A place for discussion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Open Thread
84 Comments
January 11, 2026 2:11 am
In 2020, I started downloading and analyzing various parameters from the ERA5 reanalysis model. Here is a Google Drive folder with three plots for a gridpoint near where I live, for all hours of the year 2019: Time series of total column water “tcw” in kg/m^2; time series of downward longwave radiation at the surface “strd” in W/m^2; and a scatter plot of one vs the other.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jYmAm6Cc88hmyFhrUWE3vyDMJ0h5p_cg?usp=sharing
The point was to better understand the role of water vapor and water droplets/ice crystals in varying the strength of the IR influence of the atmosphere toward the surface. There is very large and rapid variation of tcw throughout the days and seasons, with the value often dropping to near zero kg/m^2 in the winter. The variation of strd is rapid and large also. And when you do a scatter plot of tcw vs strd for the same set of hours, you can see how the so-called “greenhouse effect” narrative about non-condensing IR-active gases is so misleading.
One more thing for today. Sure, any general circulation model applies radiative transfer computations to represent the IR coupling of the atmosphere to the surface, and the radiative loss of energy to space. This includes ERA5 and the forecasting models. No objection – it’s necessary!
But one of my objections to the use of GCMs for long-term climate diagnosis and prognosis concerning GHGs is that there is no way to reliably isolate the longwave influence of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – from the longwave influence of variable water vapor/droplets/ice crystals on thermal conditions at the surface. It has been fundamentally wrong all along to have used pre-stabilized, large-grid, discrete-layer, time-step-interated, parameter-tuned-to-hindcast GCMs to generate scenarios from pre-specified time-scheduled “forcings.” The entire exercise was circular from the outset, and remains so.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
What do you expect to see there?
Downwelling longwave radiation is primarilly a function of temperature, not its cause. The concentration of GHGs only has a minor impact on it. Also it is totally unrelated to the GHE.
The GHE is defined by
- emission altitude and
- lapse rate
“Back radiation” has nothing to do with it!
The words “low denser greenhouse gases block thermal radiation” imply a permanently residing heat caused by GHG’s. Thermodynamically that can’t happen. As the temperature of the atmosphere goes up the radiation intensity from the material involved will also increase. It’s a simple gradient problem. As the low “denser” GHG’s heat up then convection and conduction will drive the heat containing material higher in altitude to a point where it can be radiated to the cooler heatsink we call “space”. What you are describing here is an artifact of using “average” values as a constant over all time. It’s a simplification that is non-physical.
“The GHE is defined by
emission altitude and
lapse rate
. . . ‘Back radiation’ has nothing to do with it.”
I don’t think that is correct. The greenhouse effect as occurs in Earth’s lower stratosphere is defined by the rate and directions at which LWIR photon energy is:
— first absorbed by LWIR-active gases (predominately H2O, CO2 and CH4),
— then equilibrated via molecular collisions with non-IR “active” gases (predominately N2 and O2),
— then having ALL atmospheric constituents losing that excess energy via isotropic, broadband thermal radiation.
At low altitudes, a little over half that isotropic thermal radiation is to directed toward deep space, and the remaining is directed back toward Earth’s surfaces. Of course, broadband thermal radiation from lower in the atmosphere is subject to repeated cycles of absorption and re-radiation as the energy very rapidly progresses to top of atmosphere (excluding the scientifically-acknowledged part of the IR spectrum known as the “atmospheric window”).
Hence, “back radiation” can indeed be seen to be a correct physics term for describing part of the processes associated with the GHE.
Sure, any general circulation model applies radiative transfer computations to represent the IR coupling of the atmosphere to the surface, and the radiative loss of energy to space. This includes ERA5 and the forecasting models. No objection – it’s necessary!
That’s correct. And yes, it is necessary.
But one of my objections to the use of GCMs for long-term climate diagnosis and prognosis concerning GHGs is that there is no way to reliably isolate the longwave influence of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – from the longwave influence of variable water vapor/droplets/ice crystals on thermal conditions at the surface.
You literally said there was no objections in the sentence immediately preceding this one. Anyway, the RRTM does isolate the incremental longwave influence of gas species. That’s it primary function. And ERA uses the RRTM.
Thanks, David – you always do great work here. Obviously, the relationship between ‘tcw’ and ‘strd’ is non-linear, to say the least. I would also question if these are modeled or measured parameters, and if the latter, what instrumentation is used, as much of the alarmist narrative hinges on the importance of so-called back radiation, which I don’t think has ever been measured.
January 11, 2026 2:21 am
From today’s UK Telegraph. Story Tip. These people are insane.
Labour has unveiled plans to introduce a petrol and diesel lorry ban as part of their net-zero drive.
Ministers have announced an end to the sale of new fossil fuel-powered trucks in a move that opens up a new battle with the Tories and Reform.
They have ruled out allowing the continued use of low-carbon or synthetic fuels, meaning that from 2040 all new heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) will have to be electric.
[…………………]
In a consultation document published last week, the Department for Transport set out three options for enforcing the new petrol lorry ban.
The first would see manufacturers set annual quotas for the number of electric HGVs they must sell, similar to how the petrol car ban will work.
Another option laid out by ministers is to follow the EU’s approach and set haulage companies ever decreasing carbon emissions caps.
Finally, delivery firms could be required to ensure that an ever increasing proportion of their fleet was electric, eventually reaching 100 per cent.
I asked Grok how much generating capacity that would require. The answer was around 25-30 GW of conventional capacity, and about double that if it was wind. The wind estimate is based on average capacity generation, and is before any provision to cover intermittency.
So you have to add to this the amount of wind required to cover the 30GW of gas that will shortly be retired, and the 10GW of nuclear also shortly to close. That’s around 80GW of wind in addition to the 30GW now installed.
So accoding to Grok, the UK would need in total about 140GW of wind, plus provision for intermittency. At the moment Ed is hoping to get to 90GW of wind with no provision for intermittency.
And none of it has any provision for what to do when its delivering 10% of faceplatefor a couple of weeks on end in the winter.
What be nice to know the calculations grog did.
If we go with passanger car sized vehicles (currently most likely to be replaced), it’s around 256,1 bvm / year, so 0.71 bvm / day
If we go with the lower end we have 0.33 kwh/mile we get
237.44 GWh per day or a bit less than 10GW conventional capacity.
Do firetrucks, aircraft and the heavy machinery used in agriculture and construction get free passes on CO2 emissions?
Humans in the UK exhale ca. 68 million kilograms of CO2 everyday. To this should be added the CO2 emissions from the domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. What is Mad Ed plans for these emissions?
Does Mad Ed have a plan for controlling emission from soda pop and beer?
For clarity, the following facts should be considered.
1) This is an existing policy – the plan is to end the sale of all new fossil‑fuel HGVs by 2040. This aligns with the UK’s legally binding climate targets and the broader transition to zero‑emission transport.
2) This policy was introduced in 2011 by the Conservative Government.
3) The new thing, that is being mis-reported in the deadwood press, is that the Labour Party is consulting as to how this could be achieved.
If you are actually interested in this, the consultation is open until the 17th March 2026.
You can have your say, and learn more at the official Government website here:
New HGV CO2 emissions regulatory framework for the UK – GOV.UK
No point reading the wretched rags of the raving right. They will leave you misinformed, which is worse than being uninformed.
Go to the horse’s mouth and read the Government website.
I’ve seen shipping companies in the US try to do the math to get an electrical hookup for 18-24 EV trucks. The power companies laugh at them when they come in asking for more power than the rest of the city they reside in.
But, I assume the UK is just rolling in gobs and gobs of extra power to supply for these vehicles. ROFL
Unless the EV plans are accompanied by plans for additional power generation, they are just planning on buggering the entire country.
January 11, 2026 2:21 am
In the southwest part of Argentina in the Province of Chubut, five large fires have been raging in the National Forest of Los Alerces (trees like redwoods or sequoias), for several days, and three of the fires have merged into the biggest one. The fires are being cited as “the greatest climate disaster the region has ever known”. The climate claim appears to have two elements, one is that there was an unusually dry Spring, and the other is that the evil Petrochemical companies were involved. The politicians are making obvious references to CAGW aspects. OK, how were the Petrochemical companies involved? There were gasoline accelerants detected at all five fire start points.
Typo Alert: “sand” should be “and”.
If you spot a typo or wish to make corrections to posted comment, move the mouse pointer to the lower right corner of the comment box, and there will appear a small gear wheel. Click on the gear wheel and the instruction:
“Manage Comment” appears. Click on it and the instruction: “Edit” appears. Click on it, and comment is displayed in light text. After making corrections to text, click on “Save”.
You have a five minute window for making corrections after posting a comment.
Typoe alert: you need new humor and sarcasm sensors.
Explanation for the pedantic: “sand” is sarcastic shorthand for “silicon”, as in solar panels.
Redundant explanation for the Department of Redundancy Department: your “fix” would result in the redundant “and and”.
Suggestion for the jump-to-conclusions crowd: think for five seconds before jumping. The conclusion you think you see may be a mirage and you won’t get where you think you are going.
ETA: And just for fun, your corrective action is incorrect. Clicking the gear brings up the dropdown menu with one single choice, “Edit”. There is no “Manage Content” step.
Suggestion: Don’t suggest things you haven’t tried yourself.
Thanks for the info about “sand” panels. First time this old organic chemist of 81 years has read about this new usage for silicon.
My instruction about the gear wheel is incorrect. If you place mouse pointer on the gear wheel the “Manage Comment” appears. If you then click on the gear wheel “Edit” appears. Click on it to get your comment for making corrections.
“trees like redwoods or sequoias”
Those species are fire resistant- what about the species in that National Forest? Is there a similar problem as in the Western USA- decades of fire prevention making those forests more likely to have severe fires? Is there any forest mgt. work in those forests or are they more like American National Parks with a no cut policy?
January 11, 2026 2:34 am
Why Türkiye needs to pull ahead in Europe’s electric vehicle transition
I like the focus on more independence for the county.
Rather than competing in a mature technology dominated by century-old manufacturers, Türkiye has chosen to enter electric mobility, where technological shifts reset competitive positions. Now it’s time for it to use a market of 90 million people to leverage its independence in economic and energy aspects.
Do you ever read the nonsense articles you post, and if you do, do you cast a critical eye over them before posting? I’m guessing not.
A quick search tells me the following:
“Türkiye is already ahead of Europe.”
The article cites about 18% of new car sales being electric and 164,650 units sold to show Türkiye leads Europe, but it doesn’t mean most cars on the road are electric. Replacing an entire car fleet takes many years, so short‑term sales spikes don’t equal long‑term dominance.
“Electrification fixes the current account.”
Switching cars from petrol to electricity can cut oil imports, but it doesn’t automatically fix the trade balance. Batteries, cells, and critical minerals are imported; if Türkiye imports those at scale, the savings on oil can be offset by new import bills. Also, extra electricity demand will require more gas or coal generation.
“TOGG and local projects guarantee jobs and tech transfer.”
Independent analysts warn TOGG faces profitability and competition risks, and attracting Chinese or European investment can both help and crowd local firms.
“Policy and incentives are stable.”
The article leans on current tax breaks and tariffs. Those policies can change quickly; recent ÖTV (special tax) adjustments already affected demand spikes, showing how fragile growth can be if incentives are rolled back.
The piece underplays charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and equity issues. Rolling out chargers and upgrading distribution networks is expensive and takes time; without careful planning, benefits concentrate among wealthier buyers.
January 11, 2026 2:45 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/magazine/ocean-acidification-carbon-geoengineering.html reports on using sodium hydroxide to reverse ocean acidification.
The first question to ask, is it needed?
The second question is, even if the answer to the first question is yes, then is a strong alkaline solution like sodium hydroxide overkill, doesn’t it destroy the natural buffer solution that is based on carbonic acid and (bi)carbonates (my chemistry knowledge is somewhat lacking in this), thus the “cure” is worse than the “disease”? If a person is found to be acidotic would these people advocate for infusing them with caustic soda solution (I really hope not!)?
Where did I say the sodium hydroxide was created from salt, it’s not even implied in anything I said?
The linked article states that the sodium hydroxide was poured into the ocean not that it was created there, if it were then the alleged cure would be orders of magnitude worse than the alleged problem.
January 11, 2026 2:48 am
Apologies if the following update has been discussed already, but it is of some significance to anyone who references and/or analyses the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) data. The process used to convert the ‘raw’ monthly sea surface temperature (SST) data to anomaly values is subject to a moving 30-year baseline. With the latest monthly SST value coming available (December 2025), a new baseline of (1995-2025) has been derived and applied. Obviously, the ‘raw’ SST data is unaffected, but all anomaly values (the monthly Niño-3.4 index) and ONI values (rolling 3-monthly average of the index) since January 2011 have changed.
The process is described here: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml.
The quoted reason for making this change (which occurs every 5 years) is that the SST data “are increasingly incorporating longer-term trends that do not reflect interannual ENSO variability”. This is a rather important assumption and the applied process is, of course, the reason that ONI values appear to be neutral over the longer term. Beware the circular argument!
The changes to the 30-year baseline from the previous one are small, less than 0.2C, but this could affect classification given the criterion of 0.5C bands. For example, the ONI value for January 2025 (Dec-Jan-Feb) changes from -0.59C to -0.44C. What is even more interesting in this particular update is the fact that every single monthly SST value for the new 30-year baseline is lower than the previous baseline for 1991-2020. The value for January (26.38C) is even lower than the 1956-1985 baseline for January (26.42C)!
Yes, these differences are very small, but they are contrary to a continually warming baseline. More analysis is required, but these values would appear to reflect a problem with the process in that the baseline itself is skewed by the balance (or lack thereof) between El Niño and La Niña events.
To add a bit of perspective on the above, here are the SST data for the Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific since 1950, updated to December 2025. The range for “interannual ENSO variability”, i.e. between the largest El Niño (warmer) and La Niña (cooler) events is 4C. The second plot shows the same data since 1995 together with the relevant baseline data, which is at a maximum in May each year and serves as a useful timeline for the actual (measured) SST variations. The three most significant El Niño events show a very distinctive character, including the 2023-2024 event.
.jpg)
.jpg)
The other issue is that the ONI is increasingly becoming a skewed metric as a result of global SSTs increasing faster than ENSO SSTs. Specifically, La Nina’s are amplified while El Nino’s are attenuated relative the global backdrop. This is the impetus of the newer RONI metric. [van Oldenborgh et al. 2021] [L’Heureux et al. 2024]
January 11, 2026 3:04 am
BATTERY CARS AND HYBRIDS SORNED EARLY
A FOI request to DVLA has revealed some interesting facts. Full battery cars are being SORNED after aprox. 4 years, hybrids at around 6 years. Petrol and diesel at around 15 and 25 years. This would indicate that these vehicles are too expensive to repair, or unable to be repaired. Early battery failure could be the main reason.
January 11, 2026 3:46 am
Miliband Net Zero set to cost UK £4.5T, still a vast underestimate I expect.
The cost of the collapse of the UK economy has not been included in this figure.
Mad Ed really is mad. As is his political party. Mad Ed looks like the UK version of Joe Biden. Everything Joe did caused harm to the United States. It looks like everything Mad Ed does is causing harm to the UK.
How do such idiots get elected to public office?
January 11, 2026 4:15 am
January 11, 2026 4:37 am
According to the report, Trump directed the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to draft an invasion plan. However, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have pushed back, arguing that any such operation would be unlawful and lack congressional approval.
Another lie put out by the Radical Leftists.
Trump may have requested an invasion plan, although that plan has probably already been done in the past. The military does planning for all sorts of contingencies.
What sounds like the leftwing lie is the part about how Trump’s generals are pushing back and telling Trump it may be unlawful and lacks congressional approval.
Whoever wrote this lie hss no familiarity with how things work at the Pentagon and assumes Trump doesn’t know the law and is prepared to break it. Typical Leftwing BS.
Show me a dissenting general.
The Pentagon is known to have contingency invasion plans sitting on the shelf for every geographic area considered of strategic importance to the US. One for Greenland has to have been sitting on the shelf since the late 1930’s. It could be that the most recent update includes bringing along enough HR personnel to hire every adult resident of Greenland as a Pentagon employee at a salary of $100,000 per year per person.
January 11, 2026 4:59 am
carried over from a previous article:
“Global temperature is a worthless metric that in no way furthers the debate on climate science.”
I think regional temperature readings are a worthwhile metric.
The regional temperatures recorded in the past may not be as accurate on the numbers as we would like, but the numbers, even if inaccurate to an extent, do establish a temperature profile for the Earth.
The regional temperature profiles show that since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, the temperatures have operated in a cyclical manner with temperatures warming up to a high point in the 1880’s, then cooling to a low point in the early 1900’s, then warming again up through the 1930’s high point, which was equally warm to the 1880’s high point, and then temperatures cooled down through the 1970’s (equally cool to the early 1900’s), and then the temperatures again warmed to a high point in 1998, which was equivalent to the high points in the 1880’s and the 1930’s, and 2016 and 2024.
Now, we can argue about the accuracy of the temperature readings, but as far as a global temperature profile goes (not the same as a global temperature average), the profile will be the same all over the world, without regard to the accuracy of the measuring instruments because the measuring instruments of that era were all off by the same amount since they used the same type of equipment, so the temperature profile of warming, cooling and repeating remains intact in the written record.
We have an accurate picture of the Earth’s past climate in the regional temperature records. They show it was just as warm in the recent, recorded past, as it is today, and show that temperatures are independent of the amount of CO2 in the air. There is no unprecedented heat today.
It’s not any hotter now than in the recent past, and CO2 has no measureable effect on the Earth’s temperatures or climate as the climate warms and cools without regard to how much CO2 is in the air at the time.
Here are 600 original, regional charts that show the cyclical movement of the Earth’s climate. It warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades, and the difference between the warmest point and the coolest point is a little more than 2.0C. That’s what history shows.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
Here is the U.S. regional chart as well (Hansen 1999):
No “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile to be seen anywhere in the data.
“, but as far as a global temperature profile goes (not the same as a global temperature average), the profile will be the same all over the world”
Tom, as much as I respect you this is misleading to the average person.
1. Temperature is not climate.
2. Temperature is not weather.
3. Temperature is not heat.
It doesn’t matter if you are using a global or regional area.
Too many people will not recognize that you are talking TEMPERATURE trends and not climate trends. It’s the basic problem climate science has – climate science can’t differentiate between temperature and climate for some reason. I suspect it has to do with money.
Global temperature is a worthless metric that in no way furthers the debate on climate science.
It is one of the metrics used to test the global warming hypothesis. That by itself makes it invaluable to the debate.
I think people who label it “worthless” are doing so because it cannot be used to falsify that hypothesis since it is increasing. In other words it is worthless in defense of their position that global warming is not happening.
No “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile to be seen anywhere in the data.
First, the “hockey stick” is in reference to the shape of the global average temperature plot over several hundred years. So you’re graph is not relevant to the topic.
Second, What happens to the graph of the US average temperature when you consider the biases arising from changes in station sighting, instrument, and time-of-observation changes?
January 11, 2026 6:14 am
Lately we have been hearing a lot in the news about Greenland. Did you know that the population of Greenland is a mere 57,000 of which 88% are Innuits? That means that the Danish and European derived population of Greenland is less than 7000. In other words, we are looking at the population equivalent of a very small town. While I don’t know the local political situation in Greenland, I wonder how the majority native Innuits there feel about those 7000 Europeans? Do the Innuits regard themselves as a colony of Denmark? Did Denmark ever ask the native Innuits whether they wanted to be a part of Denmark? I’m not arguing for or against American annexation of Greenland. And force against Denmark ought to be off the table. But Greenland’s link to Denmark looks awfully weak.
January 11, 2026 7:11 am
I’m a retired quantitative social science PhD, undergraduate aero-engineering, living in Southwest Florida in a master-planned upper-income (almost all college-educated) community of about 2,000. I’ve studied climate science since 2006, am pretty knowledgeable, and understand most of the science even if I can’t run all the equations myself. I’m considering giving a talk/ discussion on climate change and the fact that science does not clearly (or possibly very much at all) support the theory that humankind-generated CO2 (or activity in general) is having a significant effect on climate, most notably temperature.
I would like to have access to a solid open-source PowerPoint presentation (can be any length and with speaker notes even better) that I could edit for size and use to speak with a small group (~40) in our community’s speaker series. My preference is to go a mile wide/ and maybe a bit more than an inch deep, starting from paleo data, the basics of heat transfer, the type and quality of data on which climate science is based, and explanations for how what is frequently presented in media, including scientific press releases, is just not well-supported despite what many scientists claim.
There’s a lot of information here at WUWT, but I don’t have the time to put something together myself from that material.
Can anyone provide a link to such a presentation(s)?
“significant effect on climate, most notably temperature.”
I don’t have a presentation to offer but I would ask the attendees right at the start if Las Vegas and Miami have the same climate even though both have very high daily temperature maximums. If they say “no”, then ask why would they equate temperature with climate?
“I would like to have access to a solid open-source PowerPoint presentation (can be any length and with speaker notes even better) that I could edit for size and use to speak with a small group (~40) in our community’s speaker series.”
You are unlikely to find an “open source PowerPoint presentation” that you can edit without violating the ethics of implicit copyright retained by the author(s), unless such permission is clearly given in writing in the presentation itself. One alternative would be for you to contact the author(s) to request permission to use their material as-is.
Having said that, there many excellent slide presentations that can be found via Web searches that will provide guidance/examples of PowerPoint slides that you yourself could prepare/customize for your own presentation.
I highly recommend Web searching the following for information you can readily adapt to your purpose:
— articles here on WUWT from various authors
— publications/presentations by William Happer
— publications/presentations by Richard Lindzen
— publications/presentations by Judith Curry
— publications/presentations by Andy May
— publications/presentations by John Clauser
with, of course, my apologies to a host of other excellent scientists/authors that I have not specifically named but who have likewise have spoken out against the fake “science” used by many AGW/CAGW alarmists.
