Decades ago, I remember listening to the radio on the way to work. There was a humorous call-in contest they called “Pick C” in which the first caller had to answer a multiple-choice question to win.
Let’s recreate that contest for the central question of climate response to the use of natural hydrocarbons as fuel:
Multiple choice – What happens to the energy involved in the radiative effect of incremental CO2?
A. Trapped down here as sensible heat gain. Yikes, we’re toast!
B. There is no radiative effect!
C. Converted/circulated/dissipated/emitted to space from higher up. No reason to be concerned.
Thank you for playing “Pick C” today. You WIN!
Why C? Because the fundamental nature of compressible flow in the general circulation massively overwhelms the incremental static radiative effect. The result is that the influence on sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere itself, is vanishingly weak. Undetectable. Negligible. Inconsequential.
The whole notion of “greenhouse gasses” is garbage. Ice dominates by more than order of magnitude any of the radiative responsive gasses. Water vapour is important to the extend that it undergoes phase changes in the atmosphere to form ice above 273K.
If you look across all the ice free oceans on any day you will find the OLR ranging from 120W/m^2 up o 315W/m^2. The correspond effective radiating temperature is within the range 214K up to 273K. So the highest average effective emission temperature over oceans never exceeds 273K. Accordingly the OLR over oceans is leaving the atmosphere from ice most of the time.
The thing about this ice is that it also reflects a significant portion off the incoming solar EMR back to space such that it is not thermalised in the climate system
Only morons could come up with climate models that parameterise clouds in the hope of getting a meaningful result. Clouds are not the result of some fluffy, ill-defined process that cannot be described or deterministically modelled , despite they appearance. Their formation and development is tightly linked to the surface temperature and the corresponding water profile. Understanding the development of Ice and its dissipation in the atmosphere is key to understanding the obvious long standing stability of Earth’s climate.
Thank you for your reply. The emphasis on phase change and the melting point of ice is well noted. I encourage all here at WUWT making comments and replies to refrain from derogatory language. Persuasion on scientific grounds need not and should not sound derisive, in my opinion.
I agree with your opinion. But the radiation cowboys pushing the “greenhouse effect” are not scientists. Their understanding of physics is at moron level so maybe science moron would be more accurate.
I find the “greenhouse effect” semantics to be ambiguous, so I try to specify the claims and concepts in alternative terms. Still, I might not be as clearly understood as I intend.
Clouds are not the result of some fluffy, ill-defined process that cannot be described or deterministically modeled, despite their appearance. Their formation and development is tightly linked to the surface temperature and the corresponding water profile
— one would love to learn (from you) the basis for this bold conclusion. [no sarcasm intended here]
Robert
I have been working on a deterministic model for cloud development over ocean warm pools for a couple of years now, It is a complex picture that requires vertical resolution;an order of magnitude higher than current GCMs. However I can do a single column model that produces results close to observed behaviour.
I have concluded that the surface temperature regulating mechanism is due to 30C being the temperature where heat uptake below the LFC balances the heat loss above the LFC. When the base of the column rises above 30C, the heat uptake below the LFC exceeds that required to rebalance the column during convective instability and there is convective overshoot. Overshoot supersaturates the column at high altitude and very high level cloud forms with micron size particles that are slow to descend. Convective overshoot results in very low OLR and is observed over warm pools when they start cyclic instability.
There was a lot of research on cloud over warm pools in the 1990s but that line of research came to an end when the CO2 gravy train started rolling and radiation cowboys with their “greenhouse effect” got support from the UNIPCC. .
Thank you kindly. I look fwd to hearing more about your progress … as soon as you are ready to share it. I noted that this comes up frequently, e.g.
TWTW Comment: As van Wijngaarden and Happer have stated, modelers cannot hope to get long-term weather modeling or short-term climate modeling correct until there is an established theory for cloud formation and dissipation. Clauser gives many examples of flawed computer modeling of estimates Earth’s albedo [derived therefrom]
The correct answer is b as the radiative greenhouse effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics. Nikolov and Zeller are right. Read their 2023 paper and watch Utube with Tom Nelson.
Thanks for “calling in” to play “Pick C.” I disagree with Nikolov that there is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics involved in the claim that incremental CO2 must result in sensible heat gain. He otherwise makes a few good points, and is right to reject the core claims, but I think he is off a bit on how to refute the consensus view of attribution of the reported warming.
Montgolfiers, guilt and death. Great religion. Still, on a more upbeat note under the heading: “Rise of the Right”…
Nigel Farage, has called the government’s net zero ambitions a “lunacy” that destroys jobs, drives up energy bills and is responsible for the deindustrialising of Britain. He has predicted that the schism over net zero will be the “next Brexit”. … Reform UK has said it will scrap the UK’s net zero legislation – and renewable energy subsidies along with it. A carbon-heavy pivot would accompany that: a Reform government would invest directly in North Sea oil and gas production, which it claims would secure the UK’s energy supplies and the workforce supported by the industry. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/13/an-enormous-scar-battle-solar-farms-pylons-reform-uk-woos-lincolnshire
“Nigel Farage, has called the government’s net zero ambitions a “lunacy” that destroys jobs, drives up energy bills and is responsible for the deindustrialising of Britain. He has predicted that the schism over net zero will be the “next Brexit”.”
Now, we’re talking! That’s the right approach.
Trump and Nigel should hold a public town hall meeting in the UK to discuss windmills and industrial solar and the huge, expensive problems associated with trying to run a modern society on windmills and solar.
The people of the UK need Trump’s perspective on Net Zero.
Anyway, “renewable” fanatics use “capacity” to make renewables appear better than they actually are, when dispatchable power is what modern society needs.
They further obfuscate a nation’s electricity grid with its energy consumption when in fact electricity represents only a fraction of it all, and they totally ignore hydrocarbon and fossil inputs than are needed to make renewables possible in the first place.
“Isn’t Trump generally despised there?” I think it is fair to say he is now despised (by the majority of people) everywhere except in some states in the US. Did you see him get booed relentlessly at the Fifa club world cup today? There’s a clue.
“I think it is fair to say he is now despised (by the majority of people) everywhere”
I think that’s something a person seriously affected by TDS would say.
People see what they want to see. TDS patients hate Trump and assume everyone looks at the world just like they do.
I didn’t watch the Fifa game, but the reporting I’ve been hearing this morning is that Trump was well-received there.
Did you see that trade surplus Trump managed to get for the U.S.? The first one since 2017, when Trump was last in office.
Leftwing propaganda continually smearing Trump and Republicans is the cause of TDS. That, and the fact that those suffering from TDS are completely divorced from reality and are very susceptible to political lies.
Trump’s been in office less than six months and he has already shut down the illegal immigration across U.S. borders, has gotten the biggest tax cuts in history with his Big, Beautiful Bill, has gasoline prices down to close to two dollars per gallon (eight dollars per gallon in radical, leftwing, idiotic California), and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And that not the half of it.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize: I think after Barack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing, the prize is pretty much worthless. It is obviously a political award, and obviously can be awarded to persons who have not promoted peace.
As far as I’m concerned, the Nobel Committee can take their prize and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. They, and their award have no credibility.
“Did you see that trade surplus Trump managed to get for the U.S.? The first one since 2017, when Trump was last in office.”
No have looked but nothing came up on google. But I tell yo this Tom, the tariff nonsense is winning him no friends outside the US.
“Trump’s been in office less than six months and he has already shut down the illegal immigration across U.S. borders…”
I agree that’s a winner for him.
“has gotten the biggest tax cuts in history with his Big, Beautiful Bill,”
The tax cuts that resulted in the biggest redistribution of wealth away from the poor.
“nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. “
Nominated by a guy guilty of war crimes. Anyone can be nominated. Let’s see how that nomination goes. What is happening in Gaza is nothing short of genocide. Horrific destruction of human life by a group of murderous thugs. I am no fan of Hamas, but these are starving women and children who are being slaughtered. No one can defend that.
I stand by my point. Trump is despised by the citizens of pretty much every country outside the US and by an increasing number of people inside it.
Finally Tom I’m wondering where you stand on the Epstein files debacle? Are you keen for the files to be opened and the names of those who Epstein supported to abuse children to be made public?
On a positive note I see Trump finally is seeing Putin for the war criminal he is and is going to give Ukraine more support. I’m with him on that. Saw a tee shirt the other day that said “Fight like a Ukrainian” I want one.
And anyway… whether it meets the specific definition of genocide, it is beyond belief how Israel is behaving in the murder of these poor people. They have destroyed their homes and it is clear they now plan to take their land.
From post:”The tax cuts that resulted in the biggest redistribution of wealth away from the poor.”
You will need to be more specific as I am not able to figure out how a deduction for tips, overtime and social security are redistribution away from the poor. The poor don’t have jobs and the wealthy don’t earn a living via tips or overtime.
i hope Trump is despised by people outside the US. More they despise him (us) the less will try to get in and suck up social benefits.
Hamas is killing their own people to stop Palestinians from getting food from US or Israel.
Simon I think you are the lowest of the low pedaling unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo.
As for the Epstein files I am sure Tom like me care for the safety of children more than the possible shame of some politician.
“As for the Epstein files I am sure Tom like me care for the safety of children more than the possible shame of some politician.” Great we agree. As one Fox news guy said… “you can’t tell me that there are 1000 kids out there who have been abuse and that no one can be arrested for that.” You don’t need a list to do that. Start asking questions of the victims.
Are you keen for the files to be opened and the names of those who Epstein supported to abuse children to be made public?
I don’t condone the alleged behavior of Epstein, but your choice of “children” rather than “minors” speaks volumes about your biased position. I haven’t been following the story closely, but I would be surprised if most of the young participants weren’t actually of the age of consent. Then, there is the understanding and forgiveness demonstrated by the UK when they made it very clear that they didn’t approve of Jerry Lee Lewis marrying is 13-year-old cousin. We never did properly thank the UK for saving the world from such a sinner.
Do you know what the age of consent is in Japan? If you disapprove, perhaps you should demonstrate your outrage by refusing to buy anything made in Japan. Why should Trump get all the attention?
Legal age is 16 in Japan. Some of these girls involved with Epstein and his cohorts were a lot younger. So do you want to see the names of the abusers made public or not? I do. No protection for anyone who abuses children I say. I don’t care who they are or how rich.
I think it is fair to say he is now despised (by the majority of people) everywhere except in some states in the US.
The Iranian oligarchy especially. The Israelis not so much.
If Brits like yourself understood that the Iranians want A-bombs to use them, and that while the winds in the Middle-East usually blow away from Britain, sometimes they do blow towards Britain, they would be thanking Trump for making the hard call. What if the Iranians were to wait for the right meteorological conditions? I think that your hatred of Trump, and all things Right, has blinded you to reality.
OK
No 1. I didn’t mention Iran. But on that topic… Trump may have got that right. We wont know for a while though.
No 2. I’m not British but given the fine way they played today to beat India, I wish I was.
The people of the UK need economic growth to pay the bills, including debt payments. The current trend to stagnation like the the German economy is about to be the decider that makes all previous net zero policies look like extravagant delusions. Better get word out to all those on mental holiday.
About that pilot – he is quoted in the article to say, “I had grown increasingly anxious about the effect that our industry was having on the planet and, deep down, I knew that my concern for the climate crisis meant being an airline pilot was damaging my mental health.”
Yikes. British flyers dodged a bullet when this gentleman stepped away from his cockpit duties for mental health reasons. He may not fully realize this yet, but his mental state is being driven by the illusion of a crisis when there is none. I wouldn’t want to be flying in a jet where a crewmember’s mind is occupied with such self-doubt.
Most psyops these days seem to have the goal to confuse and divide the population. The confusion leads to people manifesting all kinds of psychoses, resulting in a degradation of general competence. Suicide by pilot thankfully has not taken off, so to speak.
Polarization is directed toward violence between factions. Interesting times.
“I think that just about blows the Guardian’s bleat that people want climate action out of the airlock”.
That is not quite correct.
‘People’ here are defined as those working in the msm and politicians, NGOs and state institutions. You know, the important ‘smart’ ones that need to educate the masses..
The Vanguard. Onward Climate Warriors..also known as The Party.
Reform UK needs 50+% to have a free hand to pass anything, and UNPASS all the impoverishing wind/solar/battery/EV/heat pump BS, just as Trump is doing in the US.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
See URL https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get 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. . Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction .
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems .
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
I foresee a problem, the gov’t is ordering that the drill holes be plugged. With the goal of sabotaging any chance of them being reopened. Milibland et al. are a pernicious and evil lot.
Since we are talking about weather, I have to wait for it to warm a bit before I go on a bike ride. I have the luxury to be able to sit inside and drink coffee until it’s more comfortable outside. Other than a handful of very hot days, the weather in Colorado has been generally mild this year, although with more rain than normal, mosquitoes have been plentiful.
The recorded temperatures increased mostly 1980’s on…with the number of stations converting from manual daily high/low thermometer readings to electronic and telemetry readings, not to mention increased jet engine horsepower and number of jets blowing air over increased tarmac area to the weather stations located at airports…. and taller reflective glass buildings elsewhere…
Hot is when the MINIMUM temperature exceeds 30C. My son experienced that in Baltimore a few weeks ago.
Sean Galbally
July 13, 2025 3:33 am
NET ZERO FOLLY – STORY TIP Carbon Dioxide is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including hydro-electric, nuclear power and fracking to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. We have at least 50 years to do this before fossil fuel supplies run out. The left wing mainstream and power elites dangerously mislead everybody by constantly stating that man made carbon dioxide is a danger. It is not and never will be. If atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming, why was it not warm in the Ordovician ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than the lowly 420 ppm it is now? 420 ppm is also the level around which it is becoming “saturated”. Any increase leads to little heat control. Thus increases in carbon dioxide will have negligible effect. The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases, over 90% compared with CO2’s less than 1%. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. This always varies a little in cycles as the earth’s axis of rotation varies. Most importantly, the Net-Zero (“De-carbonising” or removing carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change the climate. It is a total sham. Every policy maker should be asked one question. How exactly will Net Zero help the planet? They cannot answer because it doesn’t. Expensive Policy is being made for totally useless and unjustifiable reasons. The completely avoidable present crippling energy costs are being imposed on us by people who are totally ignorant of the facts. The massive renewable subsidies are doing more harm than good. They should be cancelled and the vast sums used to put our economy on a much sounder footing Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this policy and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21/2030, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
Most of your comment is accurate but the above line is not.
Earth began its current 9500 year trend in increasing northern hemisphere solar EMR around 1700.
The oceans of the NH will have increasing surface temperature for a long time to come. That is already causing increasing snowfall and there is already evidence that Greenland ice extent and altitude of the summit are increasing due to snowfall overtaking snow melt. As the oceans warm further the snowfall will overtake the snow melt on high ground and northern facing slopes near the Arctic Ocean before the permafrost advances south again. That is likely this millennium.
From numerous exchanges, I have learnt there are few people who understand Earth’s orbital precession and how it shifts the solar intensity between hemispheres over time. If more did, then there would be a broader appreciation of the cause of glaciation..
Earth began its current 9500 year trend [that’s ~9 millennia forward] in increasing northern hemisphere solar EMR around [A.D.] 1700. — and —
… few people … understand Earth’s orbital precession and how it shifts the solar intensity between hemispheres over time. If more did, then there would be a broader appreciation of the cause of glaciation.
Since I agree with nearly everything you write, and sincerely appreciate your unique perspective, one can proceed directly to the point-of-contention, namely:
The anticipated NH Re-Glaciation must follow (notcoincide with) the ‘solar EMR’ minimum. That’s where we are today [image attached], at the bottom.
To help folks understand this simply, just consider that — as everyone knows from direct experience — in each NH Winter, the coldest weather & snowpack builds well after the Winter Solstice (December) or even past the Vernal Equinox (late March), although the day(light) is lengthening throughout!
G. Roe (GeoPhys. Research Letters, circa 2005) summarized this understanding with regard to (neo)glaciation in no uncertain terms, and attempted to resolve the remaining (minor) controversies in the ‘Milankovitch Model’ by relating the Rate (time-derivative) of NH Glaciation to the Solar (‘Insolation’) at the 65 N latitude (the conventional metric). This, in order to reproduce the observed delay (or time-shift) in (re- or de-)glaciation events.
That may sound like an unnecessary complication, but it makes all the difference, as (once again) anyone can appreciate by relating it to their annual experience with northern winters.
If you want to disagree with this, fine, but just say so explicitly. It doesn’t any good to say that few people … understand Earth’s orbital precession [orbital mechanics] when no-one is disagreeing with its consequence (the image borrowed from a very recent post & attached).
Until then, concerned persons will continue to regard our present-era (the pleasant interlude from ‘A.D. 1700’ to the present) as merely a brief pause en route to the major re-glaciation, as has recurred regularly over ~ 800 millennia, i.e. since the mid-Pleistocene Transition).
Your words, my bold: ” in each NH Winter, the coldest weather & snowpack builds well after the Winter Solstice (December) or even past the Vernal Equinox (late March),”
I have not experienced much cold and snow after February but I’ve only lived in the USA at +/- 40o to 47o N. Lat. Such info can be examined at the Western Regional Climate Center. Example: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa2508
where 54% of snowfall is in Jan+Feb. Elsewhere it might differ.
Thanks, I probably shouldn’t have added that phrase, even if it’s true at the higher latitudes (and altitudes).
It seemed necessary to stress a specific end-of-winter date (the Vernal Equinox) as the Spring Thaw / Snowmelt, because — within this analogy — it appears at +4 or +5 millennia from now. (Please check for the inflection point on the graph) …
… en route to a pathetically weak Summer Solstice, i.e. the maximum insolation referred to by RickWill [Richard Willougby] as the endpoint of the “9,500 year trend in increasing northern hemisphere solar EMR [starting from] around 1700.”
The point being simply that to declare now that we are in the onset-period of an extended (millennial-scale) warming period would be like someone, having enjoyed an ‘Indian Summer’ (late-Autumn warm spell) declare that now — at the Solstice of ~ December 20th — the days will be getting longer, hence no Winter ice to fear!
Words fail me … it seems like the ‘height of irresponsibility’ …
P.S. thanks also for the link, which I checked. Your March temperatures average 39 F (from (50 hi + 28 lo) or +4 C (for those without the benefit of the original centigrade scale), so that’s probably would prevent snow-ice accumulation, even if it were your wettest season (‘April showers’ etc.). Also indicates < 10″ annual precip (semi-arid / sunny), in the Cascades’ rain-shadow?
You may have seen older globes or maps centered on the North Pole — they provide a wavy line enclosing most of the Arctic region, labeled (+)10 C as peak-summer (average) temperatures: Any place inside that line could sustain year-round ice; lower latitudes could be ~ ice-free by late summer.
Correct. The Cascades’ rain-shadow is quite important. The posts by Cliff Mass, sometimes repeated here, often mention the Olympic Mtns and the Cascades’ shadows.
Talking of Milankovitch cycles. Often we see charts of all three components, eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Then a composite chart of all three combined.
That composite chart looks very much like a classic amplitude modulated signal. As such, in any modulated signal, there are harmonics, which consist of other frequencies.
It has crossed my mind, that there are subtle harmonics in the cycles, and I’ve wondered whether they have subtle effects on climate patterns, that may not be immediately obvious.
Thanks, that’s right:
It’s not just the (axial) Precession, which is the shortest at ~ 23-kyr full cycle, in four ‘Great-Year’ Seasons of nearly ~ 6,000 yrs each).
So that’s my first objection to RickWill saying (as elsewhere) that ‘Nobody Understands Precession‘. If taken literally, this is untrue — Ancient stargazers described it well enough, as recorded in the earliest surviving human literature!
[Check under Precession of the Equinoxes, or Hamlet’s Mill, to quench a genuine thirst for the broadest view]
As for quantitative analysis (as in Roe 2006 & many others since Milankovitch 1941), and forprediction, it’s so much better to skip all that 3-component complexity (that you mentioned). Instead proceed directly to calculated outputs (that incorporate all these), specific to some convention appropriate to the problem-of-interest. For glaciation (rates) has conventionally been Peak-Summer Insolation at 65N latitude. [For the tropics — the Monsoon (the Milankovitch-Kutzbach) Problem — a different choice applies.]
He (RickWill) has his own (2-region) preference appropriate to his limiting principle for (de-/re-) glaciation, a hydrological one (‘advection’ / moisture transfer-rate from hot tropics to freezing arctic). Which is fine, no problem, as long as he states clearly that he has adopted a different criterion.
However, his insistence upon this strong prediction —
“oceans of the NH will have increasing surface temperature for a long time to come”
— is perplexing (for me) to fathom, because it seems to imply a no-time-lag response of the oceans to the ‘recent’ millennia-long steep decline in NH insolation … basically the main story of the so-far gradual cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum (- 6 to -8 millennia back).
Elsewhere, a year ago (in his longer WUWT essay on the glaciation problem), he has clearly recounted the paleo evidence — that sea-level rise / fall lags ice-core-derived temperature-changes by 5,000 years, which in turn lags the orbital-dynamics based calculated insolation
— so he is clearly aware of the historical situation …
… but doesn’t seem to apply it to the presentor going fwd over the next couple millennia.
To make matters worse, his own charts show a rather steeper cooling (for temperature decline, as basically an acceleration of that long-term established for the post-HCO period) for the coming couple of millennia.
Since I am an unoriginal & simple-minded person — any inference that one is trying to state something novel is surely mistaken — I prefer to look directly at the impressively accumulated record from the ice-cores dating back to -800,000 years.
Which show, pretty nicely, that:
No ‘interglacial’ (such as we are in) has ever extended much if any beyond the ~ 12,000 years (that’s half an Axial-Precession full cycle, or two (2) Axial-Precession / Great Year seasons, i.e. from Summer-Solstice to Winter Solstice) that we’ve already just completed.
That message (in 3 words or fewer), also entirely unoriginal is: Prepare for Ice!
— Q.E.D. (Quite Enough Done)
Like you, I prefer to look at the past, Medieval, Roman and Minoan warming periods, indicate to me that it’s been warmer, so today’s climate is nothing special.
You’re in good company with your preference to ice cores, as Dr Patrick Moore has said, to predict the future look at the past.
A point on precession, would I be right in saying, that during its cycle, the seasons will ultimately shift, so that eventually it will be winter in the NH in June and summer in the SH?
“Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries. Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea. Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal – much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.
In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea.”
Flashback to one short year ago (or 30-days post-assassin):
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump and Elon Musk made plenty of news in their August 12 “X-cast.” Perhaps the most consequential statement was Trump’s assertion that “we have 100 to 500 years of oil left.” The policy implications of those words are vast: We are not running out of energy. In fact, it is just the opposite.
Coal! Just imagine, if all the ‘investment’ spaffed away on ruinables, had been invested instead on cleaning the exhaust output from coal-fired stations.
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 at most 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 less than 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
Is there a correlation between thunderstorms and seismicity? I asked that question of Google AI and was told that they weren’t connected, but then I asked the same question at scholar.google.com and came up with the following research paper: The Global Electric Circuit and Global Seismicity.
If I am understanding that paper, it suggests that seismic activity sends electrons high up into the atmosphere which, due to the presence of a Global Electric Circuit, leads to increased thunderstorm activity.
I am asking because I know that the earth, especially along the Pacific Rim, is experiencing increased seismic activity at the moment and because we have been having an exceptional number of severe thunderstorms this summer where I live in Western Pennsylvania.
HR, I have no knowledge about this but, having grown up in Western Pennsylvania, I recollect that thunderstorms are very common there. Having an “exceptional number of severe thunderstorms” now could use a bit of data.
You are correct that I have no data, just my own observations of local corn crops and of my own garden crops suffering from overly-muddy soil.
What I am really hoping for from this blog is a response from someone who who has enough background to understand this research paper and then tell me if I am misinterpreting it.
The short answer is Arctic sea ice has melted more in 2025 mostly due to the lagged warmer ocean water/air influx mainly from the North Atlantic after a global ocean temperature peak in 2023/24.
The recent ocean warmth resulted from very high solar irradiance in 2022-24, and the start of 2025.
The 2025 negative sea ice volume deviation will rebound positively in coming years after the N. Atlantic heat content dissipates from it’s most recent peak, as this solar cycle declines.
It is not TSI that necessarily determines how warm the oceans are getting. It is the amount of UV, mostly, that can heat the water to such an extent that it can evaporate the water. See my comment at the end of this thread.
Henry I have no doubt UV is involved in evaporation to an extent, but the UV portion of the light spectrum absorbed by the ocean is small compared to the whole (TSI).
Arctic Sea Ice Time Lapse Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009
{Note the orientation of Greenland. Google Earth Pro can show where the Nares Strait is, and you can rotate to see that same orientation.}
I’ve read discussions for a few years, but this is my first time on this thread. It looks like Charles is the moderator. First, an intro. I’m a retired Episcopal priest. But my undergrad degree was environment science (Penn State, ERM, 1974} decades before M Mann arrived. I’ve been back studying “the science” for about 15yrs. I’ve certainly read various peer review articles, but I don’t have the knowledge to evaluate the details. I depend on blogs such as WattsUp, CO2 Coalition and I watch Heartland’s Climate Realism.
Carbon Dating: A few weeks ago, a big story was the realization that global rivers were the source of much more CO2 than previously thought. Charles’ article was, “Settled Science Springs a Leak: Rivers Reveal the Carbon Cycle’s Dirty Secret”. If I recall, the Nature article Charles discussed said, “Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment…” Two years ago, I had an email debate with a NOAA scientist (Howard Diamond). While discussing various sources of atmospheric CO2 (another important subject) he said, Carbon Dating (or Isotope identification?) reveals various sources. I didn’t have the knowledge to question this. I thought of Diamond’s ‘assertion’ while reading Charles’ article. He ends with, “So the next time someone tells you the science is settled, ask them if they’ve heard of F¹⁴C. Then sit back and enjoy the silence.”
My question is, can Charles or anyone give a modestly technical explanation of the shortcomings of carbon dating/isotope identification?
There’s just a lot more CO2 with the isotope signature, that was previously assumed to be anthropogenic, coming from rivers and other natural sources than was previously thought.
This swamps the previously assumed anthropogenic signal and makes it impossible to use isotope ratios to identify the source of CO2 increase.
NZ is ridding net zero policies ‘brick by brick’ after Jacinda Ardern’s ‘crippling’ gas decision
Henry Pool
July 13, 2025 6:52 am
I would very much like to hear from you on my recent thoughts on the Keeling curve:
As I’ve said and proven before (the ‘chemistry and physics’), the increase in atmospheric CO2 is mostly due to warmer oceans. I think it has almost nothing to do with humans.
Warmer oceans are generally caused by more UV/IR radiation THROUGH the air into the oceans.
Water absorbs UV and IR radiation, and here there’s a lot of mass (that mass isn’t comparable to the mass of that tiny bit of extra CO2 in the air—so I don’t think the extra CO2 can affect the heat of earth at all – that is all just a red herring).
All natural processes related to solar radiation have a sinus curve or sinusoidal shape. Apparently, something happens inside the sun at its maximum and minimum temperatures.
So, the shape of the Keeling curve for atmospheric CO2 was actually to be expected, because it is caused by the warming (but the increase of CO2 in the air can’t be the cause of extra warming). But Keeling should have known what would ultimately happen.
Eventually, the upward curve must come to an end because it reaches a dead-end stop. Thereafter it will go nicely down (again, in a curve). The downward curve will eventually become the mirror image of the upward curve, if you get my drift.
This dead-end stop will therefore herald the beginning of an era of cold / cooler weather.
Many natural cycles are too long for us to experience as individuals. Nevertheless, our CO2 will be acted upon just as is nature’s. Keeling only accounts for about half of our CO2, which in itself is interesting.
Scissor
I don’t agree with that 50% either. Endersbee (and I) says it is ca. 140 ppm CO2 from the oceans into the air per 1K. Which is just about where we are now…
“All natural processes related to solar radiation have a sinus curve or sinusoidal shape.”
The Keeling curve can be considered as a series of annual CO2 cycles controlled by the annual insolation cycle ocean warming effect on CO2 outgassing/sinking via Henry’s Law, in parallel with annual biological decomposition, on top of annual man-made emissions growth after sinking.
“Eventually, the upward curve must come to an end because it reaches a dead-end stop.”
Only after MME are greatly reduced either by choice, coercion, or lack of supply, and/or a much colder ocean. The former seems inevitable by the peak of this interglacial, unless our concepts of a limited oil supply are wrong. Whoever survives into the next glacial period will have very serious challenges if oil supply is limited or ended by then.
Neither solar or wind work under ice. The fraction of nuclear power will be much higher then by necessity, unless we really can forestall the next glaciation.
You did not get my drift. It is bi-nominal. The Keeling curve must be either hyper-bolic or para-bolic…..that is the logic following from a sinus function for the heat coming from the sun?
why do you get sunburn from UV? think….
So now, the UV heats the top layers of the water to boiling point so that it evaporates. If you want to evaluate the amount of heat in the oceans you must study the variation in UV through the atmosphere. Why is nobody doing this? It is not that I did not tell this on WUWT for more than a decade or so…
bobpjones
July 13, 2025 12:33 pm
I’m beginning to hear comments about using wave and tidal as renewable sources. As in the Willis article the other day. Politicians (UK) are now spouting the mantra, that they would add to the mix.
I’d be interested to hear the views of the erudite contributors to these articles. Not just on aesthetic and financial lines, but also the technical issues.
I’m of the opinion, that they are both ‘pie in the sky’ technologies. I don’t fancy being told, not to boil a kettle until the tide comes in. And the folly, that waves are driven by the wind and hence suffer from the same limitations as those big spinning daisies on the moors.
“I’d be interested to hear the views of the erudite contributors to these articles.”
I doubt many would call my comments “erudite” but I remember hearing about using the tides and/or waves for power decades ago. (Maybe the late ’60’s? Early ’70’s?) It’s not a new idea. It just never went anywhere.
I’d appreciate someone stress testing and critiquing this video. Are there any flaws? Poor reasoning? Bad Science? If there aren’t any holes in this video, the Hockeystick is the greatest hoax in world history. https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
A former green agenda activist who was part of Greta Thunberg’s inner circle has blown the whistle to expose the entire “climate change” movement as a “scam.”
As a matter of curiosity, does Anthony have a policy regarding Willis Eschenbach’s policy of deleting comments he doesn’t like? No reasons are ever given, and Willis’ pious declarations about being prepared to defend what he says, smell slightly of hypocrisy.
I’m fairly sure that Willis cannot accept that his knowledge of physics is sorely defective (as evidenced by his bizarre “steel greenhouse” and similar oddities), or that it is even possible that his fantastic speculations are not actually proof of a superior mindset.
I’m not sure why Willis is so insecure that he wishes to censor any fact based comments he doesn’t like, or even any opinions based on speculation – as all of Willis’ are.
I note that Charles Rotter (to his credit) recently apologised for refusing to publish comments based on an opinion which he revised on becoming aware of facts. As J M Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Willis is no follower of Keynes, it seems.
With a supreme effort you have managed to raise your “debating” standard to “Level 6 : Ad Hominem”.
Unfortunately, despite several “subtle hints” from me … and many, many, other WUWT posters … over the last few months you still have not learned that if you want to be taken seriously you (and I, and every other poster here) needs to compose posts that rise to at least “Level 3 : Counterargument” on the “Debate Pyramid” copied above.
Since your inference skills are so bad, I will spell out the criteria to reach “Level 3” (or higher) explicitly.
You have to include “supporting evidence” and/or references and/or links to published — i.e. peer-reviewed by a “serious” journal — scientific papers which reached the same “conclusions” that you did.
Otherwise your contributions will be classified as either “bald assertions” or “your personal opinions“.
.
I’m fairly sure that Willis cannot accept that his knowledge of physics is sorely defective (as evidenced by his bizarre “steel greenhouse” and similar oddities), or that it is even possible that his fantastic speculations are not actually proof of a superior mindset.
The term “psychological projection” applies here … in spades !
“Proof ?”, you ask ?
Because I say so.
.
… his bizarre “steel greenhouse” and similar oddities
Your “bizarre” claim is that the constant 44 to 47 TW of heat flow from the cooling Earth is more important for the average “surface” temperature than the annual average 160 (including albedo, or “all sky”) to 214 (“clear-sky”) W/m² of heat flow directly from the sun.
[ Editorial note : Insert direct link to the PNG file for IPCC AR6 WGI Figure 7.2 here … ]
NB : I am completely ignoring the 342 / 314 W/m² of “greenhouse effect” here. The GHE is irrelevant when 160 >> 44 (or 47) all on its own.
Davies & Davies (2010) calculated the heat flows over the “surface” of the solid Earth — 70% of which can be found at the bottom of the Earth’s oceans — as summarised in their Table 7 :
NB : Your constantly repeated “44 TW” is equivalent to roughly 86 milli-Watts per square metre of the Earth’s “surface”.
One of the “Davies” published a second paper in 2013 which included the following map of just how the heat flow from your “cooling for 4.5 billion years” Earth is currently distributed over its “surface”.
.
Most … errrrrm … “normal” people when they hear the phrase “the Earth’s average surface temperature” will have something like the following that pops into their minds :
“The weighted area global average of temperatures 2 metres above land surfaces (30% of the total area) + 70% sea surface temperatures (SSTs, 70% of the total)”
For example, the header for each BEST GMST anomalies file starts with :
% This file contains a detailed summary of the changes in Earth’s global average
% surface temperature estimated by combining the Berkeley Earth land-surface
% temperature field with a reinterpolated version of the HadSST ocean temperature
% field.
You, however, have a different “default assumption” from (almost ?) everybody else.
You persist in assuming that the phrase “the surface” has to be referring to “the surface of the solid Earth” … once again, 70% of which is at the bottom of the oceans.
For a lot of people, including myself, this is not the “default assumption” to be made about the phrase “the (Earth’s) surface”.
If you wish to be “understood” by other WUWT posters, please add some qualifiers to your posts.
If you wish to be “taken seriously”, completely cut out the insults and “conclusions” you have reached about other posters mental faculties and/or motivations.
Do these cute diagrams come with an explanation of how “greenhouse gasses” manage to radiate downward more than upward? Because it looks like a Maxwell demon already. And those belong in the very same bin where all perpetuum mobile schematics come to rest.
Do these cute diagrams come with an explanation of how “greenhouse gasses” manage to radiate downward more than upward?
Short answer : No.
Long answer …
Following the (IPCC AR6 WGI) Chapter 7 reference to “Wild et al., 2015” led me to the following “The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models” paper :
The energy budgets over land and oceans are still afflicted with considerable uncertainties, despite their key importance for terrestrial and maritime climates. We evaluate these budgets as represented in 43 CMIP5 climate models with direct observations from both surface and space and identify substantial biases, particularly in the surface fluxes of downward solar and thermal radiation.
…
By combining these surface budgets with satellite-determined TOA budgets we quantify the atmospheric energy budgets as residuals (including ocean to land transports), and revisit the global mean energy balance.
The “explanation” is :
1) Make TOA (via satellite) and surface “upwelling” and “downwelling” measurements
2) Read out various “energy budget” numbers from climate models
3) Reconcile intermediate values, e.g. to and from the atmosphere and its “greenhouse gases”, to be “consistent with” the empirical TOA and surface numbers
No “how” at all, just “we are climate scientists, bow down before us and tremble at our mathematical skills (of addition and subtraction)”.
.
PS : Figure 2 from that paper is attached below. Other people may also consider it “interesting”, I certainly did when it first rendered on my computer screen …
Germany has paid the highest price in this climate crusade. Its forced transition to renewables — while banning nuclear energy — might still be hailed as “civilizational progress” in eco-parasitic enclaves like Berlin. But out in the real world, where productive citizens depend on affordable energy and mobility, the mood has soured. The party’s over. And the pressure’s building.
Now, at last, some are speaking up. A group of industrial works councils is calling on Chancellor Merz to halt the climate policy suicide run. Since the COVID lockdowns, over 300,000 jobs in Germany’s industrial core have vanished. Energy-intensive production has become a fantasy — especially when competitors like the U.S. pay up to 75% less for electricity.
Decades ago, I remember listening to the radio on the way to work. There was a humorous call-in contest they called “Pick C” in which the first caller had to answer a multiple-choice question to win.
Let’s recreate that contest for the central question of climate response to the use of natural hydrocarbons as fuel:
Multiple choice – What happens to the energy involved in the radiative effect of incremental CO2?
A. Trapped down here as sensible heat gain. Yikes, we’re toast!
B. There is no radiative effect!
C. Converted/circulated/dissipated/emitted to space from higher up. No reason to be concerned.
Thank you for playing “Pick C” today. You WIN!
Why C? Because the fundamental nature of compressible flow in the general circulation massively overwhelms the incremental static radiative effect. The result is that the influence on sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere itself, is vanishingly weak. Undetectable.
Negligible. Inconsequential.
The whole notion of “greenhouse gasses” is garbage. Ice dominates by more than order of magnitude any of the radiative responsive gasses. Water vapour is important to the extend that it undergoes phase changes in the atmosphere to form ice above 273K.
If you look across all the ice free oceans on any day you will find the OLR ranging from 120W/m^2 up o 315W/m^2. The correspond effective radiating temperature is within the range 214K up to 273K. So the highest average effective emission temperature over oceans never exceeds 273K. Accordingly the OLR over oceans is leaving the atmosphere from ice most of the time.
The thing about this ice is that it also reflects a significant portion off the incoming solar EMR back to space such that it is not thermalised in the climate system
Only morons could come up with climate models that parameterise clouds in the hope of getting a meaningful result. Clouds are not the result of some fluffy, ill-defined process that cannot be described or deterministically modelled , despite they appearance. Their formation and development is tightly linked to the surface temperature and the corresponding water profile. Understanding the development of Ice and its dissipation in the atmosphere is key to understanding the obvious long standing stability of Earth’s climate.
Thank you for your reply. The emphasis on phase change and the melting point of ice is well noted. I encourage all here at WUWT making comments and replies to refrain from derogatory language. Persuasion on scientific grounds need not and should not sound derisive, in my opinion.
I agree with your opinion. But the radiation cowboys pushing the “greenhouse effect” are not scientists. Their understanding of physics is at moron level so maybe science moron would be more accurate.
I find the “greenhouse effect” semantics to be ambiguous, so I try to specify the claims and concepts in alternative terms. Still, I might not be as clearly understood as I intend.
Re your statement —
— one would love to learn (from you) the basis for this bold conclusion. [no sarcasm intended here]
Robert
I have been working on a deterministic model for cloud development over ocean warm pools for a couple of years now, It is a complex picture that requires vertical resolution;an order of magnitude higher than current GCMs. However I can do a single column model that produces results close to observed behaviour.
I have concluded that the surface temperature regulating mechanism is due to 30C being the temperature where heat uptake below the LFC balances the heat loss above the LFC. When the base of the column rises above 30C, the heat uptake below the LFC exceeds that required to rebalance the column during convective instability and there is convective overshoot. Overshoot supersaturates the column at high altitude and very high level cloud forms with micron size particles that are slow to descend. Convective overshoot results in very low OLR and is observed over warm pools when they start cyclic instability.
There was a lot of research on cloud over warm pools in the 1990s but that line of research came to an end when the CO2 gravy train started rolling and radiation cowboys with their “greenhouse effect” got support from the UNIPCC. .
Thank you kindly. I look fwd to hearing more about your progress … as soon as you are ready to share it. I noted that this comes up frequently, e.g.
The correct answer is b as the radiative greenhouse effect violates the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics. Nikolov and Zeller are right. Read their 2023 paper and watch Utube with Tom Nelson.
Have read their paper…unfortunately printed it…but my parrot enjoyed it as liner for his cage…
Thanks for “calling in” to play “Pick C.” I disagree with Nikolov that there is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics involved in the claim that incremental CO2 must result in sensible heat gain. He otherwise makes a few good points, and is right to reject the core claims, but I think he is off a bit on how to refute the consensus view of attribution of the reported warming.
A more complete explanation of “Why C” is here in this folder for anyone who is interested. Start with the Readme pdf.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
A very pleasant summer thus far – and let’s be honest, we don’t get many – must be met with the appropriate doom laden responses:
Extreme heat could lead to 30,000 deaths a year in England and Wales by 2070s, say scientists
They also modelled the ageing population.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/10/extreme-heat-death-rate-england-wales-by-2070-climate-change
A convert, they say, always has something to prove…
“Climate anxiety meant I could no longer work as a pilot. But I love flying – and I know we can transform aviation”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/10/pilot-climate-crisis-aviation-industry-flying
Montgolfiers, guilt and death. Great religion. Still, on a more upbeat note under the heading: “Rise of the Right”…
Nigel Farage, has called the government’s net zero ambitions a “lunacy” that destroys jobs, drives up energy bills and is responsible for the deindustrialising of Britain. He has predicted that the schism over net zero will be the “next Brexit”.
…
Reform UK has said it will scrap the UK’s net zero legislation – and renewable energy subsidies along with it. A carbon-heavy pivot would accompany that: a Reform government would invest directly in North Sea oil and gas production, which it claims would secure the UK’s energy supplies and the workforce supported by the industry.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/13/an-enormous-scar-battle-solar-farms-pylons-reform-uk-woos-lincolnshire
This was published 10th July at:
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-9th-july-2025/
I think that just about blows the Guardian’s bleat that people want climate action out of the airlock.
“Nigel Farage, has called the government’s net zero ambitions a “lunacy” that destroys jobs, drives up energy bills and is responsible for the deindustrialising of Britain. He has predicted that the schism over net zero will be the “next Brexit”.”
Now, we’re talking! That’s the right approach.
Trump and Nigel should hold a public town hall meeting in the UK to discuss windmills and industrial solar and the huge, expensive problems associated with trying to run a modern society on windmills and solar.
The people of the UK need Trump’s perspective on Net Zero.
Isn’t Trump generally despised there?
Anyway, “renewable” fanatics use “capacity” to make renewables appear better than they actually are, when dispatchable power is what modern society needs.
They further obfuscate a nation’s electricity grid with its energy consumption when in fact electricity represents only a fraction of it all, and they totally ignore hydrocarbon and fossil inputs than are needed to make renewables possible in the first place.
Sadly, too many in the UK, have been fed a diet of anti Trump information, and have no idea, what he’s really trying to do.
“Isn’t Trump generally despised there?”
I think it is fair to say he is now despised (by the majority of people) everywhere except in some states in the US. Did you see him get booed relentlessly at the Fifa club world cup today? There’s a clue.
male bovine metabolic end product
“I think it is fair to say he is now despised (by the majority of people) everywhere”
I think that’s something a person seriously affected by TDS would say.
People see what they want to see. TDS patients hate Trump and assume everyone looks at the world just like they do.
I didn’t watch the Fifa game, but the reporting I’ve been hearing this morning is that Trump was well-received there.
Did you see that trade surplus Trump managed to get for the U.S.? The first one since 2017, when Trump was last in office.
Leftwing propaganda continually smearing Trump and Republicans is the cause of TDS. That, and the fact that those suffering from TDS are completely divorced from reality and are very susceptible to political lies.
Trump’s been in office less than six months and he has already shut down the illegal immigration across U.S. borders, has gotten the biggest tax cuts in history with his Big, Beautiful Bill, has gasoline prices down to close to two dollars per gallon (eight dollars per gallon in radical, leftwing, idiotic California), and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And that not the half of it.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize: I think after Barack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing, the prize is pretty much worthless. It is obviously a political award, and obviously can be awarded to persons who have not promoted peace.
As far as I’m concerned, the Nobel Committee can take their prize and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. They, and their award have no credibility.
“Did you see that trade surplus Trump managed to get for the U.S.? The first one since 2017, when Trump was last in office.”
No have looked but nothing came up on google. But I tell yo this Tom, the tariff nonsense is winning him no friends outside the US.
“Trump’s been in office less than six months and he has already shut down the illegal immigration across U.S. borders…”
I agree that’s a winner for him.
“has gotten the biggest tax cuts in history with his Big, Beautiful Bill,”
The tax cuts that resulted in the biggest redistribution of wealth away from the poor.
“nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. “
Nominated by a guy guilty of war crimes. Anyone can be nominated. Let’s see how that nomination goes. What is happening in Gaza is nothing short of genocide. Horrific destruction of human life by a group of murderous thugs. I am no fan of Hamas, but these are starving women and children who are being slaughtered. No one can defend that.
I stand by my point. Trump is despised by the citizens of pretty much every country outside the US and by an increasing number of people inside it.
Finally Tom I’m wondering where you stand on the Epstein files debacle? Are you keen for the files to be opened and the names of those who Epstein supported to abuse children to be made public?
On a positive note I see Trump finally is seeing Putin for the war criminal he is and is going to give Ukraine more support. I’m with him on that. Saw a tee shirt the other day that said “Fight like a Ukrainian” I want one.
nothing short of genocide.
Words have meanings. What’s happening in Gaza isn’t anywhere close to “genocide”.
Really? Well there is a whole wikipedia page devoted to this topic. Have a read….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
And anyway… whether it meets the specific definition of genocide, it is beyond belief how Israel is behaving in the murder of these poor people. They have destroyed their homes and it is clear they now plan to take their land.
From post:”The tax cuts that resulted in the biggest redistribution of wealth away from the poor.”
You will need to be more specific as I am not able to figure out how a deduction for tips, overtime and social security are redistribution away from the poor. The poor don’t have jobs and the wealthy don’t earn a living via tips or overtime.
i hope Trump is despised by people outside the US. More they despise him (us) the less will try to get in and suck up social benefits.
Hamas is killing their own people to stop Palestinians from getting food from US or Israel.
Simon I think you are the lowest of the low pedaling unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo.
As for the Epstein files I am sure Tom like me care for the safety of children more than the possible shame of some politician.
“Simon I think you are the lowest of the low pedaling unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo.”
Wait, what…. be specific. What did I say that is not true?
“As for the Epstein files I am sure Tom like me care for the safety of children more than the possible shame of some politician.”
Great we agree. As one Fox news guy said… “you can’t tell me that there are 1000 kids out there who have been abuse and that no one can be arrested for that.”
You don’t need a list to do that. Start asking questions of the victims.
I don’t condone the alleged behavior of Epstein, but your choice of “children” rather than “minors” speaks volumes about your biased position. I haven’t been following the story closely, but I would be surprised if most of the young participants weren’t actually of the age of consent. Then, there is the understanding and forgiveness demonstrated by the UK when they made it very clear that they didn’t approve of Jerry Lee Lewis marrying is 13-year-old cousin. We never did properly thank the UK for saving the world from such a sinner.
Do you know what the age of consent is in Japan? If you disapprove, perhaps you should demonstrate your outrage by refusing to buy anything made in Japan. Why should Trump get all the attention?
Legal age is 16 in Japan. Some of these girls involved with Epstein and his cohorts were a lot younger. So do you want to see the names of the abusers made public or not? I do. No protection for anyone who abuses children I say. I don’t care who they are or how rich.
The Iranian oligarchy especially. The Israelis not so much.
If Brits like yourself understood that the Iranians want A-bombs to use them, and that while the winds in the Middle-East usually blow away from Britain, sometimes they do blow towards Britain, they would be thanking Trump for making the hard call. What if the Iranians were to wait for the right meteorological conditions? I think that your hatred of Trump, and all things Right, has blinded you to reality.
OK
No 1. I didn’t mention Iran. But on that topic… Trump may have got that right. We wont know for a while though.
No 2. I’m not British but given the fine way they played today to beat India, I wish I was.
The people of the UK need economic growth to pay the bills, including debt payments. The current trend to stagnation like the the German economy is about to be the decider that makes all previous net zero policies look like extravagant delusions. Better get word out to all those on mental holiday.
About that pilot – he is quoted in the article to say, “I had grown increasingly anxious about the effect that our industry was having on the planet and, deep down, I knew that my concern for the climate crisis meant being an airline pilot was damaging my mental health.”
Yikes. British flyers dodged a bullet when this gentleman stepped away from his cockpit duties for mental health reasons. He may not fully realize this yet, but his mental state is being driven by the illusion of a crisis when there is none. I wouldn’t want to be flying in a jet where a crewmember’s mind is occupied with such self-doubt.
He’ll have a Mobility Scheme Car by now.
https://youtu.be/qTk1ychsRbQ?si=djhicHvRwP-G-uJJ
Oooooh Ben! 🙂
Most psyops these days seem to have the goal to confuse and divide the population. The confusion leads to people manifesting all kinds of psychoses, resulting in a degradation of general competence. Suicide by pilot thankfully has not taken off, so to speak.
Polarization is directed toward violence between factions. Interesting times.
That could have come from “The Political Parties Operating Handbook”.
“I think that just about blows the Guardian’s bleat that people want climate action out of the airlock”.
That is not quite correct.
‘People’ here are defined as those working in the msm and politicians, NGOs and state institutions. You know, the important ‘smart’ ones that need to educate the masses..
The Vanguard. Onward Climate Warriors..also known as The Party.
Reform UK needs 50+% to have a free hand to pass anything, and UNPASS all the impoverishing wind/solar/battery/EV/heat pump BS, just as Trump is doing in the US.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get 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.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
Labour got 20% (32%) of the vote….
Yes, All promises no delivery. Democracy is a demanding bitch.
I foresee a problem, the gov’t is ordering that the drill holes be plugged. With the goal of sabotaging any chance of them being reopened. Milibland et al. are a pernicious and evil lot.
Drill baby drill.
The 2025 CET maximum temperature is currently running at +2.8C. Incredible.
It was a very hot day for the UK yesterday, very widely over 30C.
I’m far south coast central, but we have yet to reach the third heatwave threshold, it briefly reached 24C yesterday.
As the crow flies I’m 40 miles from Southampton that reached 31C, +7C.
The same happened on the day Southampton posted the record temperature in 1976, that day it was +8C.
Just goes to show that local temperatures can genuinely vary a great deal on particular days, even when they are usually pretty similar.
“a very hot day”
That’s your opinion, it was pleasantly warm in mine, not hot at all.
I can’t admit to trusting anything the MO announces, especially their amber rain alerts FFS
“Shocking evidence has emerged that points to the U.K. Met Office inventing temperature data from over 100 non-existent weather stations. “
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/science-shock-u-k-met-office-is-inventing-temperature-data-from-100-non-existent-stations/
Since we are talking about weather, I have to wait for it to warm a bit before I go on a bike ride. I have the luxury to be able to sit inside and drink coffee until it’s more comfortable outside. Other than a handful of very hot days, the weather in Colorado has been generally mild this year, although with more rain than normal, mosquitoes have been plentiful.
The readings of the past 35 years were inflated by purposely placing stations in warm areas, or not relocating stations to more suitable areas.
The higher readings maliciously boost the UK governments’s insane climate policies.
Some Houston natives would think 30C outside is too cold to swim.
I would generally prefer it to be warmer than 30 deg C, and I don’t live in Texas. However, the greater concern is the temperature of the water.
The recorded temperatures increased mostly 1980’s on…with the number of stations converting from manual daily high/low thermometer readings to electronic and telemetry readings, not to mention increased jet engine horsepower and number of jets blowing air over increased tarmac area to the weather stations located at airports…. and taller reflective glass buildings elsewhere…
Hot is when the MINIMUM temperature exceeds 30C. My son experienced that in Baltimore a few weeks ago.
NET ZERO FOLLY – STORY TIP
Carbon Dioxide is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including hydro-electric, nuclear power and fracking to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. We have at least 50 years to do this before fossil fuel supplies run out. The left wing mainstream and power elites dangerously mislead everybody by constantly stating that man made carbon dioxide is a danger. It is not and never will be. If atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming, why was it not warm in the Ordovician ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than the lowly 420 ppm it is now? 420 ppm is also the level around which it is becoming “saturated”. Any increase leads to little heat control. Thus increases in carbon dioxide will have negligible effect. The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases, over 90% compared with CO2’s less than 1%. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. This always varies a little in cycles as the earth’s axis of rotation varies.
Most importantly, the Net-Zero (“De-carbonising” or removing carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change the climate. It is a total sham. Every policy maker should be asked one question. How exactly will Net Zero help the planet? They cannot answer because it doesn’t. Expensive Policy is being made for totally useless and unjustifiable reasons. The completely avoidable present crippling energy costs are being imposed on us by people who are totally ignorant of the facts. The massive renewable subsidies are doing more harm than good. They should be cancelled and the vast sums used to put our economy on a much sounder footing
Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this policy and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21/2030, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
Most of your comment is accurate but the above line is not.
Earth began its current 9500 year trend in increasing northern hemisphere solar EMR around 1700.
The oceans of the NH will have increasing surface temperature for a long time to come. That is already causing increasing snowfall and there is already evidence that Greenland ice extent and altitude of the summit are increasing due to snowfall overtaking snow melt. As the oceans warm further the snowfall will overtake the snow melt on high ground and northern facing slopes near the Arctic Ocean before the permafrost advances south again. That is likely this millennium.
From numerous exchanges, I have learnt there are few people who understand Earth’s orbital precession and how it shifts the solar intensity between hemispheres over time. If more did, then there would be a broader appreciation of the cause of glaciation..
Anyone hoping for a sustained cooling trend in the NH will be long dead before thet hope is materialised. Earth’s orbit rules climate and it has predictable consequences.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/04/high-resolution-earth-orbital-precession-relative-to-climate-weather/
Statistics not so much.
Re your statements:
Since I agree with nearly everything you write, and sincerely appreciate your unique perspective, one can proceed directly to the point-of-contention, namely:
The anticipated NH Re-Glaciation must follow (not coincide with) the ‘solar EMR’ minimum. That’s where we are today [image attached], at the bottom.
To help folks understand this simply, just consider that — as everyone knows from direct experience — in each NH Winter, the coldest weather & snowpack builds well after the Winter Solstice (December) or even past the Vernal Equinox (late March), although the day(light) is lengthening throughout!
G. Roe (GeoPhys. Research Letters, circa 2005) summarized this understanding with regard to (neo)glaciation in no uncertain terms, and attempted to resolve the remaining (minor) controversies in the ‘Milankovitch Model’ by relating the Rate (time-derivative) of NH Glaciation to the Solar (‘Insolation’) at the 65 N latitude (the conventional metric). This, in order to reproduce the observed delay (or time-shift) in (re- or de-)glaciation events.
That may sound like an unnecessary complication, but it makes all the difference, as (once again) anyone can appreciate by relating it to their annual experience with northern winters.
If you want to disagree with this, fine, but just say so explicitly. It doesn’t any good to say that few people … understand Earth’s orbital precession [orbital mechanics] when no-one is disagreeing with its consequence (the image borrowed from a very recent post & attached).
Until then, concerned persons will continue to regard our present-era (the pleasant interlude from ‘A.D. 1700’ to the present) as merely a brief pause en route to the major re-glaciation, as has recurred regularly over ~ 800 millennia, i.e. since the mid-Pleistocene Transition).
sincerely & respectfully yours, — RLW
Naturally, I forgot to provide the citation & link to Roe (2006):
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 2006
In defense of Milankovitch [by] Gerard Roe
https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Web/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf
Your words, my bold: ” in each NH Winter, the coldest weather & snowpack builds well after the Winter Solstice (December) or even past the Vernal Equinox (late March),”
I have not experienced much cold and snow after February but I’ve only lived in the USA at +/- 40o to 47o N. Lat. Such info can be examined at the Western Regional Climate Center. Example:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa2508
where 54% of snowfall is in Jan+Feb. Elsewhere it might differ.
Thanks, I probably shouldn’t have added that phrase, even if it’s true at the higher latitudes (and altitudes).
It seemed necessary to stress a specific end-of-winter date (the Vernal Equinox) as the Spring Thaw / Snowmelt, because — within this analogy — it appears at +4 or +5 millennia from now. (Please check for the inflection point on the graph) …
… en route to a pathetically weak Summer Solstice, i.e. the maximum insolation referred to by RickWill [Richard Willougby] as the endpoint of the “9,500 year trend in increasing northern hemisphere solar EMR [starting from] around 1700.”
The point being simply that to declare now that we are in the onset-period of an extended (millennial-scale) warming period would be like someone, having enjoyed an ‘Indian Summer’ (late-Autumn warm spell) declare that now — at the Solstice of ~ December 20th — the days will be getting longer, hence no Winter ice to fear!
Words fail me … it seems like the ‘height of irresponsibility’ …
P.S. thanks also for the link, which I checked. Your March temperatures average 39 F (from (50 hi + 28 lo) or +4 C (for those without the benefit of the original centigrade scale), so that’s probably would prevent snow-ice accumulation, even if it were your wettest season (‘April showers’ etc.). Also indicates < 10″ annual precip (semi-arid / sunny), in the Cascades’ rain-shadow?
You may have seen older globes or maps centered on the North Pole — they provide a wavy line enclosing most of the Arctic region, labeled (+)10 C as peak-summer (average) temperatures: Any place inside that line could sustain year-round ice; lower latitudes could be ~ ice-free by late summer.
Correct. The Cascades’ rain-shadow is quite important. The posts by Cliff Mass, sometimes repeated here, often mention the Olympic Mtns and the Cascades’ shadows.
Talking of Milankovitch cycles. Often we see charts of all three components, eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Then a composite chart of all three combined.
That composite chart looks very much like a classic amplitude modulated signal. As such, in any modulated signal, there are harmonics, which consist of other frequencies.
It has crossed my mind, that there are subtle harmonics in the cycles, and I’ve wondered whether they have subtle effects on climate patterns, that may not be immediately obvious.
Thanks, that’s right:
It’s not just the (axial) Precession, which is the shortest at ~ 23-kyr full cycle, in four ‘Great-Year’ Seasons of nearly ~ 6,000 yrs each).
So that’s my first objection to RickWill saying (as elsewhere) that ‘Nobody Understands Precession‘. If taken literally, this is untrue — Ancient stargazers described it well enough, as recorded in the earliest surviving human literature!
[Check under Precession of the Equinoxes, or Hamlet’s Mill, to quench a genuine thirst for the broadest view]
As for quantitative analysis (as in Roe 2006 & many others since Milankovitch 1941), and for prediction, it’s so much better to skip all that 3-component complexity (that you mentioned). Instead proceed directly to calculated outputs (that incorporate all these), specific to some convention appropriate to the problem-of-interest. For glaciation (rates) has conventionally been Peak-Summer Insolation at 65N latitude. [For the tropics — the Monsoon (the Milankovitch-Kutzbach) Problem — a different choice applies.]
He (RickWill) has his own (2-region) preference appropriate to his limiting principle for (de-/re-) glaciation, a hydrological one (‘advection’ / moisture transfer-rate from hot tropics to freezing arctic). Which is fine, no problem, as long as he states clearly that he has adopted a different criterion.
However, his insistence upon this strong prediction —
— is perplexing (for me) to fathom, because it seems to imply a no-time-lag response of the oceans to the ‘recent’ millennia-long steep decline in NH insolation … basically the main story of the so-far gradual cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum (- 6 to -8 millennia back).
Elsewhere, a year ago (in his longer WUWT essay on the glaciation problem), he has clearly recounted the paleo evidence —
that sea-level rise / fall lags ice-core-derived temperature-changes by 5,000 years, which in turn lags the orbital-dynamics based calculated insolation
— so he is clearly aware of the historical situation …
… but doesn’t seem to apply it to the present or going fwd over the next couple millennia.
To make matters worse, his own charts show a rather steeper cooling (for temperature decline, as basically an acceleration of that long-term established for the post-HCO period) for the coming couple of millennia.
Since I am an unoriginal & simple-minded person — any inference that one is trying to state something novel is surely mistaken — I prefer to look directly at the impressively accumulated record from the ice-cores dating back to -800,000 years.
Which show, pretty nicely, that:
No ‘interglacial’ (such as we are in) has ever extended much if any beyond the ~ 12,000 years (that’s half an Axial-Precession full cycle, or two (2) Axial-Precession / Great Year seasons, i.e. from Summer-Solstice to Winter Solstice) that we’ve already just completed.
That message (in 3 words or fewer), also entirely unoriginal is:
Prepare for Ice!
— Q.E.D. (Quite Enough Done)
Like you, I prefer to look at the past, Medieval, Roman and Minoan warming periods, indicate to me that it’s been warmer, so today’s climate is nothing special.
You’re in good company with your preference to ice cores, as Dr Patrick Moore has said, to predict the future look at the past.
A point on precession, would I be right in saying, that during its cycle, the seasons will ultimately shift, so that eventually it will be winter in the NH in June and summer in the SH?
“We have at least 50 years to do this before fossil fuel supplies run out.”
We have a little longer than that:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
“Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.
Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.
Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal – much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.
In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea.”
Flashback to one short year ago (or 30-days post-assassin):
Probably that’s not literally true — the man is known for hyperbole.
But not to worry — his followers take him seriously but not literally; his opponents take him literally but not seriously, and lose their minds in the process.
Source: https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/08/17/pinkerton-liquid-gold-donald-trumps-winning-message-on-energy-and-wealth/
Coal! Just imagine, if all the ‘investment’ spaffed away on ruinables, had been invested instead on cleaning the exhaust output from coal-fired stations.
No cost is too high if it saves one tree! /sarc
Aye, they want to replace trees with carbon capture technology.
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 at most 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 less than 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
story > Tip
France is sweating its brains out thanks to the EU’s climate madness — RT World News
Is there a correlation between thunderstorms and seismicity? I asked that question of Google AI and was told that they weren’t connected, but then I asked the same question at scholar.google.com and came up with the following research paper: The Global Electric Circuit and Global Seismicity.
If I am understanding that paper, it suggests that seismic activity sends electrons high up into the atmosphere which, due to the presence of a Global Electric Circuit, leads to increased thunderstorm activity.
I am asking because I know that the earth, especially along the Pacific Rim, is experiencing increased seismic activity at the moment and because we have been having an exceptional number of severe thunderstorms this summer where I live in Western Pennsylvania.
HR, I have no knowledge about this but, having grown up in Western Pennsylvania, I recollect that thunderstorms are very common there. Having an “exceptional number of severe thunderstorms” now could use a bit of data.
John,
You are correct that I have no data, just my own observations of local corn crops and of my own garden crops suffering from overly-muddy soil.
What I am really hoping for from this blog is a response from someone who who has enough background to understand this research paper and then tell me if I am misinterpreting it.
I’ve been following this chart for a while. If someone can explain what has happened this year I’d be grateful.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
The short answer is Arctic sea ice has melted more in 2025 mostly due to the lagged warmer ocean water/air influx mainly from the North Atlantic after a global ocean temperature peak in 2023/24.
The recent ocean warmth resulted from very high solar irradiance in 2022-24, and the start of 2025.
The 2025 negative sea ice volume deviation will rebound positively in coming years after the N. Atlantic heat content dissipates from it’s most recent peak, as this solar cycle declines.
Bob
It is not TSI that necessarily determines how warm the oceans are getting. It is the amount of UV, mostly, that can heat the water to such an extent that it can evaporate the water. See my comment at the end of this thread.
Henry I have no doubt UV is involved in evaporation to an extent, but the UV portion of the light spectrum absorbed by the ocean is small compared to the whole (TSI).
Suggest reading some of the earlier posts about ice thickness and volume. Get a drink and some snacks. On WUWT:
Historic Variations in Arctic Sea Ice – Part Two – Watts Up With That?
And:
Nares Strait Ice Arches – Watts Up With That?
And
JPL: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares strait – pushed south by wind where it melted far away from the Arctic – Watts Up With That?
Arctic Sea Ice Time Lapse
Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009
{Note the orientation of Greenland. Google Earth Pro can show where the Nares Strait is, and you can rotate to see that same orientation.}
Thank you for the explanations and links
I’ve read discussions for a few years, but this is my first time on this thread. It looks like Charles is the moderator. First, an intro. I’m a retired Episcopal priest. But my undergrad degree was environment science (Penn State, ERM, 1974} decades before M Mann arrived. I’ve been back studying “the science” for about 15yrs. I’ve certainly read various peer review articles, but I don’t have the knowledge to evaluate the details. I depend on blogs such as WattsUp, CO2 Coalition and I watch Heartland’s Climate Realism.
Carbon Dating: A few weeks ago, a big story was the realization that global rivers were the source of much more CO2 than previously thought. Charles’ article was, “Settled Science Springs a Leak: Rivers Reveal the Carbon Cycle’s Dirty Secret”.
If I recall, the Nature article Charles discussed said, “Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment…”
Two years ago, I had an email debate with a NOAA scientist (Howard Diamond). While discussing various sources of atmospheric CO2 (another important subject) he said, Carbon Dating (or Isotope identification?) reveals various sources. I didn’t have the knowledge to question this. I thought of Diamond’s ‘assertion’ while reading Charles’ article. He ends with, “So the next time someone tells you the science is settled, ask them if they’ve heard of F¹⁴C. Then sit back and enjoy the silence.”
My question is, can Charles or anyone give a modestly technical explanation of the shortcomings of carbon dating/isotope identification?
There’s just a lot more CO2 with the isotope signature, that was previously assumed to be anthropogenic, coming from rivers and other natural sources than was previously thought.
This swamps the previously assumed anthropogenic signal and makes it impossible to use isotope ratios to identify the source of CO2 increase.
Another carbon capture technique in doubt:
https://fortune.com/2025/07/03/ocean-technology-startup-200000-carbon-credits-scientists-doubts-gigablue/
NZ is ridding net zero policies ‘brick by brick’ after Jacinda Ardern’s ‘crippling’ gas decision
I would very much like to hear from you on my recent thoughts on the Keeling curve:
As I’ve said and proven before (the ‘chemistry and physics’), the increase in atmospheric CO2 is mostly due to warmer oceans. I think it has almost nothing to do with humans.
Warmer oceans are generally caused by more UV/IR radiation THROUGH the air into the oceans.
Water absorbs UV and IR radiation, and here there’s a lot of mass (that mass isn’t comparable to the mass of that tiny bit of extra CO2 in the air—so I don’t think the extra CO2 can affect the heat of earth at all – that is all just a red herring).
All natural processes related to solar radiation have a sinus curve or sinusoidal shape. Apparently, something happens inside the sun at its maximum and minimum temperatures.
So, the shape of the Keeling curve for atmospheric CO2 was actually to be expected, because it is caused by the warming (but the increase of CO2 in the air can’t be the cause of extra warming). But Keeling should have known what would ultimately happen.
Eventually, the upward curve must come to an end because it reaches a dead-end stop. Thereafter it will go nicely down (again, in a curve). The downward curve will eventually become the mirror image of the upward curve, if you get my drift.
This dead-end stop will therefore herald the beginning of an era of cold / cooler weather.
Many natural cycles are too long for us to experience as individuals. Nevertheless, our CO2 will be acted upon just as is nature’s. Keeling only accounts for about half of our CO2, which in itself is interesting.
Scissor
I don’t agree with that 50% either. Endersbee (and I) says it is ca. 140 ppm CO2 from the oceans into the air per 1K. Which is just about where we are now…
see
OneDrive
But that is beside the point that I was making in my first comment. I don’t want to argue about the 140 ppm CO2 per degree K with anyone.
I will only say that for those who assume that 100% of CO2 increase is anthropogenic, around 50% of our emissions are going into the oceans.
Me and others calculate it at only a few %, but as I said, it is beside the point.
“All natural processes related to solar radiation have a sinus curve or sinusoidal shape.”
The Keeling curve can be considered as a series of annual CO2 cycles controlled by the annual insolation cycle ocean warming effect on CO2 outgassing/sinking via Henry’s Law, in parallel with annual biological decomposition, on top of annual man-made emissions growth after sinking.
“Eventually, the upward curve must come to an end because it reaches a dead-end stop.”
Only after MME are greatly reduced either by choice, coercion, or lack of supply, and/or a much colder ocean. The former seems inevitable by the peak of this interglacial, unless our concepts of a limited oil supply are wrong. Whoever survives into the next glacial period will have very serious challenges if oil supply is limited or ended by then.
Agree.
Neither solar or wind work under ice. The fraction of nuclear power will be much higher then by necessity, unless we really can forestall the next glaciation.
Bob
You did not get my drift. It is bi-nominal. The Keeling curve must be either hyper-bolic or para-bolic…..that is the logic following from a sinus function for the heat coming from the sun?
why do you get sunburn from UV? think….
So now, the UV heats the top layers of the water to boiling point so that it evaporates. If you want to evaluate the amount of heat in the oceans you must study the variation in UV through the atmosphere. Why is nobody doing this? It is not that I did not tell this on WUWT for more than a decade or so…
I’m beginning to hear comments about using wave and tidal as renewable sources. As in the Willis article the other day. Politicians (UK) are now spouting the mantra, that they would add to the mix.
I’d be interested to hear the views of the erudite contributors to these articles. Not just on aesthetic and financial lines, but also the technical issues.
I’m of the opinion, that they are both ‘pie in the sky’ technologies. I don’t fancy being told, not to boil a kettle until the tide comes in. And the folly, that waves are driven by the wind and hence suffer from the same limitations as those big spinning daisies on the moors.
So folks, what are your thoughts?
“I’d be interested to hear the views of the erudite contributors to these articles.”
I doubt many would call my comments “erudite” but I remember hearing about using the tides and/or waves for power decades ago. (Maybe the late ’60’s? Early ’70’s?)
It’s not a new idea. It just never went anywhere.
Those past projects, essentially ended in disaster. The ‘cruel’ sea demolished them.
But it appears that history is being ignored for the sake of fanaticism.
I’d appreciate someone stress testing and critiquing this video. Are there any flaws? Poor reasoning? Bad Science? If there aren’t any holes in this video, the Hockeystick is the greatest hoax in world history.
https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
story tip
https://slaynews.com/news/greta-thunberg-insider-blows-whistle-climate-change-is-a-scam/
my duck duck go blocks this site
As a matter of curiosity, does Anthony have a policy regarding Willis Eschenbach’s policy of deleting comments he doesn’t like? No reasons are ever given, and Willis’ pious declarations about being prepared to defend what he says, smell slightly of hypocrisy.
I’m fairly sure that Willis cannot accept that his knowledge of physics is sorely defective (as evidenced by his bizarre “steel greenhouse” and similar oddities), or that it is even possible that his fantastic speculations are not actually proof of a superior mindset.
I’m not sure why Willis is so insecure that he wishes to censor any fact based comments he doesn’t like, or even any opinions based on speculation – as all of Willis’ are.
I note that Charles Rotter (to his credit) recently apologised for refusing to publish comments based on an opinion which he revised on becoming aware of facts. As J M Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Willis is no follower of Keynes, it seems.
With a supreme effort you have managed to raise your “debating” standard to “Level 6 : Ad Hominem”.
Unfortunately, despite several “subtle hints” from me … and many, many, other WUWT posters … over the last few months you still have not learned that if you want to be taken seriously you (and I, and every other poster here) needs to compose posts that rise to at least “Level 3 : Counterargument” on the “Debate Pyramid” copied above.
Since your inference skills are so bad, I will spell out the criteria to reach “Level 3” (or higher) explicitly.
You have to include “supporting evidence” and/or references and/or links to published — i.e. peer-reviewed by a “serious” journal — scientific papers which reached the same “conclusions” that you did.
Otherwise your contributions will be classified as either “bald assertions” or “your personal opinions“.
.
The term “psychological projection” applies here … in spades !
“Proof ?”, you ask ?
Because I say so.
.
Your “bizarre” claim is that the constant 44 to 47 TW of heat flow from the cooling Earth is more important for the average “surface” temperature than the annual average 160 (including albedo, or “all sky”) to 214 (“clear-sky”) W/m² of heat flow directly from the sun.
[ Editorial note : Insert direct link to the PNG file for IPCC AR6 WGI Figure 7.2 here … ]
NB : I am completely ignoring the 342 / 314 W/m² of “greenhouse effect” here. The GHE is irrelevant when 160 >> 44 (or 47) all on its own.
Davies & Davies (2010) calculated the heat flows over the “surface” of the solid Earth — 70% of which can be found at the bottom of the Earth’s oceans — as summarised in their Table 7 :
NB : Your constantly repeated “44 TW” is equivalent to roughly 86 milli-Watts per square metre of the Earth’s “surface”.
One of the “Davies” published a second paper in 2013 which included the following map of just how the heat flow from your “cooling for 4.5 billion years” Earth is currently distributed over its “surface”.
.
Most … errrrrm … “normal” people when they hear the phrase “the Earth’s average surface temperature” will have something like the following that pops into their minds :
“The weighted area global average of temperatures 2 metres above land surfaces (30% of the total area) + 70% sea surface temperatures (SSTs, 70% of the total)”
For example, the header for each BEST GMST anomalies file starts with :
You, however, have a different “default assumption” from (almost ?) everybody else.
You persist in assuming that the phrase “the surface” has to be referring to “the surface of the solid Earth” … once again, 70% of which is at the bottom of the oceans.
For a lot of people, including myself, this is not the “default assumption” to be made about the phrase “the (Earth’s) surface”.
If you wish to be “understood” by other WUWT posters, please add some qualifiers to your posts.
If you wish to be “taken seriously”, completely cut out the insults and “conclusions” you have reached about other posters mental faculties and/or motivations.
Do these cute diagrams come with an explanation of how “greenhouse gasses” manage to radiate downward more than upward? Because it looks like a Maxwell demon already. And those belong in the very same bin where all perpetuum mobile schematics come to rest.
Short answer : No.
Long answer …
Following the (IPCC AR6 WGI) Chapter 7 reference to “Wild et al., 2015” led me to the following “The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models” paper :
URL : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z
From its abstract :
The “explanation” is :
1) Make TOA (via satellite) and surface “upwelling” and “downwelling” measurements
2) Read out various “energy budget” numbers from climate models
3) Reconcile intermediate values, e.g. to and from the atmosphere and its “greenhouse gases”, to be “consistent with” the empirical TOA and surface numbers
No “how” at all, just “we are climate scientists, bow down before us and tremble at our mathematical skills (of addition and subtraction)”.
.
PS : Figure 2 from that paper is attached below. Other people may also consider it “interesting”, I certainly did when it first rendered on my computer screen …
Odd, the (~180 KB) GIF file didn’t “stick” …
Try it as a (very large !) PNG file instead …
Correction
I managed to mix up my units when typing in the “much greater than” comparison numbers.
160 W/m² (minimum average solar input) x 510 Tm² (Earth surface area) = 81600 TW
160.0 (W/m²) >> 0.1 (to 1 decimal place)
81600 (TW) >> 44 (or 47)
There is a good reason why Flynn has been banned by other climate sceptic sites.
Germany has paid the highest price in this climate crusade. Its forced transition to renewables — while banning nuclear energy — might still be hailed as “civilizational progress” in eco-parasitic enclaves like Berlin. But out in the real world, where productive citizens depend on affordable energy and mobility, the mood has soured. The party’s over. And the pressure’s building.
Now, at last, some are speaking up. A group of industrial works councils is calling on Chancellor Merz to halt the climate policy suicide run. Since the COVID lockdowns, over 300,000 jobs in Germany’s industrial core have vanished. Energy-intensive production has become a fantasy — especially when competitors like the U.S. pay up to 75% less for electricity.