A place for discussion
5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
122 Comments
March 8, 2026 3:14 am
Mad Ed has been very busy under the radar approving no end of wind and solar projects which inevitably take prime farmland out of production…
Miliband backs solar and wind projects covering farmland nearly the size of Manchester
Among the schemes given the green light is the vast West Burton solar farm on prime agricultural land on the Lincolnshire–Nottinghamshire border – Business Matters
It parallels the closure of the North Sea and means everything will have to be imported before too long. As ever with the green fraternity, one of their ‘solutions’ invariably causes an exponential increase in problems.
UK must stockpile food in readiness for climate shocks or war, expert warns
Prof Tim Lang says country produces far less food than it needs to feed population and is particularly vulnerable
Lang of City St George’s, University of London said the UK produced far less food than it needed to feed itself, and as a small island that relied on a few large companies to feed its giant population, it was particularly vulnerable to shocks. – Guardian
Lang also says: “The reality is that there are no binding UK laws specifying duties on either central or local government to ensure people are fed.”
He hasn’t considered Lenin’s wry observation that societies are three meals away from chaos. That’s why governments act – to preserve themselves and their very agreeable lifestyles.
You can’t have your cake and eat it…
Lang also said the UK needed to boost food security and produce more food at home. “We’ve got to build up more production here, not out of petty nationalism, but out of we’ve got good land, good people, good resources, good infrastructure. It’s a crazy misuse of land not to do that.
Has he told mad Ed?
The big issue with the UK is that they have had 30 years of elected governments, Labour, Conservative, Conservative+Liberals. And with almost unanimous approval from these parties plus the SNP and Plaid Cymru they have implemented (and legalized) policies which are impoverishing the country because of the huge costs and which will also lead to blackouts and rationing.
You wanted to vote against Net Zero, and you had no candidate to vote for. That’s how it has been.
So the issue is, can democracy survive in a situation in which, if the policies have the catastrophic consequences I expect, and if this becomes visible to the electorate as a failure of the entire political class? Its a Weimar scenario, in which the voters will vote for just about anyone who promises to fix things and overlook everything about them which in normal times would give them pause. You have a steady drift to the extremes, and probably a winner emerges from the far right. The genuinely far right, not the present Reform party. Not Farage, but his successor.
The lunatic Greens are also an example of this drift to the extreme, and of a different color but much more extreme left than Reform is to the right.
The May local elections are going to be the next thing to watch. That is where the first real signs will be seen of where this is ultimately headed. The omens are not good.
Should add.
They seem to have two days worth of gas supply now, in a world in which Middle East gas is shutting down. The problem with gas is, if you turn it off you cannot just turn it back on again, because of possible open taps. It takes a lot of care restoring supply safely. Imagine a country 85% dependent on gas for heating and hot water suddenly finding themselves with cold showers, wrapped in fleeces, in a room lit by a flickering candle, and listening to Ed Miliband explaining to them on the battery radio news how they are leading the world in moving to secure cheap energy, from the wind. The battery powered radio because of course there is no gas electricity generation either.
How would you vote?
“unelected”, you say?
Unelected maps the money, names the gatekeepers, and rug-pulls the unelected networks running the show from behind dated logos and sappy slogans to impoverish us all and usher in a new world order in which every American city is destined to become another Minneapolis.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-fall-of-the-ngo-administrative-complex/
See my reply below. To assess this we have to know what you mean by a political party, how you would go about eliminating them, what government would look like, specifically how it would work as a process, after you had done it. And some examples of democracies without parties would be nice.
So far its really at the level of, lets abolish capitalism (undefined) and replace it with socialism (also undefined), and everything will be wonderful.
The omens are not good. — and — It’s probably already too late to change course…
The inevitable outcome* to all that { malevolence + incompetence + corruption } is W-A-R, the only question remaining is ‘What Kind of War’ will it be. (A.D. 1688 provides one model.)
*Never think that wars are irrational catastrophes: they happen when wrong ways of thinking and living bring about intolerable situations.
~ Dorothy Leigh Sayers (A.D. 1947, and earlier writings)
“The genuinely far right, not the present Reform party. Not Farage, but his successor.” I suspect that you are unaware that the genuine far right is not a political party.
All political parties are of the left. Parties are all leftist structures from top to bottom. Regardless of how far right a party is it still lives in the left.
Independents are the true right. Independents as in individuals as in the opposite to communist.
Sure, a great leap (in the minds of individuals) is needed to go from party mindset to independent mindset but the quagmire is deep and wide. It would never be easy.
You have argued this in the past. You need to tell us, what a system without political parties looks like. Just in outline. Does it have elected representatives in an elected chanber, for instance? How does it appoint ministers, form a government with all that implies? At elections, what are candidates allowed to say about what they will do when elected?
How does this all work?
Then tell us how you prevent the formation of parties. You have to define them first, so do that. Then say how you prevent them. Do you, just a for instance, make it a criminal offense to do something that is creating or acting as a member of a party, whatever you have defined as a party? Or some other way, and if so what?
Finally, give us an example of a state which runs without them and is a functioning democracy. Historical is OK, just an example.
Looking forward to your reply. As things stand I find it impossible to argue with you because I don’t know what you are really saying in sufficient specifics to be able to form a view if its right or wrong.
By the way
All political parties are of the left. Parties are all leftist structures from top to bottom. Regardless of how far right a party is it still lives in the left.
So Mussolini’s party, and Franco’s for instance, were by definition of the left? Jean Marie Le Pen’s party? AfD? You’re just redefining left and right, and the sole result will be we have to find a new word to refer to what we used to call left and right. Because that was a worthwhile distinction to make, it reflects reality, and we need to keep it and to be able to talk about the phenomenon of left and right as it exists in the real world, in which there are political parties both of the left and of the right.
This is just verbal mishmash maybe also reflecting complete confusion about the world itself.
MPs are elected by their electoral constituents. Under parties they are pre selected by their party. The prime criteria being obedience with presentability a distant second.
So, If they were independent those criteria cannot apply. Therefor other considerations must come into play. More humanistic qualities such as intellect, compassion, courage and ethics etc.
Policy plays no part. That is the job of government which would be selected (as it is now) by the whole of parliament. First the prime minister then the cabinet. From there policy would arise as a tool of government rather than an election tool.
Every parliamentary vote would be a free vote or conscience vote. This makes an MPs representation completely ethical.
While independent MPs have been elected from time to time I know of no entirely independent governments. This does not disqualify the idea. It reinforces it.
Political parties cannot and should not be overthrown by law. This can only be done by the voters acting as individuals and voting for individuals. Personal ethics I would say.
In summation. Most present democratic systems are fine except they are hijacked by the left through political parties which pander to the greed and ignorance of the voters.
I really have no idea what you have in mind. You don’t want to abolish political parties by law but want to get rid of them in some other way, though you do not seem able to define exactly what they are and what it is you want to get rid of or how the process of election and government will happen absent them.
You say political parties, whatever you mean by that, have been hijacked by the left, but you don’t say what the left is, or what this hijacking consists of.
Then you seem to want individuals to run for election on the basis not of the policies they would implement if elected but on the basis of their personal qualities. Why? One thing we might really want to know about candidates at a general election is what their policies are on energy.
Because we want to know, and it will affect our vote, they are going to tell us. You want this to stop?
You say that policy would play no part, and that government would be elected by the whole Parliament. I have no idea how you imagine Ministers would be appointed in this scenario. Sounds a bit like a one party state more than a state without parties at all.
How can the absence of an example of what you have in mind endorse your idea? That is really crazy.
In the end these rants about political parties are just incoherent word salad. There may be ways in which the present process can be improved, it may be that there are defects in the ways that political parties in the democratic countries work at the moment.
But they have evolved over a couple of hundred years, in the UK since about 1660, so 350 years, as ways of managing the process of the communication to voters some idea what their choices are in policies. And of managing the implementation of those policies. The only way of attempting to close them down would be by law, and to do that you would have to have a blueprint of how your proposed system would work.
If you want this to be taken seriously you have to get specific and explain how your revised system would work in real practical terms. It is completely pointless to rant about abolition of parties every time some decision is made which goes wrong.
Its a bit like blaming everything on global warming….
A political party is any group that selects and presents a candidate to run with that groups policies and who exercises control over that candidate.
Parliament would elect its prime minister. Just like now.
That prime minister would select their cabinet. Just like now.
That cabinet would have to be endorsed by parliament. Just like now.
The left puts community rights above individual rights.
The right puts individual rights above community rights.
It is my view that because a community is a collection of individuals the community cannot be strengthened by weakening its constituent parts and that the proper way to strengthen the community is through strengthening individuals.
I get it that many people are attracted to the power of political parties but that doesn’t make them right. They should not and could not be outlawed. They should die out because there is a better way to govern.
One more thing. You say “Then you seem to want individuals to run for election on the basis not of the policies they would implement if elected but on the basis of their personal qualities. Why? One thing we might really want to know about candidates at a general election is what their policies are on energy.”
Independents cannot run on policy because they cannot implement it. That requires a majority.
If quality people are elected to form policy and deal with matters as they arise via the democratic format of Parliament, then those decisions are likely to be quality decisions.
The status quo where the voters are manipulated by parties leveraging their greed and ignorance through policy bribes is the reason democracies fail to deliver their promise. It is not a new situation as history will attest.
People will always organize themselves into groups, whether you officially call them parties or not. The United States began as a representative republic with no parties, but that only lasted through two Presidents, and the members of Congress were already starting to align themselves into different groups. In the American system, at least anyone can declare as a candidate for any party, and the executive is elected separately from the legislature, so it’s closer to what ethical voter seems to want
Yes, agreed. It just the natural tendency of people, when involved in some collective enterprise like the political governance of a country, to get together with like-minded people engaged in the same activity. They do the same thing when they form corporations to develop products, or when they found and join charities with the aim of doing some social good. Trying to ban people getting together (or crazier, trying to make it stop without banning it) is futile. They will get together, share ideas, adopt a collective program, find ways of organizing to do it more efficiently….. and so on.
I do not understand what ethical voter really wants in specifics, and doubt they do either.
The voters are totally incapable of discussing agriculture, both in the UK and on the Continent..
The 1st issue to look at of course are the EU’s restrictive agriculture laws.
The most beautiful and dramatic protests I have ever seen in my life were carried out by the farmers in France, Belgium, England and many other countries. The main problem is that their margins of profitability are small and removing nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous fertilizers means their yields fall below what is needed to keep a farm.
This memo has not reached a single European. They are addicted to slamming fertilizers, and not a single European or Brit could either hear or make sense of the efforts the farmers made to communicate the losses in yield they were being forced to accept.
The take home point is, neither the “right” nor the left in any country (even the US) is able to talk about or think about agriculture in any way that can get them through the manmade food shortages that are being set up. No one is able or willing to speak about agriculture in terms of yield per acre. If you don’t talk about yield per acre then it is all hippy dippy aerie fairie preferences, with no measurable basis for anything any one bangs on about. So yield is lost, farms are taxed, and the Breadbasket of Europe, Ukraine, has been the site of a second holodomor.
Excellent question: I noticed it went away, so I started searching for a way to monitor. The link goes to an ENSO meter. Supposedly, it updates every seven days or so, but seems to be a bit … … … ‘off’ … … … on the updates:
El Niño Meter – Real-Time ENSO Index – Klimata Projekto
Just an FYI: do NOT read the ‘article’ at the bottom of the website. It’s just CAGW propaganda.
Hope that helps.
March 8, 2026 3:18 am
From NASA on January 14, 2009:
“At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.”
Does this make sense? Sure.
Yesterday I went online and used MODTRAN to generate output for altitudes from 0 km to 15 km. I did this for 420 ppmv CO2 and for 840 ppmv CO2 (i.e. 2XCO2). I used the 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere, no clouds or rain, looking up. I noted the “average transmittance” which is given near the end of each of the output text files.
This is a plot of average transmittance vs. altitude. Altitude itself makes a huge difference. CO2 concentration makes a tiny difference.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/164krnpvzVMLNVDRtdp2d4bPMtAKxeGCY/view?usp=sharing
Here is a Google Drive folder with all those output cases saved as text files if you are interested.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XY2168xwppTtQQjvsERNUu-TChXu0Md9?usp=sharing
So what? Altitude is not constrained by anything other than gravity and the properties of the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation. That is why it is so important to know about dynamic energy conversion within that circulation. It is a well understood mechanism, operating throughout the depth of the troposphere, by which the energy involved in the incremental static radiative effect of rising CO2 is so easily overwhelmed to end up being radiated “freely to space” higher up. It is not “forced” to accumulate on land and in the oceans as sensible heat gain.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=sharing
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
More here about that NASA quote and why I concluded that NASA as an institution surely knew better than to expect rising concentrations of CO2 to have a dangerous climate impact.
The Sun heats the Earth’s surface, that heated surface then warms the atmosphere.
The heat balance and temperatures are a function of four kinetic heat transfer processes: conduction, convection, advection (wind) and latent (water vapor evaporation & condensation) with radiation a function of that temperature.
The basic equation is Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa)
U, thermal conductivity, is a property of the entire atmosphere not just 400 ppm of it.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, GHG water vapor and 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE energy balance graphics calculate energy out of thin air violating both GAAP and LoT 1 and move energy from cold to warm without adding work violating LoT 2.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render ”extra” GHE energy from a surface black body impossible.
GHE theory is bogus and CAGW a scam.
Another incorrect comment posted by NS that gives intelligent WUWT posters a bad rap as a gang of “deniers”.
Let’s look at the 396 watts that in his lower left yellow hi lite he says “does not exist”.
Well, it is a foundation of modern quantum physics that surfaces emit radiation according to their temperature to the 4th power. 396 W/m^2 is the electromagnetic radiation emitted a surface at 291 K (18 C) and .96 emissivity (suitable approximation for soil, water, most things that aren’t shiny).
This is electromagnetic radiation, photons, and does not become “heat” in the caloric thermometer-reading sense…until absorbed by something. Otherwise outer space would be hot instead of -273K.
NS says that the laws of thermodynamics are broken by the “back radiation”. This is NOT TRUE. “Heat” only flows from hot to cold.
If your face is 30C, it is emitting 463 W/m^2 worth of photons towards your living room walls. Say those walls are at 18C…they are emitting 396 W/m^2 worth of photons back towards your face. If for some reason the walls rose to 30C, they would emit 463 W/m^2 back towards your 463 W/m^2 emitting face…which would become a net heat exchange of zero watts of absorbed photons. And if the wall emits 500 watts toward your face because it is 35 C, then the net heat flow will be from the wall to your face, because the wall is hotter than your 30C face (which obviously is going to warm up fairly soon due to your metabolism)
So alas NS, on the heat budget cartoon…the 396 really exists, so does the 333, but the net difference of 396-33=63 radiative relative to evaporative of 80, thermals of 17, and sunlight of 161 are the “heat transfer” numbers…for those who are stuck with engineering concepts that originated before microwave ovens and laser heating became something that had to be understood in the engineering curriculum.
the 396 really exists, so does the 333, but the net difference of 396-33=63 radiative relative to evaporative of 80, thermals of 17, and sunlight of 161 are the “heat transfer” numbers…
161 in and 396 out. Think about that for awhile. If you reflected the whole 161 that the earth could radiate, how hot would CO2 have to be to radiate back 333 instead of what the earth radiates? Where does the energy derive from.
Take away the GHE gases and what would the earth be radiating in this diagram? Where does the extra come from?
The earth can emit only the equivalent of 161. That is all the energy from the sun that there is. To reach 396, where does the extra originate? 396 – 161 = 235. If you add in the other 97 it becomes 493 – 161 = 335. Where does the energy of 493 or even 335 originate?
You can’t just make up energy out of nothing. 161 converts to a temperature of 235 with SB. 333 converts to 282. That makes the atmosphere hotter than the surface. Considering the gradient of temperature in the atmosphere, the near surface atmosphere would need to be warmer than that. It doesn’t add up.
You are making assumptions that ain’t so….converting heat flows to temperatures using SB when you don’t understand radiative heat at all nor direction of heat flow, nor control surfaces. The Earth doesn’t only emit 161, that’s just the amount sunlight energy that has crossed the atmosphere-to-surface boundary headed downwards….leaving that boundary headed upwards is 17 thermals, 80 evaporation and 63 radiation. It balances.
Read more thoroughly, Jim
“396 W/m^2 is the electromagnetic radiation emitted a surface at 291 K (18 C) and .96 emissivity (suitable approximation for soil, water, most things that aren’t shiny).” Obviously all the energy comes from the Sun..the Earth doesn’t have 161 by your bookkeeping method…instead a fraction of a watt geothermal cooling…
Read more thoroughly, Jim
Let’s go through this.
341 from the sun.
341-79-78-23 = 161
161 is what the surface absorbs.
161 – 97 (thermals and evap) = 64 remaining to radiate
The diagram is very specific that the surface absorbs the sun’s energy at 161.
Subtract the 97 from thermals and evaporation and you are left 64 for the surface to radiate.
Where does the 396 radiated by the surface originate?
If you really want to know the error here, determine where 161 (341) comes from. A static snapshot can not deal with the dynamics of a constantly changing system.
A BB is a mathematical construct of a body with a surface that absorbs and reemits every bit of radiant energy it receives. Most surfaces are about 97% correctly represented by this approximation, with some notable exceptions like shiny steel, but mountains and oceans aren’t exceptions. Check engineering toolbox.
63 not extra
In
Originating from Sun.
1,368 / 4 = 342 (dumb)
342 * .7 = 240 (albedo)
80 absorbed in atmosphere (hocus pocus)
160 net net to surface (ground and oceans not ToA)
Out
160 is ALL!!!!!! that can leave (LoT 1)
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 by difference = 160
Balance is COMPLETE!!!
Originating from theoretical S-B BB at 16 C for denominator of emissivity ratio. “extra” & imaginary & duplicate.
No place for “extra” 396.
160 is ALL!!!!!! that can leave (LoT 1)
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 by difference = 160
At least you got the net amount right with respect to the soil and water and ice surface boundary layer. Why do you find the 63 net IR electromagnetic excitation…so difficult ? Don’t you own a microwave oven ? Have you never thought about how a laser burns a hole in steel despite its wavelength of 10.6 microns being too “cold” on the Planck curve. I mean really…study up or join the flat Earth society.
BTW your kettle experiment ignores the radiation from the surroundings…which is called the back-radiation by climate-types, so the calcs are wrong…and OMG… are circulatory and self confirming nonsense. You need to un-publish that ASAP.
The biggest problem is with the graphic itself, not the analysis based on the graphic.
The graphic treats the earth as a flat map. The EM incident to the surface varies significantly by latitude and longitude and, indeed, by the rotation of the planet.
Spherical geometry is ignored, as is geological terrain, the earth is an oblate spheroid, the atmosphere extends beyond the day-night terminator, atmospheric optical dept varies based on lat-long, and is much deeper at the poles that the equator, likewise anywhere at the day-night terminator.
It is a flat earth model, that uses nothing but averages, and ignores that EM energy travels at c while thermal energy travels at roughly 1/2 speed of sound.
The ground EM emissions are full spectrum per BB, not just IR.
Kirchhoff’s law is blatantly violated. Thermodynamics are ignored. And not a spec of EM fields and waves math is applied anywhere.
Or, and the equator at noon is 4000 miles closer to the sun than the day-night terminator that is used to calculate the “mean orbit radius.” 4K out of 9M is not much, but neither is the assigned energy imbalance, which by the way falls within the measurement tolerance of CERES.
30 C and 10 C have an average of 20 C. Calculate BB for each and it shows you cannot average temperatures. Consider also 40 C and 0 C also have an average of 20 C.
“surfaces emit radiation according to their temperature to the 4th power.”
But not always as black body. Q = sigma epsilon A T^4
Emissivity is the ratio between 1 the radiation leaving a system and all the energy: 63/160=0.39 or 2 radiation leaving compared to BB at temp: 63/396 @ur momisugly 16 C = 0.16. This emissivity is needed to correct IR instruments that are calibrated assuming all targets are BB.
396 is a calculation that effectively doubles the energy int the graphic violating LoT 1 especially when you consider both 63’s.
396-63=333 is from cold to hot violating LoT 2.
“….and move energy from cold to warm without adding work violating LoT 2.”
I think if that was true we would not be able to boil water in an electric kettle without violating LoT2 (2nd law of thermodynamics) either. But we can do it and doing it is commonplace in the modern world. How do you square this commonplace fact with your statement above?
[BTW I share your view that CAGW is a scam, although for different reasons to the ones you have given. However, I think you’ve misinterpreted the 2nd law as applying to all forms of energy when it really only applies to the flow of heat. Other forms of energy, such as electricity, magnetism and radiation can flow from colder bodies to warmer ones without violating the 2nd law.]
that heated surface then warms the atmosphere.
Well, when the surface is hotter than the air above it, but not otherwise. However, the vast majority of the energy from the surface escapes directly to space, as Fourier worked out a couple of hundred years ago.
Even at night, the surface is still much hotter than outer space, and keeps radiating. Cooling.
As it has done for four and a half billion years.
That’s why the surface is no longer molten.
Presumably you are talking about the Raymond Pierrehumbert who wrote “carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”? True, and completely irrelevant – CO2 doesn’t even stop the surface cooling at night, let alone over four and a half billion years.
Or were you just pointing out that Pierrehumbert is one of those mentally defective people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter?
Maybe you know of Fourier’s Law of Heat Conduction. Not a hypothesis, not a theory – a law. Maybe you know why it’s called a “law”?
Ah well, being ignorant and gullible, you probably don’t.
Oooooh! You “feel” “insulted”, do you? Do you also “fee”l “offended”, “upset”, “belittled” . . ., as well?
we seem to be on the same side
What “side” is that?
The ignorant and gullible resort to “feelings” and “sides” when they realise that adding CO2 to air doesn’t make thermometers hotter.
I don’t care about your “feelings”, nor which “side” you support.
I’m sure you feel the same about me.<g>
Does this make sense?
Nope. I’ve mentioned how this works before. For well mixed GHGs you get an almost equal emission at all altitudes. The changes in the graph you provided are due to water vapor.
I know. Most people think nothing gets emitted to space until you reach some magical altitude where the density of the gas is extremely low. Not true. The density is reduced at an even rate for well mixed gases. That means there are not enough molecules in any layer of the atmosphere to absorb the IR from the layers immediately below it and directly above it. Some photons head out to space.
When you increase a well mixed gas like CO2, it’s density increases at all layers keeping the emission rate nearly constant. While more IR gets absorbed, more IR is also emitted in agreement with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. The energy flux stays the same.
The entire narrative of an increasing emission height doesn’t occur except at the edges of the main absorption bands.
“The changes in the graph you provided are due to water vapor.”
No kidding. (Although it would be more correct to say “mainly due to water vapor.”)
And where NASA wrote what I quoted, they were referring to “water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases” to make their point.
“The entire narrative of an increasing emission height doesn’t occur except at the edges of the main absorption bands.”
My post was not about the conceptual “increasing emission height” framing of the effect of incremental CO2. I invite you to pay closer attention to get the point I was making about altitude.
Be well.
“heat radiates to space…”
English is so fluid that one can redefine to one’s heart’s desire any word and require people to know the definition without supplying any context that allows derivation of the definition.
Heat. 6 gadzillion definitions.
Science: Heat is the flow of thermal energy from hot to cold via kinetic interactions of molecules.
Space has no atmosphere. How can heat flow into space?
Earth exists in “void.”
Moon exists in “void.”
ISS exists in “void.”
Space and Moon walking astronauts exist in “void.”
EMR from Sun passes through “void” until it hits “stuff” where it converts to KE. How do we know? “Stuff” gets hot. All the way from JWST to your car sitting in the parking lot.
BTW you are dodging my points:
- Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
- TFK_bams90 balance graphic & clones don’t balance and violate GAAP & LoT.
- Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmos molecules render “extra” energy from BB surface impossible.
- Correct or not & why?
Spare us the ad hominems & insults and changing subject to esoteric hocus pocus even you do not understand.
March 8, 2026 3:22 am
Story tip – Energy bills to go up again to help subsidise cheaper energy for industry.
Labour to use energy bill hikes to fund £1billion manufacturing support package
https://www.gbnews.com/money/labour-energy-bill-hikes-manufacturing-support-package
Jeez, Reg. What can one say about this government that hasn’t already been said?
No scenario, just an honest prediction: It can only get worse and it will. Today’s headlines, for example…
Trump tells Starmer: We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won
Trump tells Starmer: We don’t need your aircraft carriers
US president says he will remember lack of support from ‘our once great ally’ for war he has ‘already won’
Ad nauseam
No scenario, just an honest prediction: It can only get worse and it will. Today’s headlines, for example…
Agreed
And should things really kick off, can you imagine the kids of today being of any use in the military? I guess a few living in their parents basement may be good may computer games, but front line?
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Putin, if you think old England’s done?
We’re all doomed!
For the last thirty years children have been taught how awful, colonial, racist etc we are (boomers especially). In true Orwellian style those controlling the present are busy rewriting the past…
Readers of Brilliant Black British History, by the Nigerian-born British author Atinuke, are told the neolithic monument in Wiltshire was built while Britain was a ‘black country’.
The book, which is aimed at children aged seven and above, also tells readers that ‘every single British person comes from a migrant’ and that the ‘very first Britons were black’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12534611/Stonehenge-built-Britain-black-country-new-childrens-book-claims.html
Fight?
Starmer wants over 60s to fight if WW3 happens – MSN
Suddenly, they are not the problem?
Take Scotland in the Roman occupation era, a land that was quite literally Finis Terre to them. Only the legions ventured there.
No, the Picts were not black
A new book paints seventh-century Scotland as some sort of multi-racial, trans-friendly utopia. – Spiked
The Picts were not black; they originally came from Scythia (Scandinavia), settled first in Orkney, and then migrated south.
Some info here … https://www.scottishhistory.org/news/university-of-aberdeen-research-on-the-picts-to-feature-on-two-new-tv-shows/
‘every single British person comes from a migrant’
That’s absolutely correct,
Most of UK was covered by ice up to 1 km thick, and even the south coast had tundra-like conditions for thousands of years.
Humans began to arrive in the UK around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, via Doggerland & the south coast, gradually moving north & west from the fertile crescent, & those peoples had originated in the East African Rift Valley ~ 150,000 years ago.
So ironically, all the white supremacists have black ancestors, just like the rest of us.
March 8, 2026 3:46 am
Hi everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
I read this WUWT article with great interest this morning:
Also, here is a song by Georges Brassens (one of the greatest French singer-songwriters and lyricists), titled “Mourir pour des idées” (“To Die for Ideas”). It’s the kind of work that always resonates with the present time—whatever the era—when various people want to drag you into desolation for the sake of “the good cause.”
Really? I’m glad! Do you have a favorite song by Brassens? His music is deceptively simple, but it’s actually full of semitones and unusual chord progressions. He was strongly influenced by jazz.
Culturally speaking, this man is one of our greatest sources of pride.
Obviously, the musical level is seriously collapsing: just google “Aya Nakamura” and pick any song, and you’ll have an example of what our elites consider (or more likely pretend to consider) extraordinary, and comparable to the works of the great lyricists.
This poverty of quality doesn’t even make me angry anymore. It’s better to spend one’s energy on other things.
“Les Copins d’Abord” is mine.
There is also a song by Hippolyte Baliardo, brother of Manitas de Plata, French Flamenco player, called “Hommage à George Brassens” I like a lot. Couldn’t find the song or video of that, only the disc:
Manitas and George are born in Sète in the same year.
“Les Copains d’Abord” is a great classic! In fact, it’s so well known in France that it’s hard for us to listen to it anymore. We think, “Again?!” and we put on something else. Which says a lot: for a song to feel overused, it first has to have received wide approval from the public!
I think I found the song by Hippolyte de Baliardo you were telling me about:
All I had to do was type the title you mentioned into YouTube’s search bar, but it’s quite possible that my location (in mainland France) helps the algorithm find the requested result more easily. I’m listening to it right now: an excellent track! I love that guitar playing.
There’s a reason why I’m glad not to be from my parents’ generation: learning about Brassens’s death in ’81 must have been a real heartbreak.
I’m moved to see that, across the Atlantic, there are knowledgeable admirers of the great French artists.
I found it too but on a Russian side, wasn’t sure if it’s ok to link it here.
Thanks for sharing! 👍
I’m a great fan of the music/ flamenco from Camargue, had a ~20 year broadcast about in Germany.
The song that follows is wrong titled, it’s
“Une Poigne de Feu” or “Aurora”, singer is Canut Reyes, great voice, from “Los Reyes” and later “Gipsy Kings”
March 8, 2026 5:13 am
Cor Blimey
Arctic ice melt triggers dual heatwaves continents away
Heatwaves are simultaneously striking Europe and eastern Asia more frequently due to declining ice in the Barents Sea, where spring ice loss has increasingly persisted through summers since 2000. Researchers found these longer seasonal ice lows set off a domino effect, combining with land-atmosphere interactions to trigger unusual atmospheric circulation over northwestern Europe. This, in turn, sends high pressure rippling into East Asia, inducing similar atmospheric anomalies there and priming both regions for heatwaves. As human-driven warming disproportionately affects the Arctic, the study shows, warming there can impact crops, ecosystems, public health, and economies across continents. Understanding these links could help improve early warning systems for extreme weather. – American Geophysical Union
As mad Ed Might say
March 8, 2026 5:47 am
Study about CO2 making atmosphere potentially toxic within 50 years. A nightmare from a statistical nightmare.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5
March 8, 2026 7:35 am
Where am I going wrong?…….a simple experiment to determine whether a COLD body can HEAT a WARMER body.
Here was my challenge to a Climate Alarmist who is pushing the “Back Radiation from a mystery hot spot in the COLD atmosphere” assertion…..he is still trying to formulate his proof.
At high noon with your YUGO sitting in the sun all morning heating up, put a block of frozen Carbon Dioxide, aka Dry Ice, on the hood and put a thermometer between the Dry Ice and the hood. See if the COLD Dry Ice makes the HOT hood get HOTTER.
“back” radiation is imaginary. Bickering over it is silly.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
Apparently you missed my descriptive comment foregoing at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/08/open-thread-180/#comment-4172712
or do you just do this to allow a learning experience for readers ?
plus your balance is wrong, your emissivity is wrong, just soooo…incorrect
March 8, 2026 8:09 am
From today’s Daily Mail:
Britain has just two days’ worth of natural gas in storage, sparking fears of a shortage crisis as the Middle East conflict shut down the world’s largest gas facility and Iran closed a key shipping channel.
March 8, 2026 11:47 am
I just asked chatGPT if it’s familar with WUWT. It’s reply:
****************************************************************
Yes, I’m familiar with it. The site you linked—Watts Up With That?—is a well-known blog focused mainly on climate science, weather, and climate policy debates.
Here are the key points about it:
1. Founder and background
- It was created in 2006 by Anthony Watts, a former television meteorologist.
- Watts had about 25 years in broadcast meteorology before running the site and other weather-related businesses.
2. What the site publishes
- Articles about climate change, meteorology, environmental policy, and energy.
- Commentary on new scientific papers, temperature records, and climate models.
- Guest posts from various contributors (including scientists, engineers, and commentators).
3. Its viewpoint
- The site is widely known for skeptical views about the mainstream scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.
- Critics describe it as a “climate change denial” blog, while supporters see it as a forum questioning prevailing climate claims and data interpretations.
4. Influence
- At one point it was described as possibly the most widely read climate blog in the world.
- It became particularly visible during the 2009 “Climategate” email controversy, when it helped circulate material related to that story.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/2705.svg In short:
It’s a high-profile climate blog with a skeptical perspective on anthropogenic global warming, widely read and frequently debated in discussions about climate science.
The crisis narrative has been ongoing for at least 30 years, probably 50 or longer.
During those decades predictions were made and none, 0%, ever happened.
So, the science was settled decades ago and the consensus agreed.
Two possibilities. 1. They lied. 2. They were mistaken. Whichever is immaterial at this juncture.
The point is, today, given all that has transpired, why should we believe them this time?
I wonder that too. And the precision with which the doubling of the warming rate has been quantified is rather astonishing. In any case: it’s very serious, and of course worse than we thought.
They have cried wolf so many times that, the day the wolf really does come, they’ll just have to ask it to blow on the wind turbines so that renewables suddenly become profitable!
March 9, 2026 2:42 pm
Severe weather rare, must be Globull Worming, …
Last winter without snow was 1982-1983.
Hmm – was that when alarmists were bleating about climate cooling?
(By the ocean, Victoria BC gets little snow at sea level, but that varies – often several cm but about 65 cm in December 1996 and stayed for two weeks (same happened in February 1918).
Glaciers in the region vary, one north of Vancouver BC ebbs and flows, tribal people have a legend about romance between local girl and a boy from far away – romance was frosty some times. (Of course glaciers are net of melt and precipitation thus of weather variations.)
March 10, 2026 11:53 am
A puzzzler:
America’s Abandoned Coal Mines Could Become Giant Underground Batteries | OilPrice.com
Supposedly a hydro scheme of stored energy.
But coal minutes are mostly below ground level, no detail of design is given.
A pressurized bladder scheme for Lake Ontario depended on pressure of lake water on the bladder to force water up through turbines. (If I understood it correctly.)
Of course pumping water UP to a storage reservoir/tank is done.
(The Oil Price web site does lack smarts about eco concerns like climate.)
