6 C warmer than surrounding areas and in some cases, with little wind up to 10 C warmer.especially at night.
The UK Met Office recognised this back in 1970 and made an allowance of 0.4 C but as far as I know it has not increased this.
See my above comment with URL
Thanks, Excellent post.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of 50 units per year
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each. China, Russia and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
It would require:
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each system,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
AI systems require lots of steady electricity
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
By definition, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, heavily subsidized, expensive wind and solar systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1