Let’s jump to space to make this point: The dependence of longwave emission on T^4 means that the minor increase in IR absorbing power from incremental CO2 is not allowed to persist physically as a climate “forcing” to drive a long-term trend. Watch this time-lapse video of Band 16 IR images from 2024. The response to daily pulses (and seasonal cycles!) of sunshine is way too strong to allow the energy involved in the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 to accumulate as sensible heat gain. And there is ample dwell time for night conditions (and the winter season!) to even things out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgjw6ViRq9k
From the description on Youtube:
==================
Readme: This is a time lapse video of NOAA GOES East Band 16 infrared images for the CONUS region (contiguous U.S.), on one-hour intervals for 21 days ending June 26th, 2024. This includes a period of hot weather over much of the U.S.
Background: GOES East is a geostationary satellite capturing high resolution radiance data at visible and infrared wavelengths. NOAA calls Band 16 the “CO2 Longwave IR” band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. It is within this same band of wavelengths at the edge of the “atmospheric window” that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of incremental concentrations of CO2 is computed. The “brightness temperature” color scale used for these visualizations (at this URL below – copy and paste in a browser) is such that the infrared energy being emitted to space is 10 times stronger at 30C (bright yellow) than at -90C (white.)
(deleted for 5-24-26 post – see farther below)
The atmosphere is not just a passive radiative “trap.” It is sometimes described that way to support the concept of the “greenhouse effect.” But the end result of its powerful heat engine operation in response to absorbed energy is seen from space as a huge array of highly active and highly variable emitter elements. The formation and dissipation of clouds obviously has a lot to do with this, and the related overturning circulations are readily seen at local to regional scale. We also see a very rapid daytime rise and decay of infrared emission to space where there are clear skies.
Can the effect of incremental CO2 ever be isolated for reliable attribution of reported long-term warming? No. Can the long-term rise in CO2 concentration end up forcing heat energy to accumulate to harmful effect down here on land and in the oceans by what happens in the atmosphere? Also no. The planet will be fine. It’s time to stop scaring the children about climate change. Emissions of CO2 from using fossil fuels for energy are simply not capable of driving the climate system to a bad outcome.
================
“Can the effect of incremental CO2 ever be isolated for reliable attribution of reported long-term warming? No. Can the long-term rise in CO2 concentration end up forcing heat energy to accumulate to harmful effect down here on land and in the oceans by what happens in the atmosphere? Also no. The planet will be fine.” (bolding mine, tpg)
The biosphere is a non-linear time function. None of the models seem to recognize this even though the IPCC recognizes this as fact. Non-linear time functions simply won’t generate a linear output over time like the computer models generate. Since some of the functions have periods of centuries, the models can’t even capture those thus violating Nyquist sampling requirements for observation time interval, i.e. frequency resolution. T = 1/f. In fact, to minimize uncertainty you should capture at least 2 and preferably three cycles. For the AMO we should have at least 200 years of highly accurate data to resolve AMO changes in the tenths digit. We barely even have 50 years and it has a measurement uncertainty of at least +/- 1C. That’s not accurate enough to resolve changes in the AMO in the tenths digit. For the AMOC the observation period should be around 500-600 years of accurate data. Huh….
For the most part the low frequency periodic signals are just guesses as far as the climate models are concerned. Those “guesses” carry uncertainty – which climate science never seems to be able to address in even a cursory manner. The model “ensembles” won’t cancel these. But those low frequency periodic signals are IMPORTANT in determining the thermodynamic balance of the biosphere over time. The lengths of the glacial and inter-glacial intervals are proof of this. Radiation balance over a day, month, or even a year just isn’t a long enough observation interval to identify the impact of CO2 on the heat balance of the biosphere.
So the bolded part of your statement above is right on point. It all boils down to what “long-term” is defined as. 30 years of data just isn’t long enough for reliable attribution of thermodynamic effects to the biosphere.
So an extra 4 watts caused by CO2 forcing can
1) possibly heat the surface by a degree or so where the heat will be radiated to outer space.
2) cause convection to 100 meters higher elevation where it will be the same temp as due to the atmospheric lapse rate and hence radiate to outer space identically as nearby CO2 molecules.
3) be advected by Coriolis or other wind forces to somewhere with cooler weather.
4) cause more evaporation at fixed evaporation temperature over 70% of the Earth surface that is water.
5) cause evaporation and resultant cloud cover that increases the amount of sunlight reflected to outer space by clouds.
6) any combination of the above, making predictions of CO2 warming very “iffy”…and “cherry-pickable” for grant seeking pseudo scientists.
I love those band 16 vids that basically allow one to see these points in action.
The bright blue/white globe whose picture is now on many walls.
Always containing far more cloud than any Photoshopped image in the inconvenient un-truth video.
Yes….The “original”, usually with the moon in foreground, shows a 70% cloud and ice covered planet, while the “enhanced feelings” version shows more “clear skies” …the differences are apparent on an image search.
strativarius
May 24, 2026 2:57 am
Generate plant food – barbecue – check
Plenty of reality blocker – check
UK records hottest day of year as forecasters warn of more extreme heat
My junk class 5 garden by their reckoning is a death trap
And here in Missouri-I’m still trying to get my garden in, alas. It was quite warm earlier, then very chilly. Tomatoes and peppers don’t like to be whiplashed like that.
After turning our 3 heat pumps to AC, we have had to use two of our three propane stoves to keep the house warm on a day like this.
This is global warming? BURE MANURE.
Today CO2 ppm is much higher than in the 1930s, but temps were much higher than today.
IPCC should be banned and all these 104 scare-mongering temperature curves should be thrown into the garbage, for starters.
Here is an excerpt from an article that shows CO2 ppm had nothing to do with temp changes, because CO2 ppm did not change, but temps did.
The Roman Warm Period (250 BC – AD 400): That period was about 2 C warmer than at present, but CO2 ppm was lower than today. It was a worldwide period of relatively warm, stable, humid conditions, including Europe and the Mediterranean. That period saw good crops, better living conditions and economic and population growth. It coincided with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. In AD 43, the Romans invaded Britain primarily for its minerals, such as tin (to make bronze), gold, silver, lead, and iron, and for providing slaves and taxes. Britain’s fertile lands produced grain, cattle, leather, and wool.
The Cold Dark Ages (400 – 800): The onset of the colder temperatures led to less crops, more famines, more diseases, social-economic instability, migrations, invasions of barbarians, and economic decline. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 when the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer.
The Warm Middle Ages (800 – 1400): The onset of warmer climates about 1000, marked the transition to the warm which was marked with good crops, better living conditions and economic and population growth. Much of the excess wealth accrued to 1) the top 0.5% (mostly royalty and titled people), who build opulent palaces and had control of armed forces, and 2) the Roman Catholic Church for its self-aggrandizement by building Cathedrals, Monasteries, Chapels, etc.
The Eastern part of the Roman Empire broke away, because of the decadence and corruption prevailing in Rome. It became the Orthodox-Christian Byzantine Empire, with capital in Constantinople, lasting from 330 to 1353, ultimately taken over by the expanding Islamic Ottoman Empire.
Crusades (1095 – 1291): Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade to reclaim the Holyland from Turkish Muslim rule. People participated for remission of sins, doing penance, etc., to have a clean slate to go to Heaven. Because fighting was involved many knights and royals participated. A side benefit was the violence of knights was redirected towards a common enemy, instead of to various fiefdoms fighting each other in Europe. The costly, distant Crusades were ended after the fall of Acre to the Ottoman Empire in 1291. European kings and nobles shifted their focus on internal power struggles, territorial disputes (e.g., the Hundred Years’ War, a conflict between England and France, 1337 – 1453), and national interests rather than a distant religious war.
BTW, those three heat pumps with six outlets had an installed cost of $24000 about 5 years ago.
I do not use them, when temps go below 15 – 20 F, because the electricity cost/hr would be more than my propane cost/h
The annual energy cost savings have averaged $200/y; a very poor investment.
The annual payment to amortize the borrowed money for 15 years at 6% is about $2200
So far, I have had no service calls.
HPs are huge financial losers in colder climates, said this energy systems analyst, now retired, more than 20 years ago.
A nearby friend had a $6000 HP service call in his 7th year (out of warranty), because the large outdoor heat exchanger was leaking and needed to be replaced.
He was pissed.
He has no propane stoves
The image is great: A man from a (fossil fuel related?) PR department telling you lies so that they can continue pollute (complete with factory in the background)
Older, less educated male (The maga audience?)
The daily outrage (No facts, just feelings?)
Has WUWT gone green?
Do they make fun of their audience?
Like seriously. The more I look at it the better it gets.
How 24/7 Renewables Are Ending Fossil Fuel Reliability
Good grief, man, what are you on? The Forbes headline should give you a clue, “Fossil Fuel Reliability“, but you choose to ignore it.
“Firm” LCOE is accounting sleight-of-hand.
IRENA invented this metric to bundle solar/wind + batteries and claim 24/7 power at $54-82/MWh (even $30 in China).
It uses favourable assumptions: single good weather year, 4-hour batteries, heavy overbuild in top resource spots, and ignores full system costs. Real grids need to handle multi-day low wind/solar events (“Dunkelflaute”), seasonal mismatches, and rare extremes—not just daily cycling.
Long-duration storage beyond 4-8 hours remains expensive and unscalable at grid levels. Lithium batteries are decent in short shifts, not weeks of backup.
Intermittency isn’t “solved.”
The article waves away the core problem: solar dies at night/cloudy days; wind drops for days. Batteries (down ~90% since 2010) help with intra-day arbitrage, but making variable renewables “firm” like coal/gas plants requires massive overcapacity + storage + backups. That drives up total costs far beyond project-level LCOE.
Germany’s Energiewende shows high renewables penetration with decent reliability only because they retain dispatchable reliable fuels, imports, and have spent heavily on grid tweaks. Prolonged lulls still expose vulnerabilities.
Ignores system-wide realities:
Massive grid upgrades and transmission for distributed/ remote renewables.
Material demands (lithium, rare earths) and mining geopolitics (not exactly “fuel-free resilience”).
Backup capacity that must sit idle much of the time but gets paid for reliability.
Rising electricity demand (AI/data centres) amplifying the challenge.
Reliable fuel plants provide inherent dispatchability. Renewables shift those costs elsewhere – often to ratepayers or taxpayers via subsidies.
Geopolitical and “decentralized resilience” spin. Renewables aren’t immune to shocks: supply chains for panels, turbines, and batteries are concentrated (China dominates).
Reliable fuels may have price volatility, but established infrastructure and fuel stockpiles offer different strengths. The article downplays how fast-deployment advantage fades when you factor in the full integration bill.
This is a promotional narrative from an organization whose mission is renewables promotion.
Unsurprisingly, their “structural shift” conclusion fits the brief. Renewables are cheaper when the sun shines and wind blows, that’s why they grow with subsidies. True apples-to-apples 24/7 firm power is a different beast. Physics, weather, and economics don’t care about press releases. Markets and engineers will sort the viable mix; hype like this just distorts policy.
The transition has real momentum in good niches, but pretending intermittency is yesterday’s problem is the BS that leads to blackouts and cost overruns elsewhere.
It’s classic IRENA cheerleading—optimistic modelling that glosses over engineering and economic realities.
When it comes to access to the energy grid, large consumers in Hamburg will no longer be on a first-come, first-served basis. In the future, the grid operator Hamburger Energienetze will decide on the allocation of energy capacity to large consumers. In the planned allocation procedure, referred to by the authorities as a “repartition procedure,” companies with an expected energy demand exceeding 1.5 MVA (megavolt-amperes) will receive energy volumes allocated by the grid operator. This involves a “fair distribution“,” the company claims.
Yet. Wait until the Dems return-or the woke states of the Northeast discover the full effects of their green idiocy…then watch out. Or get popcorn and beer because it is seriously gonna be quite ths show with lots of screaming and yelling, and tears.
Once again I remind you that heavy industries and the heavy transportation system will always enormous amounts of fossil fuel as will all the heavy machinery used in mining and agriculture. How do you heat water for cooking, washing dishes and bathing?
MUCH more expensive, especially for whole house use. And the time lag on a whole house electric hot water system can be longer than for a gas-fired, stored system. It means that your washer may think it’s using hot water in the wash cycle but it’s not.
Negative export prices, expensive purchases: The suppressed truth about Germany’s electricity trading Germany was again a net exporter of electricity in the first months of the year. However, the economic picture is worse than the quantity statistics suggest: In Germany, electricity is often produced precisely when it is not needed anywhere.
Germany is exporting electricity again – and yet still losing money. The figures for the first four months of 2026 clearly demonstrate this. During this period, 19.78 terawatt-hours of electricity were exported and 16.53 terawatt-hours imported. The physical electricity balance was thus positive again at 2.76 terawatt-hours – for the first time since the nuclear phase-out in 2023. Anyone looking solely at this quantity balance might already declare Germany’s return to being an electricity exporting nation. However, the economic reality is quite the opposite: Exports worth €1,640 million were offset by imports worth €1,836 million. Ultimately, despite the positive quantity balance, money flowed abroad.
Don’t forget, wealthy owners of the wind, solar, battery, etc., tax shelters are getting paid, if too much wind and too much solar, requiring curtailment of their outputs so they don’t screw up the grid.
A win-win for them, another royal screwing for us.
I often ask me, after reading your comments, what is the bubble you are living in. What you are typing here as comments is nothing else than pure fantasy or fiction, strange and far, far away from any reality.
Not worth to be read.
So it is now established, according to some, that wind, solar and batteries produce constant electricity at a cost less than that of coal or gas. So let us stop all subsidies and demand contortions that wind, solar, and batteries currently enjoy. It’s perfectly clear.
“How 24/7 Renewables Are Ending Fossil Fuel Reliability”
1… There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
2… Yes, whenever you add inherently unreliable sources to a grid, the grid becomes more UNRELIABLE.
3… Because “unreliables” mandates mean real power supplies like COAL and GAS have to ramp up and down more often, this lowers their efficiency and also requires more maintenance, with less money.
So yes, so-called renewables make EVERYTHING more UNRELIABLE
“California considers small hydroelectricity (facilities 30 megawatts or smaller) renewable. However, the state excludes large hydroelectric power from its strict legal definition of renewable energy due to environmental concerns regarding river ecosystems and fish habitats.”
The idea that “large Hydro” should not be considedred renewable came about (memory here) because the desired percentage of such in the new-green system would be easily met by existing generation at large dams. Thus, 30 megawatts or smaller facilities would not be needed and would not justify financing and subsidies.
The California concern about ecosystems was/is a distraction, but does prevent any new large facilities.
1… There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
Ohh and geothermal. And biomss…. And you could argue ocean energy I guess… but other than that There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
yeah biomass tends to have long spells of scarcity of fuel as the trees re-grow
(or you just chip the trees that get cut down for windmills and transmission lines, and then transport it all with diesel powered trucks and bunker oil fueled ships.
But saving the climate, right?)
Ocean energy = wave energy?
There’s a number of those generators rusting in the surf right now 🙂
Another week and no Trump phone…. Still I’m sure it’s gonna come some time soon right?
And … I am sure with your moral battle against political fraud, you will be on the war path about the Trump “investigation-compensation fund” (slush fund). You know the one that will pay its applicants big $’s for beating up cops. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx21d41p6dzo
The fund is actually for people who were unfairly convicted by Biden’s illegal weaponization of the federal government which railroaded a lot of innocent people.
People who were legitimately convicted of crimes on January 6, will not be compensated, they will serve their jail times.
The Leftwing lies and distorts everything hoping this will help their political ambitions.
If you want liars representing you, vote for the Left.
“People who were legitimately convicted of crimes on January 6, will not be compensated, they will serve their jail times.”
Firstly ALL of those convicted for crimes on jan 6 were done so legitimately. They all had fair trials in front of a jury of their peers. That is how it works.
Second, there are people walking free who plead guilty to crimes on Jan 6. And no one in a position of authority has said these people will not be entitled to apply. They were Blanche’s very words.
“The fund is actually for people who were unfairly convicted by Biden’s illegal weaponization of the federal government which railroaded a lot of innocent people.”
Biden played no part in the convictions of any of the Jan 6 criminals. He left it to the justice system as he should.
Now here is the bad part. Blanche gets to choose those on the panel. If he doesn’t like a decision they make, he can fire them. That removes any hint of impartiallity.
Finally and worst of all. There is no public accountability. We don’t get to find out who gets money and how much. This lack of guaranteed, sweeping public transparency—coupled with the absence of congressional oversight or judicial review in the claims process makes this just plain wrong and opens it up to full scale corruption.
Even Andrew McCarthy on Fox News said “The Trump slush fund is an abuse of political power although now a legal wrong.”
And last finally, can anyone here justify Trump and his family being granted immunity from any convictions for tax violations now and into the future? It seems he no longer even tries to hide his daylight corruptions and any attempts to protect himself from being held accountable.
“Biden played no part in the convictions of any of the Jan 6 criminals. He left it to the justice system as he should.”
You don’t really believe that do you? Biden has been using the federal government as a weapon against political opponents since he was Vice President. James Comey did not act on his own, he was under orders from above. Just doing his job I suppose you would say.
If you are going to make claims like that Tom you need evidence. Do you have any other than your gut feeling? Don’t get me wrong I’m sure Biden was delighted that Trump and his team were being examined, but I’m not aware of any time Biden interfered in the justice system to nail Trump, unlike what Trump is doing now with the likes of Comey and James.
Do you have any evidence?
So can I take from your no response Tom, you are as I thought, unable to find any direct quote that shows Biden interfering in the justice system? That is quite sad Tom.
You do not even qualify as the court jester here as they were not anonymous but actually in danger of execution at the king’s displeasure.
They were deemed fools for risking life daily to keep truth alive, you are just a real fool, post error and falsehood and idiotic conspiracy theories and your posts are so pointless I cannot even discern a coherent motive.
I see what you did there. Over in your echo chambers, that little zinger is an item y’all think is a smoking gun bit of evidence that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns to dupe old dumb guys.
As it pertains to me providing you with educational material which your beloved leaders are deliberately withholding from you – you’re welcome! Funny how true believers on your side claim there’s disinformation happening in the climate issue, while being oblivious to how it’s all coming from your side. Your leaders count on you trusting it all without question. What happens to you the moment you take issue with any tiny little part of it?
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
RE: Current Status Of CO2 In The Air
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP. This small amount of CO2 can not absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR to warm up such a large mass of air.
The reason there is such a small amount of CO2 in the air is that most
of it produced by the use of fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans where it fixed by plants ranging from alga to sea weeds and grasses. A large amount of CO2 is converted to bicarbonate and carbonate anions which are used to make shells of many species of shell fish. Corals use these anion for making their calcium carbonate structures. Large amounts of CO2 are fixed by terrestrial plants.
We really do not have worry the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
It absorbs incoming and outgoing…and you can use Modtran to calculate absorption by the atmosphere, or follow papers by Happer, or Harde, or many others.
But, the approximately one degree of warming that likely will result from the additional 4 watts/sq.M by doubling atmospheric CO2 is so insignificant compared to normal weather variations that you can’t determine “scientifically” when to leave your sweater at home or when to plant your garden any better than you could two hundred years ago.
But it’s enough of a minor element of truth for a devious bureaucracy to spin an ‘economy’ to support supervisory jobs, gov’t departments, money transfers to plausible-sounding agendas…..all those things that politicians addicted to the aphrodisiac of power strive to achieve at someone else’s cost.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
“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 was ca. 280 ppmv (0.52 g CO2/cu. m. of air) and by it had increased to 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m of air), but there was corresponding increase in air temperature in this port city. Instead there was a slight cooling. Darwin also had a cooling. In 1857 Tav was 14.2° C and by 1999 it had declined 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 long table. The computed Tav was 17.4° C. Since measurement error is +/- 0.1 ° C, it is concluded that there has been no warming of air in Adelaide for 168 years and that CO2 has no effect on air temperature.
The chart was taken from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. From 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 stations. Click on “Adelaide”. Click on the back arrow to redisplay the list of stations. Click on the back arrow again to display the “World Map”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
His empirical temperature data falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming. Spend a little time checking out charts especially the charts for Brisbane and Siberia.
Awhile back I sent an email to Prof. Happer and said that he should check out the chart for Death Valley. John Daly died at age 64. Prof. Happer said that “The death of John Daly was great loss to honest science”. I recall that his calculation found that CO2 would cause only a few tents of degree of warming of the air. I am not a fan of model calculations because they never take into account winter. In winter CO2 and H2O hibernate.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the chart and return to Comments.
If IR affected temperature in air or CO2 directly then there would need to be two columns in these charts. With and without IR.
I am with Harold on this.
Art Slartibartfast
May 24, 2026 3:39 am
According to the Köppen climate classification there are 30 different climate types. However, what I cannot seem to find on-line is how many different climate regions there are. I can well imagine there are two subtropical regions that are separated by a tropical region. Anybody have the answer or can point me to where to find this information?
I think you’ll find there are about 200 different regions, give or take 50 each way. E.g. the High Plains of the US, the Andes Highlands, etc.
And climate science thinks they can combine all of these into “average” temperature. Climate depends on a LOT more than just air temperature, air temperature is a piss poor metric for climate, especially when climate science uses daily mid-point air temperatures which can’t distinguish climate at all. They would be better off using precipitation or soil temperature. as the metric. It would be even better if they used a combined metric based on precip, soil temp, and growing season length.
Go to the library check out a modern text books on meteorology. You could then photocopy the relevant text and save it for future reference.
I recall there are five major climate regions: tropical, subtropical, temperate, continental and polar.
Use a AI bot and do this search: In Köppen climate classification system how many different climate regions are there? Hopefully, you will get lucky and get the info.
Wladmir Köppen (1846-1940) and his colleague Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) were the original climate scientists.
Here in the Middle of Nowhere in southeastern Washington state, we can experience tropical, subtropical, temperate, continental and polar climates depending upon the time of year, the season, the time of day, our specific location in southeastern Washington state; and last but not least, our particular state of mind on any particular day.
I have read reports on the net that Washington state has a consumer carbon tax on fossil fuels. I been thinking how we can use John Daly’s temperature data to have the taxes canceled.
I live in Burnaby, B.C. B.C. was one of the first jurisdiction to levy a tax on fossil fuels. In 2009 the tax was $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Then the government got greedy. By 2024 the tax was $80 per tonne of CO2 of equivalent. On Jan 1 the consumer tax was cancelled.
The Federal government has now levied an industrial carbon tax and the oil companies (the Oil Sand Alliance) are not happy. The five oil companies want build a new pipeline to the west coast of B.C. For approval of the new pipeline the federal government wants the companies to spend 20 billion dollars on a carbon dioxide storage project. This is carbon blackmail. Presently the negotiations between the companies, Alberta, and the federal government are still on going.
Here in Washington state, the carbon tax is implemented in the form of a cap and invest scheme.
It’s not all that burdensome at this point in the year 2026, but this will change as the decade progresses into the late 2020’s when the state’s very ambitious carbon reduction targets come into force.
The carbon tax nee cap and invest scheme is being relied upon to do the heavy lifting of reducing the state’s carbon emissions.
So far, it has done next to nothing in reducing emissions, but it has been very successful in lining the pockets of several NGOs and public interest groups who support the current regime in the state capital.
Depends on the level of detail you are after. You might describe the “local climate region” to include the area around each of the earth’s deserts, alpine areas, coastlines, islands, etc. What you should NOT do is describe anything as the GAT-dependent “global climate”!
May I suggest you read the Wikipedia page for Wladimir_Köppen. Here is a clue to his thinking: “The floral and geographical diversity of the Crimean peninsula, as well as the starker geographical transitions between the capital and his home, did much to awaken an interest in the relationship between climate and the natural world.”
Then:
“He identified five major climatic groups, which correspond with the five main vegetation groups ”
Now have a look at this map from 1884. Scroll down 2/3 to the map on the left side. https://arboretum.harvard.edu/plant-bios/pecan/
Imagine the work to make such a map.
My phrase has been “Vegetation integrates climate”. Field work to map plant boundaries was difficult and slow. Thus, as the attempt to define “climate types” grew there was a need to find a better way. Temperatures and precipitation filled the role of plants.
If you want exactness, read sports statistics.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of local climates all around the world.
Too many with differing locality influences, drivers, characteristics, behavior patterns and observed cycles to categorize them into logical taxonomy folders.
(which is why “averaging” temps numbers of woeful probity & provenance to arrive at “global temperature” constructs is arrant nonsense)
A Sunday morning reflection on the human condition –
we’re choking on media bullshit.
Jordan Petersen’s observation that “anyone can claim to be a ‘journalist’ these days” is spot on.
And this shows up right across the media-sphere every . single . day.
Relevant example for this WUWT space –
university “media department” produces some blown-up release about what their ‘world-leading research team’ has claimed to discover, then almost immediately the mainstream ‘journalists’ file their articles almost verbatim of what the university media dept sent them.
No scrutiny, no other reference sources, just flood the pages with fresh narrative confirmation pieces.
This is “bullshit journalism”, designed to drown us.
One of my my biggest gripes is the claim that commercial nuclear fusion is just around the corner.
We see nuclear professional groups and nuclear-focused journalists treating claims about commercial nuclear fusion like there was real substance to these claims.
No one has produced any credible evidence that a working fusion reactor capable of continuously producing electricity is on the near-term horizon. And yet billions of dollars are being invested in this blatant scam.
Will we still being seeing these claims in a decade’s time when no working fusion reactor capable of producing electric power on any scale at all has been developed and tested?
The best guess is Yes, there will still be claims in a decade that commercial safe fusion is nearly achieved and just needs a few more billions to complete the last step.
Another wonder of the world has resurfaced, the quantum level perpetual motion machine where energy is extracted from the virtual realm. Commercial applications using quantum vacuum energy extraction are about to appear in your supermarket any day now.
I wonder if they will be called dilithium crystals?
“This is “bullshit journalism”, designed to drown us.”
We are looking at a high-powered, very well financed, Leftwing propaganda effort. They *are* trying to drown us in disinformation. It’s brainwashing on a global scale.
Does this have any meaning or relevance to climate change?
“Ramsey theory, in general, studies the conditions under which order must inevitably be present even in the most chaotic of systems. The various theorems that have sprung up under this large umbrella are based on the principle that within large, complex systems, however disorderly they may appear at first sight, there exist subsystems that have a definite structure. The implication is that there’s no such thing as true randomness.” (Darling and Banerjee 2022, p196)
Darling D., Banerjee A. (2022), “The biggest number in the world: A journey to the edge of mathematics”, Oneworld Publications, London
My understanding is that chaotic systems create instances of sequential effects between elements of the system (order?), but then just as quickly abandon such sequences without identifiable prompts.
Not much to say today. I have already expressed my satisfaction at the withdrawal of RCP8.5, but since the bad faith of catastrophists is unshakable, a certain bitterness tempers my contentment. It doesn’t matter. Progress has been made, we should be glad about it, and concede nothing otherwise.
By the way, here is what caught my eye the day before yesterday. I think it’s a good story tip :
Even better still, stayed at home here in Australia to re-establish a processing and manufacturing industrial complex to regain freedom from the instability of the global village nightmare and avoid complicity in using slave labour offshore.
I have read that the RUBISCO enzyme which captures CO2 in photosynthesis increases in efficiency as CO2 concentration in the air increases. Any experts out there he might know whether this response of the enzyme increases linearly with increase CO2 or is there an inflection point?
Rational Keith
May 26, 2026 4:52 pm
Mixed news from Canada:
MP Stephen Guilbeault is resigning from Parliament. Former Environment Minister, including Parks when Jasper AB was blocked from removing dead trees to reduce risk of forest fire. He has been pushed aside by the new PM. A criminal history of vandalism and invasion of private property in ‘protests’.
The city of Vancouver BC plans to change its laws to remove block on natural gas heating in buildings, much vocal opposition to that. City’s motivation is to reduce cost of housing, which is a major concern in most of Canada.
Discussions on oil pipeline to northwest coast are progressing with federal government, at high price to Alberta of carbon capture projects. Premier of BC is whining and playing PR games against pipeline while hypocritically favouring further increase in tanker traffic through Straits from Vancouver BC area to open ocean, and promoting LNG exports. But his only ability to block a new pipeline is convince hereditary tribal chiefs to push hard against it, whereas elected chiefs want the economic activity for their members.
Some municipal fiefdoms like Saanich BC are still pushing measures to address ‘climate change’, I hope TossEmTime will remove Councillors supporting that and elect Councillors who will support more policing (election in October).
TFK_bams09 and all of its clones don’t just violate LoT (160 in & 396 out LoT1 & 333 “back” from cold to warm wo work LoT 2) but GAAP.
The same 63 W/m^2 LWIR appears twice, once from the real solar balance: 160 – 80 – 17 = 1st 63 & the calc’d /“measured” /imaginary BB 396 – 333 = 2nd 63.
Only one of these is needed to balance OLR at ToA so that means the other is free floating, unaccounted for, looking for a home and apparently dropped down someone’s boot top.
Only one of these balance loops belongs on the graphic.
I suggest the keeping the real one.
Let’s jump to space to make this point: The dependence of longwave emission on T^4 means that the minor increase in IR absorbing power from incremental CO2 is not allowed to persist physically as a climate “forcing” to drive a long-term trend. Watch this time-lapse video of Band 16 IR images from 2024. The response to daily pulses (and seasonal cycles!) of sunshine is way too strong to allow the energy involved in the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 to accumulate as sensible heat gain. And there is ample dwell time for night conditions (and the winter season!) to even things out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgjw6ViRq9k
From the description on Youtube:
==================
Readme: This is a time lapse video of NOAA GOES East Band 16 infrared images for the CONUS region (contiguous U.S.), on one-hour intervals for 21 days ending June 26th, 2024. This includes a period of hot weather over much of the U.S.
Background: GOES East is a geostationary satellite capturing high resolution radiance data at visible and infrared wavelengths. NOAA calls Band 16 the “CO2 Longwave IR” band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. It is within this same band of wavelengths at the edge of the “atmospheric window” that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of incremental concentrations of CO2 is computed. The “brightness temperature” color scale used for these visualizations (at this URL below – copy and paste in a browser) is such that the infrared energy being emitted to space is 10 times stronger at 30C (bright yellow) than at -90C (white.)
(deleted for 5-24-26 post – see farther below)
The atmosphere is not just a passive radiative “trap.” It is sometimes described that way to support the concept of the “greenhouse effect.” But the end result of its powerful heat engine operation in response to absorbed energy is seen from space as a huge array of highly active and highly variable emitter elements. The formation and dissipation of clouds obviously has a lot to do with this, and the related overturning circulations are readily seen at local to regional scale. We also see a very rapid daytime rise and decay of infrared emission to space where there are clear skies.
Can the effect of incremental CO2 ever be isolated for reliable attribution of reported long-term warming? No. Can the long-term rise in CO2 concentration end up forcing heat energy to accumulate to harmful effect down here on land and in the oceans by what happens in the atmosphere? Also no. The planet will be fine. It’s time to stop scaring the children about climate change. Emissions of CO2 from using fossil fuels for energy are simply not capable of driving the climate system to a bad outcome.
================
Radiance v wavelength – the incremental absorbing effect of 2XCO2 within Band 16 is shown in magenta
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=sharing
Radiance vs “Brightness temperature” to interpret the visualizations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter.
The biosphere is a non-linear time function. None of the models seem to recognize this even though the IPCC recognizes this as fact. Non-linear time functions simply won’t generate a linear output over time like the computer models generate. Since some of the functions have periods of centuries, the models can’t even capture those thus violating Nyquist sampling requirements for observation time interval, i.e. frequency resolution. T = 1/f. In fact, to minimize uncertainty you should capture at least 2 and preferably three cycles. For the AMO we should have at least 200 years of highly accurate data to resolve AMO changes in the tenths digit. We barely even have 50 years and it has a measurement uncertainty of at least +/- 1C. That’s not accurate enough to resolve changes in the AMO in the tenths digit. For the AMOC the observation period should be around 500-600 years of accurate data. Huh….
For the most part the low frequency periodic signals are just guesses as far as the climate models are concerned. Those “guesses” carry uncertainty – which climate science never seems to be able to address in even a cursory manner. The model “ensembles” won’t cancel these. But those low frequency periodic signals are IMPORTANT in determining the thermodynamic balance of the biosphere over time. The lengths of the glacial and inter-glacial intervals are proof of this. Radiation balance over a day, month, or even a year just isn’t a long enough observation interval to identify the impact of CO2 on the heat balance of the biosphere.
So the bolded part of your statement above is right on point. It all boils down to what “long-term” is defined as. 30 years of data just isn’t long enough for reliable attribution of thermodynamic effects to the biosphere.
So an extra 4 watts caused by CO2 forcing can
1) possibly heat the surface by a degree or so where the heat will be radiated to outer space.
2) cause convection to 100 meters higher elevation where it will be the same temp as due to the atmospheric lapse rate and hence radiate to outer space identically as nearby CO2 molecules.
3) be advected by Coriolis or other wind forces to somewhere with cooler weather.
4) cause more evaporation at fixed evaporation temperature over 70% of the Earth surface that is water.
5) cause evaporation and resultant cloud cover that increases the amount of sunlight reflected to outer space by clouds.
6) any combination of the above, making predictions of CO2 warming very “iffy”…and “cherry-pickable” for grant seeking pseudo scientists.
I love those band 16 vids that basically allow one to see these points in action.
The bright blue/white globe whose picture is now on many walls.
Always containing far more cloud than any Photoshopped image in the inconvenient un-truth video.
Yes….The “original”, usually with the moon in foreground, shows a 70% cloud and ice covered planet, while the “enhanced feelings” version shows more “clear skies” …the differences are apparent on an image search.
Generate plant food – barbecue – check
Plenty of reality blocker – check
UK records hottest day of year as forecasters warn of more extreme heat
My junk class 5 garden by their reckoning is a death trap
Enjoy! It’s been colder than usual here in central NY for late May.
I intend to, David – thanks – I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. h/t No6
add: adjusted and homogenized by the Met Office!
And here in Missouri-I’m still trying to get my garden in, alas. It was quite warm earlier, then very chilly. Tomatoes and peppers don’t like to be whiplashed like that.
Much the same in my part of Texas
After turning our 3 heat pumps to AC, we have had to use two of our three propane stoves to keep the house warm on a day like this.
This is global warming? BURE MANURE.
Today CO2 ppm is much higher than in the 1930s, but temps were much higher than today.
IPCC should be banned and all these 104 scare-mongering temperature curves should be thrown into the garbage, for starters.
Here is an excerpt from an article that shows CO2 ppm had nothing to do with temp changes, because CO2 ppm did not change, but temps did.
Europe’s Decline from a Lofty Perch
https://willempost.substack.com/p/europes-decline-from-a-lofty-perch?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
The Roman Warm Period (250 BC – AD 400): That period was about 2 C warmer than at present, but CO2 ppm was lower than today. It was a worldwide period of relatively warm, stable, humid conditions, including Europe and the Mediterranean. That period saw good crops, better living conditions and economic and population growth. It coincided with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. In AD 43, the Romans invaded Britain primarily for its minerals, such as tin (to make bronze), gold, silver, lead, and iron, and for providing slaves and taxes. Britain’s fertile lands produced grain, cattle, leather, and wool.
The Cold Dark Ages (400 – 800): The onset of the colder temperatures led to less crops, more famines, more diseases, social-economic instability, migrations, invasions of barbarians, and economic decline. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 when the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer.
The Warm Middle Ages (800 – 1400): The onset of warmer climates about 1000, marked the transition to the warm which was marked with good crops, better living conditions and economic and population growth. Much of the excess wealth accrued to 1) the top 0.5% (mostly royalty and titled people), who build opulent palaces and had control of armed forces, and 2) the Roman Catholic Church for its self-aggrandizement by building Cathedrals, Monasteries, Chapels, etc.
The Eastern part of the Roman Empire broke away, because of the decadence and corruption prevailing in Rome. It became the Orthodox-Christian Byzantine Empire, with capital in Constantinople, lasting from 330 to 1353, ultimately taken over by the expanding Islamic Ottoman Empire.
Crusades (1095 – 1291): Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade to reclaim the Holyland from Turkish Muslim rule. People participated for remission of sins, doing penance, etc., to have a clean slate to go to Heaven. Because fighting was involved many knights and royals participated. A side benefit was the violence of knights was redirected towards a common enemy, instead of to various fiefdoms fighting each other in Europe. The costly, distant Crusades were ended after the fall of Acre to the Ottoman Empire in 1291. European kings and nobles shifted their focus on internal power struggles, territorial disputes (e.g., the Hundred Years’ War, a conflict between England and France, 1337 – 1453), and national interests rather than a distant religious war.
BTW, those three heat pumps with six outlets had an installed cost of $24000 about 5 years ago.
I do not use them, when temps go below 15 – 20 F, because the electricity cost/hr would be more than my propane cost/h
The annual energy cost savings have averaged $200/y; a very poor investment.
The annual payment to amortize the borrowed money for 15 years at 6% is about $2200
So far, I have had no service calls.
HPs are huge financial losers in colder climates, said this energy systems analyst, now retired, more than 20 years ago.
A nearby friend had a $6000 HP service call in his 7th year (out of warranty), because the large outdoor heat exchanger was leaking and needed to be replaced.
He was pissed.
He has no propane stoves
It’s amazing,and certainly surprises the BBC when the hottest day of the year so far is in the current month of late Spring.
Where are the reporters frying eggs on the tarmac? https://youtu.be/FHJOqD-QDhE?si=aFLuH2hMNriTX7b1
The image is great: A man from a (fossil fuel related?) PR department telling you lies so that they can continue pollute (complete with factory in the background)
Older, less educated male (The maga audience?)
The daily outrage (No facts, just feelings?)
Has WUWT gone green?
Do they make fun of their audience?
Like seriously. The more I look at it the better it gets.
It also has no reference to being an AI image in the link anymore (https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/reposition-global-warming-theory-not-fact-1.webp). I would prefer AI images at least marked like this.
Anyways, here’s some real good sunday stuff:
How 24/7 Renewables Are Ending Fossil Fuel Reliability
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2026/05/20/how-247-renewables-are-ending-fossil-fuel-reliability/
Gosh! Still ploughing that lonely unscientific furrow?
I could have had religion…
Good grief, man, what are you on? The Forbes headline should give you a clue, “Fossil Fuel Reliability“, but you choose to ignore it.
“Firm” LCOE is accounting sleight-of-hand.
IRENA invented this metric to bundle solar/wind + batteries and claim 24/7 power at $54-82/MWh (even $30 in China).
It uses favourable assumptions: single good weather year, 4-hour batteries, heavy overbuild in top resource spots, and ignores full system costs. Real grids need to handle multi-day low wind/solar events (“Dunkelflaute”), seasonal mismatches, and rare extremes—not just daily cycling.
Long-duration storage beyond 4-8 hours remains expensive and unscalable at grid levels. Lithium batteries are decent in short shifts, not weeks of backup.
Intermittency isn’t “solved.”
The article waves away the core problem: solar dies at night/cloudy days; wind drops for days. Batteries (down ~90% since 2010) help with intra-day arbitrage, but making variable renewables “firm” like coal/gas plants requires massive overcapacity + storage + backups. That drives up total costs far beyond project-level LCOE.
Germany’s Energiewende shows high renewables penetration with decent reliability only because they retain dispatchable reliable fuels, imports, and have spent heavily on grid tweaks. Prolonged lulls still expose vulnerabilities.
Ignores system-wide realities:
Reliable fuel plants provide inherent dispatchability. Renewables shift those costs elsewhere – often to ratepayers or taxpayers via subsidies.
Geopolitical and “decentralized resilience” spin. Renewables aren’t immune to shocks: supply chains for panels, turbines, and batteries are concentrated (China dominates).
Reliable fuels may have price volatility, but established infrastructure and fuel stockpiles offer different strengths. The article downplays how fast-deployment advantage fades when you factor in the full integration bill.
This is a promotional narrative from an organization whose mission is renewables promotion.
Unsurprisingly, their “structural shift” conclusion fits the brief. Renewables are cheaper when the sun shines and wind blows, that’s why they grow with subsidies. True apples-to-apples 24/7 firm power is a different beast. Physics, weather, and economics don’t care about press releases. Markets and engineers will sort the viable mix; hype like this just distorts policy.
The transition has real momentum in good niches, but pretending intermittency is yesterday’s problem is the BS that leads to blackouts and cost overruns elsewhere.
It’s classic IRENA cheerleading—optimistic modelling that glosses over engineering and economic realities.
Realities
That’s heresy…
I’m proud to be a heretic
#metoo…
I’m Spartacus!
Great response but well above MUR’s comprehension level!
that’s a pretty low threshold
“Fair distribution” in climate socialism: The fight for electricity capacity begins in Hamburg.
The state central planner has once again completely miscalculated the expansion of renewable energies. Electricity connections for large consumers will have to be rationed in the future in order to at least partially meet the growing energy demand.
When it comes to access to the energy grid, large consumers in Hamburg will no longer be on a first-come, first-served basis. In the future, the grid operator Hamburger Energienetze will decide on the allocation of energy capacity to large consumers. In the planned allocation procedure, referred to by the authorities as a “repartition procedure,” companies with an expected energy demand exceeding 1.5 MVA (megavolt-amperes) will receive energy volumes allocated by the grid operator. This involves a “fair distribution“,” the company claims.
Now the government will decide how much electricity a business will get.
That probably won’t work out very good for the business.
Here’s a tip: Electricity is not rationed in the United States.
Yet. Wait until the Dems return-or the woke states of the Northeast discover the full effects of their green idiocy…then watch out. Or get popcorn and beer because it is seriously gonna be quite ths show with lots of screaming and yelling, and tears.
Once again I remind you that heavy industries and the heavy transportation system will always enormous amounts of fossil fuel as will all the heavy machinery used in mining and agriculture. How do you heat water for cooking, washing dishes and bathing?
There are electric “flash” water heaters, more efficient, but usually more expensive than electric hot water systems.
MUCH more expensive, especially for whole house use. And the time lag on a whole house electric hot water system can be longer than for a gas-fired, stored system. It means that your washer may think it’s using hot water in the wash cycle but it’s not.
Negative export prices, expensive purchases: The suppressed truth about Germany’s electricity trading
Germany was again a net exporter of electricity in the first months of the year. However, the economic picture is worse than the quantity statistics suggest: In Germany, electricity is often produced precisely when it is not needed anywhere.
Germany is exporting electricity again – and yet still losing money. The figures for the first four months of 2026 clearly demonstrate this. During this period, 19.78 terawatt-hours of electricity were exported and 16.53 terawatt-hours imported. The physical electricity balance was thus positive again at 2.76 terawatt-hours – for the first time since the nuclear phase-out in 2023. Anyone looking solely at this quantity balance might already declare Germany’s return to being an electricity exporting nation. However, the economic reality is quite the opposite: Exports worth €1,640 million were offset by imports worth €1,836 million. Ultimately, despite the positive quantity balance, money flowed abroad.
Don’t forget, wealthy owners of the wind, solar, battery, etc., tax shelters are getting paid, if too much wind and too much solar, requiring curtailment of their outputs so they don’t screw up the grid.
A win-win for them, another royal screwing for us.
I often ask me, after reading your comments, what is the bubble you are living in. What you are typing here as comments is nothing else than pure fantasy or fiction, strange and far, far away from any reality.
Not worth to be read.
So it is now established, according to some, that wind, solar and batteries produce constant electricity at a cost less than that of coal or gas. So let us stop all subsidies and demand contortions that wind, solar, and batteries currently enjoy. It’s perfectly clear.
“How 24/7 Renewables Are Ending Fossil Fuel Reliability”
1… There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
2… Yes, whenever you add inherently unreliable sources to a grid, the grid becomes more UNRELIABLE.
3… Because “unreliables” mandates mean real power supplies like COAL and GAS have to ramp up and down more often, this lowers their efficiency and also requires more maintenance, with less money.
So yes, so-called renewables make EVERYTHING more UNRELIABLE
… and even hydro isn’t renewable on some planets:
“California considers small hydroelectricity (facilities 30 megawatts or smaller) renewable. However, the state excludes large hydroelectric power from its strict legal definition of renewable energy due to environmental concerns regarding river ecosystems and fish habitats.”
The idea that “large Hydro” should not be considedred renewable came about (memory here) because the desired percentage of such in the new-green system would be easily met by existing generation at large dams. Thus, 30 megawatts or smaller facilities would not be needed and would not justify financing and subsidies.
The California concern about ecosystems was/is a distraction, but does prevent any new large facilities.
They count hydro when it advantageous to their “climate agenda”.
Ignore it when it is not.
1… There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
Ohh and geothermal. And biomss…. And you could argue ocean energy I guess… but other than that There are no 24/7 “renewables” except hydro.
yeah biomass tends to have long spells of scarcity of fuel as the trees re-grow
(or you just chip the trees that get cut down for windmills and transmission lines, and then transport it all with diesel powered trucks and bunker oil fueled ships.
But saving the climate, right?)
Ocean energy = wave energy?
There’s a number of those generators rusting in the surf right now 🙂
LOL, yet another swing and a miss… 🙂
Another week and no Trump phone…. Still I’m sure it’s gonna come some time soon right?
And … I am sure with your moral battle against political fraud, you will be on the war path about the Trump “investigation-compensation fund” (slush fund). You know the one that will pay its applicants big $’s for beating up cops.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx21d41p6dzo
YAWN.. using the BBC as a source will only get you LAUGHED at !!
LOL.. Quoting a very low end TDS opinion piece from the BBC..
McConnell and Tillis.. .. even funnier.
Tillis is a retiring RINO, a “quitter”..
… and McConnell is a RINO Trump hater also a “quitter”.
A lot of people lost money and reputation because of massive Democrat LIES, DISINFORMATION and unwarranted PERSECUTION…
They deserve some compensation.
And it ought to be paid from Democrat sludge and fraud fund, not by the taxpayer.
That is the Leftwing line.
The fund is actually for people who were unfairly convicted by Biden’s illegal weaponization of the federal government which railroaded a lot of innocent people.
People who were legitimately convicted of crimes on January 6, will not be compensated, they will serve their jail times.
The Leftwing lies and distorts everything hoping this will help their political ambitions.
If you want liars representing you, vote for the Left.
“People who were legitimately convicted of crimes on January 6, will not be compensated, they will serve their jail times.”
Firstly ALL of those convicted for crimes on jan 6 were done so legitimately. They all had fair trials in front of a jury of their peers. That is how it works.
Second, there are people walking free who plead guilty to crimes on Jan 6. And no one in a position of authority has said these people will not be entitled to apply. They were Blanche’s very words.
“The fund is actually for people who were unfairly convicted by Biden’s illegal weaponization of the federal government which railroaded a lot of innocent people.”
Biden played no part in the convictions of any of the Jan 6 criminals. He left it to the justice system as he should.
Now here is the bad part. Blanche gets to choose those on the panel. If he doesn’t like a decision they make, he can fire them. That removes any hint of impartiallity.
Finally and worst of all. There is no public accountability. We don’t get to find out who gets money and how much. This lack of guaranteed, sweeping public transparency—coupled with the absence of congressional oversight or judicial review in the claims process makes this just plain wrong and opens it up to full scale corruption.
Even Andrew McCarthy on Fox News said “The Trump slush fund is an abuse of political power although now a legal wrong.”
And last finally, can anyone here justify Trump and his family being granted immunity from any convictions for tax violations now and into the future? It seems he no longer even tries to hide his daylight corruptions and any attempts to protect himself from being held accountable.
Just another day in the Trump government.
“Biden played no part in the convictions of any of the Jan 6 criminals. He left it to the justice system as he should.”
You don’t really believe that do you? Biden has been using the federal government as a weapon against political opponents since he was Vice President. James Comey did not act on his own, he was under orders from above. Just doing his job I suppose you would say.
If you are going to make claims like that Tom you need evidence. Do you have any other than your gut feeling? Don’t get me wrong I’m sure Biden was delighted that Trump and his team were being examined, but I’m not aware of any time Biden interfered in the justice system to nail Trump, unlike what Trump is doing now with the likes of Comey and James.
Do you have any evidence?
So can I take from your no response Tom, you are as I thought, unable to find any direct quote that shows Biden interfering in the justice system? That is quite sad Tom.
You know, MUR, it’s so easy to debunk your links because you never state why you think they are “real good sunday stuff”.
Instead of just linking to “stuff”, why don’t you explain why you think it’s “real good”?
Have a lovely Bank Holiday
It says ‘reliability’, not ‘reliably’.
You do not even qualify as the court jester here as they were not anonymous but actually in danger of execution at the king’s displeasure.
They were deemed fools for risking life daily to keep truth alive, you are just a real fool, post error and falsehood and idiotic conspiracy theories and your posts are so pointless I cannot even discern a coherent motive.
I see what you did there. Over in your echo chambers, that little zinger is an item y’all think is a smoking gun bit of evidence that the fossil fuel industry ran disinformation campaigns to dupe old dumb guys.
Didn’t get the memo on this, did you?
“The ‘older, less-educated men’ / ‘younger, low-income women’ Accusation Bites the Dust. Big Time.”
As it pertains to me providing you with educational material which your beloved leaders are deliberately withholding from you – you’re welcome! Funny how true believers on your side claim there’s disinformation happening in the climate issue, while being oblivious to how it’s all coming from your side. Your leaders count on you trusting it all without question. What happens to you the moment you take issue with any tiny little part of it?
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
RE: Current Status Of CO2 In The Air
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP. This small amount of CO2 can not absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR to warm up such a large mass of air.
The reason there is such a small amount of CO2 in the air is that most
of it produced by the use of fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans where it fixed by plants ranging from alga to sea weeds and grasses. A large amount of CO2 is converted to bicarbonate and carbonate anions which are used to make shells of many species of shell fish. Corals use these anion for making their calcium carbonate structures. Large amounts of CO2 are fixed by terrestrial plants.
We really do not have worry the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
It absorbs incoming and outgoing…and you can use Modtran to calculate absorption by the atmosphere, or follow papers by Happer, or Harde, or many others.
But, the approximately one degree of warming that likely will result from the additional 4 watts/sq.M by doubling atmospheric CO2 is so insignificant compared to normal weather variations that you can’t determine “scientifically” when to leave your sweater at home or when to plant your garden any better than you could two hundred years ago.
But it’s enough of a minor element of truth for a devious bureaucracy to spin an ‘economy’ to support supervisory jobs, gov’t departments, money transfers to plausible-sounding agendas…..all those things that politicians addicted to the aphrodisiac of power strive to achieve at someone else’s cost.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
“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 was ca. 280 ppmv (0.52 g CO2/cu. m. of air) and by it had increased to 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m of air), but there was corresponding increase in air temperature in this port city. Instead there was a slight cooling. Darwin also had a cooling. In 1857 Tav was 14.2° C and by 1999 it had declined 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 long table. The computed Tav was 17.4° C. Since measurement error is +/- 0.1 ° C, it is concluded that there has been no warming of air in Adelaide for 168 years and that CO2 has no effect on air temperature.
The chart was taken from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. From 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 stations. Click on “Adelaide”. Click on the back arrow to redisplay the list of stations. Click on the back arrow again to display the “World Map”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
His empirical temperature data falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming. Spend a little time checking out charts especially the charts for Brisbane and Siberia.
Awhile back I sent an email to Prof. Happer and said that he should check out the chart for Death Valley. John Daly died at age 64. Prof. Happer said that “The death of John Daly was great loss to honest science”. I recall that his calculation found that CO2 would cause only a few tents of degree of warming of the air. I am not a fan of model calculations because they never take into account winter. In winter CO2 and H2O hibernate.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the chart and return to Comments.
If IR affected temperature in air or CO2 directly then there would need to be two columns in these charts. With and without IR.
I am with Harold on this.
According to the Köppen climate classification there are 30 different climate types. However, what I cannot seem to find on-line is how many different climate regions there are. I can well imagine there are two subtropical regions that are separated by a tropical region. Anybody have the answer or can point me to where to find this information?
The Köppen-Geiger climate classification system list 5 systems AKA regions and 30 sub-types
I think you’ll find there are about 200 different regions, give or take 50 each way. E.g. the High Plains of the US, the Andes Highlands, etc.
And climate science thinks they can combine all of these into “average” temperature. Climate depends on a LOT more than just air temperature, air temperature is a piss poor metric for climate, especially when climate science uses daily mid-point air temperatures which can’t distinguish climate at all. They would be better off using precipitation or soil temperature. as the metric. It would be even better if they used a combined metric based on precip, soil temp, and growing season length.
Fair enough, I was going off the Britannica Encyclopaedia website
Go to the library check out a modern text books on meteorology. You could then photocopy the relevant text and save it for future reference.
I recall there are five major climate regions: tropical, subtropical, temperate, continental and polar.
Use a AI bot and do this search: In Köppen climate classification system how many different climate regions are there? Hopefully, you will get lucky and get the info.
Wladmir Köppen (1846-1940) and his colleague Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) were the original climate scientists.
Here in the Middle of Nowhere in southeastern Washington state, we can experience tropical, subtropical, temperate, continental and polar climates depending upon the time of year, the season, the time of day, our specific location in southeastern Washington state; and last but not least, our particular state of mind on any particular day.
I have read reports on the net that Washington state has a consumer carbon tax on fossil fuels. I been thinking how we can use John Daly’s temperature data to have the taxes canceled.
I live in Burnaby, B.C. B.C. was one of the first jurisdiction to levy a tax on fossil fuels. In 2009 the tax was $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Then the government got greedy. By 2024 the tax was $80 per tonne of CO2 of equivalent. On Jan 1 the consumer tax was cancelled.
The Federal government has now levied an industrial carbon tax and the oil companies (the Oil Sand Alliance) are not happy. The five oil companies want build a new pipeline to the west coast of B.C. For approval of the new pipeline the federal government wants the companies to spend 20 billion dollars on a carbon dioxide storage project. This is carbon blackmail. Presently the negotiations between the companies, Alberta, and the federal government are still on going.
We really have get rid of these carbon taxes.
Here in Washington state, the carbon tax is implemented in the form of a cap and invest scheme.
It’s not all that burdensome at this point in the year 2026, but this will change as the decade progresses into the late 2020’s when the state’s very ambitious carbon reduction targets come into force.
The carbon tax nee cap and invest scheme is being relied upon to do the heavy lifting of reducing the state’s carbon emissions.
So far, it has done next to nothing in reducing emissions, but it has been very successful in lining the pockets of several NGOs and public interest groups who support the current regime in the state capital.
Depends on the level of detail you are after. You might describe the “local climate region” to include the area around each of the earth’s deserts, alpine areas, coastlines, islands, etc. What you should NOT do is describe anything as the GAT-dependent “global climate”!
May I suggest you read the Wikipedia page for Wladimir_Köppen. Here is a clue to his thinking: “The floral and geographical diversity of the Crimean peninsula, as well as the starker geographical transitions between the capital and his home, did much to awaken an interest in the relationship between climate and the natural world.”
Then:
“He identified five major climatic groups, which correspond with the five main vegetation groups ”
Now have a look at this map from 1884. Scroll down 2/3 to the map on the left side. https://arboretum.harvard.edu/plant-bios/pecan/
Imagine the work to make such a map.
My phrase has been “Vegetation integrates climate”. Field work to map plant boundaries was difficult and slow. Thus, as the attempt to define “climate types” grew there was a need to find a better way. Temperatures and precipitation filled the role of plants.
If you want exactness, read sports statistics.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of local climates all around the world.
Too many with differing locality influences, drivers, characteristics, behavior patterns and observed cycles to categorize them into logical taxonomy folders.
(which is why “averaging” temps numbers of woeful probity & provenance to arrive at “global temperature” constructs is arrant nonsense)
Reposition the scientific farce as a theory? No thank you. It hasn’t even been positioned as a hypothesis yet, let alone a falsifiable hypothesis.
Remember the comedy hypothesis from years gone by:
Before: “No really, seriously, [my falsifiable hypothesis is that] it’s simple physics so the debate is over”.
and
After: Oooooh errrrr, I want my mommy, manifested above as “Well renewable energy is doing so well, in my cut-and-paste”.
Watching it circle the drain is so entertaining.
Best regards, philinlondon, and a very nice pleasant warm London it is, might I add.
We are having a UK heatwave here in Oklahoma. It’s been over 82F for three days in a row! With no end in sight!
A Sunday morning reflection on the human condition –
we’re choking on media bullshit.
Jordan Petersen’s observation that “anyone can claim to be a ‘journalist’ these days” is spot on.
And this shows up right across the media-sphere every . single . day.
Relevant example for this WUWT space –
university “media department” produces some blown-up release about what their ‘world-leading research team’ has claimed to discover, then almost immediately the mainstream ‘journalists’ file their articles almost verbatim of what the university media dept sent them.
No scrutiny, no other reference sources, just flood the pages with fresh narrative confirmation pieces.
This is “bullshit journalism”, designed to drown us.
One of my my biggest gripes is the claim that commercial nuclear fusion is just around the corner.
We see nuclear professional groups and nuclear-focused journalists treating claims about commercial nuclear fusion like there was real substance to these claims.
No one has produced any credible evidence that a working fusion reactor capable of continuously producing electricity is on the near-term horizon. And yet billions of dollars are being invested in this blatant scam.
Will we still being seeing these claims in a decade’s time when no working fusion reactor capable of producing electric power on any scale at all has been developed and tested?
The best guess is Yes, there will still be claims in a decade that commercial safe fusion is nearly achieved and just needs a few more billions to complete the last step.
Another wonder of the world has resurfaced, the quantum level perpetual motion machine where energy is extracted from the virtual realm. Commercial applications using quantum vacuum energy extraction are about to appear in your supermarket any day now.
I wonder if they will be called dilithium crystals?
“This is “bullshit journalism”, designed to drown us.”
We are looking at a high-powered, very well financed, Leftwing propaganda effort. They *are* trying to drown us in disinformation. It’s brainwashing on a global scale.
Does this have any meaning or relevance to climate change?
“Ramsey theory, in general, studies the conditions under which order must inevitably be present even in the most chaotic of systems. The various theorems that have sprung up under this large umbrella are based on the principle that within large, complex systems, however disorderly they may appear at first sight, there exist subsystems that have a definite structure. The implication is that there’s no such thing as true randomness.” (Darling and Banerjee 2022, p196)
Darling D., Banerjee A. (2022), “The biggest number in the world: A journey to the edge of mathematics”, Oneworld Publications, London
My understanding is that chaotic systems create instances of sequential effects between elements of the system (order?), but then just as quickly abandon such sequences without identifiable prompts.
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
Not much to say today. I have already expressed my satisfaction at the withdrawal of RCP8.5, but since the bad faith of catastrophists is unshakable, a certain bitterness tempers my contentment. It doesn’t matter. Progress has been made, we should be glad about it, and concede nothing otherwise.
By the way, here is what caught my eye the day before yesterday. I think it’s a good story tip :
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete/actualites/changement-climatique-migration-vegetation-vers-nord-desequilibre-poids-planete-132740/
It’s in French, but ChatGPT translates it rather well.
Story tip
Solar panels from China are not carbon neutral, much less carbon negative?
Say it ain’t so:
https://spacedaily.com/j-china-installed-more-solar-capacity-in-2023-than-the-united-states-has-installed-in-its-entire-history-and-the-panels-were-largely-manufactured-using-coal-fired-electricity/
All that coal based energy would have been better off staying in the ground!
Even better still, stayed at home here in Australia to re-establish a processing and manufacturing industrial complex to regain freedom from the instability of the global village nightmare and avoid complicity in using slave labour offshore.
I have read that the RUBISCO enzyme which captures CO2 in photosynthesis increases in efficiency as CO2 concentration in the air increases. Any experts out there he might know whether this response of the enzyme increases linearly with increase CO2 or is there an inflection point?
Mixed news from Canada:
TFK_bams09 and all of its clones don’t just violate LoT (160 in & 396 out LoT1 & 333 “back” from cold to warm wo work LoT 2) but GAAP.
The same 63 W/m^2 LWIR appears twice, once from the real solar balance: 160 – 80 – 17 = 1st 63 & the calc’d /“measured” /imaginary BB 396 – 333 = 2nd 63.
Only one of these is needed to balance OLR at ToA so that means the other is free floating, unaccounted for, looking for a home and apparently dropped down someone’s boot top.
Only one of these balance loops belongs on the graphic.
I suggest the keeping the real one.