Does the incremental IR absorbing power of increasing CO2 concentration operate as a climate “forcing?” I have often posted about dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation to make the point that there is no good reason for assuming so.
Here is another factor to consider. The strength of the longwave radiative influence of the surface on the atmosphere, and vice versa, is quantified using power intensity, Watts per m^2 at the interface, based on a hemispherical field of view up/down. The land and ocean surfaces are solid and liquid, i.e. condensed matter. The atmosphere is mostly a gas-phase medium. I describe this interaction as a radiative “coupling,” the strength of which is plausibly improved as CO2 concentrations rise. Condensed matter absorbs and emits as a “gray body” over a continuous spectrum, whereas a gas absorbs and emits at specific wavelengths depending on the component molecules (my simplified description.)
From every location in the atmosphere, the IR influence is in all directions, ultimately resulting in longwave emission to space. The variable presence of a huge surface area of condensed matter suspended within it – mostly water droplets and ice crystals – cannot be ignored, because the “coupling” acts at every interface between condensed matter and the air surrounding it.
I asked Grok to estimate how much surface area is involved.
“Please generate an estimate of the average total surface area in square meters, per square meter of the surface of the earth, of all cloud droplets, cloud ice particles, raindrops, snowflakes, aerosols, dust particles, and other particulates such as pollen, within the depth of the troposphere. Please also characterize the average distribution of this surface area within the bottom 12 km of the troposphere.”
Grok’s answer begins,
“Approximately 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface (global, time-averaged column integral over the full troposphere).
This is a global-average estimate (all-sky, including clear-air regions and time averaging) of the total geometric surface area of all suspended cloud droplets, cloud ice particles, raindrops/snowflakes, aerosols, dust, pollen, and similar particulates integrated over the tropospheric column. Precipitation (rain/snow) contributes negligibly (<0.1 m²/m²) because the column water mass in falling hydrometeors is tiny (~0.01 g/m² globally averaged) despite their large sizes. Pollen and most coarse dust are subsumed under aerosols and are minor.”
40-45 m^2 of interface area, on average, per m^2 of land and ocean surface!!
This is important, as droplets and ice crystals are being formed, circulated, and evaporated/sublimated throughout the depth of the troposphere.
So what’s the answer? In my view, it is not justified to assume that the improved IR absorbing power from incremental CO2 operates as a “forcing” to drive sensible heat gain. There is no means presently available to us to establish that it works that way within the general circulation, considering the huge surface areas of condensed matter suspended between the land + ocean interface and space.
And therefore one cannot assume that the longwave emission to space is suppressed, as an end result, as CO2 concentrations rise, so as to require an increased temperature at the land and ocean surfaces to restore radiative balance. In other words, the valid null hypothesis of “no effect” on the climate system has not been rejected in all the decades of investigation.
Yes, Climate Alarmist still can’t prove their case even after all these decades of trying.
There is no evidence for what they claim. I’ve been saying this since the 1970’s, and have never seen even one shred of actual evidence to support these claims.
Plus the written temperature record directly refutes measurable CO2 changes to the Earth’s weather or climate. Human-caused climate change is nothing more than a scientific hoax.
Mr. D: Excellent reply, the smoking-gun clue was when Simon claimed it was serious.
My unserious answer to Simon is, when you produce evidence that isn’t obviously contrived, I’ll take a look. Don’t give up, you might persuade me that something false is true. I watch commercials.
It absolutely is a serious question. If you can’t specify what it would take to make you change your mind on a topic, then you are not truely skeptical. It seems that bnice has closed his mind to any possibility that he may be wrong. That says a lot about him. You cannot discuss with people like him. They just don’t want to hear.
“It absolutely is a serious question.”
No. Challenging a person who disagrees with you to speculate toward something not already in evidence is not part of a serious exchange.
Just state your case for why you have formed a different view.
In any event, thank you for your participation in this thread.
A skeptic is a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment on accepted beliefs, claims, or purported knowledge. They require evidence before accepting a statement as true. Key synonyms include doubter, questioner, cynic (in a negative sense), and disbeliever.
Detailed Definition and Characteristics
Scientific Skepticism: An approach that uses scientific methodology and critical thinking to evaluate claims, especially those lacking empirical evidence.
Philosophical Skepticism: A school of thought suggesting that absolute knowledge is impossible.
Origin: Derived from the Greek skeptikós, meaning to look, examine, or inquire.
It is not his job to identify the evidence. It is your job to acquire and present it.
We have been down this path. I subscribe to what makes sense in my world. I se the world warming, I hear the evidence and I make a decision based on that. I am not religious.
Actual data shows that while there is a tiny increase in thin absorption in the CO2 band, there is also a increase in OLR in the much broader bands next to it.
There is NO ENERGY TRAPPED. The whole idea of CO2 trapping energy is totally ridiculous.
there is also a increase in OLR in the much broader bands next to it.
If the surface absorbs energy due to CO2 “back radiation”, that energy is re-radiated within the existing Planck curve for the surface, not just 15um where CO2 is dominate. That means a substantial part goes out the atmospheric window and isn’t available for any “feedback”.
As I understand it, perhaps incorrectly, It’s not the “adsorption” which provides the “forcing,” it’s the desorption which occurs a tiny fraction of a second later releasing an IR photon in any direction, half upward, half downward. Whether or not a CO2 molecule participates in this process is dependent on the density of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and the number and frequency of IR photons released from the earth’s surface in the frequency band(s) that CO2 operates in. Presently, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is such that the process is nearly saturated; adding more CO2 has less and less of a “forcing” effect. I believe that this phenomena has been measured both in laboratories and by measurements in air.
Thank you for your reply. Your sense of the issue aligns with the popularized framing of the question, which uses a one-square-meter-oriented-up-and-down radiative interface to promote the belief that *some* warming of the land + ocean surfaces should be expected from rising pCO2. It is that framing I am identifying as a misdirection.
Even the radiative saturation argument put forth by honest physicists, which argument itself is not wrong in the static sense in a clear atmosphere, does not address this misdirected framing.
The reason for my post today is to encourage all skeptics of climate alarm to see that the geometry of the core “forcing” claim is inadequate for the investigation.
Take the volume of CO2 in the column treat it as condensed. Evaluate the amount of joules it can radiate every second. Determine the temperature RISE it can support in a square meter 12 inches deep of soil/ocean.
Which clearly shows how quickly heat is redistributed in the atmosphere…which one can extrapolate, a bit, into assuming a good fraction of that higher altitude heat gets back to outer space with somewhat more ease than being absorbed by the surface first…as warmists prefer to believe. Now by adding into that mix, the additional surface area of aerosols and particulates, you are actually increasing the fraction of that calculated “CO2 forcing” that escapes to outer space at a higher altitude…so reducing its effect even more.
All the line by line IR calcs by Harde, Happer, Meteo-student-Modtran-users worldwide, etc. tend to end up with 3 or 4 watts of CO2 forcing per doubling of CO2, relative to “TOA”, and obviously assumes that incoming=outgoing, so that 4 watts is actually absorbed solar…and they tend to use “clear sky/tropical” numbers meaning the CO2 forcing is felt at surface. It is good to keep this in mind. Modtran runs with cloud cover muchly reduce the effect of CO2 increase, and the planet is 65% covered by clouds on average and not much of it is “tropical clear sky” for Modtran purposes.
And just for reference 2xCO2 in Modtran under clear tropical skies only results in about 1.2 C temp offset, in other words 1.2C “global warming”, so not much…when we read we have passed 1.6 C already, it can only be natural warming like El Niño, or weather station urban heat island effects.
“And just for reference 2xCO2 in Modtran under clear tropical skies only results in about 1.2 C temp offset, in other words 1.2C “global warming”, so not much…when we read we have passed 1.6 C already, it can only be natural warming like El Niño, or weather station urban heat island effects.”
Yes, that is what the IPCC says (the 1.2C) …. for a climate response that does not incude long-term feedbacks.
However, (from Google AI) …
“Most Likely Estimate: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates a best-guess value of 3°C for the ECS, with a “very likely” range of 2C – 5C. Difference from Immediate Effect: Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would only lead to roughly 1.2C of warming. The higher IPCC estimate (3°C) is entirely due to the inclusion of positive feedbacks.
“. . . it’s the desorption which occurs a tiny fraction of a second later releasing an IR photon in any direction, half upward, half downward.”
Actually, no. Molecular collisions between atmospheric constituents occur, within the first 5 km of altitude above Earth’s surface, from millions to billions times faster than the photo-relaxation (aka re-emission of an IR photon) times of such molecules. Prof. Happer has written extensively on this subject.
Thus, it is the transfer of energy via exchanges of mechanical energy modes of translation, vibration and rotation/rocking of molecular bonds—not photon exchanges—that distribute surface-emitted LWIR energy throughout Earth’s atmopshere.
Both CO2 and methane (as do all other “greenhouse gases”, predominately water vapor) first intercept LWIR radiated off Earth’s surfaces and then, almost instantaneously, thermally equilibrate that received, excess energy with other non-LWIR active atmospheric gases—predominately N2 and O2—by means of rapid molecular collisions occurring in the 5 km altitude above Earth’s surface.
True, CO2 and methane don’t “trap heat”, but Earth’s overall atmosphere does “store” LWIR-radiated energy until such can be fully thermally-radiated away due to the average temperature of atmospheric gases being above absolute zero.
And Prof. Happer and others conclude, like you, that the ability of CO2 to absorb LWIR off Earth’s surface is now essentially saturated, so that the effect of adding more CO2 is to only shorten CO2’s e-folding absorption path length, but not to absorb any significantly greater amount of LWIR off Earth’s surface.
… releasing an IR photon in any direction, half upward, half downward.
Because any photon ‘sees’ a hemisphere, slightly more than half can potentially escape to space if it doesn’t collide with an absorbing molecule or transfer its momentum to a non-absorbing gas molecule. Because of the curvature of the Earth’s surface, the higher up in the atmosphere a photon is emitted, the larger the probability that it can escape without being absorbed by terrestrial materials.
Also, those photons whose trajectory is oriented to favor escape are less likely to transfer their energy to other gas molecules because the density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Dave
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air!
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of the annual mean temperature in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 in the air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 1999, it had increased to ca. 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature in this port city. Instead there was a slight cooling that began in ca. 1940. Darwin also had this slight cooling. In 1857 Tav was 17.2° C and by 1999 it had decreased to 16.7° C.
To obtain recent Adelaide temperature data, I went to: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo temperature data from 1887 to 2025 are displayed in a table. The computed Tav for 2025 was 17.4° C In 2025 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 427 ppmv (0.84 g CO2/cu. m. of air.). After 168 years there has been no change in air temperature in Adelaide.
The reason CO2 had no effect on air temperature is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s surface. This empirical data falsifies the claim by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats) that the greenhouse gas CO2 causes “global warming”.
The chart was obtained from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, go to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of weather stations. Click on “Adelaide”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contract the chart and return to Comments.
In relation to your argument, it is worthwhile to note that as that “goes on,” the sun DIRECTLY transfers energy right into the oceans. W/ low-level cloud disappearance occurring lately as non-albedo, this has been occurring a lot. One thinks of the extended Southern Hemispheric high near Australia this past summer of theirs and what the sun was doing during it.
Nice, David.
Perhaps the matter will not be clarified to the happiness of all until the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere as measured from place to place is explained in terms of both what causes those temperatures and what does not.
Geoff S
Thank you for your reply, Geoff. I agree. Perhaps it will take a reversion to falling sea levels, ice accretion at the poles, and early frosts on the crops, to satisfy those who presently insist that rising CO2 concentration is a risk.
However, regarding your phrase in the third to last paragraph ” . . . considering the huge surface areas of condensed matter suspended between the land + ocean interface and space.”:
If you are considering just that radial direction and assume all of the suspended particulate matter in Grok’s estimated 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface is roughly spherical in shape, then you need to divide that total spherical area by four (4) to calculate the area that is actually intercepting radiation along the radial vector.
Thank you for your reply.
“If you are considering just that radial direction and assume all of the suspended particulate matter in Grok’s estimated 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface is roughly spherical in shape, then you need to divide that total spherical area by four (4) to calculate the area that is actually intercepting radiation along the radial vector.”
No, the interception of “radiation along the radial vector” is not the point.
Well, my apologies then. I based my comment, partially, by interpreting your phrase “throughout the depth of the troposphere”—found in your fourth-to-last-paragraph—to be equivalent to a radial direction.
The atmosphere is gas. It does not block upward EM flux at the surface of a sphere. LWIR will travel through any spherical volume you can define, like in at the bottom of the sphere and out at the top of the sphere. Any CO2 inside that spherical volume can intercept the EM wave and absorb a quanta of energy from it. The absorption is not surface limited so there is no need to divide by 4.
“The atmosphere is gas. It does not block upward EM flux at the surface of a sphere.”
I do believe a primary point of David Dibbell’s topmost comment was stated in his second and third paragraphs as: “Condensed matter absorbs and emits as a ‘gray body’ over a continuous spectrum, whereas a gas absorbs and emits at specific wavelengths depending on the component molecules (my simplified description.) . . . From every location in the atmosphere, the IR influence is in all directions, ultimately resulting in longwave emission to space. The variable presence of a huge surface area of condensed matter suspended within it – mostly water droplets and ice crystals – cannot be ignored, because the “coupling” acts at every interface between condensed matter and the air surrounding it.” (my bold emphasis added)
However, you can ignore the thrust of the above article at your convenience.
To make things perfectly clear for you, CO2 is not condensed matter.
I never said CO2 is condensed matter. It *is* part of the atmosphere and is gaseous. That is why an EM wave will pass totally through the volume. The amount of energy absorbed is volume related, not surface related. That is why dividing the surface area of the sphere by 4 to determine the absorption is not appropriate.
“That is why an EM wave will pass totally through the volume.”
That statement is, simply, not true. Certain gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, have been scientifically proven to absorb certain frequencies of radiation in the LWIR region of the EM spectrum. This is the fundamental fact associated with so-called “greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere.
So, gases that don’t contain any condensed matter can still absorb EM radiation, depending on the range of frequencies being discussed.
Also the phrase “pass totally through the volume” is falsified by the fact that even frequencies of EM radiation, passing through a gas between or outside of its spectral absorption bands, are effected through scattering, refraction, and dispersion. While absorption (energy loss) is minimal, the gas still acts as a medium that bends, delays, or scatters the radiation due to EM (photon) interactions with gas molecules.
They will absorb a PART of the EM wave at a certain frequency. They will NOT block the entire wave. Just as a radio antenna absorbs energy at a certain frequency but doesn’t block the entire wave from propagating onward.
Nor does scattering, refraction, or dispersion block the entire wave from travelling through an entire defined volume of a gas. 100% of the EM wave doesn’t just disappear at the surface. Refraction is just like something under the surface of the water not being exactly reflected as far as position goes, first the light has to penetrate into the volume of water. And dispersion is never 100%. Scattering can dilute part of the wave but it can’t block it 100%, if that was the case sunlight would never reach the earth.
Bending, delaying, and scattering does *NOT* keep the EM wave from travelling throughout the volume of a gas. So more than just the surface area of the volume you define is involved in absorbing energy from the EM wave. The EM wave is a spherical wavefront. If each element is bent at 45deg to the left, guess what? The part of the spherical wave to the right of the piece you choose to concentrate on gets bent into the area the one on the left missed by being bent! Nor does delaying have anything to do with the EM wave not travelling through the volume of atmosphere you choose to define. And again, scattering doesn’t block the EM wave, if it did sunlight would never penetrate through the volume consisting of the entire atmosphere in order to reach the surface of the earth.
The phrase “pass totally through the volume” is falsified by the words “scattering” and “scatters”. IOW, radiation can escape to the sides of any defined control volume before it reaches the end of the path length of the radiation vector across that control volume.
Give me a break. The point is that the SURFACE of the sphere does *NOT* block the EM wave. It simply doesn’t matter where on the surface radiation enters and exits, it’s the fact that it enters the volume, some is absorbed inside the volume, and some exits the volume that matters. Therefore you can’t just divide the surface area of the volume of the gas sample by four to determine the effective absorption of energy from the EM wave.
This is just one more thing where climate science has used simplifying assumptions that actually make the system non-physical.
Since the CO2 molecule has a dipole it will have preferred directions for absorbing energy and for emitting energy. Thus assuming half the energy goes up and half goes down for any specific molecule is a joke. If position of the molecule is random then so will the directions of absorption and emitting. What has to be done is what Planck did, assume you have a large enough volume that there are enough absorbers and emitters to make the volume isotropic as far as absorption and emission is concerned. The issue with that is that the volume will be large enough that collisional transfer of energy becomes a major factor – i.e. thermalization. Which complicates the system dynamics tremendously. As that sample volume gains altitude the angle the earth subtends gets smaller and smaller so less and less of the emissions from that assumed isotropic volume actually hit the earth. The emissions that are in the subtending angle have a longer and longer transmission path which also affects the amount of energy returned to the earth.
Climate science just ignores all this as far as I can tell. They just assume that CO2 absorbs a percentage of the emissions from the earth and sends half on and half back. NON-PHYSICAL.
“Since the CO2 molecule has a dipole it will have preferred directions for absorbing energy and for emitting energy.”
Hah. This from simple Web search inquiry: “No, a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule does not have a permanent net dipole moment. While it contains two polar covalent bonds due to the high electronegativity of oxygen, the molecule’s linear and symmetric structure causes the bond dipoles to point in opposite directions and cancel each other out, making the overall molecule non-polar.”
Now, you were saying something about “just ignores all this as far as I can tell.” Not very far, I see.
the molecule’s linear and symmetric structure causes the bond dipoles to point in opposite directions and cancel each other out,
You might want to investigate this further. Look up a dipole antenna that is fed from the center when emmitting.
Think about how an EM wave of IR is generated if the overall molecule is non-polar.
You should also provide the reference from which you obtained the text. I could not find the exact text you quoted.
Lastly, you need to review what polarity in molecules actually means. It has nothing to do with what is emmitted and in what direction. It determines if a molecule has an unbalanced charge associated with it. Think water and surface tension.
What most people miss is that individual emissions from the CO2 molecule *are* directional due to the dipole. This is similar to what Planck wrote about. To get an isotropic emission you either have to assume that the individual molecule moves randomly and emits continuously thus creating a psuedo-isotropic radiation pattern OR that you have a large enough quantity of molecules that have random positional differences whose ensemble of radiation appears to be isotropic. The first assumption is non-physical since the molecule will not emit continuously, it has to be energized first. The second assumption means that the so-called “back radiation” is attenuated from an individual molecule. The ensemble “average” may be isotropic but it it also requires many molecules, meaning the ensemble radiation toward the earth is not a direct function of CO2 concentration. Doubling the concentration is not guaranteed to double the ensemble intensity. As Happer et al theorize, the increase of absorbed energy is logarithmic and thus the output will be as well.
Associated with this geometric consideration, there would be a further adjustment (likely major in comparison) to account for lower altitude particles blocking line-of-sight to higher altitude particles along any given radial vector.
Obviously, if, say, 44/4 m² = 11 m² of blockage occurred in a “single” layer close to the 1 m² of underlaying Earth surface (say within 5 km altitude) there would be no “atmospheric window” for Earth’s surface to radiate directly to space, yet this “window” has been scientifically confirmed.
We see! The atmosphere scatters light (radiation) in all directions and at all frequencies. We see colors! We see colors from space! The idea that suspended particles can “block” radiation does not pass the “photos from space” test before we even get to the quantum theory of radiation.
“The atmosphere scatters light (radiation) in all directions and at all frequencies. We see colors!”
If you read up on—and, more importantly, understand—the physics of Rayleigh scattering on incoming visible-range light from the Sun, you will find that the gases in Earth’s atmosphere, as a whole, make the unobstructed sky appear as a constant “blue” during daylight , except for the few hours immediately after sunrise and immediately before sunset.
Normal people don’t see the full rainbow spectrum of visible colors in the sky, such as green,purple (idigo) and violet, throughout the day.
“The idea that suspended particles can ‘block’ radiation does not pass the ‘photos from space’ test before we even get to the quantum theory of radiation.”
Did you mean to direct that comment to David Dibbell instead of me? If so, I don’t think he ever stated that condensed matter suspended in the atmosphere would completely block all surface radiation as seen (and photographed) from space.
The utterly trivial theoretical addition of the “greenhouse” component of carbon dioxide is so small that no measurements of any part of the energy input/energy shedding will ever be outside the error bars of each separate component.
Already only windows in the EM spectrum are currently counted in the equations.
What makes you think that BALANCE exists anywhere in the system?
There is constant dynamic disequilibrium day by day, month by month, year by year, cycle by cycle of insolation caused by orbital issues as well as of many extraterrestrial variables. What is the mathematical formula for “twinkling”?
“What makes you think that BALANCE exists anywhere in the system?” I take this as the rhetorical “you” in general, not directed at me in particular. I agree with your point.
And yes, it is indeed “utterly trivial” in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion that a rising concentration of carbon dioxide implies a minor improvement in the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere. The modelers know this.
If we share 21st century ideas of classical thermodynamics, ought we not keep on mind the axiom, “energy is neither created nor destroyed”
Conversion within the envelope of the solid, aqueous and gaseous mass is irrelevant to the issue of just how many extra units of energy are accumulating within the whole system in a given period of time.
Even this is an imaginary concept, only helpful in describing the territory of interest.
There seems to be what I would call a thermostat function from observation provided by a variety of proxies of climate over millions of years of the past. It seems to be triggered by a yet undetermined number of stimuli and the responses seem to be varied according to the different stimuli. Just choosing carbon dioxide is at an infant school level of intellectual simplification, adult scientist must not be allowed to get away with such a false narrowing of perspective.
Thank you for your further reply. Overall I agree with your conclusion.
However, you say, “Conversion within the envelope of the solid, aqueous and gaseous mass is irrelevant to the issue of just how many extra units of energy are accumulating within the whole system in a given period of time.”
My sense is that the concept and the computations of energy conversion throughout the entire depth of the troposphere are directly relevant to the issue of attribution of a reported “warming” trend. Simpson and Brunt explained this in 1938 as they referred to the dynamics of the general circulation when Callendar attributed a rising temperature trend to increasing concentrations of CO2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
strativarius
May 3, 2026 2:19 am
Everyone is looking forward to Thursday. Then the gloves will most likely come off.
Britain braces for Ed Miliband, the radical Left-wing chancellor Businesses panic at the prospect of the former Labour leader taking over at the Treasury
Ed Miliband has made little secret of his ambition to become chancellor – Telegraph
This news I like not, but it is more than possible given Rachel Thieves has messed it all up – big time. Starmer can’t get rid of the madman and the madman is in overall control, anyway.
The alarmist daily tells us the Iberian blackout was a voltage problem, nothing to do with inertia etc…
Despite a widespread theory assigning blame to renewables for a lack of “inertia” – the heartbeat of the grid traditionally provided by large spinning masses in fossil fuel and nuclear plants – subsequent investigations have found conclusively that this was not a factor. – Guardian
Well, they’ve convinced themselves of it, but we know better. Also in the firing line is the sporting event…
This summer, large-scale sporting events will take place, including the men’s football World Cup in the US, Canada and Mexico and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but research reveals that such events have unexpected air pollution impacts.
Like food…
Particle pollution peaked before each stadium session, and reached a maximum just before the closing ceremony, when it was 10 times greater than other parts of the city. The main source was not traffic but catering, which was dominantly fast-food that included burgers, hotdogs and stir-fries.
It will have to go
“As well as impacting staff and spectators, poor air will also impact athletic performance, making it an important issue for organisers of events like the Commonwealth Games – and for athletes seeking records.” – Guardian
What a load of old cobblers. What about all those many, many flights, buses, coaches, taxis etc?
The Labour Party will go back to the eternal argument between their unpopularity being caused by their being too left-wing or being caused by their not being left-wing enough; the latter argument is likely to gain sway. Sadly, the fact that they are a bunch of incompetent losers and clueless about economics won’t enter into it.
Labour is analagous to Francis Bacon’s frozen chicken, on borrowed time even if that is stretched to 2029. Government has become a matter of dealing with each daily Labour party crisis. And they are legion.
The boss of the UK’s biggest energy supplier [Octopus] has suggested that some households would accept an occasional electricity blackout in exchange for much lower energy bills. – Grauniad
I don’t know who he’s been talking to, but it isn’t the average man or woman.
If my electricty goes off long enough for the ice cream to soften in my freezer there had better be a better explanation than the “energy supplier” diddling with the supply. I’d forgive if a small plane crashed into the local substation.
But voltage and frequency variability are the characteristics controlled by “inertia” (isn’t momentum a better word) of rotating electric generators. What does the Guardian think was the source of the disruption?
rpm for discs, hertz for AC electric power.
The rotational inertia of part of the coal power generation assembly ensures that it cannot speed up of slow down without huge angular acceleration, and as the hertz of the AC output is determined by the rpm of the generator, it tends to be vary stable. Windmill spin is much more variable and solar panel power must be converted DC to AC and both must be IN PHASE with the distribution network AC.
“The PM was alerted to the Health Secretary’s intentions after a staff member accidentally texted details of his plans. Wes Streeting has the backing of enough Labour MPs to launch a leadership challenge within days, The Telegraph has learnt…)”
Here’s a You Tube “Is Our Food Becoming Less Nutritious?”
Veritasium says it is. This scare has been around for a while.
No surprise, The Washington Post recently said so.
Is this is one of those things like the Global Warming Potential
numbers that manipulates logic to make you believe something
that really isn’t true?
Hell, Steve. Who knows? It’s at least plausible that modern crop varieties bred to some extent for appearance, shelf life, etc MIGHT be a bit less nutritious than their ancestors. And things like the modern American supermarket tomato — a green tomato forced red using Ethylene might be a bit short on nutrients as well as flavor. They tend to taste like the cellophane they are packaged in. But they keep a lot better ripe tomatoes.
Are modern foodstuffs SERIOUSLY deficient in nutrients? I doubt it. Not high on my list of problems the world faces.
Australian supermarket food court – packed at mealtime with young and old, slim or curvaceous females and slim or muscled males everywhere; hardly a fat person in sight. Candid camera of US city equivalent, fat or fatter or humongous males and females – transport seats too small for a lot of backsides and airlines charging for two seats for the really big ones.
Your average life span, males and females in USA is DROPPING
So, two worlds with two problems, third world starvation and first world excess.
+9
Liebig’s Law of the Minimum rebutes that article’s contention. If CO2 was the limiting factor in plant growth but is now more than adequate, then the next limiting factor controls growth and nutrition. By adjusting the fertilization levels properly we can get both equal nutrition and higher volumes of food crops. This is what farmers do as a matter of course; monitor and adjust the fertilization levels required…no real issue.
Liebig’s Law of the Minimum states that plant growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest limiting factor (nutrient, water, or light). Proposed by Justus von Liebig in 1840, this principle is often visualized as a “leaking barrel” (Liebig’s Barrel), where the shortest stave—representing the most limited nutrient—determines the capacity. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Concepts and Applications:
Agricultural Application: It is crucial for fertilizer management, as adding more of a nutrient that is already sufficient (e.g., Nitrogen) will not increase yield if another nutrient (e.g., Potassium) is deficient.
Having never heard of Liebig, I cannot tell if what is being called a law has any relevance whatsoever.
I just add that human beings need trace elements – iron, chlorine, cobalt, copper, zinc, manganese, molybdenum, iodine, selenium and bromine.
Many food crops can be maximally healthy but deficient in these trace elements and so unable to supply humans with optimal building blocks and fully functional systems.
The claim has been around since at least the 1970s. However, even if the claim that growing larger fruit reduces the nutrition per unit weight has some validity, when we eat an apple we consume a whole apple, not a fixed weight.
Serious question. Some features: cooked, and packaged and aged food will lose some of the vitamins and preservatives which make it long-lasting may be toxic.
Some processing transforms cis-fats to trans-fats which are toxic.
Then there is the issue of carbohydrates. Long chain carbohydrates when digested slowly release glucose into the system, short chain and just sugars cause a rush which overstimulated the insulin and diabetes and heart disease results.
There is much more, but this little list hints at the big picture.
strativarius
May 3, 2026 3:28 am
UK Net Zero Context Update, it’s like the climate – always changing
Labour is all over the place. The National Executive Committee has now welcomed Andy Burnham (yet another u-turn). Starmer’s influence on the NEC is now toast.
Tax dodger Angela Rayner’s price to Starmer for returning to the cabinet (taxes still not paid) is the head of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood – and her blue Labour immigration approach. Not as hard left as Angie’s.
Miliband wants to be Chancellor and Starmer will ditch Rachel Thieves like all the others he’s thrown under the bus. Miliband is the shadow (real) PM after all. Wes Streeting’s campaign is said to be ready to roll.
After the vote on the 7th it can all be hung around Starmer’s neck, but the level of disorganisation in Labour is such that it might not be before party conference in September that they sort themselves out.
It must be an open goal for RUK. I’ll eat Mr Eschenbach’s hat if it isn’t.
The religious fanatics Trump is trying to deal with will never give up their ambitions for creating a Radical Shia world using nuclear weapons.
So, it is time to undermine the current Iranian Regime by arming the 80 percent of Iranians who hate their Islamic oppressors.
How to do this?
I would suggest the easiest way would be to get together with the Iranian Kurds, who are already armed, and are good fighters, and have the Kurds seize an Iranian province.
This will cause the Iranian Regime to send military forces to put down the rebellion, which will make them very good targets for American AirPower, and the Iranian thugs won’t survive such an encounter.
This will also cause the Iranians who want to be free to take to the streets again, this time armed, so they can go find the Bad Iranians who are killing innocent Iranians and put them out of action.
A successful rebellion in one province will quickly spread to the whole country. The Bad Guys will run away hoping to save their own skins. Once it goes, it can go fast.
The only problem with using the Kurds as our ground force is Turkey’s leader, Erdogan. He is dead set against helping the Kurds in any way.
If I were Trump, I would ignore Erdogan’s complaints and use the Kurds.
Bur, if Trump doesn’t want to use the Kurds, then he can use U.S. troops to do the same thing. He can invade a province next to the Strait of Hormuz and when the Iranian Regime sends troops to confront the Americans, the American AirPower will come in and wipe them out. It won’t matter how many Iranian troops join the battle, they will all be wiped out before they can even join with U.S. troops.
Once the good Iranians see what is going on, the revolution will begin.
We can’t have religious fanatics running Iran any more. They are poison to the whole world.
U.S. Troops should be fairly safe on the ground as Iranian troops won;t be able to get near them before the bombs start falling.
Look at some pictures of B52 strikes and imagine yourself underneath such a thing. The concussion can kill you even if you are not close to where the bomb hits.
Yeah, we want The Iranian Regime army to form up in large groups so we can destroy them wholesale and free the Iranian people.
That’s the way to eliminate the remnants of the Mad Mullahs.
Starting an insurrection sounds great, but the islamists are very much in control – and they’ve been rather busy executing their opponents.
The Kurds could provide a force of sorts, but I can’t see any scenario bringing an end to the regime that doesn’t include US boots on the ground. That’s the impasse. Cross that Rubicon or not.
Hopefully! The Europeans have more to lose because they will be closer to the radioactive fallout. I find it strange that once upon a time everyone was concerned about nuclear fallout. Now, the Press is silent on the issue, as though new weapons don’t have fallout. It seems that liberals are so committed to their ideologies that they are willing to risk the lives of their children to further their goals.
All Israeli wants to do is live in peace, but they have been attacked and hounded and invaded by Iranian proxies since before the state of Israel was even formed.
I think that Israel has shown great restraint considering that they have had nuclear weapons for decades. However, I wouldn’t expect them to continue that if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Remember Chernobyl – The dwellers in Israel do not use nuclear bombs because they are too morally upright following the law of Moses and the military of Israel do not use nuclear bombs on Iran because of the radioactive fallout which may pollute some of Israel.
Won’t happen. First, European armies aren’t up to the task and second, but perhaps more importantly, European leaders fear angering the millions of Islamic immigrants they so unwisely allowed into their countries.
there a Iran friendly Kurds and Iran hating Kurds. The Arab Middle East is a chaotic mix of different Islams and different ethnic groups and different ancient civilisations.
Yeah, we want The Iranian Regime army to form up in large groups so we can destroy them wholesale …
That might happen … once … but even the “Mad Mullahs” would work out how to avoid repeat performances of such wishful thinking.
It reminds me of Kenny Everett’s (1980s ?) parody of a gung-ho American army general, whose sketches always ended with a catchphrase along the lines of :
“Just put them all in a field and bomb the bastards !”
.
Trump should start an insurrection in Iran.
You mean like NATO did with air strikes supporting the uprising in Libya in 2011 ?
15 years on how well did that turn out for “innocent / good Libyans” ?
.
A successful rebellion in one province will quickly spread to the whole country. The Bad Guys will run away hoping to save their own skins. Once it goes, it can go fast.
…
Once the good Iranians see what is going on, the revolution will begin.
We can’t have religious fanatics running Iran any more.
The first paragraph brings back memories of what happened in Syria at the end of 2024.
Which description is more accurate for President al-Sharaa and his band of merry ex-al-Qaeda jihadists, “good Syrians” or “religious fanatics” ?
.
He can invade a province next to the Strait of Hormuz and when the Iranian Regime sends troops to confront the Americans, the American Air Power ***will*** come in and wipe them out. It won’t matter how many Iranian troops join the battle, they ***will all be*** wiped out before they can even join with U.S. troops.
…
U.S. Troops should be fairly safe on the ground as Iranian troops ***won’t be*** able to get near them before the bombs start falling.
Real life is much more complicated than the “short victorious war” narrative that armchair-generals and chicken-hawks … and Bibi Netanyahu … regurgitate regarding how a military campaign and its aftermath “will, definitely, 100% guaranteed certain” unfold before the US president gives the “Go !” authorisation.
‘You mean like NATO did with air strikes supporting the uprising in Libya in 2011?’
The only lesson from Libya is that it’s probably a bad idea to foment a quasi-color revolution against an authoritative, but secular, regime that maintained one of the better economies in its region and was already playing ball with the international ‘community’ in terms of no longer supporting international and/or Islamic terrorism. Not a good analogy to what Iran’s been up to since 1979.
Mr. Nova: I don’t agree that it’s the only lesson, though I agree with the “bad idea” part. The lessons I learned from Libya 2011 include: 1) H. Clinton thought she was smarter than everybody ever, and would show the old boy network how smart she was; 2) she wasn’t; 3) when it went wrong, don’t even think to shed blame on HER!!
When you learn that Hillary Clinton is a loathsome liar, you don’t want to overlook that lesson.
“Trump should start an insurrection in Iran.”
That should be easy. According to him there has already been a regime change. And the war is won. You can see why he is a legend in his own mind.
One knife, properly used, can provide one gun. One gun, properly used, can provide two or more guns, etc. If no one in Iran is prepared to use that knife, then Iran will have Dachau rather than Warsaw.
During WWII, the USA dropped inexpensive (stamped sheet-metal), single-shot .45-caliber handguns into France. The idea was that members of the Resistance could take out a lone sentry or careless German soldier and acquire their rifles and ammunition. However, for that approach to work, there have to be people willing to kill their own countrymen for the cause.
Have you seen the size of Iran, counted the cities, seen the deserts and the coasts and the ports? Do you know how fanatic and numerous the Muslim population of Iran is? … how they have Saladin as their hero and martyrs as their ideal warriors.
Your gung-ho, marines to the rescue hero saga scenario is imaginary.
Read the Tales of the Arabian Nights, you will get an idea of the mindset of your average Iranian.
And Btw, for the first time I will disagree with General Keane, a retired four-star general, who I consider the best source for this Iran war.
General Keane, said this weekend, while discussing ways to put more pressure on the Iranian Regime, that he thought seizing Kharg island should be one objective.
I don’t think that is necessary. There is no need to put American troops in danger doing this. We already have a complete shutdown of Iranian oil shipments with the blockade. There is no need to seize Kharg Island.
I believe everyone on this blog would do well to get an opposing view of the Empire of Pirates Clown Show (TM) in the ME by popping across to Larry’s blog here…..
What pains me is that the more liberal (yes, funny I know) petro states in the ME cannot understand why the UK refuses to ban or proscribe the IRGC and the muslim brotherhood.
I can tell them, it’s the bloc islamic vote. They really do bring their baggage with them.
The UK would have been far better off, if it actually needed immigrants, to request them from Latin America. Those that do enter America, legally or illegally, tend to be be good workers and avoid causing political strife. After moslems arrive in the UK, how long does it take for them to become citizens? Or are they automatically citizens if they came from the old empire?
Trump has threatened to knock out all of their power plants and bridges. Rather than all of them, if some choice ones were selected and knock those out- and warn them that more will happen if they don’t wise up. Every week or so, knock out some more. We don’t want to slam all of them as that will hurt the population.
It won’t matter. Even if the regime is overthrown, something bad, possibly worse, will worm its way in eventually. The mentality of the entire region is just nutso.
News from France: the gas bill is likely to double by 2030. The carbon tax will follow the same path. Given how things are unfolding in terms of “planetary degradation” due to capitalism and fossil fuels, this “carbon penalty” looks more like a tax on planetary re-greening to me, but anyway.
“All the world is Green,” as sung by Tom Waits. Personally, I prefer greenery to eco-leftists.
I like green too which is why I was a forester for exactly 50 years. I loved being out there most days. I’d sometimes ponder all those unfortunate folks working in offices or factories- and here I was walking through forests to earn my bread. But now in retirement I’ve found new activities such as shown in the attached image. 🙂
Well, before I remembered that Mr. Zorzin was doing AI image creation, I thought he had taken up a career as an amateur astronaut after retiring as a forester! I only use ChatGPT to translate into English the messages I write in French. It’s much better than Google Translate (which has still made considerable progress since slackers like me used it for our German homework in middle school), but there are still subtleties that get lost here and there. Nothing too serious, I think.
Just in case there are trees on the Moon, the landing crew will need a member with chainsaw experience. The cabin likely has a space for a STIHL 36 V, and the color is right.
That STIHL 36 V chainsaw is powered by a STIHL AK 30 lithium-ion battery.
I’m not sure that’s going to be allowed on any manned Moon mission, trees or no trees (e.g., for sawing through all that ice asserted to exist in Moon’s shadowed craters at its poles).
Maybe a forester with tundra experience would be a better fit? /sarc
The standard 30-year period used by NOAA, NASA, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is less of a scientific “truth” and more of an operational convention. From a root-cause analysis perspective the 30-year window falls short. Critics and researchers point out significant limitations when using this short window to define “trends”. The long-term, well established Cenozoic cooling trend has been under way for 50 million years. It started 15 degrees C warmer than the 1850-1900 average and cooled to the point the planet is in an Icehouse State. A sure enough ice age for 33.9 million years with the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet that deepened 2.58 million years ago. The cause was not CO2; it was tectonic activity. It will require tectonic activity to end the ice age…50-250 million years give or take.
The standard 30-year period used by NOAA, NASA, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is less of a scientific “truth”
It has nothing to do with any kind of truth. I don’t know, but I suspect it has more to do with statistics requiring a minimum of 30 sample in order to make inferences about a mean and standard deviation from sample means and sample standard deviation (i.e., standard error). I won’t go into the fallacies this includes. Suffice it to say, that it is misusing statistics to obtain an answer that was predetermined.
Corrections welcome.
As I understand it, the “30 year” thing started in the 1920’s. 30 years was set as the “average” because they only had 30 years of semi-reliable data from weather stations.
And it was never intended to be called “climate”. It was intended for saying temps were above or below “average” or “normal” in local weather reporting.
Again, corrections welcome.
(Today, I think we could and should use 60 years for that original purpose.)
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), a nongovernmental organization founded in 1873. The IMO held a meeting in Warsaw from September 6 to 13, 1935. I recall reading that it was there the 30 year “Climate Normal” plan was approved.
Before spouting about how many birds are killed by house cats, show us the house cat which takes on a Peregrine Falcon. Or, displaces Giant Desert Tortoise.
I once had a cat that I caught as a feral kitten. Smartest cat I ever owned. It weighed 20 lbs when it was a year old and it wasn’t fat. I suspected it was half bobcat. However, I doubt that even he would have taken on an eagle.
Beta Blocker
May 3, 2026 11:13 am
Mad Ed’s Plan for the Future
Ed Miliband says that because of the fallout consequences from the war against Iran, the UK must double down on the Net Zero transition.
But what does ‘double down on the Net Zero transition’ mean in practice?
In order to reach net zero by 2050, UK’s electricity consumption must rise from 288 Twh annually in 2025 to between 570 Twh and 800 Twh annually in 2050.
The near-doubling or possibly even tripling of UK electricity demand is driven by the mass electrification of heating (heat pumps) and transportation (electric vehicles).
The NESO website says that future demand for UK’s electricity will be served by a combination of wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, plus imports — and will include limited gas-fired capacity employing carbon capture and storage (CSS).
Hydrogen will be used as the primary intermittency generation buffer for energy storage. In addition, the nation’s future fleet of EV’s will store 51 Twh of demand response energy.
Whatever …..
Hydrogen storage isn’t technically feasible. It won’t ever be technically feasible. Carbon capture and storage isn’t technically feasible. It won’t ever be technically feasible, at least for large-scale generation of electricity.
A quick expansion of nuclear power in the UK is inherently constrained by a variety of factors, of which extreme over-regulation is just one.
Mad Ed’s Plan:
If Ed Miliband’s plan goes forward, let’s guess that in 2050, the sources of UK electricity generation in the UK might look something like this.
Under these assumptions, Mad Ed’s Net Zero transition causes these changes:
Gas generation ……….. 101 Twh to 28 TWh
Nuclear generation ….. 36 Twh to 70 TWh
Wind generation. …….. 85 Twh to 285 TWh
Solar generation ……… 18 Twh to 114 TWh
Hydro generation. …….. 5 TwH to 5 Twh
Imported ………………… 43 Twh to 70 Twh
TOTAL ……………………. 288 Twh to 570 Twh
The above figures don’t include how much battery storage is needed to handle wind and solar’s intermittency, which might be a combination of grid-scale battery storage plus the UK’s large future fleet of EV’s being used as energy storage able to be drawn upon as needed.
The Bottom Line:
Just looking at the magnitudes of these figures, it goes without saying that Ed Miliband and his Labor Government minions don’t have a clue as to how the Net Zero transition can be accomplished without dealing a fatal blow to the UK economy.
Representatives of more than 50 nations gathered in Santa Marta, Colombia, this week at what was billed as the first global summit on phasing out fossil fuels. A panel of scientists will be advising them
I searched with “who are the scientists advising first global summit on phasing out fossil fuels?”
I learned of: Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET) No people were named in what I found.
If their basic assumption, that CO2 drives warming, turns out to be false, they are doomed to fail miserably. Please keep us informed on how they fare.
Rational Keith
May 3, 2026 1:04 pm
The latest prompt for ‘If you don’t know what you are doing DON’T DO IT!’:
Which is why intelligent alien civilizations on other planets (if there are any) have not tried to contact us here on Earth. I read somewhere that the WOW! signal back in 1977 was probably caused by a comet or meteor. It was never heard again.
Phillip Chalmers
May 3, 2026 7:04 pm
I ask for another gathering of reports on the mythical cold fusion scam and the resurgence of appeal for more money to develop nuclear fusion power.
This is needed as I note the report that Donald Trump is investing in fusion and there is a danger that an further waste of an enormous amount of public money will happen on his watch.
It is now nearly a century since the dream of a limitless source of cheap power could be generated on a planet by generating a tiny sun in a container.
People have been dreaming about humans flying since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. Consider how much heavier-than-air craft have improved since the Wright Brothers had their breakthrough. I don’t share your pessimism for controlled thermonuclear energy based on historical progress. Unlike space travel, there are no theoretical barriers to controlled thermonuclear energy. It has been a slow, difficult slog, but the engineers are making progress.
I am no expert but I don’t see how gigawatts in to sustain a fusion reaction can ever get gigawatts out. You’ll need a power plant to run a power plant.
Does the incremental IR absorbing power of increasing CO2 concentration operate as a climate “forcing?” I have often posted about dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation to make the point that there is no good reason for assuming so.
Here is another factor to consider. The strength of the longwave radiative influence of the surface on the atmosphere, and vice versa, is quantified using power intensity, Watts per m^2 at the interface, based on a hemispherical field of view up/down. The land and ocean surfaces are solid and liquid, i.e. condensed matter. The atmosphere is mostly a gas-phase medium. I describe this interaction as a radiative “coupling,” the strength of which is plausibly improved as CO2 concentrations rise. Condensed matter absorbs and emits as a “gray body” over a continuous spectrum, whereas a gas absorbs and emits at specific wavelengths depending on the component molecules (my simplified description.)
From every location in the atmosphere, the IR influence is in all directions, ultimately resulting in longwave emission to space. The variable presence of a huge surface area of condensed matter suspended within it – mostly water droplets and ice crystals – cannot be ignored, because the “coupling” acts at every interface between condensed matter and the air surrounding it.
I asked Grok to estimate how much surface area is involved.
“Please generate an estimate of the average total surface area in square meters, per square meter of the surface of the earth, of all cloud droplets, cloud ice particles, raindrops, snowflakes, aerosols, dust particles, and other particulates such as pollen, within the depth of the troposphere. Please also characterize the average distribution of this surface area within the bottom 12 km of the troposphere.”
Grok’s answer begins,
“Approximately 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface (global, time-averaged column integral over the full troposphere).
This is a global-average estimate (all-sky, including clear-air regions and time averaging) of the total geometric surface area of all suspended cloud droplets, cloud ice particles, raindrops/snowflakes, aerosols, dust, pollen, and similar particulates integrated over the tropospheric column. Precipitation (rain/snow) contributes negligibly (<0.1 m²/m²) because the column water mass in falling hydrometeors is tiny (~0.01 g/m² globally averaged) despite their large sizes. Pollen and most coarse dust are subsumed under aerosols and are minor.”
The full conversation with Grok is shared here.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/83979e0c7868406ebadba438e1f4defe
40-45 m^2 of interface area, on average, per m^2 of land and ocean surface!!
This is important, as droplets and ice crystals are being formed, circulated, and evaporated/sublimated throughout the depth of the troposphere.
So what’s the answer? In my view, it is not justified to assume that the improved IR absorbing power from incremental CO2 operates as a “forcing” to drive sensible heat gain. There is no means presently available to us to establish that it works that way within the general circulation, considering the huge surface areas of condensed matter suspended between the land + ocean interface and space.
And therefore one cannot assume that the longwave emission to space is suppressed, as an end result, as CO2 concentrations rise, so as to require an increased temperature at the land and ocean surfaces to restore radiative balance. In other words, the valid null hypothesis of “no effect” on the climate system has not been rejected in all the decades of investigation.
Thank you for considering this matter.
Yes, Climate Alarmist still can’t prove their case even after all these decades of trying.
There is no evidence for what they claim. I’ve been saying this since the 1970’s, and have never seen even one shred of actual evidence to support these claims.
Plus the written temperature record directly refutes measurable CO2 changes to the Earth’s weather or climate. Human-caused climate change is nothing more than a scientific hoax.
OK Tom you keep saying this, but what evidence would you need to see to make you change your mind? Serious question.
Evidence you will never be able to submit. Because it doesn’t exist..
Right so to be clear, you are in the, “I will never change my mind” camp?
B.S. alarm. He is not saying he will never change his mind and you know it. He said he expects never to receive any valid, verifiable evidence.
“Serious question.”
No it isn’t. It’s bait.
Mr. D: Excellent reply, the smoking-gun clue was when Simon claimed it was serious.
My unserious answer to Simon is, when you produce evidence that isn’t obviously contrived, I’ll take a look. Don’t give up, you might persuade me that something false is true. I watch commercials.
It absolutely is a serious question. If you can’t specify what it would take to make you change your mind on a topic, then you are not truely skeptical. It seems that bnice has closed his mind to any possibility that he may be wrong. That says a lot about him. You cannot discuss with people like him. They just don’t want to hear.
“It absolutely is a serious question.”
No. Challenging a person who disagrees with you to speculate toward something not already in evidence is not part of a serious exchange.
Just state your case for why you have formed a different view.
In any event, thank you for your participation in this thread.
So now you get to define the word skeptical?
Wow.
A skeptic is a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment on accepted beliefs, claims, or purported knowledge. They require evidence before accepting a statement as true. Key synonyms include doubter, questioner, cynic (in a negative sense), and disbeliever.
Detailed Definition and Characteristics
It is not his job to identify the evidence. It is your job to acquire and present it.
You subscribed to the climate orthodoxy…it is a religion for sure.
We have been down this path. I subscribe to what makes sense in my world. I se the world warming, I hear the evidence and I make a decision based on that. I am not religious.
Sweet! I have no clue what the answer might be, but the question is great.
Actual data shows that while there is a tiny increase in thin absorption in the CO2 band, there is also a increase in OLR in the much broader bands next to it.
There is NO ENERGY TRAPPED. The whole idea of CO2 trapping energy is totally ridiculous.
If the surface absorbs energy due to CO2 “back radiation”, that energy is re-radiated within the existing Planck curve for the surface, not just 15um where CO2 is dominate. That means a substantial part goes out the atmospheric window and isn’t available for any “feedback”.
Thank you for that. The focus has been too long on 15 um.
We have satellites that measure micro waves, for example.
As I understand it, perhaps incorrectly, It’s not the “adsorption” which provides the “forcing,” it’s the desorption which occurs a tiny fraction of a second later releasing an IR photon in any direction, half upward, half downward. Whether or not a CO2 molecule participates in this process is dependent on the density of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and the number and frequency of IR photons released from the earth’s surface in the frequency band(s) that CO2 operates in. Presently, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is such that the process is nearly saturated; adding more CO2 has less and less of a “forcing” effect. I believe that this phenomena has been measured both in laboratories and by measurements in air.
Thank you for your reply. Your sense of the issue aligns with the popularized framing of the question, which uses a one-square-meter-oriented-up-and-down radiative interface to promote the belief that *some* warming of the land + ocean surfaces should be expected from rising pCO2. It is that framing I am identifying as a misdirection.
Even the radiative saturation argument put forth by honest physicists, which argument itself is not wrong in the static sense in a clear atmosphere, does not address this misdirected framing.
The reason for my post today is to encourage all skeptics of climate alarm to see that the geometry of the core “forcing” claim is inadequate for the investigation.
Take the volume of CO2 in the column treat it as condensed. Evaluate the amount of joules it can radiate every second. Determine the temperature RISE it can support in a square meter 12 inches deep of soil/ocean.
David, you once posted the following
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ?si=xWsNA3r77Wq6pbvY
Which clearly shows how quickly heat is redistributed in the atmosphere…which one can extrapolate, a bit, into assuming a good fraction of that higher altitude heat gets back to outer space with somewhat more ease than being absorbed by the surface first…as warmists prefer to believe. Now by adding into that mix, the additional surface area of aerosols and particulates, you are actually increasing the fraction of that calculated “CO2 forcing” that escapes to outer space at a higher altitude…so reducing its effect even more.
All the line by line IR calcs by Harde, Happer, Meteo-student-Modtran-users worldwide, etc. tend to end up with 3 or 4 watts of CO2 forcing per doubling of CO2, relative to “TOA”, and obviously assumes that incoming=outgoing, so that 4 watts is actually absorbed solar…and they tend to use “clear sky/tropical” numbers meaning the CO2 forcing is felt at surface. It is good to keep this in mind. Modtran runs with cloud cover muchly reduce the effect of CO2 increase, and the planet is 65% covered by clouds on average and not much of it is “tropical clear sky” for Modtran purposes.
And just for reference 2xCO2 in Modtran under clear tropical skies only results in about 1.2 C temp offset, in other words 1.2C “global warming”, so not much…when we read we have passed 1.6 C already, it can only be natural warming like El Niño, or weather station urban heat island effects.
“And just for reference 2xCO2 in Modtran under clear tropical skies only results in about 1.2 C temp offset, in other words 1.2C “global warming”, so not much…when we read we have passed 1.6 C already, it can only be natural warming like El Niño, or weather station urban heat island effects.”
Yes, that is what the IPCC says (the 1.2C) …. for a climate response that does not incude long-term feedbacks.
However, (from Google AI) …
“Most Likely Estimate: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates a best-guess value of 3°C for the ECS, with a “very likely” range of 2C – 5C.
Difference from Immediate Effect: Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would only lead to roughly 1.2C of warming. The higher IPCC estimate (3°C) is entirely due to the inclusion of positive feedbacks.
I too always go to The Google for weather forecasts.
(but, like anything that’s free – we get what we pay for 🙁 )
The atmosphere DOES NOT work just in the theoretical radiative bands.
And the IPCC.. their remit is to ignore any NATURAL warming causes..
IPCC is NOT SCIENCE
And the sun. we must never forget the sun.
“. . . it’s the desorption which occurs a tiny fraction of a second later releasing an IR photon in any direction, half upward, half downward.”
Actually, no. Molecular collisions between atmospheric constituents occur, within the first 5 km of altitude above Earth’s surface, from millions to billions times faster than the photo-relaxation (aka re-emission of an IR photon) times of such molecules. Prof. Happer has written extensively on this subject.
Thus, it is the transfer of energy via exchanges of mechanical energy modes of translation, vibration and rotation/rocking of molecular bonds—not photon exchanges—that distribute surface-emitted LWIR energy throughout Earth’s atmopshere.
Both CO2 and methane (as do all other “greenhouse gases”, predominately water vapor) first intercept LWIR radiated off Earth’s surfaces and then, almost instantaneously, thermally equilibrate that received, excess energy with other non-LWIR active atmospheric gases—predominately N2 and O2—by means of rapid molecular collisions occurring in the 5 km altitude above Earth’s surface.
True, CO2 and methane don’t “trap heat”, but Earth’s overall atmosphere does “store” LWIR-radiated energy until such can be fully thermally-radiated away due to the average temperature of atmospheric gases being above absolute zero.
And Prof. Happer and others conclude, like you, that the ability of CO2 to absorb LWIR off Earth’s surface is now essentially saturated, so that the effect of adding more CO2 is to only shorten CO2’s e-folding absorption path length, but not to absorb any significantly greater amount of LWIR off Earth’s surface.
Because any photon ‘sees’ a hemisphere, slightly more than half can potentially escape to space if it doesn’t collide with an absorbing molecule or transfer its momentum to a non-absorbing gas molecule. Because of the curvature of the Earth’s surface, the higher up in the atmosphere a photon is emitted, the larger the probability that it can escape without being absorbed by terrestrial materials.
Also, those photons whose trajectory is oriented to favor escape are less likely to transfer their energy to other gas molecules because the density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Dave
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air!
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of the annual mean temperature in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 in the air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 1999, it had increased to ca. 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature in this port city. Instead there was a slight cooling that began in ca. 1940. Darwin also had this slight cooling. In 1857 Tav was 17.2° C and by 1999 it had decreased to 16.7° C.
To obtain recent Adelaide temperature data, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo temperature data from 1887 to 2025 are displayed in a table. The computed Tav for 2025 was 17.4° C In 2025 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 427 ppmv (0.84 g CO2/cu. m. of air.). After 168 years there has been no change in air temperature in Adelaide.
The reason CO2 had no effect on air temperature is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s surface. This empirical data falsifies the claim by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats) that the greenhouse gas CO2 causes “global warming”.
The chart was obtained from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, go to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of weather stations. Click on “Adelaide”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contract the chart and return to Comments.
In relation to your argument, it is worthwhile to note that as that “goes on,” the sun DIRECTLY transfers energy right into the oceans. W/ low-level cloud disappearance occurring lately as non-albedo, this has been occurring a lot. One thinks of the extended Southern Hemispheric high near Australia this past summer of theirs and what the sun was doing during it.
Nice, David.
Perhaps the matter will not be clarified to the happiness of all until the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere as measured from place to place is explained in terms of both what causes those temperatures and what does not.
Geoff S
Thank you for your reply, Geoff. I agree. Perhaps it will take a reversion to falling sea levels, ice accretion at the poles, and early frosts on the crops, to satisfy those who presently insist that rising CO2 concentration is a risk.
Good post!
However, regarding your phrase in the third to last paragraph
” . . . considering the huge surface areas of condensed matter suspended between the land + ocean interface and space.”:
If you are considering just that radial direction and assume all of the suspended particulate matter in Grok’s estimated 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface is roughly spherical in shape, then you need to divide that total spherical area by four (4) to calculate the area that is actually intercepting radiation along the radial vector.
Thank you for your reply.
“If you are considering just that radial direction and assume all of the suspended particulate matter in Grok’s estimated 40–45 m² of total particle surface area per m² of Earth’s surface is roughly spherical in shape, then you need to divide that total spherical area by four (4) to calculate the area that is actually intercepting radiation along the radial vector.”
No, the interception of “radiation along the radial vector” is not the point.
Well, my apologies then. I based my comment, partially, by interpreting your phrase “throughout the depth of the troposphere”—found in your fourth-to-last-paragraph—to be equivalent to a radial direction.
The atmosphere is gas. It does not block upward EM flux at the surface of a sphere. LWIR will travel through any spherical volume you can define, like in at the bottom of the sphere and out at the top of the sphere. Any CO2 inside that spherical volume can intercept the EM wave and absorb a quanta of energy from it. The absorption is not surface limited so there is no need to divide by 4.
I do believe a primary point of David Dibbell’s topmost comment was stated in his second and third paragraphs as:
“Condensed matter absorbs and emits as a ‘gray body’ over a continuous spectrum, whereas a gas absorbs and emits at specific wavelengths depending on the component molecules (my simplified description.) . . . From every location in the atmosphere, the IR influence is in all directions, ultimately resulting in longwave emission to space. The variable presence of a huge surface area of condensed matter suspended within it – mostly water droplets and ice crystals – cannot be ignored, because the “coupling” acts at every interface between condensed matter and the air surrounding it.” (my bold emphasis added)
However, you can ignore the thrust of the above article at your convenience.
To make things perfectly clear for you, CO2 is not condensed matter.
I never said CO2 is condensed matter. It *is* part of the atmosphere and is gaseous. That is why an EM wave will pass totally through the volume. The amount of energy absorbed is volume related, not surface related. That is why dividing the surface area of the sphere by 4 to determine the absorption is not appropriate.
That statement is, simply, not true. Certain gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, have been scientifically proven to absorb certain frequencies of radiation in the LWIR region of the EM spectrum. This is the fundamental fact associated with so-called “greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere.
So, gases that don’t contain any condensed matter can still absorb EM radiation, depending on the range of frequencies being discussed.
Also the phrase “pass totally through the volume” is falsified by the fact that even frequencies of EM radiation, passing through a gas between or outside of its spectral absorption bands, are effected through scattering, refraction, and dispersion. While absorption (energy loss) is minimal, the gas still acts as a medium that bends, delays, or scatters the radiation due to EM (photon) interactions with gas molecules.
“certain frequencies”
They will absorb a PART of the EM wave at a certain frequency. They will NOT block the entire wave. Just as a radio antenna absorbs energy at a certain frequency but doesn’t block the entire wave from propagating onward.
Nor does scattering, refraction, or dispersion block the entire wave from travelling through an entire defined volume of a gas. 100% of the EM wave doesn’t just disappear at the surface. Refraction is just like something under the surface of the water not being exactly reflected as far as position goes, first the light has to penetrate into the volume of water. And dispersion is never 100%. Scattering can dilute part of the wave but it can’t block it 100%, if that was the case sunlight would never reach the earth.
Bending, delaying, and scattering does *NOT* keep the EM wave from travelling throughout the volume of a gas. So more than just the surface area of the volume you define is involved in absorbing energy from the EM wave. The EM wave is a spherical wavefront. If each element is bent at 45deg to the left, guess what? The part of the spherical wave to the right of the piece you choose to concentrate on gets bent into the area the one on the left missed by being bent! Nor does delaying have anything to do with the EM wave not travelling through the volume of atmosphere you choose to define. And again, scattering doesn’t block the EM wave, if it did sunlight would never penetrate through the volume consisting of the entire atmosphere in order to reach the surface of the earth.
The phrase “pass totally through the volume” is falsified by the words “scattering” and “scatters”. IOW, radiation can escape to the sides of any defined control volume before it reaches the end of the path length of the radiation vector across that control volume.
That is all.
Give me a break. The point is that the SURFACE of the sphere does *NOT* block the EM wave. It simply doesn’t matter where on the surface radiation enters and exits, it’s the fact that it enters the volume, some is absorbed inside the volume, and some exits the volume that matters. Therefore you can’t just divide the surface area of the volume of the gas sample by four to determine the effective absorption of energy from the EM wave.
This is just one more thing where climate science has used simplifying assumptions that actually make the system non-physical.
Since the CO2 molecule has a dipole it will have preferred directions for absorbing energy and for emitting energy. Thus assuming half the energy goes up and half goes down for any specific molecule is a joke. If position of the molecule is random then so will the directions of absorption and emitting. What has to be done is what Planck did, assume you have a large enough volume that there are enough absorbers and emitters to make the volume isotropic as far as absorption and emission is concerned. The issue with that is that the volume will be large enough that collisional transfer of energy becomes a major factor – i.e. thermalization. Which complicates the system dynamics tremendously. As that sample volume gains altitude the angle the earth subtends gets smaller and smaller so less and less of the emissions from that assumed isotropic volume actually hit the earth. The emissions that are in the subtending angle have a longer and longer transmission path which also affects the amount of energy returned to the earth.
Climate science just ignores all this as far as I can tell. They just assume that CO2 absorbs a percentage of the emissions from the earth and sends half on and half back. NON-PHYSICAL.
Hah. This from simple Web search inquiry:
“No, a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule does not have a permanent net dipole moment. While it contains two polar covalent bonds due to the high electronegativity of oxygen, the molecule’s linear and symmetric structure causes the bond dipoles to point in opposite directions and cancel each other out, making the overall molecule non-polar.”
Now, you were saying something about “just ignores all this as far as I can tell.” Not very far, I see.
You might want to investigate this further. Look up a dipole antenna that is fed from the center when emmitting.
Think about how an EM wave of IR is generated if the overall molecule is non-polar.
You should also provide the reference from which you obtained the text. I could not find the exact text you quoted.
Lastly, you need to review what polarity in molecules actually means. It has nothing to do with what is emmitted and in what direction. It determines if a molecule has an unbalanced charge associated with it. Think water and surface tension.
No, I’m fine.
Of course you are.
What most people miss is that individual emissions from the CO2 molecule *are* directional due to the dipole. This is similar to what Planck wrote about. To get an isotropic emission you either have to assume that the individual molecule moves randomly and emits continuously thus creating a psuedo-isotropic radiation pattern OR that you have a large enough quantity of molecules that have random positional differences whose ensemble of radiation appears to be isotropic. The first assumption is non-physical since the molecule will not emit continuously, it has to be energized first. The second assumption means that the so-called “back radiation” is attenuated from an individual molecule. The ensemble “average” may be isotropic but it it also requires many molecules, meaning the ensemble radiation toward the earth is not a direct function of CO2 concentration. Doubling the concentration is not guaranteed to double the ensemble intensity. As Happer et al theorize, the increase of absorbed energy is logarithmic and thus the output will be as well.
And this too:
Associated with this geometric consideration, there would be a further adjustment (likely major in comparison) to account for lower altitude particles blocking line-of-sight to higher altitude particles along any given radial vector.
Obviously, if, say, 44/4 m² = 11 m² of blockage occurred in a “single” layer close to the 1 m² of underlaying Earth surface (say within 5 km altitude) there would be no “atmospheric window” for Earth’s surface to radiate directly to space, yet this “window” has been scientifically confirmed.
We see! The atmosphere scatters light (radiation) in all directions and at all frequencies. We see colors! We see colors from space! The idea that suspended particles can “block” radiation does not pass the “photos from space” test before we even get to the quantum theory of radiation.
If you read up on—and, more importantly, understand—the physics of Rayleigh scattering on incoming visible-range light from the Sun, you will find that the gases in Earth’s atmosphere, as a whole, make the unobstructed sky appear as a constant “blue” during daylight , except for the few hours immediately after sunrise and immediately before sunset.
Normal people don’t see the full rainbow spectrum of visible colors in the sky, such as green,purple (idigo) and violet, throughout the day.
Did you mean to direct that comment to David Dibbell instead of me? If so, I don’t think he ever stated that condensed matter suspended in the atmosphere would completely block all surface radiation as seen (and photographed) from space.
The utterly trivial theoretical addition of the “greenhouse” component of carbon dioxide is so small that no measurements of any part of the energy input/energy shedding will ever be outside the error bars of each separate component.
Already only windows in the EM spectrum are currently counted in the equations.
What makes you think that BALANCE exists anywhere in the system?
There is constant dynamic disequilibrium day by day, month by month, year by year, cycle by cycle of insolation caused by orbital issues as well as of many extraterrestrial variables. What is the mathematical formula for “twinkling”?
Thank you for your reply.
“What makes you think that BALANCE exists anywhere in the system?”
I take this as the rhetorical “you” in general, not directed at me in particular. I agree with your point.
And yes, it is indeed “utterly trivial” in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion that a rising concentration of carbon dioxide implies a minor improvement in the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere. The modelers know this.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
If we share 21st century ideas of classical thermodynamics, ought we not keep on mind the axiom, “energy is neither created nor destroyed”
Conversion within the envelope of the solid, aqueous and gaseous mass is irrelevant to the issue of just how many extra units of energy are accumulating within the whole system in a given period of time.
Even this is an imaginary concept, only helpful in describing the territory of interest.
There seems to be what I would call a thermostat function from observation provided by a variety of proxies of climate over millions of years of the past. It seems to be triggered by a yet undetermined number of stimuli and the responses seem to be varied according to the different stimuli. Just choosing carbon dioxide is at an infant school level of intellectual simplification, adult scientist must not be allowed to get away with such a false narrowing of perspective.
Thank you for your further reply. Overall I agree with your conclusion.
However, you say,
“Conversion within the envelope of the solid, aqueous and gaseous mass is irrelevant to the issue of just how many extra units of energy are accumulating within the whole system in a given period of time.”
My sense is that the concept and the computations of energy conversion throughout the entire depth of the troposphere are directly relevant to the issue of attribution of a reported “warming” trend. Simpson and Brunt explained this in 1938 as they referred to the dynamics of the general circulation when Callendar attributed a rising temperature trend to increasing concentrations of CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Everyone is looking forward to Thursday. Then the gloves will most likely come off.
Britain braces for Ed Miliband, the radical Left-wing chancellor
Businesses panic at the prospect of the former Labour leader taking over at the Treasury
Ed Miliband has made little secret of his ambition to become chancellor – Telegraph
This news I like not, but it is more than possible given Rachel Thieves has messed it all up – big time. Starmer can’t get rid of the madman and the madman is in overall control, anyway.
The alarmist daily tells us the Iberian blackout was a voltage problem, nothing to do with inertia etc…
Despite a widespread theory assigning blame to renewables for a lack of “inertia” – the heartbeat of the grid traditionally provided by large spinning masses in fossil fuel and nuclear plants – subsequent investigations have found conclusively that this was not a factor. – Guardian
Well, they’ve convinced themselves of it, but we know better. Also in the firing line is the sporting event…
This summer, large-scale sporting events will take place, including the men’s football World Cup in the US, Canada and Mexico and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but research reveals that such events have unexpected air pollution impacts.
Like food…
Particle pollution peaked before each stadium session, and reached a maximum just before the closing ceremony, when it was 10 times greater than other parts of the city.
The main source was not traffic but catering, which was dominantly fast-food that included burgers, hotdogs and stir-fries.
It will have to go
“As well as impacting staff and spectators, poor air will also impact athletic performance, making it an important issue for organisers of events like the Commonwealth Games – and for athletes seeking records.” – Guardian
What a load of old cobblers. What about all those many, many flights, buses, coaches, taxis etc?
The Labour Party will go back to the eternal argument between their unpopularity being caused by their being too left-wing or being caused by their not being left-wing enough; the latter argument is likely to gain sway. Sadly, the fact that they are a bunch of incompetent losers and clueless about economics won’t enter into it.
Labour is analagous to Francis Bacon’s frozen chicken, on borrowed time even if that is stretched to 2029. Government has become a matter of dealing with each daily Labour party crisis. And they are legion.
The boss of the UK’s biggest energy supplier [Octopus] has suggested that some households would accept an occasional electricity blackout in exchange for much lower energy bills. – Grauniad
I don’t know who he’s been talking to, but it isn’t the average man or woman.
If my electricty goes off long enough for the ice cream to soften in my freezer there had better be a better explanation than the “energy supplier” diddling with the supply. I’d forgive if a small plane crashed into the local substation.
But voltage and frequency variability are the characteristics controlled by “inertia” (isn’t momentum a better word) of rotating electric generators. What does the Guardian think was the source of the disruption?
Inertia is the resistance of an object to changes in its state of motion, while momentum is the quantity of motion. So, inertia is the better term.
Newton framed it as “An object in motion will remain in motion…” I’m with him.
rpm for discs, hertz for AC electric power.
The rotational inertia of part of the coal power generation assembly ensures that it cannot speed up of slow down without huge angular acceleration, and as the hertz of the AC output is determined by the rpm of the generator, it tends to be vary stable. Windmill spin is much more variable and solar panel power must be converted DC to AC and both must be IN PHASE with the distribution network AC.
Wes Streeting ready to launch leadership challenge against Starmer (The Telegraph, May 1st 2026)
“The PM was alerted to the Health Secretary’s intentions after a staff member accidentally texted details of his plans. Wes Streeting has the backing of enough Labour MPs to launch a leadership challenge within days, The Telegraph has learnt…)”
Seems like Streeting’s staff are incompetent as well!
Classic!
Here’s a You Tube “Is Our Food Becoming Less Nutritious?”
Veritasium says it is. This scare has been around for a while.
No surprise, The Washington Post recently said so.
Is this is one of those things like the Global Warming Potential
numbers that manipulates logic to make you believe something
that really isn’t true?
Hell, Steve. Who knows? It’s at least plausible that modern crop varieties bred to some extent for appearance, shelf life, etc MIGHT be a bit less nutritious than their ancestors. And things like the modern American supermarket tomato — a green tomato forced red using Ethylene might be a bit short on nutrients as well as flavor. They tend to taste like the cellophane they are packaged in. But they keep a lot better ripe tomatoes.
Are modern foodstuffs SERIOUSLY deficient in nutrients? I doubt it. Not high on my list of problems the world faces.
Obesity and longevity seem to say differently. Perhaps quantity makes up for quality.
Australian supermarket food court – packed at mealtime with young and old, slim or curvaceous females and slim or muscled males everywhere; hardly a fat person in sight. Candid camera of US city equivalent, fat or fatter or humongous males and females – transport seats too small for a lot of backsides and airlines charging for two seats for the really big ones.
Your average life span, males and females in USA is DROPPING
So, two worlds with two problems, third world starvation and first world excess.
I hear that McDonalds has discontinued free refills on soft drinks.
I wish I could cleverly use a Latin version of “enshitification” to describe the Veritassium arc…
I guess it would incorporate “capro”.
+9
Liebig’s Law of the Minimum rebutes that article’s contention. If CO2 was the limiting factor in plant growth but is now more than adequate, then the next limiting factor controls growth and nutrition. By adjusting the fertilization levels properly we can get both equal nutrition and higher volumes of food crops. This is what farmers do as a matter of course; monitor and adjust the fertilization levels required…no real issue.
Liebig’s Law of the Minimum states that plant growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest limiting factor (nutrient, water, or light). Proposed by Justus von Liebig in 1840, this principle is often visualized as a “leaking barrel” (Liebig’s Barrel), where the shortest stave—representing the most limited nutrient—determines the capacity. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Concepts and Applications:
Agricultural Application: It is crucial for fertilizer management, as adding more of a nutrient that is already sufficient (e.g., Nitrogen) will not increase yield if another nutrient (e.g., Potassium) is deficient.
Having never heard of Liebig, I cannot tell if what is being called a law has any relevance whatsoever.
I just add that human beings need trace elements – iron, chlorine, cobalt, copper, zinc, manganese, molybdenum, iodine, selenium and bromine.
Many food crops can be maximally healthy but deficient in these trace elements and so unable to supply humans with optimal building blocks and fully functional systems.
The claim has been around since at least the 1970s. However, even if the claim that growing larger fruit reduces the nutrition per unit weight has some validity, when we eat an apple we consume a whole apple, not a fixed weight.
Serious question. Some features: cooked, and packaged and aged food will lose some of the vitamins and preservatives which make it long-lasting may be toxic.
Some processing transforms cis-fats to trans-fats which are toxic.
Then there is the issue of carbohydrates. Long chain carbohydrates when digested slowly release glucose into the system, short chain and just sugars cause a rush which overstimulated the insulin and diabetes and heart disease results.
There is much more, but this little list hints at the big picture.
UK Net Zero Context Update, it’s like the climate – always changing
Labour is all over the place. The National Executive Committee has now welcomed Andy Burnham (yet another u-turn). Starmer’s influence on the NEC is now toast.
Tax dodger Angela Rayner’s price to Starmer for returning to the cabinet (taxes still not paid) is the head of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood – and her blue Labour immigration approach. Not as hard left as Angie’s.
Miliband wants to be Chancellor and Starmer will ditch Rachel Thieves like all the others he’s thrown under the bus. Miliband is the shadow (real) PM after all. Wes Streeting’s campaign is said to be ready to roll.
After the vote on the 7th it can all be hung around Starmer’s neck, but the level of disorganisation in Labour is such that it might not be before party conference in September that they sort themselves out.
It must be an open goal for RUK. I’ll eat Mr Eschenbach’s hat if it isn’t.
Trump should start an insurrection in Iran.
The religious fanatics Trump is trying to deal with will never give up their ambitions for creating a Radical Shia world using nuclear weapons.
So, it is time to undermine the current Iranian Regime by arming the 80 percent of Iranians who hate their Islamic oppressors.
How to do this?
I would suggest the easiest way would be to get together with the Iranian Kurds, who are already armed, and are good fighters, and have the Kurds seize an Iranian province.
This will cause the Iranian Regime to send military forces to put down the rebellion, which will make them very good targets for American AirPower, and the Iranian thugs won’t survive such an encounter.
This will also cause the Iranians who want to be free to take to the streets again, this time armed, so they can go find the Bad Iranians who are killing innocent Iranians and put them out of action.
A successful rebellion in one province will quickly spread to the whole country. The Bad Guys will run away hoping to save their own skins. Once it goes, it can go fast.
The only problem with using the Kurds as our ground force is Turkey’s leader, Erdogan. He is dead set against helping the Kurds in any way.
If I were Trump, I would ignore Erdogan’s complaints and use the Kurds.
Bur, if Trump doesn’t want to use the Kurds, then he can use U.S. troops to do the same thing. He can invade a province next to the Strait of Hormuz and when the Iranian Regime sends troops to confront the Americans, the American AirPower will come in and wipe them out. It won’t matter how many Iranian troops join the battle, they will all be wiped out before they can even join with U.S. troops.
Once the good Iranians see what is going on, the revolution will begin.
We can’t have religious fanatics running Iran any more. They are poison to the whole world.
U.S. Troops should be fairly safe on the ground as Iranian troops won;t be able to get near them before the bombs start falling.
Look at some pictures of B52 strikes and imagine yourself underneath such a thing. The concussion can kill you even if you are not close to where the bomb hits.
Yeah, we want The Iranian Regime army to form up in large groups so we can destroy them wholesale and free the Iranian people.
That’s the way to eliminate the remnants of the Mad Mullahs.
When you whole education system is based on hollywood
When you whole education system
Lets you down. (h/t Nick Stokes).
“When you whole education system…. ” ???
What does that even mean !
It means he was educated by Hollywood.
A poorly executed attempt to shift the blame?
Starting an insurrection sounds great, but the islamists are very much in control – and they’ve been rather busy executing their opponents.
The Kurds could provide a force of sorts, but I can’t see any scenario bringing an end to the regime that doesn’t include US boots on the ground. That’s the impasse. Cross that Rubicon or not.
There won’t be boots on the ground. Control their oil is all that has to be done…the money or lack there of will take care of itself.
I can’t see any scenario bringing an end to the regime that doesn’t include US boots on the ground.
Then that Rubicon will not be crossed and the cancer will be left to grow again.
I envision European boots doing the work.
So no boots, then?
Hopefully! The Europeans have more to lose because they will be closer to the radioactive fallout. I find it strange that once upon a time everyone was concerned about nuclear fallout. Now, the Press is silent on the issue, as though new weapons don’t have fallout. It seems that liberals are so committed to their ideologies that they are willing to risk the lives of their children to further their goals.
“Cancer” being Israel….
Israel was attacked by Iranian proxies in what was supposed to be a cease fire.
“Iranian proxies”.
Or “The Five Families” as I call them.
IRGC, Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis, and PLO.
(h/t NY Mafia)
You left out Hamas. and probably a couple of others.
Of course.
There’s so much cross-pollination with these fanatics.
I could have listed ISIL as well, but –
SPLITTERS!!
Antisemitism is strong with this hater
Must be a Democrat voter.
All Israeli wants to do is live in peace, but they have been attacked and hounded and invaded by Iranian proxies since before the state of Israel was even formed.
If Israel’s neighbors had accepted it when it formed, think of the benefits that would have accrued from that wise decision.
And there is rarely a mention by the Press of the October 7th slaughter that triggered the latest violence.
What’s YOUR solution regarding Israel? Abandon it? Let it defend itself with its nukes? No doubt you have a solution, right?
He is a with the IRGC and mad mullahs…
… wants to destroy Israel completely, and everyone in it. !
There was another Austrian guy in the 1930s,40s that also wanted to eliminate all the Jewish people.
I think that Israel has shown great restraint considering that they have had nuclear weapons for decades. However, I wouldn’t expect them to continue that if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Remember Chernobyl – The dwellers in Israel do not use nuclear bombs because they are too morally upright following the law of Moses and the military of Israel do not use nuclear bombs on Iran because of the radioactive fallout which may pollute some of Israel.
Correct- no regime can survive without money.
How about European boots on the ground seeing that they need the oil more than America. Our bombers will back you up though.
Won’t happen. First, European armies aren’t up to the task and second, but perhaps more importantly, European leaders fear angering the millions of Islamic immigrants they so unwisely allowed into their countries.
“Actions have consequences”
there a Iran friendly Kurds and Iran hating Kurds. The Arab Middle East is a chaotic mix of different Islams and different ethnic groups and different ancient civilisations.
It’s interesting how all of Iran neighbors dislike the Iranian regime. They were begging someone/country to deal with them.
But unwilling to do anything about it- even now.
Mr. Z: Indeed. I wonder why Iran’s old rival, Iraq, hasn’t taken advantage, with US support? It should have already started.
they are too busy killing each other, struggling for power, following different brands of their primitive pagan religion.
That might happen … once … but even the “Mad Mullahs” would work out how to avoid repeat performances of such wishful thinking.
It reminds me of Kenny Everett’s (1980s ?) parody of a gung-ho American army general, whose sketches always ended with a catchphrase along the lines of :
“Just put them all in a field and bomb the bastards !”
.
You mean like NATO did with air strikes supporting the uprising in Libya in 2011 ?
15 years on how well did that turn out for “innocent / good Libyans” ?
.
The first paragraph brings back memories of what happened in Syria at the end of 2024.
Which description is more accurate for President al-Sharaa and his band of merry ex-al-Qaeda jihadists, “good Syrians” or “religious fanatics” ?
.
Real life is much more complicated than the “short victorious war” narrative that armchair-generals and chicken-hawks … and Bibi Netanyahu … regurgitate regarding how a military campaign and its aftermath “will, definitely, 100% guaranteed certain” unfold before the US president gives the “Go !” authorisation.
‘You mean like NATO did with air strikes supporting the uprising in Libya in 2011?’
The only lesson from Libya is that it’s probably a bad idea to foment a quasi-color revolution against an authoritative, but secular, regime that maintained one of the better economies in its region and was already playing ball with the international ‘community’ in terms of no longer supporting international and/or Islamic terrorism. Not a good analogy to what Iran’s been up to since 1979.
Mr. Nova: I don’t agree that it’s the only lesson, though I agree with the “bad idea” part. The lessons I learned from Libya 2011 include: 1) H. Clinton thought she was smarter than everybody ever, and would show the old boy network how smart she was; 2) she wasn’t; 3) when it went wrong, don’t even think to shed blame on HER!!
When you learn that Hillary Clinton is a loathsome liar, you don’t want to overlook that lesson.
Wonderful BS, Tommy…
“Trump should start an insurrection in Iran.”
That should be easy. According to him there has already been a regime change. And the war is won. You can see why he is a legend in his own mind.
Can you name the people currently in charge in Iran ??
Keeps changing every couple of days.
One knife, properly used, can provide one gun. One gun, properly used, can provide two or more guns, etc. If no one in Iran is prepared to use that knife, then Iran will have Dachau rather than Warsaw.
During WWII, the USA dropped inexpensive (stamped sheet-metal), single-shot .45-caliber handguns into France. The idea was that members of the Resistance could take out a lone sentry or careless German soldier and acquire their rifles and ammunition. However, for that approach to work, there have to be people willing to kill their own countrymen for the cause.
Have you seen the size of Iran, counted the cities, seen the deserts and the coasts and the ports? Do you know how fanatic and numerous the Muslim population of Iran is? … how they have Saladin as their hero and martyrs as their ideal warriors.
Your gung-ho, marines to the rescue hero saga scenario is imaginary.
Read the Tales of the Arabian Nights, you will get an idea of the mindset of your average Iranian.
And Btw, for the first time I will disagree with General Keane, a retired four-star general, who I consider the best source for this Iran war.
General Keane, said this weekend, while discussing ways to put more pressure on the Iranian Regime, that he thought seizing Kharg island should be one objective.
I don’t think that is necessary. There is no need to put American troops in danger doing this. We already have a complete shutdown of Iranian oil shipments with the blockade. There is no need to seize Kharg Island.
I believe everyone on this blog would do well to get an opposing view of the Empire of Pirates Clown Show (TM) in the ME by popping across to Larry’s blog here…..
https://sonar21.com/the-bogus-blockade-claim-of-the-us-department-of-war/
What pains me is that the more liberal (yes, funny I know) petro states in the ME cannot understand why the UK refuses to ban or proscribe the IRGC and the muslim brotherhood.
I can tell them, it’s the bloc islamic vote. They really do bring their baggage with them.
The UK would have been far better off, if it actually needed immigrants, to request them from Latin America. Those that do enter America, legally or illegally, tend to be be good workers and avoid causing political strife. After moslems arrive in the UK, how long does it take for them to become citizens? Or are they automatically citizens if they came from the old empire?
Boots on the ground are not necessary to control Kharg Island.
Trump has threatened to knock out all of their power plants and bridges. Rather than all of them, if some choice ones were selected and knock those out- and warn them that more will happen if they don’t wise up. Every week or so, knock out some more. We don’t want to slam all of them as that will hurt the population.
It won’t matter. Even if the regime is overthrown, something bad, possibly worse, will worm its way in eventually. The mentality of the entire region is just nutso.
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
News from France: the gas bill is likely to double by 2030. The carbon tax will follow the same path. Given how things are unfolding in terms of “planetary degradation” due to capitalism and fossil fuels, this “carbon penalty” looks more like a tax on planetary re-greening to me, but anyway.
“All the world is Green,” as sung by Tom Waits. Personally, I prefer greenery to eco-leftists.
(I love this song, by the way.)
I like green too which is why I was a forester for exactly 50 years. I loved being out there most days. I’d sometimes ponder all those unfortunate folks working in offices or factories- and here I was walking through forests to earn my bread. But now in retirement I’ve found new activities such as shown in the attached image. 🙂
Photography? Posing? Modeling new outerware? 🙂
ChatGPT
And that’s not my only current hobby.
which one is you, Joseph?
The geezer. Notice I’m in great shape at 76. Been working out all my life. 🙂
Well, before I remembered that Mr. Zorzin was doing AI image creation, I thought he had taken up a career as an amateur astronaut after retiring as a forester! I only use ChatGPT to translate into English the messages I write in French. It’s much better than Google Translate (which has still made considerable progress since slackers like me used it for our German homework in middle school), but there are still subtleties that get lost here and there. Nothing too serious, I think.
Just in case there are trees on the Moon, the landing crew will need a member with chainsaw experience. The cabin likely has a space for a STIHL 36 V, and the color is right.
That STIHL 36 V chainsaw is powered by a STIHL AK 30 lithium-ion battery.
I’m not sure that’s going to be allowed on any manned Moon mission, trees or no trees (e.g., for sawing through all that ice asserted to exist in Moon’s shadowed craters at its poles).
Maybe a forester with tundra experience would be a better fit? /sarc
yeah if you’re gonna wield a chainsaw in anger, you need an appropriate soundtrack to work by –
“I love the sound of chainsaws in the morning.
You know, that sound, that angry 2-stroke sound.
Sounds like – progress.”
The standard 30-year period used by NOAA, NASA, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is less of a scientific “truth” and more of an operational convention. From a root-cause analysis perspective the 30-year window falls short. Critics and researchers point out significant limitations when using this short window to define “trends”. The long-term, well established Cenozoic cooling trend has been under way for 50 million years. It started 15 degrees C warmer than the 1850-1900 average and cooled to the point the planet is in an Icehouse State. A sure enough ice age for 33.9 million years with the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet that deepened 2.58 million years ago. The cause was not CO2; it was tectonic activity. It will require tectonic activity to end the ice age…50-250 million years give or take.
It has nothing to do with any kind of truth. I don’t know, but I suspect it has more to do with statistics requiring a minimum of 30 sample in order to make inferences about a mean and standard deviation from sample means and sample standard deviation (i.e., standard error). I won’t go into the fallacies this includes. Suffice it to say, that it is misusing statistics to obtain an answer that was predetermined.
They hijacked the micro climate definition about 30 years after the first satellites started gatering data.
Corrections welcome.
As I understand it, the “30 year” thing started in the 1920’s. 30 years was set as the “average” because they only had 30 years of semi-reliable data from weather stations.
And it was never intended to be called “climate”. It was intended for saying temps were above or below “average” or “normal” in local weather reporting.
Again, corrections welcome.
(Today, I think we could and should use 60 years for that original purpose.)
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), a nongovernmental organization founded in 1873. The IMO held a meeting in Warsaw from September 6 to 13, 1935. I recall reading that it was there the 30 year “Climate Normal” plan was approved.
Every action has unintended consequences:
https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-are-disrupting-ocean-currents-moving-millions-of-tons-of-mud-each-year/
Not sure how Columbia University students should feel about their school fund which is supposed to grow if it were to decline if the fund value were to decline to the holding of green funds instead:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/13/columbia-university-oil-funding-student-complaint
OMG, the Antarctica is going to melt:
https://theconversation.com/how-antarctica-warmed-by-28-c-in-the-depths-of-winter-and-what-it-signals-for-the-decades-ahead-281418
And it can only get worse, of course…
Story Tip – Ivanka under the microscope:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-era-clean-energy-solar-power-plant-still-uses-fossil-fuels-kills-thousands-birds-annually
Before spouting about how many birds are killed by house cats, show us the house cat which takes on a Peregrine Falcon. Or, displaces Giant Desert Tortoise.
Lousy auto correct, that was supposed to be Ivanpah…
I once had a cat that I caught as a feral kitten. Smartest cat I ever owned. It weighed 20 lbs when it was a year old and it wasn’t fat. I suspected it was half bobcat. However, I doubt that even he would have taken on an eagle.
Mad Ed’s Plan for the Future
Ed Miliband says that because of the fallout consequences from the war against Iran, the UK must double down on the Net Zero transition.
But what does ‘double down on the Net Zero transition’ mean in practice?
In order to reach net zero by 2050, UK’s electricity consumption must rise from 288 Twh annually in 2025 to between 570 Twh and 800 Twh annually in 2050.
The near-doubling or possibly even tripling of UK electricity demand is driven by the mass electrification of heating (heat pumps) and transportation (electric vehicles).
The NESO web site has this article:
Bold and sustained action on clean energy “imperative” now and beyond 2030
This was 2025’s electricity consumption in the UK.
Gas generation ……… 101 TWh (35%)
Nuclear generation … 36 TWh (12%)
Wind generation ……. 85 TWh (29%)
Solar generation ……. 18 TWh (7%)
Hydro generation …… 5 TwH (2%)
Imported ………………. 43 Twh (15%)
TOTAL ………………….. 288 Twh (100%)
What NESO says about the future:
The NESO website says that future demand for UK’s electricity will be served by a combination of wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, plus imports — and will include limited gas-fired capacity employing carbon capture and storage (CSS).
Hydrogen will be used as the primary intermittency generation buffer for energy storage. In addition, the nation’s future fleet of EV’s will store 51 Twh of demand response energy.
Whatever …..
Hydrogen storage isn’t technically feasible. It won’t ever be technically feasible. Carbon capture and storage isn’t technically feasible. It won’t ever be technically feasible, at least for large-scale generation of electricity.
A quick expansion of nuclear power in the UK is inherently constrained by a variety of factors, of which extreme over-regulation is just one.
Mad Ed’s Plan:
If Ed Miliband’s plan goes forward, let’s guess that in 2050, the sources of UK electricity generation in the UK might look something like this.
Gas generation ………. 28 TWh (5%)
Nuclear generation … 70 TWh (12%)
Wind generation ……. 285 TWh (50%)
Solar generation ……. 114 TWh (20%)
Hydro generation ……… 5 TwH (1%)
Imported ………………… 70 Twh (12%)
TOTAL ……………………. 570 Twh (100%)
Under these assumptions, Mad Ed’s Net Zero transition causes these changes:
Gas generation ……….. 101 Twh to 28 TWh
Nuclear generation ….. 36 Twh to 70 TWh
Wind generation. …….. 85 Twh to 285 TWh
Solar generation ……… 18 Twh to 114 TWh
Hydro generation. …….. 5 TwH to 5 Twh
Imported ………………… 43 Twh to 70 Twh
TOTAL ……………………. 288 Twh to 570 Twh
The above figures don’t include how much battery storage is needed to handle wind and solar’s intermittency, which might be a combination of grid-scale battery storage plus the UK’s large future fleet of EV’s being used as energy storage able to be drawn upon as needed.
The Bottom Line:
Just looking at the magnitudes of these figures, it goes without saying that Ed Miliband and his Labor Government minions don’t have a clue as to how the Net Zero transition can be accomplished without dealing a fatal blow to the UK economy.
I don’t believe they care about the British economy. They certainly don’t understand it.
Scientists know how to phase out fossil fuels. Some countries are listening
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/at-shadow-climate-summit-on-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-scientists-are-center-stage/
A panel of scientists will be
advisingfleecing them.As an after-thought.. I wonder how all the “delegates” and “scientists” got to Santa Marta, Colombia.
Paddled a canoe ?
Rather nice resorts they have there.
All the trappings of a modern FOSSIL-FUEL powered city.
“Rather nice resorts they have there”
Pity if something happened to them . . .
I searched with “who are the scientists advising first global summit on phasing out fossil fuels?”
I learned of: Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET)
No people were named in what I found.
…
or maybe this is better…
btw.. not one “scientist” was named in the pap article.
If their basic assumption, that CO2 drives warming, turns out to be false, they are doomed to fail miserably. Please keep us informed on how they fare.
The latest prompt for ‘If you don’t know what you are doing DON’T DO IT!’:
UK scientists fire salt water into sky in bid to tackle climate crisis
and they’re also spruiking a line of rust-inhibitor products to the car owners downwind of the launch areas?
Beam me up Scotty. There’s no sign of intelligent life down here.
Which is why intelligent alien civilizations on other planets (if there are any) have not tried to contact us here on Earth. I read somewhere that the WOW! signal back in 1977 was probably caused by a comet or meteor. It was never heard again.
I ask for another gathering of reports on the mythical cold fusion scam and the resurgence of appeal for more money to develop nuclear fusion power.
This is needed as I note the report that Donald Trump is investing in fusion and there is a danger that an further waste of an enormous amount of public money will happen on his watch.
It is now nearly a century since the dream of a limitless source of cheap power could be generated on a planet by generating a tiny sun in a container.
People have been dreaming about humans flying since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. Consider how much heavier-than-air craft have improved since the Wright Brothers had their breakthrough. I don’t share your pessimism for controlled thermonuclear energy based on historical progress. Unlike space travel, there are no theoretical barriers to controlled thermonuclear energy. It has been a slow, difficult slog, but the engineers are making progress.
I am no expert but I don’t see how gigawatts in to sustain a fusion reaction can ever get gigawatts out. You’ll need a power plant to run a power plant.