We can’t have cheap energy because… as one of your leading lights put it:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970.
“As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”—Dr. Paul Ehrlich about Dr. John Holdren, The Machinery of Nature: The Living World Around Us—And How It Works, 1986
If you are totally immersed in your job in academia…you can become convinced that exponential growth of uber cars are taking over the world and the depth of them will bury all cites by the year 2100.
We’ve had the same scare over a century ago with New York horse manure.
I attended a 1976 talk given by Holdren on alternatives to nuclear energy and was not impressed. He came across as an activist pretending to be a scientist.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Love Canal, how it was a government-created problem from the git-go, and how the government and sycophants like you who demonized private industry to avoid tainting yourselves.
Try Wikipedia for a short and probably biased summary. Or try this for a detailed explanation.
Mr. gaslighter: Maybe somebody, long ago, went forward with a project before disposal was planned out? You’d think enviros woulda learned this lesson before launching wind and solar, or do you say the disposal of wind/solar components is planned out? Do tell.
“Over its life time modern coal power-plants are FAR less damaging to the environment than wind or solar.” Evidence pleas coz I call 100%, gold plated, bullshit on that.
Four down votes. What do you know? Surely one of these four has some evidence to back up the claim “Over its life time modern coal power-plants are FAR less damaging to the environment than wind or solar.” Surely they are not all just being petty voting me down coz it makes them feel part of a bully team? Surely someone has something?
So you don’t know all the putrid chemicals used making solar panel and wind turbines.. .. do some research and learn something for a change.
Acids for extraction of neodymium forming huge sludge lakes in parts of China where the magnets are made.. all sorts of resins for the blade.
Solar panels require purification of the silicone using substances like strong hydrofluoric acid… which in China is often dumped in sludge lakes as well.
Then there is the vast areas of land and habitat destroyed and broken up by wind turbine installation, and the damage done during installation of solar farms.
All the plastic put into the environment by turbine blade erosion. Not to mention all the insects bats, birds of prey and the wholesale destruction of avian life by both wind turbines and concentration-type solar facilities
Are you also ignorant of all the damage done to many creatures and their existence by wind turbines and solar panel. Damage to water tables, soil structure, soil based critters from the constant infrasound, Damaged done by glass shards as solar panels are destroyed by hail or just decay, making land unusable for graving
Then at end of life all that concrete from turbine bases is left in the ground, continuing to degrade the soil and water table. Turbine blades are cut up and placed in vast landfills where they continue to decay plastics and resins into the soil.
Solar panels are even worse as they are too expensive to recycle, so are also dumped where they leaked their heavy metal components into the soil
There is absolutely zero upside to the use of wind turbines and solar panels..
They are FILTHY and ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE at every stage of their short erratic , parasitic life.
Not a single reference…. not one, just more nonsense and half truths. No wonder you love Trump. So once again Mr Make-it-up can’t front up with any evidence to back up his nonsense. Sad.
What is the order of magnitude of the influence on the atmosphere from the computed ~4 W/m^2 incremental radiative absorbing power in the case of 2XCO2 from pre-industrial times?
This post makes a different and simpler point as a supplement to my recent posts and time-lapse video about energy conversion.
Short answer: the modeled radiative influence, operating through only the atmosphere’s internal energy, is vanishingly weak in the proper context of energy dynamics within the general circulation.
More explanation follows.
There are four plots in this Google Drive folder. Hourly values of computed atmospheric energy parameters from the ERA5 reanalysis for the year 2022 for all longitude points at latitude 45N are presented. The units for these parameters are J/m^2. I divide by 3,600 to express these values in Watt-hours.
1. Vertical integral of total energy (vitoe) in Wh/m^2.
2. Hourly change of the vertical integral of total energy (vitoe) in Wh/h-m^2, or W/m^2.
3. Latent energy in Wh/m^2 by difference, (vipile-vipie) subtracting the “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” from the “vertical integral of potention + internal + latent energy.”
4. Hourly change of latent energy (vipile-vipie) in Wh/h-m^2, or W/m^2.
In plots 2 and 4, the single-digit W/m^2 values of GHG “forcings” represent a fraction of the thickness of the index mark at “0” on the vertical scale, as the hourly changes show strong positive and negative values within the dynamic circulation. In this overwhelmingly active operating environment, the static “forcing” is far too weak to produce any harmful influence on the climate system, or to claim to have reliably established cause and effect for any trend of climate observables. Furthermore, the strong latent energy variation in both directions demonstrates the impossibility of ever isolating water vapor “feedback” as an amplifier of a computed direct radiative effect of incremental CO2.
More background:
The ERA5 “vipile” parameter is described here. The “vipie” parameter is the same except without the latent energy. The “vitoe” parameter (total energy) also includes kinetic energy.
“This parameter is the mass weighted vertical integral of potential, internal and latent energy for a column of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere.
The potential energy of an air parcel is the amount of work that would have to be done, against the force of gravity, to lift the air to that location from mean sea level. Internal energy is the energy contained within a system i.e., the microscopic energy of the air molecules, rather than the macroscopic energy associated with, for example, wind, or gravitational potential energy.
The latent energy refers to the energy associated with the water vapour in the atmosphere and is equal to the energy required to convert liquid water into water vapour.
This parameter can be used to study the atmospheric energy budget.
Total atmospheric energy [the “vitoe” parameter – dd] is made up of internal, potential, kinetic and latent energy.”
If you have read this far, thank you for your interest this matter.
What is the order of magnitude of the influence on the atmosphere from the computed ~4 W/m^2 incremental radiative absorbing power in the case of 2XCO2 from pre-industrial times?
It doesn’t exist. It is countered by a similar reduction in water vapor absorbing power. See Miskolczi 2023.
If some of the 4 watts cause more water vapor, then the water vapor must absorb more….however the 8-14 micron atmospheric window is mostly open to outer space except for cloud cover which varies as water vapor in the atmosphere is pushed around by convection and coriolis forces. So whatever you think Miskolczi said….its more complicated than that…
It is more complicated. More water vapor low in the atmosphere has already saturated its absorption spectra. More water vapor simply causes IR to be absorbed at lower altitudes while enhancing convective currents, especially in the tropics. The key factor is what happens high in the atmosphere.
As Dr William Gray noted decades ago, with more evaporation you get less water vapor at high altitudes. You can read about it in Dr Gray’s submission to the AMS back in 2010. It is precisely this altitude where the water vapor greenhouse effect is no longer saturated. This allows more IR to escape to space thus canceling the increased absorption by CO2.
Thank you. I appreciate your comments and replies. I too hope that more folks come to realize that the “climate” narrative is simply not supported by what we can learn from the agenda-free products such as ERA5.
The elliptical orbit creates a 90 W/m^2 swing in ISR from perihelion to aphelion.
30 % albedo is 100 W/m^2 with a 20 W/m^2 difference of opinion.
The tilted axis generates a 700 W/m^2 swing at ToA from summer to winter.
4 W/m^2 is noise in the data.
Also it does remain to be seen whether anyone will take a punt on extracting Venezuelan oil on a large scale any time soon. The reports I’ve read suggest Trump didn’t get a lot of traction with the majors when he met them. Twice burned; thrice shy seemed to be the sentiment.
The only thing holding back U.S. companies from going into Venezuela is the uncertain security situation.
Once the security situation is settled, the companies will go in. Some companies say they are ready to go right now.
Maduro’s secret police and gangs will have to be neutralized, so that is a question still up in the air.
Hopefully, Trump can talk the new leader into standing down these threats.
It was reported yesterday that at least 30 generals in the Venezuelan military are millionaires, so there is a lot of corruption in the Venezuelan government. It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this situation.
It’s got nothing to do with the security situation. There would be no oil industry in Nigeria if oil companies were unable to hire their own security.
It’s got everything to do with the political situation.
Trump will not be President forever. The desire to occupy foreign territory for access to raw materials (Imperialism) is not guaranteed to remain US policy. There are many isolationist members of Congress. There are other demands on the US military (NATO is being abandoned, that will demand far more overseas deployment of US resources). It’s possible the US Supreme Court will change their opinion on the costs of Nationalisation to US oil companies.
Basically, this is a high risk investment which is only secured by the word of Trump, who is very unpredictable. Any executive who bets their company on the words of Trump deserves to be sacked. And they all know it.
“It was reported yesterday that at least 30 generals in the Venezuelan military are millionaires, so there is a lot of corruption in the Venezuelan government. It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this situation.”
Perhaps he will pardon them like he did these crims this week. The corruption in this Trump admin is like no other in US history. Embarrassing….
Adriana Camberos: Convicted in 2017 of selling millions of counterfeit 5-Hour Energy bottles to grocers, she had her sentence commuted by Trump in 2021, and was pardoned by the president this week for a separate 2024 fraud conviction, according to Bloomberg, which noted her brother, Andres, was also convicted in 2024 and was pardoned Thursday.
Julio Herrera Velutini: A Venezuelan-Italian banker charged with conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud over allegations he tried to bribe former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez, was also pardoned, The New York Times reported (Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, donated $2.5 million to Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. in late 2024, according to the Times, which said a White House official denied the donations contributed to her father’s pardon). Vázquez was also pardoned by Trump this week after pleading guilty to campaign finance charges last year, with the White House claiming the charges were rooted in political motivations, according to CNN.
Mark Rossini: A former FBI agent and consultant for Herrera who pleaded guilty alongside his old boss and Vázquez, was pardoned by the president. Terren Peizer: A former health care CEO received a pardon for a 2024 insider trading conviction that carried a 42-month prison sentence, Bloomberg added.
I’m not going to go to the trouble of debunking your claims.
I suspect that these pardons by Trump are done because he thinks these people have been politically prosecuted unfairly. That seems to be a theme with him.
How about you listing all the thousands of pardons issued by Biden/AutoPen? That would be an interesting list. Which would include his son.
“I’m not going to go to the trouble of debunking your claims.”
No Tom, please do. If you have any information that indicates the convictions of thee people in the US courts was political of unjust I’d love to read what you have. And Tom, in the interests of getting to truth, I’m happy to consider the unfair pardons Biden may have issued. Fire away.
But Tom, come on…. to simply consider these Trumpian pardons fair because Trump considers them fair, is, well, if you don’t mind me saying so, rather uncritical of you, bordering almost on cultist behaviour. After all, this article is by Forbes which is not known for being a left wing rants. And if you read the details they are pretty specific.
“The Honduran President was fitted-up by the same people who tried to fit-Trump up with a whole heap of BOGUS and FAKE CHARGES.” Once again Mr Make-it-up I am going ask you to verify your claim. Got any evidence?
“Once the Arctic was deemed totally uneconomical. But now, despite the ice stubbornly refusing to melt away, it looks profitable.” Huh? The Greenland Ice Sheet has lost ice for 28 consecutive years. In the 2023-2024 melt season alone, it lost about 80 billion tonnes.
Did you know that the Current Greenland Ice area (including archipelago is only a tiny amount down from the LIA, and FAR above what it has been for most of the last 8000 years….. or were you “unaware” of that fact as well.
Many industries are subject to such cycles. They’re used to it. Certainly the construction industry as an example. And, my field of forestry- mostly down but sometimes up. We never liked it but we kept at it.
Marty
January 18, 2026 3:27 am
I have a modest suggestion. Why don’t we trade Minneapolis for Greenland? (:
“The obvious answer is to trade Greenland for Alaska.” Great idea. I’m still puzzled as to why when the US has been reducing the number of bases on Greenland (17 down to 1), suddenly there is a need to own the place because there is a huge threat from Russia and China?
The term “factoid” was used earlier in this thread.
I didn’t correct the poster because the term is pretty nearly universally misused and I didn’t want to spoil that exchange with smart-alec pedantry to that effect.
But reflecting on another story I was reading this morning relating to some AI-generated verbiage that has got several different people in hot-water in the UK this week it might not be completely pointless to mention what the term “factoid” was coined to mean.
According to Norman Mailer, who coined it, a factoid is an utterance that looks like a fact but (crucially) isn’t. It is to a fact as a humanoid is to a human.
You can probably see where I’m going with the AI reference. AI generated utterances are factoids in the Norman Mailer sense of the word.
The only meaning words have is their shared meaning, which I think I sort of hinted at when I said correcting the post would have been pedantic. But some actual facts about the origin of the term and how it relates to a subject du jour (AI) is amusing (if not quite interesting).
Thanks, 1save. You have to know how to use AI. Here’s what I find:
===
There is no single, uncontested “first” incandescent lamp with a filament in a glass envelope; several experimenters produced such devices in the early nineteenth century, and the historical record is fragmentary enough that any precise “first date, place, and person” involves some inference. The earliest well‑documented and widely cited demonstration of an incandescent filament lamp as a practical system, however, is Thomas Edison’s Menlo Park demonstration of his carbon‑filament lamp on 21 October 1879 in Menlo Park, New Jersey, with public displays of the system following in late December 1879.
Before Edison and Joseph Swan, several inventors produced incandescent lamps: for example, Moses G. Farmer built an incandescent bulb with a platinum filament around 1859 and later sold a related patent to Edison, and other mid‑nineteenth‑century experimenters also used metal filaments in evacuated or partially evacuated glass envelopes. These devices did not become commercial systems, and documentation on their exact first demonstration dates and locations is incomplete, which is why historians tend to treat them as precursors rather than the definitive “first” practical incandescent lamps.
Joseph Swan in England developed carbon‑filament lamps in evacuated glass bulbs and gave an early public demonstration of an incandescent lamp to the Newcastle Chemical Society on 18 December 1878 in Newcastle upon Tyne, although that particular lamp failed after a short period. He repeated and improved the demonstration in early 1879 (for example, at a lecture in Newcastle on 3 February 1879), and later records and commemorative plaques in Newcastle explicitly describe Swan’s lamps as evacuated glass bulbs containing carbon filaments, i.e., classic incandescent filament lamps.
Thomas Edison and his team at Menlo Park developed a high‑resistance carbon filament in a high‑vacuum glass bulb, with the aim of producing an economical, durable lamp that could be used in a complete electric‑lighting system. Contemporary and later historical accounts agree that on 21 October 1879 Edison ran a carbon‑filament lamp in a glass bulb for about 13.5 hours at Menlo Park, which is usually cited as the decisive experimental demonstration of a practical incandescent lamp. By late December 1879 the Menlo Park laboratory and surrounding area were illuminated with multiple such lamps as part of system demonstrations to the public, further establishing this design as the first practically successful incandescent lighting system rather than merely a laboratory curiosity.
From a strict historical‑method perspective, one can say with confidence that Swan demonstrated an evacuated glass‑bulb carbon‑filament lamp publicly in Newcastle in December 1878 and early 1879, and Edison demonstrated a long‑lasting carbon‑filament glass‑bulb lamp at Menlo Park on 21 October 1879. What cannot be stated with the same confidence is that no one earlier than Swan (or Farmer, or others) ever demonstrated a filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp, because the surviving records for several mid‑nineteenth‑century experimenters are incomplete or ambiguous about dates, venues, and technical details. Consequently, historians typically distinguish between early, often poorly documented, experimental lamps and the later, well‑documented practical systems of Swan and Edison, rather than naming a single universally accepted “first incandescent lamp” with precise date and place.
When I asked about James Bowman Lindsay, here’s what I got (emphasis mine)
===
James Bowman Lindsay did demonstrate a “constant electric light” at a public meeting in Thistle Hall, Dock Street, Dundee, on 25 July 1835, and contemporary and local‑history sources treat this as an important early prototype of the incandescent lamp. However, the surviving descriptions focus on the constancy and usability of the light (e.g., being able to read a book at about 1.5 feet) rather than giving a clear technical specification of a filament sealed within a glass envelope, so it is not possible from accessible primary‑style summaries to state with confidence that it was the first filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp in the modern sense.
Local history records compiled by Leisure & Culture Dundee give a timeline entry for Lindsay stating that on “25th July obtained constant electric light and demonstrated this in Thistle Hall,” with a separate item noting a “Demonstration of electric light at Thistle Hall, Dundee” in 1836, confirming both the date and venue you cite. These municipal records also emphasize that Lindsay’s concern was to produce a safe, non‑combustible light for jute mills, and that his 1835 work produced a “constant electric light” bright enough to read by at about one and a half feet, forty years before Edison’s announcement.
## Nature of Lindsay’s light and technical uncertainty
Modern technical write‑ups and popular histories describing Lindsay’s work state that he produced “constant electrical light in what became a prototype of the modern light bulb,” and that “the light from an incandescent bulb is produced from a filament through which an electrical current is passed,” but they typically present that latter sentence as general explanation rather than quoting a contemporaneous technical description of Lindsay’s specific apparatus. These accounts agree that Lindsay’s lamp was non‑combustible, produced no smoke or smell, could stand on a tabletop, and allowed him to read at about 1.5 feet, yet they do not reproduce a primary source explicitly stating that his 1835 device used a filament sealed in an evacuated glass envelope, so treating it as definitively the first modern‑style filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp would go beyond the directly documented evidence.
Biographical and historical sketches from Scottish and mathematical history sources credit Lindsay with producing a continuous or constant electric light in 1835 and treat this as one of the earliest serious steps toward practical electric lighting. These sources place him ahead of later, better‑known figures chronologically, but also note that he did not patent or commercially develop the device, which limited its influence and led to later practical systems by Swan and Edison receiving more attention; because the detailed technical configuration of his 1835 lamp is not fully specified in the easily accessible record, the claim that he gave the “first” filament‑in‑glass incandescent demonstration must be regarded as plausible but not conclusively established from the surviving descriptions.
I saw in doc on the TV that Canadians Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans were granted a patent for an incandescent light bulb on Aug. 3, 1874. The patent was bought by Edison in1879.
Correct; that was the Canadian patent.
Woodward & Evans couldn’t afford to develop their invention, so 5 years later, they sold the rights to U.S. Patent 181,613 to Thomas Edison. He paid $5,000 for Woodward’s US patent & incorporated the ideas
One problem is that AI has no intelligence whatever, just mindlessly regurgitating what is on the internet. No thought at all.
An example might be asking “does adding CO2 to air make thermometers hotter?”
Yes, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to air makes thermometers hotter, provided they are exposed to a heat source like the sun or a heat lamp. This phenomenon is the basis of the greenhouse effect.
However, a follow up question “does adding co2 to air make thermometers hotter in absence of a heat source hotter than the air and the added CO2”, elicits a different response –
Adding CO2 to the air does not make a thermometer hotter than the surrounding air and the added gas in the absence of an external heat source. A thermometer measures the kinetic energy (temperature) of its immediate surroundings, and adding CO2 does not introduce new thermal energy into that local system.
and then goes on to to provide the politically correct statement to try to negate the fact it just presented –
The effect of CO2 on global warming operates on a different principle: the greenhouse effect.
implying that adding CO2 to air does make thermometers hotter, even though it doesn’t. Unfortunately, the AI presentation of the “greenhouse effect” is dependent on thermometers actually being warmed by the Sun – not CO2, and goes on
This absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation traps heat within the atmosphere, warming the planet over time.
Unfortunately, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the planet cooling over time, and pursuing different AIs eventually leads all of them to apologise profusely for providing misinformation.
So AI seems to be a vastly expensive enterprise useful for collating information found on the internet, and presenting you with the (mis)information the programmers want. Also for creating fictional photos and videos which cannot be distinguished from reality, and interesting efforts like “de-clothing” celebrities, and depicting them in bizarre and possibly unwholesome roles.<g>
All good fun, and very beneficial for the ignorant and gullible, who will eventually realise that they need to think for themselves, rather than just believing whatever it was that some wayfaring stranger burbled on their way past.
You can get AI to tell you anything you want. Eventually, you might even get it to tell the truth (as in truth based on facts and the known laws of the universe).
A contemporary article in the Dundee Perth and Cupar Advertiser confirms James Bowman Lindsay was the FIRST to demonstrate the incandescent light bulb in July 1835 (sorry, I can’t find the memory stick with details & reference ). He never patented it or tried to commercialise it, but went on to invent an early telegraph system & compile a dictionary of synonyms in 107 languages, which he called his ‘Pentecontaglossal Dictionary‘.
As the first successful public demonstration, it was the precursor to all subsequentincandescent light bulbs.
===
The first widely recognized internal‑combustion‑engine automobile was Karl Benz’s three‑wheeled Benz Patent‑Motorwagen, powered by a single‑cylinder four‑stroke gasoline (petrol) engine, built in Mannheim, Germany in 1885 and patented on 29 January 1886. Earlier experimental vehicles, such as François Isaac de Rivaz’s hydrogen‑oxygen engine wagon (Switzerland/France, tested 1813), used internal combustion on a crude four‑wheeled chassis but are not generally considered practical automobiles.
Benz’s Patent‑Motorwagen used a light petroleum spirit (a low‑boiling gasoline fraction, often called ligroin at the time) supplied from a surface carburetor to a rear‑mounted four‑stroke internal combustion engine producing under 1 horsepower, driving the rear axle by chain. This prototype was completed in 1885 in Mannheim, and Benz’s patent DRP 37435 for an “automobile fueled by gas” was filed on 29 January 1886, with public road tests in Mannheim in mid‑1886.
An earlier but less practical internal‑combustion road vehicle was built by François Isaac de Rivaz, who designed and patented a hydrogen‑oxygen internal combustion engine and mounted it on a crude four‑wheeled cart; he reportedly drove this vehicle about 100 meters in 1813 in Switzerland/France. The fuel was an explosive mixture of hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen ignited in a vertical cylinder, and the design did not lead to a usable or commercial automobile.
A while back, you posted the text you use to do AI searches. I copied it and use it myself. It is excellent.
It was the version that covers about 3 pages of A4 and starts:
Topic = {Main Topic}
Structured Topic Investigation Prompt
1. Prompt Input
• Topic Selection:
Enter your topic of interest between the curly braces above:
The topic you provide will be referenced as “M” throughout the prompt.
Please may I ask if you have made any refinements to your script that you would be willing to share?
From what I have read, once a particular AI model has been “trained”, it learns no more form new information it is told to assess (unless its human “minders” “retrain” it.). Once it gives an answer, it proceeds to totally “forget” what it just “learned” from its previous “instructions”. It’s been noted that the human brain has no particular region for abstract concepts like “judgement, morality, assessment”, etc. which are important in the value placed on new information it encounters. We learn what we want to learn.
I do not know how to help. But I think I know how this happened. It happened to me a while back.
When you post a comment, be very careful not to click the bell button next to the Post Comment button. If you tap the bell, the strikethrough disappears and any replies are emailed to you.
Then the browser learns that you want emails from WUWT, and decides to give you them.
You’re getting those because your email address is “following” the WUWT WordPress.com site; you need to unsubscribe or change that follow’s email settings either from the emails themselves or from WordPress.com’s subscription management/Reader screens.
Quick fix from an email
Each WUWT new‑post email from WordPress.com should have an unsubscribe or “manage subscriptions” link in the footer; clicking that takes you to a page where you can either unsubscribe from that site entirely or change how often you get emails. This is the fastest path if you still have one of the recent notification emails handy.
• In the “Manage” or “Followed sites” section, find wattsupwiththat.com.
• Click the three dots next to it and choose “Unfollow” or adjust the notification settings so new posts are not emailed (for example, web notifications only).
On WordPress.com, site owners cannot globally stop WordPress.com from emailing followers when a new post is published; followers control that on their own subscription settings. The best you can do for other readers is point them to the same unsubscribe/Manage Subscriptions instructions above if they complain about too many emails.
The plan? a mass shoplift from Waitrose the high end supermarket to redistribute to the poor. Presumably, TBP have never encountered any other supermarkets in their empty pampered lives.
Also, Waitrose is an employee-owned partnership. So he’s proposing to steal from the people who actually fill the shelves and collect the scattered trollies. What a f***ing hero.
I am a bit surprised to find he has a LinkedIn page, It is pretty funny.
“Arthur Clifton: Graduate with a wide spread [sic] of various experiences”. No indication of what he studied nor where he graduated. And under Skills we see: Writing, Adaptation, Tenacious Work Ethic, English, and Communication.
Based on the tiny amount he has posted on LinkedIn I’d say there’s grounds to dispute two of those alleged skills, and because he may not be communicating what he hoped, maybe we can dispute three. Oh—maybe we can dispute four; the list of activities under the Experience heading is too undemanding to demonstrate a “tenacious work ethic”.
So that leaves Adaptation. Perhaps he puts on a nice Goretex jacket when he goes out in the rain.
Same core different history.
I am doing an analysis on the splicing of surface temperature readings to proxies, so I took two different interpretations of the Greenland GISP2 Ice core proxy analysis. One from Alley and the second from Kobashi. It is hard to quantify the major disagreement between the two datasets at 700 AD., considering both analyses are of the same core.
Also, the green is Central England Temp, the Blue is NOAA SST Globe.
You might also look at the Martin et al. reconstructions. this GISP2 reconstruction is also different than Alley. The Alley reconstruction has more smoothing, but otherwise seems reasonable over the Holocene. Other ice cores also show differences — all climate is local.
Ignore the red plots, that’s just me showing how climate at a location repeats after 3560 years.
A few cranky MSN trolls suggested I refer to Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate” instead of PSI. OK, got a copy, $90!
Page 2
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale and there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as “Kelvins” degrees or units.
Page 4
“If the Earth’s mean temperature (288 K) were as low as that of the Moon (220 K), the oceans would be solidly frozen over.”
What matters is the range, 400 K to 100 K. Without atmos/GHE there would be no water vapor, no clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no water and no 30% albedo and Earth would be baked in 400 K oven.
Mean, mode, median, average. Pick one that supports your agenda.
Mean is (highest + lowest)/2
Average is Σn/n
For a hemisphere w 0% albedo mean would be 31.3 C & average 72.6 C
For a hemisphere w 30% albedo mean would be 5.2 C & average 43.0 C.
Page 14
Venus is warm because of volcanoes and Q=U A dT.
Page 59
You cannot paste proxy and instrument data on the same graph. (Correlation is not cause.)^∞
Page 143, section 3.3
“The (idealized) planet is spherical and has a distinct solid or liquid surface which radiates like a perfect black body.”
This assumption for the Earth is 100% invalid.
Because of the kinetic heat transfer processes of the terrestrial surface Earth cannot radiate as a perfect blackbody.
Solar input/output model: TFK_bams09 = Radiation (63) / (kinetic + radiation) (160) = 0.4 emissivity.
S-B model: radiation from system compared to radiation were the system a BB at temperature, i.e. 16 C. 63/396=0.16.
The S-B idealized model creates/duplicates upwelling surface energy/back radiation violating LoT 1 & 2.
Two different modeled pathways to OLR.
1. Solar model 160 to surface = upwelling 160 = (17 + 80 + 63) Balance is closed!
2. Calculated model S-B 16 C BB = 396 upwelling = 333 “back” + 63 duplicate. “extra” energy requires “back” radiation to avoid major OLR imbalance violating LoT 2.
This 396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate GHE loop of Pierrehumbert & TFK_bams09 is bogus!
You did pretty good until you got to “back radiation” which you clearly don’t understand.
Let me have a shot at it for your and hopefully other reader’s benefit.
The electromagnetic emissions of a black body is dependent on T^4 as per the following graph. The total energy emitted by a body with a temperature of T, is the area under the temperature curve in question.
This graph is the energy emission from the surface at temperature “T” to outer space (actually to 0 Kelvin). Look at say the 5777K line. Now let’s say there is a body at 300K between the 5777K body and outer space.
That 300K body is emitting electromagnetic radiation back towards the 5777K body and both bodies have the same characteristics below the 300K line.
So the net radiation loss of the 5777K is reduced by the area below the 300K line.
That area under the 300 curve is referred to as the “back radiation”. And the net electromagnetic radiation is what Carnot would have described as “heat” and the difference is somewhat obscured by common usage and abused by textbooks.
Yeah, probably somewhat misleading terminology…maybe “blocked radiation” would have been better. None-the-less it is the reduction in net heat that a warm surface can emit…due to the radiation received from its surroundings…in atmospheric context, the mosaic view of the temperature of the sky as viewed from the warmer surface….
Two sources refer to absolute zero not each other. “Net” IR is as nonsensical as caloric.
If energy, W/m^2, could flow spontaneously from a cooler lower energy system to a warmer higher energy system without added work there would be refrigerators without power cords.
Seen any? Me neither.
Same reason water does not freely flow up hill.
Earth cannot upwell as an imaginary 396 W/m^2 BB so 333 W/m^2 “back” is also imaginary and all your esoteric handwavium is moot.
Surface of the Earth is warmer than outer space, and normally warmer than the “sky” except for adverse or cloudy weather conditions and some night time temperature inversions (local effects)…
You’d probably feel better if net radiation on your GHE graphic had net 66 watts of IR from the surface with 40 watts to outer space through the atmospheric window. It is also a correct viewpoint, but some physics major is gonna say “you forgot about sigma T^4 ?”.
There is no “extra” energy, just what the laws of physics say are a result of the temperatures,
Since the surface at 288K radiates 390 W/m^2 upwards and the Top of Atmosphere radiates an average of 240 W/m^2 to outer space….of course there is a radiative greenhouse effect of 150 W/m2…in fact, it is the very definition of it.
Since the surface at 288K radiates 390 W/m^2 upwards and the Top of Atmosphere radiates an average of 240 W/m^2 to outer space….of course there is a radiative greenhouse effect of 150 W/m2…in fact, it is the very definition of it.
What a load of rubbish! Even Pierrehumbert said that “CO2 is just planetary insulation”. He was right, of course. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface, slowing the rate of heating, and the maximum temperature achieved. At night, the rate of cooling is slowed, and the minimum temperature does not drop as low as the airless Moon.
Diurnal variation is moderated, and humans can survive within the present extremes of around +90 C and -90 C.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. None. Not even a smidgin. The Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. Of course, the ignorant and gullible proclaim that this cannot be so!
We know better don’t we? We are not that ignorant and gullible!
With all due respect, you are just taking a snapshot in time of a time-based function.
Heat transfer is a continuous time function. Heat loss via radiation to space is close to an exponential decay. It’s formula would be e^-(at) where “a” is the decay rate. If you integrate that function the slower the decay rate the larger the integral becomes.
Let a=19 as the non-CO2 decay rate and a=20 as the slower CO2 rate and integrate for 1 second.
This is just an example. It’s just meant to illustrate the difference the decay rate change causes.
You can’t just take a snapshot of the radiation curve at a point in time and say more heat is retained because CO2 “blocks” or “slows” radiation to space. As a time function it’s a little more complicated. The exponential decay is a negative feedback on temperature by losing more heat per unit time as the temperature goes up. At some point the increased heat loss will limit the temperature gain from more CO2.
If you add in the fact that the heat loss goes on 24 hours per day and is orthogonal to space (maximum heat loss all the time) while the heat input only lasts for a smaller period of time and is a cosine function during that period there doesn’t have to be a radiative flux balance between in and out at any point in time in order to balance heat gain vs heat loss.
The Labour propanda machine churned out a “game” to indoctrinate the youth and threaten them with dire penalties for even daring to question the benefits of migration.
Except it backfired brilliantly. The character they attempted to portray as a devil on the shoulder of the player, tempting him into doing naughty things, has become a bit of a mascot over the weekend.
Before the UK Nostapo strongarms the natives into silence again, say Hi to Amelia…
Too bad its not 600 million people. I presume the regulars hit on the site many times per day- for every story and responding to any comments they get in their emails. It would be interesting to determine how many people instead of raw hits. I’ve always wondered how many lurkers are here. I’ve sent links to stories on the site to hundreds of people. They don’t tell me if they look at it. If they do, they’re not commenting either to me or post comments – most likely because they know so little- and I mean top state officials in Wokeachusetts and enviros of all sorts. Maybe they all have me in their spam folders by now. 🙂
Say a hard core of WUWT fans get emails and log in to every article. That’s 6 a day, or about 2,200 hits a year for 20 years. Assuming constant readership, 2,200 x 20 gives a number of hits per viewer of: 43,800
If that is all the viewers, 600003068 total hits / 43,800 hits per viewer gives about 13,500 viewers.
This must be a vast under-estimate. Notably, the assumption that everyone logs in once for every article every single day is ludicrous. But it gives a lower bound estimate.
The upper bound estimate is not that everyone logged in once but rather that everyone logs in twice a week – that is 90% log in weekly and a hard core every day. (Technically, this gives 1.6 times a week but I’m rounding up as there are bound to be some who hit multiple times a day or every few days). That says we have about 730 hits a year for 20 years. Assuming constant readership, 730 x 20 gives a number of hits per viewer of: 14,600. If that is all the viewers, 600003068 total hits / 14,600 hits per viewer gives about 41,000 viewers.
So, WUWT readership is between 13,500 people and 41,000 people. Probably around 25,000 people, as a best estimate.
If you assume that WUWT really took off after Climategate, you can reduce the time by a quarter and so inflate those estimates by 25%.
“Say a hard core of WUWT fans get emails and log in to every article.”
I read every article every day and probably post 10 or more comments per day. Then I may get 20-30 responses in my email. I then don’t just read it in the email- I go back to the site to see it because often the email didn’t quote me so I’m not always sure what they were responding to- and so I can read other comments in the thread. So, for me I’m hitting on the site dozens of times per day. But then again, I’m hard core. 🙂
I think many log in every day- from what I can tell. At least a few dozen. No doubt Anthony or somebody managing the site determine such statistics with all the info that should be available.
I am curious who might be lurking of significance. No doubt Mickey Mann checks it occasionally to see if we’re dumping on him. 🙂
It does vary, more vulnerable than much of North America I suppose.
Do have to plan for it, as a child in NE BC we were harmed by a drought year as did not have a water storage ‘dugout”. The local creek dried up. We got some help from a ‘spring’ on top of a local hill, with permission of land owner – surprising phenomenon of water available, I presume vegetation and geology kept it around all summer.
(That is relatively dry country, but clay layer under soil keeps moisture close enough to surface that some roots can get to it and moisture can wick up to others.)
Droughts do occur there, usually only last a year.
(One farmer bought his own weather station to record rainfall, finding it was quite different from city 40 miles away.)
Old timers told me that the huge reservoir behind the Peace River dam changed weather downwind, farmers were growing more hay and less grain.
And growing much of the hay for seed to export to other areas.
From France Inter (a French public radio station, unfortunately overrun by leftist ideology)
Kevin Jean, epidemiologist, on the increase in violence during heat waves:
“Among the less obvious consequences, there is also an increase in violence. This is extremely well-documented: each degree of increase in average temperatures increases interpersonal violence. We know that we see more aggression, more car accidents, and more intentional violence. We also see more violence against oneself: suicide rates increase with climate change.”
The same applies to domestic violence. “We know that domestic violence increases by about 5% with each degree of warming.” And in 2018, a Spanish study told us that during heat waves, femicides increase by 40%.
The fact that people predisposed to brutality become more aggressive when it’s hot doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s the precision of the figures cited (“[…] Domestic violence increases by about 5% with each degree of warming”) that I find suspicious. 5% per degree compared to what starting temperature? In which regions? Urbanized in what way? In what social environment? Of course, these questions are, in my opinion, of little relevance when it comes to judging the validity of such ridiculously peremptory figures.
Strap in…
Miliband’s ‘green energy’ sea cable risks spreading nuclear waste across Orkney
…the cable could disturb “irradiated particles” on the seabed which were created by the now-decommissioned Dounreay nuclear power plant decades ago. –
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/17/milibands-green-sea-cable-risk-spreading-nuclear-waste/
Meanwhile, mad Ed must wish Carney was still in Threadneedle Street.
Net Zero is Slowing Growth, Bank of England Warns
The Climate Change Committee estimates reaching Net Zero by 2050 will involve a net cost of £4 billion per year – around £100 billion in total.
The Institute of Economic Affairs said the cost of Net Zero in the UK could be more than £7.6 trillion. –
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/17/net-zero-is-slowing-growth-bank-of-england-warns/
And the rest…
shifting from coal to less polluting fuels may result in “permanent higher level of prices”
No £300 off, then. Thought so.
We can’t have cheap energy because one of the most expensive forms of energy saved money by dumping radioactive waste into the ocean.
decades ago
Your attention to detail is quite phenomenal.
We can’t have cheap energy because… as one of your leading lights put it:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970.
Really? Holdren was part of that quote? Well isn’t that just ever so precious of a tidbit to add to my file of interesting factoids.
There’s no shortage…
“As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich about Dr. John Holdren, The Machinery of Nature: The Living World Around Us—And How It Works, 1986
If you are totally immersed in your job in academia…you can become convinced that exponential growth of uber cars are taking over the world and the depth of them will bury all cites by the year 2100.
We’ve had the same scare over a century ago with New York horse manure.
The scare was in 1894 about the city of London and was raised in an article in The Times.
I fail to see any starving people. Au contraire!
I attended a 1976 talk given by Holdren on alternatives to nuclear energy and was not impressed. He came across as an activist pretending to be a scientist.
Try Wikiquotes to get the exact quote to determine if Holden was part of the quote.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Love Canal, how it was a government-created problem from the git-go, and how the government and sycophants like you who demonized private industry to avoid tainting yourselves.
Try Wikipedia for a short and probably biased summary. Or try this for a detailed explanation.
http://reason.com/archives/1981/02/01/love-canal/singlepage
Dollars to donuts that whatever was done with that nuclear waste, it was done at the behest of the government.
Mr. gaslighter: Maybe somebody, long ago, went forward with a project before disposal was planned out? You’d think enviros woulda learned this lesson before launching wind and solar, or do you say the disposal of wind/solar components is planned out? Do tell.
Ah yes, but £300 “less higher” when Miliband saves us from the future.
Over its life time modern coal power-plants are FAR less damaging to the environment than wind or solar.
The CO2 released is actually a vital component for all life on Earth.
Wind and solar are the most environmentally destructive forms of electricity part-time supply.
“Over its life time modern coal power-plants are FAR less damaging to the environment than wind or solar.”
Evidence pleas coz I call 100%, gold plated, bullshit on that.
Four down votes. What do you know? Surely one of these four has some evidence to back up the claim “Over its life time modern coal power-plants are FAR less damaging to the environment than wind or solar.” Surely they are not all just being petty voting me down coz it makes them feel part of a bully team? Surely someone has something?
So you don’t know all the putrid chemicals used making solar panel and wind turbines.. .. do some research and learn something for a change.
Acids for extraction of neodymium forming huge sludge lakes in parts of China where the magnets are made.. all sorts of resins for the blade.
Solar panels require purification of the silicone using substances like strong hydrofluoric acid… which in China is often dumped in sludge lakes as well.
Then there is the vast areas of land and habitat destroyed and broken up by wind turbine installation, and the damage done during installation of solar farms.
All the plastic put into the environment by turbine blade erosion. Not to mention all the insects bats, birds of prey and the wholesale destruction of avian life by both wind turbines and concentration-type solar facilities
Are you also ignorant of all the damage done to many creatures and their existence by wind turbines and solar panel. Damage to water tables, soil structure, soil based critters from the constant infrasound, Damaged done by glass shards as solar panels are destroyed by hail or just decay, making land unusable for graving
Then at end of life all that concrete from turbine bases is left in the ground, continuing to degrade the soil and water table. Turbine blades are cut up and placed in vast landfills where they continue to decay plastics and resins into the soil.
Solar panels are even worse as they are too expensive to recycle, so are also dumped where they leaked their heavy metal components into the soil
There is absolutely zero upside to the use of wind turbines and solar panels..
They are FILTHY and ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE at every stage of their short erratic , parasitic life.
Not a single reference…. not one, just more nonsense and half truths. No wonder you love Trump. So once again Mr Make-it-up can’t front up with any evidence to back up his nonsense. Sad.
I can give you dozens of references that says I am right and you are… what’s the word…. WRONG. Here’s a start. How many would you like?
https://www.energyports.com/post/solar-vs-fossil-fuels-understanding-the-true-environmental-impact
What is the order of magnitude of the influence on the atmosphere from the computed ~4 W/m^2 incremental radiative absorbing power in the case of 2XCO2 from pre-industrial times?
This post makes a different and simpler point as a supplement to my recent posts and time-lapse video about energy conversion.
Short answer: the modeled radiative influence, operating through only the atmosphere’s internal energy, is vanishingly weak in the proper context of energy dynamics within the general circulation.
More explanation follows.
There are four plots in this Google Drive folder. Hourly values of computed atmospheric energy parameters from the ERA5 reanalysis for the year 2022 for all longitude points at latitude 45N are presented. The units for these parameters are J/m^2. I divide by 3,600 to express these values in Watt-hours.
1. Vertical integral of total energy (vitoe) in Wh/m^2.
2. Hourly change of the vertical integral of total energy (vitoe) in Wh/h-m^2, or W/m^2.
3. Latent energy in Wh/m^2 by difference, (vipile-vipie) subtracting the “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” from the “vertical integral of potention + internal + latent energy.”
4. Hourly change of latent energy (vipile-vipie) in Wh/h-m^2, or W/m^2.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1X7V58xrYeIYM7EgtyHPck7FqAiaXAWtG?usp=sharing
In plots 2 and 4, the single-digit W/m^2 values of GHG “forcings” represent a fraction of the thickness of the index mark at “0” on the vertical scale, as the hourly changes show strong positive and negative values within the dynamic circulation. In this overwhelmingly active operating environment, the static “forcing” is far too weak to produce any harmful influence on the climate system, or to claim to have reliably established cause and effect for any trend of climate observables. Furthermore, the strong latent energy variation in both directions demonstrates the impossibility of ever isolating water vapor “feedback” as an amplifier of a computed direct radiative effect of incremental CO2.
More background:
The ERA5 “vipile” parameter is described here. The “vipie” parameter is the same except without the latent energy. The “vitoe” parameter (total energy) also includes kinetic energy.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162062
“This parameter is the mass weighted vertical integral of potential, internal and latent energy for a column of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere.
The potential energy of an air parcel is the amount of work that would have to be done, against the force of gravity, to lift the air to that location from mean sea level. Internal energy is the energy contained within a system i.e., the microscopic energy of the air molecules, rather than the macroscopic energy associated with, for example, wind, or gravitational potential energy.
The latent energy refers to the energy associated with the water vapour in the atmosphere and is equal to the energy required to convert liquid water into water vapour.
This parameter can be used to study the atmospheric energy budget.
Total atmospheric energy [the “vitoe” parameter – dd] is made up of internal, potential, kinetic and latent energy.”
If you have read this far, thank you for your interest this matter.
It doesn’t exist. It is countered by a similar reduction in water vapor absorbing power. See Miskolczi 2023.
If some of the 4 watts cause more water vapor, then the water vapor must absorb more….however the 8-14 micron atmospheric window is mostly open to outer space except for cloud cover which varies as water vapor in the atmosphere is pushed around by convection and coriolis forces. So whatever you think Miskolczi said….its more complicated than that…
It is more complicated. More water vapor low in the atmosphere has already saturated its absorption spectra. More water vapor simply causes IR to be absorbed at lower altitudes while enhancing convective currents, especially in the tropics. The key factor is what happens high in the atmosphere.
As Dr William Gray noted decades ago, with more evaporation you get less water vapor at high altitudes. You can read about it in Dr Gray’s submission to the AMS back in 2010. It is precisely this altitude where the water vapor greenhouse effect is no longer saturated. This allows more IR to escape to space thus canceling the increased absorption by CO2.
Very meaningful graphs, David. I really hope readers here take the time to contemplate them.
Thank you. I appreciate your comments and replies. I too hope that more folks come to realize that the “climate” narrative is simply not supported by what we can learn from the agenda-free products such as ERA5.
The elliptical orbit creates a 90 W/m^2 swing in ISR from perihelion to aphelion.
30 % albedo is 100 W/m^2 with a 20 W/m^2 difference of opinion.
The tilted axis generates a 700 W/m^2 swing at ToA from summer to winter.
4 W/m^2 is noise in the data.
Looks like the non-job engine shale oil in the US is in trouble because of cheap oil. As predicted last year.
Low Oil Prices Force Billionaire Harold Hamm to Halt Bakken Drilling
Permian Basin Economy Slows Under the Shadow of Cheap Venezuelan Oil
Who is going to clean up after them?
Price discovery works. Boo-hoo for shale and boo-hoo for Canadian tar-sands too.
That stuff has no shelf-life. It will be extracted when it makes economic sense. If it doesn’t make sense now that’s fine with me.
Also it does remain to be seen whether anyone will take a punt on extracting Venezuelan oil on a large scale any time soon. The reports I’ve read suggest Trump didn’t get a lot of traction with the majors when he met them. Twice burned; thrice shy seemed to be the sentiment.
The only thing holding back U.S. companies from going into Venezuela is the uncertain security situation.
Once the security situation is settled, the companies will go in. Some companies say they are ready to go right now.
Maduro’s secret police and gangs will have to be neutralized, so that is a question still up in the air.
Hopefully, Trump can talk the new leader into standing down these threats.
It was reported yesterday that at least 30 generals in the Venezuelan military are millionaires, so there is a lot of corruption in the Venezuelan government. It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this situation.
You mean like the corruption in government everywhere??
Corruption at the top usually filters down through the bureaucracy. See Minnesota government for another example.
And the Trump team. See below.
“Hopefully, Trump can talk the new leader into standing down these threats.”
Right, first he’ll suggest politely, then not so politely. I think they’ve already gotten the message.
It’s got nothing to do with the security situation. There would be no oil industry in Nigeria if oil companies were unable to hire their own security.
It’s got everything to do with the political situation.
Trump will not be President forever. The desire to occupy foreign territory for access to raw materials (Imperialism) is not guaranteed to remain US policy. There are many isolationist members of Congress.
There are other demands on the US military (NATO is being abandoned, that will demand far more overseas deployment of US resources).
It’s possible the US Supreme Court will change their opinion on the costs of Nationalisation to US oil companies.
Basically, this is a high risk investment which is only secured by the word of Trump, who is very unpredictable.
Any executive who bets their company on the words of Trump deserves to be sacked. And they all know it.
“It was reported yesterday that at least 30 generals in the Venezuelan military are millionaires, so there is a lot of corruption in the Venezuelan government. It will be interesting to see how Trump handles this situation.”
Perhaps he will pardon them like he did these crims this week. The corruption in this Trump admin is like no other in US history. Embarrassing….
Adriana Camberos: Convicted in 2017 of selling millions of counterfeit 5-Hour Energy bottles to grocers, she had her sentence commuted by Trump in 2021, and was pardoned by the president this week for a separate 2024 fraud conviction, according to Bloomberg, which noted her brother, Andres, was also convicted in 2024 and was pardoned Thursday.
Julio Herrera Velutini: A Venezuelan-Italian banker charged with conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud over allegations he tried to bribe former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez, was also pardoned, The New York Times reported (Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, donated $2.5 million to Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. in late 2024, according to the Times, which said a White House official denied the donations contributed to her father’s pardon).
Vázquez was also pardoned by Trump this week after pleading guilty to campaign finance charges last year, with the White House claiming the charges were rooted in political motivations, according to CNN.
Mark Rossini: A former FBI agent and consultant for Herrera who pleaded guilty alongside his old boss and Vázquez, was pardoned by the president.
Terren Peizer: A former health care CEO received a pardon for a 2024 insider trading conviction that carried a 42-month prison sentence, Bloomberg added.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/01/16/trump-pardons-convicted-fraudster-for-the-second-time-in-five-years/
I’m not going to go to the trouble of debunking your claims.
I suspect that these pardons by Trump are done because he thinks these people have been politically prosecuted unfairly. That seems to be a theme with him.
How about you listing all the thousands of pardons issued by Biden/AutoPen? That would be an interesting list. Which would include his son.
“I’m not going to go to the trouble of debunking your claims.”
No Tom, please do. If you have any information that indicates the convictions of thee people in the US courts was political of unjust I’d love to read what you have. And Tom, in the interests of getting to truth, I’m happy to consider the unfair pardons Biden may have issued. Fire away.
But Tom, come on…. to simply consider these Trumpian pardons fair because Trump considers them fair, is, well, if you don’t mind me saying so, rather uncritical of you, bordering almost on cultist behaviour. After all, this article is by Forbes which is not known for being a left wing rants. And if you read the details they are pretty specific.
The Honduran President was fitted-up by the same people who tried to fit-Trump up with a whole heap of BOGUS and FAKE CHARGES.
Of course Trump is going to believe him when he says he is not guilty.
“The Honduran President was fitted-up by the same people who tried to fit-Trump up with a whole heap of BOGUS and FAKE CHARGES.”
Once again Mr Make-it-up I am going ask you to verify your claim. Got any evidence?
And once again Mr Make-it-up can’t front up with any evidence to back up his nonsense. Sad.
Once the Arctic was deemed totally uneconomical. But now, despite the ice stubbornly refusing to melt away, it looks profitable.
“Once the Arctic was deemed totally uneconomical. But now, despite the ice stubbornly refusing to melt away, it looks profitable.”
Huh? The Greenland Ice Sheet has lost ice for 28 consecutive years.
In the 2023-2024 melt season alone, it lost about 80 billion tonnes.
The Greenland ice sheet loss is so small it is meaningless…. and is based on gravity based measurements over a moving magma sac.
The time taken for it to melt is in the 10s of thousands of years.
Put into perspective with total ice mass .. laughable
Did you know that the Current Greenland Ice area (including archipelago is only a tiny amount down from the LIA, and FAR above what it has been for most of the last 8000 years….. or were you “unaware” of that fact as well.
None of this info contradicts my claim that Greenland is in fact melting at this point.
Many industries are subject to such cycles. They’re used to it. Certainly the construction industry as an example. And, my field of forestry- mostly down but sometimes up. We never liked it but we kept at it.
I have a modest suggestion. Why don’t we trade Minneapolis for Greenland? (:
If only Minnesota could be physically detached, then we could just push it over to China.
No, Africa! Somaliland!
Only really need to trade 3 counties. The rest of the state would thank you.
The argument Trump makes is that the USA cannot allow Russia to be too close to the USA, so the USA must conquer Greenland before the Russians do.
This still leaves Alaska very close to Russia.
The obvious answer is to trade Greenland for Alaska.
“The obvious answer is to trade Greenland for Alaska.”
Great idea.
I’m still puzzled as to why when the US has been reducing the number of bases on Greenland (17 down to 1), suddenly there is a need to own the place because there is a huge threat from Russia and China?
The term “factoid” was used earlier in this thread.
I didn’t correct the poster because the term is pretty nearly universally misused and I didn’t want to spoil that exchange with smart-alec pedantry to that effect.
But reflecting on another story I was reading this morning relating to some AI-generated verbiage that has got several different people in hot-water in the UK this week it might not be completely pointless to mention what the term “factoid” was coined to mean.
According to Norman Mailer, who coined it, a factoid is an utterance that looks like a fact but (crucially) isn’t. It is to a fact as a humanoid is to a human.
You can probably see where I’m going with the AI reference. AI generated utterances are factoids in the Norman Mailer sense of the word.
You might find this of interest. – AI (Grok) does NOT learn…
Did Norman Mailer copyright or trademark “factoid”?
Sorry, bud, language belongs to people. Ask the Kleenex and Xerox companies for examples.
The only meaning words have is their shared meaning, which I think I sort of hinted at when I said correcting the post would have been pedantic. But some actual facts about the origin of the term and how it relates to a subject du jour (AI) is amusing (if not quite interesting).
So back in your box, “bud”.
Oh, you hinted at it alright, then said you would correct him anyway.
No reason it can’t have multiple meanings- to be interpreted as used. But, you get points for informing us.
Almost every test I have applied to AI has resulted in total failure. Yes, it’s fast at presenting some results, but very often, it’s totally wrong
Try asking
Q. “who demonstrated the first incandescent lamp (a filament in a glass envelope), where & what date ?“
AI gives …Thomas Edison, Menlo Park, New Jersey, December 31, 1879.
Whereas the correct answer is … James Bowman Lindsay, 25 July 1835, in the Thistle Hall, Dock Street, Dundee.
Q. “What powered the first internal combustion engine-powered automobile, where & date ?”
AI gives … Karl Benz in Mannheim, Germany, on July 3, 1886.
The correct answer is ... Fuel was Hydrogen & Isaac de Rivaz was granted patent No. 731 in Paris, 30 January 1807.
If AI can’t get simple, documented historical facts correct, why would you rely on it giving answers to any complex questions ???
laziness? that plus being too stupid to realize that it ain’t God
Thanks, 1save. You have to know how to use AI. Here’s what I find:
===
There is no single, uncontested “first” incandescent lamp with a filament in a glass envelope; several experimenters produced such devices in the early nineteenth century, and the historical record is fragmentary enough that any precise “first date, place, and person” involves some inference. The earliest well‑documented and widely cited demonstration of an incandescent filament lamp as a practical system, however, is Thomas Edison’s Menlo Park demonstration of his carbon‑filament lamp on 21 October 1879 in Menlo Park, New Jersey, with public displays of the system following in late December 1879.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/edisons-incandescent-lamp
https://www.menloparkmuseum.org/history
## Early filament‑in‑glass experiments
Before Edison and Joseph Swan, several inventors produced incandescent lamps: for example, Moses G. Farmer built an incandescent bulb with a platinum filament around 1859 and later sold a related patent to Edison, and other mid‑nineteenth‑century experimenters also used metal filaments in evacuated or partially evacuated glass envelopes. These devices did not become commercial systems, and documentation on their exact first demonstration dates and locations is incomplete, which is why historians tend to treat them as precursors rather than the definitive “first” practical incandescent lamps.
https://www.oceansplasticleanup.com/SeaVax_RiverVax/Edison_Thomas_Light_Bulb_Incandescent_Invention_Development_Persistent.htm
## Swan’s early demonstrations
Joseph Swan in England developed carbon‑filament lamps in evacuated glass bulbs and gave an early public demonstration of an incandescent lamp to the Newcastle Chemical Society on 18 December 1878 in Newcastle upon Tyne, although that particular lamp failed after a short period. He repeated and improved the demonstration in early 1879 (for example, at a lecture in Newcastle on 3 February 1879), and later records and commemorative plaques in Newcastle explicitly describe Swan’s lamps as evacuated glass bulbs containing carbon filaments, i.e., classic incandescent filament lamps.
https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2025/joseph-swan-8409/
https://www.vsskochi.in/blog/was-thomas-edison-the-1st-to-invent-the-light-bulb-
## Edison’s Menlo Park demonstration
Thomas Edison and his team at Menlo Park developed a high‑resistance carbon filament in a high‑vacuum glass bulb, with the aim of producing an economical, durable lamp that could be used in a complete electric‑lighting system. Contemporary and later historical accounts agree that on 21 October 1879 Edison ran a carbon‑filament lamp in a glass bulb for about 13.5 hours at Menlo Park, which is usually cited as the decisive experimental demonstration of a practical incandescent lamp. By late December 1879 the Menlo Park laboratory and surrounding area were illuminated with multiple such lamps as part of system demonstrations to the public, further establishing this design as the first practically successful incandescent lighting system rather than merely a laboratory curiosity.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/edisons-incandescent-lamp
https://www.menloparkmuseum.org/history
## Why the “first” is hard to pin down
From a strict historical‑method perspective, one can say with confidence that Swan demonstrated an evacuated glass‑bulb carbon‑filament lamp publicly in Newcastle in December 1878 and early 1879, and Edison demonstrated a long‑lasting carbon‑filament glass‑bulb lamp at Menlo Park on 21 October 1879. What cannot be stated with the same confidence is that no one earlier than Swan (or Farmer, or others) ever demonstrated a filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp, because the surviving records for several mid‑nineteenth‑century experimenters are incomplete or ambiguous about dates, venues, and technical details. Consequently, historians typically distinguish between early, often poorly documented, experimental lamps and the later, well‑documented practical systems of Swan and Edison, rather than naming a single universally accepted “first incandescent lamp” with precise date and place.
https://www.oceansplasticleanup.com/SeaVax_RiverVax/Edison_Thomas_Light_Bulb_Incandescent_Invention_Development_Persistent.htm
===
More below due to WP length limitations.
w.
When I asked about James Bowman Lindsay, here’s what I got (emphasis mine)
===
James Bowman Lindsay did demonstrate a “constant electric light” at a public meeting in Thistle Hall, Dock Street, Dundee, on 25 July 1835, and contemporary and local‑history sources treat this as an important early prototype of the incandescent lamp. However, the surviving descriptions focus on the constancy and usability of the light (e.g., being able to read a book at about 1.5 feet) rather than giving a clear technical specification of a filament sealed within a glass envelope, so it is not possible from accessible primary‑style summaries to state with confidence that it was the first filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp in the modern sense.
https://www.leisureandculturedundee.com/localhistory/jbl
https://www.leisureandculturedundee.com/library/jblchronology
https://www.robertbrown.uk.com/post/electrical-electronic-inventions-that-changed-the-world-the-incandescent-light-bulb-1835
## What is documented about 25 July 1835
Local history records compiled by Leisure & Culture Dundee give a timeline entry for Lindsay stating that on “25th July obtained constant electric light and demonstrated this in Thistle Hall,” with a separate item noting a “Demonstration of electric light at Thistle Hall, Dundee” in 1836, confirming both the date and venue you cite. These municipal records also emphasize that Lindsay’s concern was to produce a safe, non‑combustible light for jute mills, and that his 1835 work produced a “constant electric light” bright enough to read by at about one and a half feet, forty years before Edison’s announcement.
https://www.leisureandculturedundee.com/localhistory/jbl
https://www.leisureandculturedundee.com/library/jblchronology
## Nature of Lindsay’s light and technical uncertainty
Modern technical write‑ups and popular histories describing Lindsay’s work state that he produced “constant electrical light in what became a prototype of the modern light bulb,” and that “the light from an incandescent bulb is produced from a filament through which an electrical current is passed,” but they typically present that latter sentence as general explanation rather than quoting a contemporaneous technical description of Lindsay’s specific apparatus. These accounts agree that Lindsay’s lamp was non‑combustible, produced no smoke or smell, could stand on a tabletop, and allowed him to read at about 1.5 feet, yet they do not reproduce a primary source explicitly stating that his 1835 device used a filament sealed in an evacuated glass envelope, so treating it as definitively the first modern‑style filament‑in‑glass incandescent lamp would go beyond the directly documented evidence.
https://www.robertbrown.uk.com/post/electrical-electronic-inventions-that-changed-the-world-the-incandescent-light-bulb-1835
## Status of his priority claim
Biographical and historical sketches from Scottish and mathematical history sources credit Lindsay with producing a continuous or constant electric light in 1835 and treat this as one of the earliest serious steps toward practical electric lighting. These sources place him ahead of later, better‑known figures chronologically, but also note that he did not patent or commercially develop the device, which limited its influence and led to later practical systems by Swan and Edison receiving more attention; because the detailed technical configuration of his 1835 lamp is not fully specified in the easily accessible record, the claim that he gave the “first” filament‑in‑glass incandescent demonstration must be regarded as plausible but not conclusively established from the surviving descriptions.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lindsay/
https://www.loststory.net/tips/james-bowman-lindsay-chronology
===
Best regards,
w.
I saw in doc on the TV that Canadians Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans were granted a patent for an incandescent light bulb on Aug. 3, 1874. The patent was bought by Edison in1879.
Correct; that was the Canadian patent.
Woodward & Evans couldn’t afford to develop their invention, so 5 years later, they sold the rights to U.S. Patent 181,613 to Thomas Edison. He paid $5,000 for Woodward’s US patent & incorporated the ideas
Woodward’s 1876 United States patent …
https://web.archive.org/web/20050204141151/http://www.bouletfermat.com/danny/light_bulb_patent.html
In 1879 $5000 was a small fortune.
One problem is that AI has no intelligence whatever, just mindlessly regurgitating what is on the internet. No thought at all.
An example might be asking “does adding CO2 to air make thermometers hotter?”
However, a follow up question “does adding co2 to air make thermometers hotter in absence of a heat source hotter than the air and the added CO2”, elicits a different response –
and then goes on to to provide the politically correct statement to try to negate the fact it just presented –
implying that adding CO2 to air does make thermometers hotter, even though it doesn’t. Unfortunately, the AI presentation of the “greenhouse effect” is dependent on thermometers actually being warmed by the Sun – not CO2, and goes on
Unfortunately, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the planet cooling over time, and pursuing different AIs eventually leads all of them to apologise profusely for providing misinformation.
So AI seems to be a vastly expensive enterprise useful for collating information found on the internet, and presenting you with the (mis)information the programmers want. Also for creating fictional photos and videos which cannot be distinguished from reality, and interesting efforts like “de-clothing” celebrities, and depicting them in bizarre and possibly unwholesome roles.<g>
All good fun, and very beneficial for the ignorant and gullible, who will eventually realise that they need to think for themselves, rather than just believing whatever it was that some wayfaring stranger burbled on their way past.
You can get AI to tell you anything you want. Eventually, you might even get it to tell the truth (as in truth based on facts and the known laws of the universe).
A contemporary article in the Dundee Perth and Cupar Advertiser confirms
James Bowman Lindsay was the FIRST to demonstrate the incandescent light bulb in July 1835 (sorry, I can’t find the memory stick with details & reference ). He never patented it or tried to commercialise it, but went on to invent an early telegraph system & compile a dictionary of synonyms in 107 languages, which he called his ‘Pentecontaglossal Dictionary‘.
As the first successful public demonstration, it was the precursor to all subsequent incandescent light bulbs.
As to your second question, here’s what I find:
===
The first widely recognized internal‑combustion‑engine automobile was Karl Benz’s three‑wheeled Benz Patent‑Motorwagen, powered by a single‑cylinder four‑stroke gasoline (petrol) engine, built in Mannheim, Germany in 1885 and patented on 29 January 1886. Earlier experimental vehicles, such as François Isaac de Rivaz’s hydrogen‑oxygen engine wagon (Switzerland/France, tested 1813), used internal combustion on a crude four‑wheeled chassis but are not generally considered practical automobiles.
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2536
https://historyofinformation.com
https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/tradition/company-history/forerunners-to-the-automobile.html
https://www.loc.gov/collections/automotive-industry
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2537
Benz’s Patent‑Motorwagen used a light petroleum spirit (a low‑boiling gasoline fraction, often called ligroin at the time) supplied from a surface carburetor to a rear‑mounted four‑stroke internal combustion engine producing under 1 horsepower, driving the rear axle by chain. This prototype was completed in 1885 in Mannheim, and Benz’s patent DRP 37435 for an “automobile fueled by gas” was filed on 29 January 1886, with public road tests in Mannheim in mid‑1886.
An earlier but less practical internal‑combustion road vehicle was built by François Isaac de Rivaz, who designed and patented a hydrogen‑oxygen internal combustion engine and mounted it on a crude four‑wheeled cart; he reportedly drove this vehicle about 100 meters in 1813 in Switzerland/France. The fuel was an explosive mixture of hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen ignited in a vertical cylinder, and the design did not lead to a usable or commercial automobile.
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=1788
===
Like I said … you have to know how to ask.
w.
A while back, you posted the text you use to do AI searches. I copied it and use it myself. It is excellent.
It was the version that covers about 3 pages of A4 and starts:
Please may I ask if you have made any refinements to your script that you would be willing to share?
“Like I said … you have to know how to ask.”
I did specify Q. “What powered the FIRST internal combustion engine-powered automobile, where & date ?”
So it was de Rivaz, January 1807.
I am now getting emails when new stories are posted. I did not do anything to cause that to happen and I cannot see anyway to switch that off.
Anyone know how I can turn that off?
From what I have read, once a particular AI model has been “trained”, it learns no more form new information it is told to assess (unless its human “minders” “retrain” it.). Once it gives an answer, it proceeds to totally “forget” what it just “learned” from its previous “instructions”. It’s been noted that the human brain has no particular region for abstract concepts like “judgement, morality, assessment”, etc. which are important in the value placed on new information it encounters. We learn what we want to learn.
I do not know how to help. But I think I know how this happened. It happened to me a while back.
When you post a comment, be very careful not to click the bell button next to the Post Comment button. If you tap the bell, the strikethrough disappears and any replies are emailed to you.
Then the browser learns that you want emails from WUWT, and decides to give you them.
Ain’t AI wonderful?
perplexity.ai to the rescue …
Best regards,
w.
===
You’re getting those because your email address is “following” the WUWT WordPress.com site; you need to unsubscribe or change that follow’s email settings either from the emails themselves or from WordPress.com’s subscription management/Reader screens.
Quick fix from an email
Each WUWT new‑post email from WordPress.com should have an unsubscribe or “manage subscriptions” link in the footer; clicking that takes you to a page where you can either unsubscribe from that site entirely or change how often you get emails. This is the fastest path if you still have one of the recent notification emails handy.
https://wordpress.com/support/unsubscribe-from-a-wordpress-com-blog/
If you have a WordPress.com account
If your email is tied to a WordPress.com login:
• Sign in at wordpress.com.
• Go to the Reader (often at https://wordpress.com/read).
• In the “Manage” or “Followed sites” section, find wattsupwiththat.com.
• Click the three dots next to it and choose “Unfollow” or adjust the notification settings so new posts are not emailed (for example, web notifications only).
https://wordpress.com/support/unsubscribe-from-a-wordpress-com-blog/
https://wordpress.com/support/notifications/
If you don’t have / don’t use a WordPress.com account
If you subscribed just by entering an email in a “Follow” box and never created a WordPress.com account:
• Visit https://subscribe.wordpress.com/
• Enter the email address that receives the WUWT notifications.
• WordPress.com will send you an email titled something like “ [Subscribe] Your Subscription Details”.
• Click the “Manage Subscriptions” button in that email.
• In the list, find wattsupwiththat.com, click the three dots, then click “Unsubscribe”.
https://wordpress.com/support/unsubscribe-from-a-wordpress-com-blog/
If you run the site and worry about all readers
On WordPress.com, site owners cannot globally stop WordPress.com from emailing followers when a new post is published; followers control that on their own subscription settings. The best you can do for other readers is point them to the same unsubscribe/Manage Subscriptions instructions above if they complain about too many emails.
https://wordpress.com/forums/topic/how-to-disable-new-post-emails-to-followers/
Willis, Thank you very much. I logged in to WordPress and unsubscribed.
Son of Just Stop Oil: Take Back Power (TBP)
[Arthur Clifton is the privately-educated son of a megayacht insurance executive from leafy Chiswick.]
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/18/posh-activists-plan-mass-shoplifting-in-waitrose/
The plan? a mass shoplift from Waitrose the high end supermarket to redistribute to the poor. Presumably, TBP have never encountered any other supermarkets in their empty pampered lives.
Also, Waitrose is an employee-owned partnership. So he’s proposing to steal from the people who actually fill the shelves and collect the scattered trollies. What a f***ing hero.
I am a bit surprised to find he has a LinkedIn page, It is pretty funny.
“Arthur Clifton: Graduate with a wide spread [sic] of various experiences”. No indication of what he studied nor where he graduated. And under Skills we see: Writing, Adaptation, Tenacious Work Ethic, English, and Communication.
Based on the tiny amount he has posted on LinkedIn I’d say there’s grounds to dispute two of those alleged skills, and because he may not be communicating what he hoped, maybe we can dispute three. Oh—maybe we can dispute four; the list of activities under the Experience heading is too undemanding to demonstrate a “tenacious work ethic”.
So that leaves Adaptation. Perhaps he puts on a nice Goretex jacket when he goes out in the rain.
Same core different history.
I am doing an analysis on the splicing of surface temperature readings to proxies, so I took two different interpretations of the Greenland GISP2 Ice core proxy analysis. One from Alley and the second from Kobashi. It is hard to quantify the major disagreement between the two datasets at 700 AD., considering both analyses are of the same core.
Also, the green is Central England Temp, the Blue is NOAA SST Globe.
You might also look at the Martin et al. reconstructions. this GISP2 reconstruction is also different than Alley. The Alley reconstruction has more smoothing, but otherwise seems reasonable over the Holocene. Other ice cores also show differences — all climate is local.
Ignore the red plots, that’s just me showing how climate at a location repeats after 3560 years.
The Martin data is available here.
A few cranky MSN trolls suggested I refer to Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate” instead of PSI. OK, got a copy, $90!
Page 2
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale and there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as “Kelvins” degrees or units.
Page 4
“If the Earth’s mean temperature (288 K) were as low as that of the Moon (220 K), the oceans would be solidly frozen over.”
What matters is the range, 400 K to 100 K. Without atmos/GHE there would be no water vapor, no clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no water and no 30% albedo and Earth would be baked in 400 K oven.
Mean, mode, median, average. Pick one that supports your agenda.
Mean is (highest + lowest)/2
Average is Σn/n
For a hemisphere w 0% albedo mean would be 31.3 C & average 72.6 C
For a hemisphere w 30% albedo mean would be 5.2 C & average 43.0 C.
Page 14
Venus is warm because of volcanoes and Q=U A dT.
Page 59
You cannot paste proxy and instrument data on the same graph. (Correlation is not cause.)^∞
Page 143, section 3.3
“The (idealized) planet is spherical and has a distinct solid or liquid surface which radiates like a perfect black body.”
This assumption for the Earth is 100% invalid.
Because of the kinetic heat transfer processes of the terrestrial surface Earth cannot radiate as a perfect blackbody.
Solar input/output model: TFK_bams09 = Radiation (63) / (kinetic + radiation) (160) = 0.4 emissivity.
S-B model: radiation from system compared to radiation were the system a BB at temperature, i.e. 16 C. 63/396=0.16.
The S-B idealized model creates/duplicates upwelling surface energy/back radiation violating LoT 1 & 2.
Two different modeled pathways to OLR.
1. Solar model 160 to surface = upwelling 160 = (17 + 80 + 63) Balance is closed!
2. Calculated model S-B 16 C BB = 396 upwelling = 333 “back” + 63 duplicate. “extra” energy requires “back” radiation to avoid major OLR imbalance violating LoT 2.
This 396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate GHE loop of Pierrehumbert & TFK_bams09 is bogus!
You did pretty good until you got to “back radiation” which you clearly don’t understand.
Let me have a shot at it for your and hopefully other reader’s benefit.
The electromagnetic emissions of a black body is dependent on T^4 as per the following graph. The total energy emitted by a body with a temperature of T, is the area under the temperature curve in question.
This graph is the energy emission from the surface at temperature “T” to outer space (actually to 0 Kelvin). Look at say the 5777K line. Now let’s say there is a body at 300K between the 5777K body and outer space.
That 300K body is emitting electromagnetic radiation back towards the 5777K body and both bodies have the same characteristics below the 300K line.
So the net radiation loss of the 5777K is reduced by the area below the 300K line.
That area under the 300 curve is referred to as the “back radiation”. And the net electromagnetic radiation is what Carnot would have described as “heat” and the difference is somewhat obscured by common usage and abused by textbooks.
Yeah, probably somewhat misleading terminology…maybe “blocked radiation” would have been better. None-the-less it is the reduction in net heat that a warm surface can emit…due to the radiation received from its surroundings…in atmospheric context, the mosaic view of the temperature of the sky as viewed from the warmer surface….
Two sources refer to absolute zero not each other. “Net” IR is as nonsensical as caloric.
If energy, W/m^2, could flow spontaneously from a cooler lower energy system to a warmer higher energy system without added work there would be refrigerators without power cords.
Seen any? Me neither.
Same reason water does not freely flow up hill.
Earth cannot upwell as an imaginary 396 W/m^2 BB so 333 W/m^2 “back” is also imaginary and all your esoteric handwavium is moot.
BTW
Correct or un?
Why is it -20°C in Saskatoon, SK?
In winter in Canada, greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 hibernate.
How much H2O is there in air at -20°C?
What a load of rubbish! Even Pierrehumbert said that “CO2 is just planetary insulation”. He was right, of course. The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface, slowing the rate of heating, and the maximum temperature achieved. At night, the rate of cooling is slowed, and the minimum temperature does not drop as low as the airless Moon.
Diurnal variation is moderated, and humans can survive within the present extremes of around +90 C and -90 C.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. None. Not even a smidgin. The Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. Of course, the ignorant and gullible proclaim that this cannot be so!
We know better don’t we? We are not that ignorant and gullible!
390 W/m^2 is a theoretical BB surface for the denominator of the emissivity ratio and not really possible.
And therefore completely pointless. After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the planet has cooled.
The ignorant and gullible wish it wasn’t so, but it is.
390 upwelling is more than the 342 ISR that arrived ToA in the first place.
Yes, despite the objections from Mr. Flynn.
which you refuse to quote, because you would appear ignorant and gullible, I suppose.
Maybe you could quote me “objecting” to something?
Outer space is 394 K.
With all due respect, you are just taking a snapshot in time of a time-based function.
Heat transfer is a continuous time function. Heat loss via radiation to space is close to an exponential decay. It’s formula would be e^-(at) where “a” is the decay rate. If you integrate that function the slower the decay rate the larger the integral becomes.
Let a=19 as the non-CO2 decay rate and a=20 as the slower CO2 rate and integrate for 1 second.
∫ e^-(19t)dt ≈ 0.53 (slow rate)
∫ e^-(20t)dt ≈ 0.5 (fast rate)
This is just an example. It’s just meant to illustrate the difference the decay rate change causes.
You can’t just take a snapshot of the radiation curve at a point in time and say more heat is retained because CO2 “blocks” or “slows” radiation to space. As a time function it’s a little more complicated. The exponential decay is a negative feedback on temperature by losing more heat per unit time as the temperature goes up. At some point the increased heat loss will limit the temperature gain from more CO2.
If you add in the fact that the heat loss goes on 24 hours per day and is orthogonal to space (maximum heat loss all the time) while the heat input only lasts for a smaller period of time and is a cosine function during that period there doesn’t have to be a radiative flux balance between in and out at any point in time in order to balance heat gain vs heat loss.
The Labour propanda machine churned out a “game” to indoctrinate the youth and threaten them with dire penalties for even daring to question the benefits of migration.
Except it backfired brilliantly. The character they attempted to portray as a devil on the shoulder of the player, tempting him into doing naughty things, has become a bit of a mascot over the weekend.
Before the UK Nostapo strongarms the natives into silence again, say Hi to Amelia…
Nasty overtly offensive and racist in the middle. Makes me wonder if it’s a trap.
I’ll take a society with the freedom to express racist views over left-wing censorial fascism any day of the week.
I suddenly feel the need for a cold shower….
Telling like it is. Refreshingly honest.
Congratulations WUWT
Total Website Hits: 600003068
Too bad its not 600 million people. I presume the regulars hit on the site many times per day- for every story and responding to any comments they get in their emails. It would be interesting to determine how many people instead of raw hits. I’ve always wondered how many lurkers are here. I’ve sent links to stories on the site to hundreds of people. They don’t tell me if they look at it. If they do, they’re not commenting either to me or post comments – most likely because they know so little- and I mean top state officials in Wokeachusetts and enviros of all sorts. Maybe they all have me in their spam folders by now. 🙂
Let’s try and estimate the numbers.
Say a hard core of WUWT fans get emails and log in to every article. That’s 6 a day, or about 2,200 hits a year for 20 years. Assuming constant readership, 2,200 x 20 gives a number of hits per viewer of: 43,800
If that is all the viewers, 600003068 total hits / 43,800 hits per viewer gives about 13,500 viewers.
This must be a vast under-estimate. Notably, the assumption that everyone logs in once for every article every single day is ludicrous. But it gives a lower bound estimate.
The upper bound estimate is not that everyone logged in once but rather that everyone logs in twice a week – that is 90% log in weekly and a hard core every day. (Technically, this gives 1.6 times a week but I’m rounding up as there are bound to be some who hit multiple times a day or every few days). That says we have about 730 hits a year for 20 years. Assuming constant readership, 730 x 20 gives a number of hits per viewer of: 14,600.
If that is all the viewers, 600003068 total hits / 14,600 hits per viewer gives about 41,000 viewers.
So, WUWT readership is between 13,500 people and 41,000 people. Probably around 25,000 people, as a best estimate.
If you assume that WUWT really took off after Climategate, you can reduce the time by a quarter and so inflate those estimates by 25%.
“Say a hard core of WUWT fans get emails and log in to every article.”
I read every article every day and probably post 10 or more comments per day. Then I may get 20-30 responses in my email. I then don’t just read it in the email- I go back to the site to see it because often the email didn’t quote me so I’m not always sure what they were responding to- and so I can read other comments in the thread. So, for me I’m hitting on the site dozens of times per day. But then again, I’m hard core. 🙂
I think many log in every day- from what I can tell. At least a few dozen. No doubt Anthony or somebody managing the site determine such statistics with all the info that should be available.
I am curious who might be lurking of significance. No doubt Mickey Mann checks it occasionally to see if we’re dumping on him. 🙂
But how about climate/energy policy makers?
I don’t login every day.
My browser stays logged in because I don’t close it. I just refresh the page when I start reading again.
Tough questions asked about anti-plastic ‘research’:
Doubt Cast on “Microplastics Throughout Human Body” – Human Progress
the rain is falling in the plain of ….
California Is Completely Drought-Free for the First Time in 25 Years – Human Progress
It does vary, more vulnerable than much of North America I suppose.
Do have to plan for it, as a child in NE BC we were harmed by a drought year as did not have a water storage ‘dugout”. The local creek dried up. We got some help from a ‘spring’ on top of a local hill, with permission of land owner – surprising phenomenon of water available, I presume vegetation and geology kept it around all summer.
(That is relatively dry country, but clay layer under soil keeps moisture close enough to surface that some roots can get to it and moisture can wick up to others.)
Droughts do occur there, usually only last a year.
(One farmer bought his own weather station to record rainfall, finding it was quite different from city 40 miles away.)
Old timers told me that the huge reservoir behind the Peace River dam changed weather downwind, farmers were growing more hay and less grain.
And growing much of the hay for seed to export to other areas.
Gretaheads be damned we’re being overrun by little green men-
‘Anarchy’: Call for action over e-bike gangs
From France Inter (a French public radio station, unfortunately overrun by leftist ideology)
Kevin Jean, epidemiologist, on the increase in violence during heat waves:
“Among the less obvious consequences, there is also an increase in violence. This is extremely well-documented: each degree of increase in average temperatures increases interpersonal violence. We know that we see more aggression, more car accidents, and more intentional violence. We also see more violence against oneself: suicide rates increase with climate change.”
The same applies to domestic violence. “We know that domestic violence increases by about 5% with each degree of warming.” And in 2018, a Spanish study told us that during heat waves, femicides increase by 40%.
The fact that people predisposed to brutality become more aggressive when it’s hot doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s the precision of the figures cited (“[…] Domestic violence increases by about 5% with each degree of warming”) that I find suspicious. 5% per degree compared to what starting temperature? In which regions? Urbanized in what way? In what social environment? Of course, these questions are, in my opinion, of little relevance when it comes to judging the validity of such ridiculously peremptory figures.
(Link to the France Inter website where you can find the text from which I took the aforementioned paragraphs:) (https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/l-invite-de-6h20/l-invite-de-6h20-du-mercredi-14-janvier-2026-2322855)