Here is an excerpt from President Obama’s remarks to the Young African Leaders Initiative in 2013. It will take decades to recover from the damage this President’s manipulative rhetoric and punitive policies did to our country and to the world:
“But the existential challenge that we face has to do with a warming planet. And your generation is the one that’s going to be the most severely affected. Now, the United States and other highly industrialized, developed countries over the last 50, 100 years have been pumping up carbon emissions into the atmosphere. And slowly, this has been building up and it is warming the planet, and we may be reaching a tipping point in which if we do not solve this problem soon, it will spin out of control and change weather patterns in ways that we can’t anticipate, with drought, floods, much more severe natural disasters. And unfortunately, in those situations it’s often poorer countries that are affected the most by these changing climate patterns.
So I just gave a speech this past week on what the United States is going to do on our next phase of reducing our carbon emissions. The United States actually reduced our carbon emissions more than any other country since I came into office. I just want to make that point. (Applause.) We doubled fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We’re investing in clean energy like solar and wind. And we actually want to share that technology, because we think that all countries need to benefit. And part of the opportunity for Africa is to see if we can leapfrog some of the polluting practices of America or Europe, and go straight to the clean energy strategies that will allow you to advance economic growth, but not corrupt the planet.”
Later, “Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
As a lawyer and professor, President Obama should have been able to discern that there was no body of evidence to reliably establish that emissions of CO2 had anything to do with the reported “warming” trend, or that rising concentrations of CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases should be expected to drive ANY trend of climate variables. Spectral properties, radiative transfer computations, and satellite observations of emission spectra are NOT evidence of cause-and-effect within the climate system.
On the contrary, dynamic energy conversion massively overwhelms the minor static effect. This was no secret in 2009 when the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding. Modern modeling of the general circulation – this included ERA-40 in the early 2000’s – demonstrates that the computed improvement in IR absorbing power is negligible – inconsequential – vanishingly weak – in the proper physical context of all the motion we experience as “weather” between the surface and space.
“As a lawyer and professor, President Obama should have been able to discern that there was no body of evidence”
Lawyers, scientists and professor’s lie and mislead, hence we are in the current situation. Look at Mann and the others in this despicable parasitical farce.
Then the is the low intelligence factor to consider. Universities tech them what to think, not how to think.
You expect them to act in a responsible manner.
Look at the covid fiasco, and the death rate and injuries as a result of the vaccines.
Thank you for your reply. “You expect them to act in a responsible manner.” Don’t get me wrong. I have no unrealistic delusions about the reliability of “lawyers, scientists and professors” to actually do so.
Consider how inadequate our language would be if we didn’t have ‘lawyer words’ like “could, might, may, and possibly.” We would be compelled to use numeric probabilities! /sarc
And we all will be dealing with the damage Obama caused for at least a generation, if not longer and if we can survive the damage. Wonder who bought Obama, anyways. Guesses?
What? I’ve been saving $2500 each and every year since 2010 on my medical insurance premiums and I got to keep my doctor too. Thats 16 years and $40,000 in my favor, according to Obama. I’m sure all similar middle class Americans have experienced the same, haven’t they?
And set precedents for presidential overreach when he got tired of waiting for Congress to do something about “gun violence.” Therefore, he authored Executive Orders that he implicitly acknowledged were the purview of Congress.
Every time a politician lies, there should be an automatic withdrawal of $5000 from his slush fund account, with the money going to a veterans housing program.
First, you have misstated my point. I said, “…no body of evidence to reliably establish that emissions of CO2 had anything to do with the reported “warming” trend, or that rising concentrations of CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases should be expected to drive ANY trend of climate variables.”
The scientific basis for that statement is that the power intensity of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the static radiative effect of incremental CO2. This leaves no technical path for isolating that minor improvement in IR absorbing power, from within the physical climate system, for positive attribution of a reported warming trend. This is fundamentally the same scientific basis as for the response from Simpson and Brunt to Callendar’s proposed attribution of station warming to rising concentrations of CO2.
Science, WB.
Explained here, with quotes from 1938, and with supporting plots of ERA5 hourly “vertical velocity” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” values.
If we were pumping carbon into the atmosphere it would probably block out some of the sun’s radiation reducing the temperature. It’s the molecule CO2 that’s supposed to be the problem. Whenever I read about carbon emissions I automatically ignore anything else they have to say because they are clearly an ignoramous. Obama condemns himself with his own words.
If we assume Earth is a blackbody, then subtract the solar energy reflected, from the hypothetically non-existent clouds, atmosphere, land, ice, and oceans; we can calculate . . .
If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle – but it’s not.
If, if, if – if the Earth hadn’t cooled to its present temperature, the surface would still be molten, wouldn’t it?
You nailed it. Climate science views reflected heat from CO2 as retained heat, i.e. trapped forever and never again lost. That’s the entire fundamental assumption behind the Trenberth diagram. It ignores the facts that heat loss goes up exponentially as temperature goes up linearly and that flux is a rate and not an amount. Since the time frames for heat loss and gain are not equal the *rates* of heat loss and heat gain can never balance.
“..Trapped forever and never again lost…”… you are so incorrect that it defies rational correction in any reasonable time frame…
BTW, neither am I real happy with the average heat budget diagram’s use of fore and back EMR when they should just show about 60 watts or so of net IR radiating from the surface, and leave the 396-333 to a footnote to satisfy pedantic physicists.
63 leaves the surface…40 watts goes directly to outer space via the 8-14 micron atmospheric window…changes one’s view of what 4 watts more heat absorption from doubling CO2 could do…turns that narrow “40 watts to outer space” arrow into a much wider one half the width of “evaporation”…and “net radiation” into one narrower than evaporation too…
I sympathise with your point ….but
No rational explanation that he will accept… but for others maybe?
” i.e. trapped forever and never again lost.”
Of course it’s not trapped “forever”.
The number is (as that is required for equilibrium ie SWin LWout) – but not the actual LWIR escaping to space.
The GHE downwelling LWIR on the diagram is merely the “zero-sum” of the net flow out for equilbrium to be maintained.
It is a continuous process – just like your central-heating set at some heating value is a constant because some escapes through your house’s walls/windows/roof.
Your heating boiler is providing the bit that is lost to maintain a constant temperature.
In Earth’s case the “boiler” is the Sun’s ASR.
And the energy escaping through the “walls” is the LWIR that finally makes it to space at TOA.
So just as your house’s heating energy consumption at a constant temperature is not “trapped forever” (as new gas is burnt constantly), neither is the downwelling LWIR on the Trenberth’s energy diagram.
The entire “radiative balance” diagrams and discussions on it in climate science are non-physical. The diagrams are all labeled “W/m^2”. That is an INSTANTANEOUS dimension. The only way heat-in and heat-out can balance is for joules-in and joules-out to balance. Of course you can normalize the joules in/out to a common time interval, perhaps a “day”, but then the flows should be labeled Joules/day-m^2.
In order to actually capture total heat-in and total heat-out the observation interval has to be long enough to capture all applicable heat flow cycles. For the earth, we are talking an interval of at least a century if not longer. Heck, in just the time I’ve been here on earth we’ve been through cycles in the 1950’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2010’s. The joules-in and joules-out calculation needs to cover the entire period from 1950 to 2026 to even come close to capturing the natural variation.
What would this result in? The number of joules involved would be so large that the amount provided by a flux imbalance would be so small as to be covered up by the measurement uncertainty. It wouldn’t even be a rounding error!
That particular terminology is also one of my pet peeves. Carbon – atomic #6 on the periodic table of the elements – is soot, it is graphite, and diamonds are a nearly pure form it. When folks say we need to “reduce our carbon emissions into the atmosphere,” I want to smack ’em with “We’re putting too many diamonds up in the sky??” But to illustrate just how effective the enviros have been on hammering the concept of “carbon pollution,” a dear friend of mine who is otherwise non-political and doesn’t otherwise follow the climate issue at all admitted to me that she was not aware that the enviros meant CO2, and was instead thinking they were trying to stop particulate pollution that’s causing global warming. I had to set her straight on how CO2 was an essential plant nutrient and that the enviros and complicit news reporters had been deceiving her all this time about the ‘carbon’ label.
Took me years to convince my wife that diamonds were a terrible thing…helped that she is an artist and the stone would probably get lost or damaged. Worked for awhile, the she realized that diamonds don’t get damaged. I need a new routine.
If CO2 changes the IR radiation to other frequencies within the IR spectrum, does it affect the energy of the IR radiation?
This region of the spectrum is divided into near-, mid-, and far-infrared. The region from 8 to 15 microns (µm) is referred to by Earth scientists as thermal infrared since these wavelengths are best for studying the longwave thermal energy radiating from our planet.
“It will take decades to recover from the damage this President’s manipulative rhetoric and punitive policies did to our country and to the world”
Obama is poison to the United States and the world.
I’m still holding out hope that Obama will be officially connected to the attempted overthrow of the U.S. government that Obama directed against Donald Trump, which may be ongoing.
Obama and the Democrats tried to turn this country into a one-party system with the Democrats in charge. And they are still at it. What’s Obama’s role now? Trump’s investigator will let us know. It’s not over Obama. Your traitorous actions need to be exposed to the American public and to the world.
Section 1512(c) is the new RICO*. It’s time to deploy it against lawfare, election illegality, and other nationwide conspiracies
*The Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as “RICO,” was passed by Congress in 1970 as part of that year’s Organized Crime Control Act. It was designed to reach not just the foot soldiers of organized crime organizations, but the crime bosses themselves.
Former FBI Director, James Comey, did not take it upon himself to attack Trump. He was doing it at the direction of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The whole Obama/Biden cabinet was involved in this attempted coup.
Traitorous bastards all!
I think it is a pretty sure bet that the DOJ is going to be charging Obama officials with an ongoing conspiracy to undermine the Constitution of the United States based on their ongoing attacks on Trump.
… but meanwhile, they’re still continuing with the election fraud in California and it’s live, televised and in-your-face, so they’re not too scared of any consequences.
Your current president is only doing what he is told. It will take the rest of the world many years to recover from his actions. The average American is still getting poorer.
During that 2013 visit to Tanzania, Barack Obama demonstrated the Soccket, a soccer ball that generates electricity through kinetic energy when played with, providing power for lights and cell phones. While a cute idea by undergraduetes at Harvard, the soccet is now a footnote to history. The large concrete ediface called the Obama Presidential Center is meant to keep BHO from a similar fate.
You mean that seriously ugly building put in a neighborhood that can get you killed and is hated by the local residents? That building? Obama screws anybody and everybody he can, including his new neighbors. Well, they voted for him so tough luck, chumps.
“. . . if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
— Barack Obama, as you quoted in your comment
Hey, why did Obama leave out “and everybody has got a private jet”?
And wouldn’t better English have been to just say “everybody has” instead of “everybody has got”?
And well before he had time to even attempt to do anything to advance peace. Obviously, the prize wasn’t for anything that he actually did, but for the virtue signaling that his election represented.
Obama was, above all, A politician. Truth and integrity are not part of the politicians play book. He just rode a popular concern of the time. He was not a leader rather a follower of unicorn farts.
…, and we may be reaching a tipping point in which if we do not solve this problem soon, it will spin out of control and change weather patterns in ways that we can’t anticipate, with drought, floods, much more severe natural disasters.
The unstated assumption is that all the effects will be undesirable. Yet, if we truly can’t anticipate all the changes, surely at least some, if not half, will be positive. Thus, we have to assess the net results of the good, the bad (and the simply ugly?). Yet, there was no call for better predictions, which would have to allow for at least some positive effects.
As of 2025, the United Kingdom’s government debt per capita was about €51,010, while the United States’ was about $57,546.
Of greater interest to individuals in the USA is that collective credit card debt has reached an all-time high of $1.25 trillion. Understanding this is difficult because some folks have no card debt and others use cards like delayed-cash. Many cards have “perks” or cash-back prorgrams. It is possible, then, to get perks and pay no interest. How is that debt?
Liebreich: The Great Clean Energy Acceleration 2.0
Based on the Link’s own numbers, if this is a ‘Great Clean Energy Acceleration’, it’s an oddly selective one.
Global fossil use hasn’t fallen, gas demand still rose, China added 90 GW of new coal, and EVs cut only ~2 mb/d of oil demand out of 100+.
Even the author admits wind/solar growth is meeting new demand, not replacing existing fuels. Calling this a near‑term fossil peak looks more like narrative than numbers.
Europe hasn’t ‘loosened the stranglehold’ when fossil fuels still supply over 70% of its total energy, gas demand remains high, and coal plants were restarted after 2022.
Wind and solar cut imports at the margin, but they haven’t replaced firm capacity or reduced overall fossil dependence.
The Threat of Unrest Is Decarbonizing the Global South
Unrest in the Global South is overwhelmingly tied to poverty, food insecurity and weak state capacity. not some spontaneous push toward decarbonisation.
Fossil use in developing countries is still rising, coal additions in Asia hit record levels, and renewables mostly meet new demand rather than replacing existing fuels.
To end poverty, the global south needs cheap, reliable energy. Not in your wildest dreams can wind nor solar provide that
Renewable energy is overtaking traditional power projects across Africa, industry leaders say
AP parroting industry spin again.
Lots of announced solar projects in Africa, but “overtaking” ignores massive execution gaps, chronic under-delivery, grid instability, and the quiet reality that coal/gas/hydro still provide the actual reliable power.
Wishful pipeline numbers vs. real electrification rates.
“Unlike dispatchable fossil-fuel or nuclear generation, solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions, leading to mismatches between supply and demand.” — Sargentis et al., 2026
Note the date at the end. “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
The U.S. emergency oil reserve was practically emptied by the imbecile, Joe Biden. For political purposes.
But, the U.S. is pumping a lot more oil domestically (high oil prices),and has increased Venezuela’s oil output by three times, so we don’t have to depend on an empty Strategic Oil Reserve.
Gasoline prices are coming down. This must send a shiver of fear through the Democrats and the religious fanatics in Iran.
I’ve heard that we’re now the world’s largest oil producer.
According to AI:
Key Recent Figures (approximate, in barrels per day)US: ~13.2–13.7 million bpd (crude/condensate); often cited higher (~17–21+ million bpd) when including all petroleum liquids and biofuels.Saudi Arabia: ~9.5–10.1 million bpd (crude).Russia: ~9.9–10 million bpd (crude).
So gasoline is down around one dollar per gallon from a month ago, but you won’t know that listening to the nightly news. They don’t cover the news, they disseminate the propaganda.
Climate warrior and venture capitalist of Chinese coal plants Tom Steyer in third place in the Governor’s primary. Watch out for some fishy vote-counting to come.
Funny thing is, he might be the best candidate, but that’s just my opinion, which doesn’t reflect well on the other candidates.
$6.30 in SoCal yesterday. Newsome has done everything possible to raise the price of gasoline …. pushing out refineries, over the top emission requirements …. and it’s working.
Here in Western Wa, it’s still pretty high. Discount places around $4.70, regular places around $5.50 for 87 octane. Wa has I think the highest, or at least second highest fuel taxes in the country. And of course they wouldn’t possibly consider suspending that to give people some temporary relief. They’d much rather blame Trump.
Tom,
You don’t live in WA State with high gas tax and a CO2 indulgence**. While my last fill-up was lower than a month ago, it was still $5/gallon.
[**estimated to be about 68¢/g]
It appears that is not necessary to open up the Strait of Hormuz . . .
So the US is just killing strangers and wasting money for the fun of it, is that it?
sherro01
June 7, 2026 4:39 am
In Australia, I am trying to manage increased interest by others in what I do on my personal computer. I find it hard to keep programs running because vendors or others are asking for identification, security, not-a-bot checks, often requesting a password change. Then, if I do change a password, it is immediately met with ‘Invalid’ when I test it. I am now having problems uploading spreadsheets to popular AI chat sites, they say they are not appearing as csv or xlsx files.
Is this a global change or am I getting local interference or a virus attack? Geoff S
From what I have seen, many sites are taking security to new levels. That is a good thing. However, there are glitches that are frustrating. My latest pet peeve is CoPilot having problems providing visible graphs. It tells me it is there, but nothing ever shows. When re-prompted it says it is having trouble accessing software.
I have been having problems with Windows 10 recently behaving poorly. On Memorial Day, I asked Copilot for help in fixing a long-running problem of a storage leak. Most of the code it provided didn’t do what Copilot promised me it would do. Several hours into the project, Copilot ‘broke’ something. After about 8-hours, it was time to go to bed. I picked it back up the next day, and after about 7-hours we had recovered a missing file. The major problem seems to have been inadequate or outdated information that Copilot had and unwarranted optimism about the probability of success.
Then, yesterday, apparently after a pushed update, I suddenly could no longer leave comments on MSN news articles. Again, progress was slow with Copilot, apparently because files that it believed were necessary were not automatically regenerated as expected. After about 4-hours, things seemed to be working, even though several files that Copilot thought were necessary, were still missing. We are in a holding pattern now to see if the problems come back or something new shows up.
At the end of May, I had a Dell laptop stop working after several years because, I was told, an activation key was missing. I intended to register a new key I had bought on eBay on the advice of Copilot, on the 31st, but apparently MS had jumped the gun and shut in down a few hours early.
I am not happy with ‘Microsquish!’ I’m seriously considering trying a Linux distro’ again, at least for that laptop.
I was connected to a state medical system last week, providing more requested info about past procedures.
I had to go dig out some paper records, came back to see that the session had timed out.
When I tried logging back in, got a message my account had been frozen, had to change my password.
Did so, then found that all the requested info previously entered was not added.
Government systems are the most user-hostile of all.
If commercial systems were so godawful bad, the companies would be out if business.
@sherr01: A **LOT** of sites are taking measures to discourage constant scraping of their content by AI bots. And yes, that’s quite annoying. However what you’re experiencing sounds a bit extreme. On the other hand it’s hard to see what the point of a computer virus that emulated web dysfunction would be. Hopefully, you’re just having a spell of bad luck.
Hard to say without knowing more specifically the exact things that are happening. From the description a virus seems unlikely, but run a full scan in case. Have you saved your files as CSV and then uploaded them? Presumably using Excel? If so it is very odd that they are not being recognized. Even odder if the sites nominally accept xlsx files, and you have generated yours using Excel. But this isn’t going to be possible to diagnose over postings like this. Need to find a competent IT person locally.
In general, maybe consider getting Linux Mint or MXLinux. Get the Mate edition of either one. Mint is full fat, MX a bit leaner. Get the links to them from Distrowatch. Either one will give you Libre Office. Plus lots of math and stat applications.
Don’t use the same machine for personal finance and general computing and net access. Either separate hardware or a dedicated virtual machine using virt-manager, and use it for nothing but the finance. Good luck!
One of the main culprits of this technology mayhem are VPNs, the personal kind on your PC. Products line ExpressVPN, NordVPN, etc are being challenged constantly by the black-box security inserted into many web sites by developers. You can just turn off the VPN or can change locations within your country. VPNs are an excellent way to keep spying internet service providers from monitoring everything you do. There is no real perfect security but we can do a lot to keep prying eyes out of our lives.
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; genius will not; education will not. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” – Calvin Coolidge
Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not warrant such rancor.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler -18 C ice ball Earth is just flat wrong. Dividing discular ISR 1,368 W/m^2 by 4 to average 342 W/m^2 over spherical ToA is not proper.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT.
Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: duplicate 396 S-B BB at 16 C violates GAAP & LoT 1/ 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. 2nd 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. 97 W/m^2 out of 160 W/m^2 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see: https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others. When GHE fails the entire CAGW house of cards implodes like the Titan submersible.
The Grand “Balance”
GOZINTAZ positive, GOZOUTAZ negative.
TFK_bams09
“Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not warrant such rancor.”
But what should make you (know you are) wrong is via pondering why you alone have it right and all the worlds physicists right back to Tyndall and Arrhenius have it wrong.
Why are you so special?
Do you think the long line of physicists have just followed on from the ones before and not gone back to first principles and reconsidered.
As Newton said ” that I have seen so far is because I have stoood on the shoulders of giants.
(and no, that comment wasn’t aimed at his critic, Robert Hooke).
John Tyndall was the first to experimentally discover why, given its distance from the sun, Earth was warm enough to support Life. Starting with experiments in 1859 using early spectroscopy instruments, tools used to analyze the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation, Tyndall authored an 1861 paper published by the Royal Society stating that certain atmospheric gases, later called greenhouse gases, are transparent to sunlight, but delay the transmission of Earth’s radiation to space. By 1874 Tyndall realized the most important gas was water vapor.
Interestingly, the Swedish chemist Arrhenius misunderstood Tyndall’s paper and called water vapor carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is a weak acid combination of carbon dioxide dissolved in liquid water. Water vapor has no dissolved carbon dioxide. This is one of several errors Arrhenius made in promoting the greenhouse effect. In 1896, Arrhenius published a paper estimating that the warming effect from doubling CO2 would be as high as 5 or 6°C (9 to 11°F).
‘Greenhouse by CO2′ theory was proven wrong by Knut Angstrom in 1900 in a paper debunking Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, the one all the alarmists quote. In 1906, Arrhenius reviewed his earlier work, acknowledged his errors and concluded that any additional SLIGHT warming that MIGHT come from CO2 would be ‘benign and beneficial’.
“We may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
None of the alarmists quote this later work, or indeed Angstrom’s paper. Funny, that.
Are you sure about the carbonic acid thing? When I read Arrhenius (1896), which was years ago, I assumed he was calling carbon dioxide “carbonic acid”. I thought it was a translation artefact and even asked a Swedish friend but still came away with carbonic acid being carbon dioxide.
Not that it matters much any more. Even Svante’s little brat and school truant descendant has given up on how-dare-you-ing on climate. Gaza must be much more lucrative, except actually in Gaza.
John Tyndall was the first to experimentally discover why, given its distance from the sun, Earth was warm enough to support Life.
Nonsense. Tyndall merely pointed out that without an atmosphere, the Earth would experience the same temperature variations as the Moon – from boiling hot (literally) to bitterly cold.
No GHE. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
Nicholas…I see you’ve added yet another red comment to your weekly yellow box nonsense where you fail to understand 396-333 of electromagntic flux IS the 63 watts of heat radiation and the 63 watts that LEAVES the surface….ENTERS the air above…it’s called “conservation of energy”…And 63+80+17=160 the sunlight absorbed, also conservation of energy….And despite your claims….ground level…balances….light blue lower atmosphere…balances….dark blue upper atmosphere….balances….It appears you simply cherry pick the same numbers crossing each layer to make it look like there is an arithmetic error…when there isn’t.
What is? Do you really believe that the Earth is not currently losing energy at the rate of about 44 TW? Gone. Lost. Never to be seen again.
That’s how things cool. You may not be aware that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten – it has cooled.
Philip Mulholland
June 7, 2026 7:44 am
I invite all WUWT readers to consider the implications of my recent publications on Zenodo concerning the Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis (DPAH). Starting on 9th April 2026 with this foundational statement: The Independent Variable in Geoscience Modelling: Why the Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis Mattershttps://zenodo.org/records/19501531
Dan, First thank you for being brave enough to reply (Seriously, no snark). Of the 90 accredited scientists I have contacted to date, 15 have replied, (a 16.75% response). Of these 15 scientists 8 responded positively, 4 were neutral and 3 were dismissive. I was advised by one responder that my work was being discussed elsewhere but I have no details of where this discussion is taking place.
As regards general understanding of my work. Go outside and look up at the clouds. All convective clouds have flat bases and bubbly tops. When you look at those flat cloud bases you are looking directly at the dew-point climate stabilisation mechanism. Standard forward modelling starts above the clouds and tries to work down thru them (a wicked problem). My inverse stochastic modelling approach running on my £1,000 Dell PC starts at the cloud base and works down to the surface using standard mass-motion physics. To quote Alter AI:
But here’s the thing: the computational efficiency on “modest hardware” is a feature, not a bug. If you can reproduce canonical results without supercomputers and without circular inputs, that raises uncomfortable questions about why the institutional models need those things.
Technical thought for today:
as a result of some snarkumentary with Frank from Nova regarding “back radiation”.
NASA’s energy budget diagram is here…let’s use that as our basis. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
The amount of long-wave et heat leaving the surface is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts/M^2
The amount of heat leaving via the atmospheric window is 40.1 watts/M^2
Thus one can make the statement that approximately TWO THIRDS of the radiant heat leaving the surface goes directly to outer space through the atmospheric window, 8 to 14 microns, Weins law peak temps of -65 to +90 C., ie all Earthly surface temps….
I commented recently on Willis’ Sunlight article… “about 80% of the photons in the 8 to 14 micron atmospheric window get all the way to outer space in a cloudless sky, but that’s only about 1/3 of the EMR of -65 to +90 C surfaces…at a 15 microns plus, they are absorbed in the first few meters….so 80% of 1/3 of the photons x 1/3 open sky x emission at 15C results in .8 X 1/3 x1/3 x 390 =35 watts to outer space directly…about what most heat budget Sankey diagrams show….”
Willis commented that his numbers did not match Trenberth.
Comments anyone ? On “2/3 of surface radiation goes directly to outer space through the atmospheric window”….
Earthly surfaces are about 98% of BB Nicholas, and then correct with a .98 emissivity…how close do you think we need to be ? Besides that, the 398.2 isn’t HEAT unless absorbed by something…so isn’t HEAT in the Carnot sense unless absorbed by outer space at -273 C, absolute zero. Net HEAT that 398.2 emitted EMR minus whatever that surface receives in EMR from its surroundings. It’s a nuance skipped over in most energy budget diagrams…
Huh ? Depends how much of those watts come from the surroundings…342 from the Sun downwards has no other source of energy than the Sun. 398 from the 16 C surface of the Earth has 333 watts of energy from its surroundings included…
I’m sorry, the earth is *NOT* on fire, it does *NOT* contribute extra energy. Neither is CO2 in the atmosphere on fire, it does *NOT* contribute extra energy either.
The earth can only radiate at most what it receives from an independent source. That jump from 342 to 398 is a phantom. The extra 56 is reflected heat that has already been lost by the earth. Using reflected heat as a source results in the non-physical result that if the earth ever reached equilibrium with the sun, it would emit *MORE* radiation than the sun because of reflected heat from CO2! An impossibility!
It’s a TIME FUNCTION. It has to be understood as a time function.
I’ve attached a crude image explaining this. The heat lost in joules is the integral of the flux profile, an exponential decay, i.e. the area under the decay curve. If cooling is slowed the decay occurs slower which actually results in *MORE* heat in joules being lost over time than for a faster decay.
This is what Planck calls “compensation” for reflected heat being returned. New rays “compensate” for the reflected heat.
This is why trying to define the heat gain/loss in terms of flux is a phantom. It’s JOULES that matter, not flux. And you get joules by integrating flux over the appropriate time interval for in and out.
“Your reply to Willis is physically correct on the key point: the 398 W/m² “surface emission” in the Kiehl–Trenberth–style diagrams is a gross radiative flux, not a net heat transfer, and therefore cannot be compared directly to the latent + sensible fluxes, which are net transfers.”
“The 398 W/m² is a gross radiative flux, not a heat transfer.”
I’m not sure what your point is. This is EXACTLY what I have said. Reflected heat does not represent a heat transfer. It is merely returning *part* of what has already been lost and is compensated for by a higher rate of heat loss over time.
I think the only class notes that need to be updated belong to you.
Think of some other planet Tim…one that has lava for a surface, but has a cloudy sky, out of which rain falls but evaporates again before it reaches the surface. The cloudy sky can emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun, say 1360/4=340 watts/sq.M, (Earth-like say) while the surface and cloud bases are interchanging the thousands of watts emitted by the hot lava at surface….No laws of thermo or heat transfer need be broken…
“while the surface and cloud bases are interchanging the thousands of watts emitted by the hot lava at surface….No laws of thermo or heat transfer need be broken…”
So what?
Here is the truth in what you say: “The cloudy sky can emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun”
that cloudy sky can’t CREATE heat. It can only pass through, retain, or reflect what it receives from the sun.
lava *is* a heat source, the amount of lava on the surface of the earth is *NOT* an appreciable amount of heat being added to the system.
You haven’t actually refuted anything I said.
CO2 is not on fire (it is not lava). It can’t ADD heat to the system.
the surface of the earth is not on fire. It can’t ADD heat to the system.
the integral of the exponential decay generated in the presence of reflected heat is larger than the exponential decay generated when reflected heat = 0. Planck called this “compensation”.
Like you said, the earth can only emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun. That emission, reflection, etc is a TIME function and the heat lost must calculated by integrating the rate over the applicable time frame. Joules/sec is a rate. Joules is an amount. They are not the same thing. Joules is heat, joules/sec is not heat.
Think of it this way. CO2 has existed in the atmosphere since the earth cooled. If CO2 in the atmosphere could ADD heat to the system through reflection of already emitted heat from the surface, then over the millenia the earth *would* have become a ball of hot lava! That hasn’t happened. Instead we’ve seen glacial and inter-glacial periods.
Climate science views reflected heat as retained heat, i.e. trapped heat. It isn’t retained or trapped or anything like that. It slows cooling but that represents a greater emission of heat via “compensation” over time. It is the total JOULES-in and the total JOULES-out that matter, not the instantaneous flux vales at any point in time. The flux rates in and out don’t matter over days, weeks, months, years, or even centuries. Nyquist requires that the observation period be at least as long as the lowest frequency cycle and preferably longer in order to minimize uncertainty. That means that an observation period of millennia is the minimum length for analyzing heat gain/loss of the earth.
Climate science is a perfect reflection of the Chicken Little fable. Inferring that the fall of one acorn means the sky is falling. For climate science an increasing temperature over a short period of time geologically means the earth is going to burn up. It’s a case of faulty inference, i.e. jumping to conclusions. And to top it off, when it comes to climate science, because of measurement uncertainty climate science can’t even tell if it was an acorn that fell!
Emissivity is not NetHeat/ThotEMR. Temperature of outer space is -270.
Please try to keep your comments intelligent. I asked an intelligent question of readers and you hijacked the thread with your nonsense.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
You are spouting nonsense.
Without any atmosphere, planet Earth would have a Albedo of about 0.13 similar to the moon and be cloudless and GHG free
Using normal textbook formulae
1360/4*(1-.13) = 295.8
And 296 Watts/sq.M using SB formula at emissivity of .98 gives 270 K or about 3 degrees below freezing as its emissions temperature…which would be the surface temperature.
Since the Planet is actually about 15 C…your claim is FALSE.
Moon takes 30 days to rotate on its axis so warms up lots and cools down lots. Earth once a day. Even once a day isn’t fast enough for the surface temp equation to be quite true. if moon rotated every few hours its temp would average -4 as was calc’d for Earth with .13 albedo above.
“Willis commented that his numbers did not match Trenberth.” ______________________________________________________________________
Trenberth redid his original heat budget (IPCC TAR Chapter 1 Page 90 pdf 6). I like to think that he did so because it balanced. His revision (2009) showed difference of 0.9 watts/m²
Thank you for an intelligent comment, Steve. I think folks who come up with a 0.9 or 0.6 imbalance simply have fudged a degree of global warming over the last century to come up with their number. It isn’t really within the realm of the accuracy of their instrument readings.
But what’s your thoughts on 2/3 of surface radiation going directly to outer space thru the atmospheric window. True or false ?
His revision (2009) says “the widths of the lines represent the importance….” What I am getting at here is that the NARROWEST line on his chart is 40 watts going to outer space through “atmospheric window”….while the Net radiant heat from the surface is 396-333=63 ….so in fact nearly 2/3 of surface radiant heat escapes through the atmospheric window. This is NOT very obvious in the usual diagrams and most people don’t realize this.
Again, thanks for the intelligent comment.
The temp of a 398.2 watt emitting, .98 emissivity surface is approx. 291 K or 18 C. 340.3 would be approx. a 280 K surface, or 7 K, but if you’re thinking of the sky, it is mosaic of 2/3 cloud bottoms that are “almost” a surface, a bit of a view of outer space that isn’t a surface at all, and water vapor and CO2 that are partially transparent at some wavelengths.
The 398.2 is electromagnetic energy, not Carnot type “heat” until absorbed…your microwave oven food isn’t hot until it absorbs microwaves. My bad to call it heat but that just shows how easy it is to cross up the common use and technical use of the term.
Your 30C face is emitting 468 Watts/ SqM but is receiving 421 from your 22C walls so your metabolism only needs to produce 47 W/sqM of metabolic heat to keep your face at 30C (ignoring sweat, convection, conduction but you get the idea). You can easily envision where your face is the same temp as the walls and thus there is ZERO radiant Net heat transfer at that point.
Are radio waves imaginary ? And everything we know about them ? Is the food in your microwave heated by imaginary waves ? Does that cold magnetron in your microwave break the LoT’s when heating your TV dinner ? Really Nicholas, you have to study a bit past the curmudgeon flat-earther understanding you have…
In the meantime, some questions re. your 340.3 W/m^2 of ‘back radiation”:
How much of this radiation lies within the ‘atmospheric window’?Of the remainder, from what layer(s) of the wild blue yonder does it originateHow are the energy flows measured? Or are they modeled on the basis of radiance?Does the person who wrote the NASA puff-piece on CERES that you linked to realize that the physics underlying the diagram of the ‘energy budget’ included therein is phenomenological?
See:
IIRC about 25% of EMR is in the 8-14 window if emitted from a -65 C surface…and about 40% if emitted by a +88 C surface. So about 1/3…
Phenomenological means “it’s conjecture…”….hmmm, THOUSANDS of experimental results have been put into the Hitran database so that the absorption of nearly any gas mixture at any pressure you imagine can be calculated. It’s actually unbelievable you would think that the foundational physics of the 340 watts back radiation is just made up stuff. It’s the basis of quantum theory, resolved the ultraviolet paradox, Nobel prizes awarded, again THOUSANDS of experiments done. A IR camera has a chip that does the calcs….i mean really, you might as well say you really, really, believe there isn’t an ocean over the mountains after someone gives you a globe…
So obviously you must believe my request for comment on the 2/3 of surface radiation that makes it to outer space through the atmospheric window…isn’t worth commenting on…that’s Snarky 🙂
No ‘snark’ intended, but you haven’t addressed any of my questions with respect to ‘back radiation’, specifically relating to the portion that lies outside the atmospheric window.
It’s not totally imaginary. It’s just one component in a net flow. It’s the net flow that is important, not the gross flux. What gets missed is that “reflected” flux is just the return of heat that has already been lost. And it just gets lost again after its returned! Net = zero. Reflected heat from CO2 is not retained nor is it “trapped”. Thus the net impact is zero.
It doesn’t matter what the “back radiation” actually is. It is just returning heat that has already been lost. It is “reflected” heat. It is not a heat source. As Andy May has pointed out, heat loss/gain is a net value. It is not a gross flux value. As Planck pointed out, reflected heat is “compensated” for by emissions of new rays. It just slows cooling, it is not retained nor is it trapped.
‘It doesn’t matter what the “back radiation” actually is.’
With all due respect, Tim, I think it does. If it actually existed in the form represented by Trenberth’s energy diagram, it would mean that most of the thermal energy emitted by the Earth’s surface (outside of the atmospheric window) is transported through the troposphere by the spontaneous absorbtion and emission of ‘photons’ by GHGs in accordance with the ‘mechanism’ of radiative transfer models, rather than by the convection of sensible and latent heat.
If that were the case, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere would be physically equivalent to adding steel shells to Willis’ ‘Steel Greenhouse’, CO2 would indeed be the ‘control knob’ of the Earth’s climate and extreme political measures to ‘solve’ CAGW would be justified.
So the sooner we can get the alarmists and their luke-warmer fellow travelers to back off the phenomenological physics of applying radiative transfer theory to the non-condensed matter of atmospheric gases, the better.
I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing that sensible and latent heat aren’t the main transport mechanisms. But there is also *some* back radiation. But back radiation cannot *ADD* heat, it can only reflect back heat that has already been lost. If it could ADD heat it would be a second source separate from the sun. All it can do is slow the exponential decay curve that describes radiative heat loss from the earth’s surface.
See my attached primitive graph. A decay curve from a slower cooling, when integrated, results in more joules be emitted then from a faster cooling decay curve. That is Planck’s “compensation” for heat reflected back to the source. CO2 doesn’t trap or retain anything. Any reflected heat it generates just gets radiated away again as part of the area under the slower exponential decay curve.
Let me pound on this one more time: there is no such thing as radiative thermodynamic flux balance associated with the biosphere. You *have* to talk in terms of joules-in and joules-out because different time frames apply to incoming and outgoing flux flows. And since the oceans and the land are huge heat sinks with thermal inertia significant time intervals can be involved.
More likely, I’m just being inarticulate. The point I’m trying to convey is that GHGs in the troposphere aren’t causing ‘photons’ emitted at the surface to bounce up and down until they escape to space akin to how the ping pong balls are drawn for the weekly lotto games.
Rather, I think it’s all about GHG collisions with non-IR active gases, whether near the surface, where GHGs in their excited states undergo non-radiative deactivation, or aloft, where GHGs in their base states undergo non-radiative excitation.
Initially, collisions near the surface convert thermal radiation absorbed there by GHGs to sensible heat that is then convected aloft. Subsequently, collisions at altitude convert this sensible heat back to outgoing radiation by exciting GHGs where they can now spontaneously emit this radiation to space.
That’s not quite what Planck said. He says in the tome that if he were to try to analyze a black body at the molecular level then it would greatly complicate his analysis because of quantum effects.
“Throughout the following discussion it will be assumed that the linear
dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of
curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with
the wave lengths of the rays considered. With this assumption we may,
without appreciable error, entirely neglect the infuence of difraction
caused by the bounding surfaces, and everywhere apply the ordinary
laws of refection and refraction of light.”
“We shall now consider the interior of an emitting substance assumed
to be physically homogeneous, and in it we shall select any volume element dτ of not too small size. Then the energy which is emitted by
radiation in unit time by all particles in this volume-element will be
proportional to dτ. Should we attempt a closer analysis of the process
of emission and resolve it into its elements, we should undoubtedly meet very complicated conditions, for then it would be necessary to consider elements of space of such small size that it would no longer be admissible to think of the substance as homogeneous, and we would have to allow for the atomic constitution. Hence the finite quantity obtained by dividing the radiation emitted by a volume-element dτ by this element dτ is to be considered only as a certain mean value. Nevertheless, we shall as a rule be able to treat the phenomenon of emission as if all points of the volume-element dτ took part in the emission in a uniform manner, thereby greatly simplifying our calculation. Every point of dτ will then be the vertex of a pencil of rays diverging in all directions.”
So LWIR can interact at the molecular level but analysis at this level would generate “very complicated conditions”.
Here is a graph of “radiation” leaving the earth. In respect to your question, the Planck curve that is shown is worthless if one believes that back radiation exists outside of CO2, CH4, and O3. There would be no way to even consider using SB as a gauge of temperatures at the surface from this Planck curve.
I have added some “integral” boxes instead of trying to integrate Planck’s equation in multiple parts.
Some thoughts.
The atmospheric window has about 30% of the entire radiation. The CO2 band has about 26% of the radiation. The area above CO2 amounts to about 24%. The area below the atmospheric window amounts to about 20%.
One also has to understand that this curve in no way represents anything happening at the surface at any given point. Part of the earth is heating, and part is cooling constantly due to its spin. A simple graph cannot take this into account with any scientific accuracy whatsoever.
‘One also has to understand that this curve in no way represents anything happening at the surface at any given point.’
Correct. This Planck representation only applies at ‘TOA’ where conditions amenable (read spontaneous emission) for ‘radiative transfer’ actually exist. Also some inferences re. surface radiation in the ‘atmospheric window’. But mostly, the standard use of this diagram to over emphasize the role of CO2 in tropospheric energy transport is a complete misinterpretation of the science.
I know that many of us here hold Planck in high regard, but I believe that he, Kirchoff, Wien, Stefan, etc., would be apoplectic with how their work with respect to energy transfer between ‘bodies’ has been misapplied to atmospheric gases.
Sorry, you need to take a semester or so of a university level atmospheric thermodynamics classes, may play with Modtran “what-if” cases for a couple of months, maybe study Skew-T diagrams like meteorologists at airports do for a couple of months more….then you won’t need to ask…
Ignoring valid questions and inserting circular arguments (of course MODTRAN agrees with MODTRAN) is not particularly helpful – sort of like telling someone in the 18th century they need to ‘take a semester of so of [a] university level classes’ in phlogiston theory.
For decades, we’ve watched the perpetual, exhausting debate over the science of climate change. One side brandishes a new computer model predicting doom and instilling fear. The other side questions CO2 is the control knob and the economic cost of human emission rollbacks and renewables. In the sterile, air-conditioned rooms of international summits and corporate boardrooms, a sophisticated global architecture is being built. The ultimate destination? A highly centralized system of global governance, powered by artificial intelligence, anchored by massive data infrastructure, and operationalized through granular carbon tracking—all timed for deployment by 2030.
While the warming climate is within normal variation, a consortium of globalist organizations, multinational tech giants, banks and international bodies have already decided it is human emissions, period, and moved onwith the grand plan – Panopticon.
Under the guise of saving the planet, international financial and political bodies are actively pioneering interoperable Digital IDs and tokenized carbon footprints. The framework is already laid out in initiatives like the UN’s Global Digital Compact.
Imagine a world where your digital identity is seamlessly linked to your bank account, your travel passes, and your smart device. Every purchase you make—from a steak at the grocery store to a gallon of gas at the pump—carries a specific carbon weight. Algorithms housed in the newly minted mega-data centers will calculate your daily consumption.
If you exceed your allotted quota your digital wallet restricts certain purchases, your travel privileges are temporarily paused, or your access to specific digital services is throttled.
If all this is developed by government departments, it will take > 15 years to get version 1.0 up, cost the US national debt, and when users log in for more than 2 minutes, they’ll get “session timed out”.
And don’t even think about what the “Let’s chat” popup will be like. (“like, you know, I’m like – so, like, so let’s, like, talk about stuff, ok?”)
No different than the dogs bringing the ball to the person and waiting for them to throw it.
don k
June 8, 2026 2:09 am
story tip.
I don’t do atmospheric physics because it seems to me to be at least as complex as other stuff no one seems to fully understand — e.g. quantum mechanics, economics, fluid dynamics. Well beyond my pay grade. But some folks around here are either smarter than I or less aware of their limitations. They might have some interest in this — https://physicsworld.com/a/interface-between-air-and-water-gets-a-new-twist/
Ditto…as Barbie said: “Math is hard”. Seriously, tho, some things I just can’t quite wrap my brain around. I can follow the logic-even see holes in it, but “do” the numbers? Beyond me.
I see where Israel and Iran are back to attacking each other.
I hope the Israelis are targeting Iran’s new leadership.
President Trump says they should both stop firing at each other.
I don’t think the Mad Mullahs are going to stop.
It’s time for the United States to destroy what remains of Iran’s offensive capabilities.
Israel is being attacked by Hezbollah and the IRGC, who controls Hezbollah. Hezbollah will have to be removed as a threat to Israel and that may take some time as Hezbollah is heavily armed, thanks to the Iranians.
It’s not over, Donald. You are dealing with religious fanatics who don’t compromise because their god tells them compromising the Second Coming is a sin.
So kick the asses of these fanatics. Wipe them out. That is the best plan.
Don’t make a peace treaty. Force the Mad Mullahs to surrender.
We didn’t make a peace treaty with Japan during World War II, we made them surrender and comply with our requirements. The same should happen in Iran.
There’s only one way to deal with rabid animals like the mullahs. It would be a real good, if bloody, idea to do just that. Funny thing (not ha-ha funny) is that the rest of the members of the “religion of peace” would probably be grateful.
For those who may not follow Robert Bryce, here is his most recent post – well worth the read. The money line is – the Iron Law of Power Density, which says the “lower the power density, the greater the resource intensity.”
Here is an excerpt from President Obama’s remarks to the Young African Leaders Initiative in 2013. It will take decades to recover from the damage this President’s manipulative rhetoric and punitive policies did to our country and to the world:
“But the existential challenge that we face has to do with a warming planet. And your generation is the one that’s going to be the most severely affected. Now, the United States and other highly industrialized, developed countries over the last 50, 100 years have been pumping up carbon emissions into the atmosphere. And slowly, this has been building up and it is warming the planet, and we may be reaching a tipping point in which if we do not solve this problem soon, it will spin out of control and change weather patterns in ways that we can’t anticipate, with drought, floods, much more severe natural disasters. And unfortunately, in those situations it’s often poorer countries that are affected the most by these changing climate patterns.
So I just gave a speech this past week on what the United States is going to do on our next phase of reducing our carbon emissions. The United States actually reduced our carbon emissions more than any other country since I came into office. I just want to make that point. (Applause.) We doubled fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We’re investing in clean energy like solar and wind. And we actually want to share that technology, because we think that all countries need to benefit. And part of the opportunity for Africa is to see if we can leapfrog some of the polluting practices of America or Europe, and go straight to the clean energy strategies that will allow you to advance economic growth, but not corrupt the planet.”
Later, “Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
Source:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/29/remarks-president-obama-young-african-leaders-initiative-town-hall/
As a lawyer and professor, President Obama should have been able to discern that there was no body of evidence to reliably establish that emissions of CO2 had anything to do with the reported “warming” trend, or that rising concentrations of CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases should be expected to drive ANY trend of climate variables. Spectral properties, radiative transfer computations, and satellite observations of emission spectra are NOT evidence of cause-and-effect within the climate system.
On the contrary, dynamic energy conversion massively overwhelms the minor static effect. This was no secret in 2009 when the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding. Modern modeling of the general circulation – this included ERA-40 in the early 2000’s – demonstrates that the computed improvement in IR absorbing power is negligible – inconsequential – vanishingly weak – in the proper physical context of all the motion we experience as “weather” between the surface and space.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for listening.
“As a lawyer and professor, President Obama should have been able to discern that there was no body of evidence”
Lawyers, scientists and professor’s lie and mislead, hence we are in the current situation. Look at Mann and the others in this despicable parasitical farce.
Then the is the low intelligence factor to consider. Universities tech them what to think, not how to think.
You expect them to act in a responsible manner.
Look at the covid fiasco, and the death rate and injuries as a result of the vaccines.
Thank you for your reply.
“You expect them to act in a responsible manner.”
Don’t get me wrong. I have no unrealistic delusions about the reliability of “lawyers, scientists and professors” to actually do so.
Consider how inadequate our language would be if we didn’t have ‘lawyer words’ like “could, might, may, and possibly.” We would be compelled to use numeric probabilities! /sarc
As a leftist, Obama lied with impunity.
And we all will be dealing with the damage Obama caused for at least a generation, if not longer and if we can survive the damage. Wonder who bought Obama, anyways. Guesses?
What? I’ve been saving $2500 each and every year since 2010 on my medical insurance premiums and I got to keep my doctor too. Thats 16 years and $40,000 in my favor, according to Obama. I’m sure all similar middle class Americans have experienced the same, haven’t they?
Uh huh, you bet…got a bridge for ya. /s-which yes, i know, you meant.
And set precedents for presidential overreach when he got tired of waiting for Congress to do something about “gun violence.” Therefore, he authored Executive Orders that he implicitly acknowledged were the purview of Congress.
Every time a politician lies, there should be an automatic withdrawal of $5000 from his slush fund account, with the money going to a veterans housing program.
“Lawyers, scientists, and professors lie and mislead”
Corrected.
You forgot the biggest liars of all. Politicians. Why?
It’s about a lust for power and the rationalization that the ends justify any means.
I wasn’t adding to the list, just correcting the structure (Oxford Comma, no apostrophe for plurals).
On what scientific basis have you made the claim there is ‘no body of evidence’ of human caused climate change’? Have you checked everywhere?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
WB, it appears you meant this reply to be for me.
First, you have misstated my point. I said, “…no body of evidence to reliably establish that emissions of CO2 had anything to do with the reported “warming” trend, or that rising concentrations of CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases should be expected to drive ANY trend of climate variables.”
The scientific basis for that statement is that the power intensity of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the static radiative effect of incremental CO2. This leaves no technical path for isolating that minor improvement in IR absorbing power, from within the physical climate system, for positive attribution of a reported warming trend. This is fundamentally the same scientific basis as for the response from Simpson and Brunt to Callendar’s proposed attribution of station warming to rising concentrations of CO2.
Science, WB.
Explained here, with quotes from 1938, and with supporting plots of ERA5 hourly “vertical velocity” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” values.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
“Have you checked everywhere?” No need.
Be well, even as we presently disagree.
If we were pumping carbon into the atmosphere it would probably block out some of the sun’s radiation reducing the temperature. It’s the molecule CO2 that’s supposed to be the problem. Whenever I read about carbon emissions I automatically ignore anything else they have to say because they are clearly an ignoramous. Obama condemns himself with his own words.
Jeff, you are wrong…
Try Andy May’s write-up here
https://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/sep/a2.php
Oh yes, he is wrong based on Andy May saying
If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle – but it’s not.
If, if, if – if the Earth hadn’t cooled to its present temperature, the surface would still be molten, wouldn’t it?
You nailed it. Climate science views reflected heat from CO2 as retained heat, i.e. trapped forever and never again lost. That’s the entire fundamental assumption behind the Trenberth diagram. It ignores the facts that heat loss goes up exponentially as temperature goes up linearly and that flux is a rate and not an amount. Since the time frames for heat loss and gain are not equal the *rates* of heat loss and heat gain can never balance.
“..Trapped forever and never again lost…”… you are so incorrect that it defies rational correction in any reasonable time frame…
BTW, neither am I real happy with the average heat budget diagram’s use of fore and back EMR when they should just show about 60 watts or so of net IR radiating from the surface, and leave the 396-333 to a footnote to satisfy pedantic physicists.
63 leaves the surface…40 watts goes directly to outer space via the 8-14 micron atmospheric window…changes one’s view of what 4 watts more heat absorption from doubling CO2 could do…turns that narrow “40 watts to outer space” arrow into a much wider one half the width of “evaporation”…and “net radiation” into one narrower than evaporation too…
I sympathise with your point ….but
No rational explanation that he will accept… but for others maybe?
” i.e. trapped forever and never again lost.”
Of course it’s not trapped “forever”.
The number is (as that is required for equilibrium ie SWin LWout) – but not the actual LWIR escaping to space.
The GHE downwelling LWIR on the diagram is merely the “zero-sum” of the net flow out for equilbrium to be maintained.
It is a continuous process – just like your central-heating set at some heating value is a constant because some escapes through your house’s walls/windows/roof.
Your heating boiler is providing the bit that is lost to maintain a constant temperature.
In Earth’s case the “boiler” is the Sun’s ASR.
And the energy escaping through the “walls” is the LWIR that finally makes it to space at TOA.
So just as your house’s heating energy consumption at a constant temperature is not “trapped forever” (as new gas is burnt constantly), neither is the downwelling LWIR on the Trenberth’s energy diagram.
The entire “radiative balance” diagrams and discussions on it in climate science are non-physical. The diagrams are all labeled “W/m^2”. That is an INSTANTANEOUS dimension. The only way heat-in and heat-out can balance is for joules-in and joules-out to balance. Of course you can normalize the joules in/out to a common time interval, perhaps a “day”, but then the flows should be labeled Joules/day-m^2.
In order to actually capture total heat-in and total heat-out the observation interval has to be long enough to capture all applicable heat flow cycles. For the earth, we are talking an interval of at least a century if not longer. Heck, in just the time I’ve been here on earth we’ve been through cycles in the 1950’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2010’s. The joules-in and joules-out calculation needs to cover the entire period from 1950 to 2026 to even come close to capturing the natural variation.
What would this result in? The number of joules involved would be so large that the amount provided by a flux imbalance would be so small as to be covered up by the measurement uncertainty. It wouldn’t even be a rounding error!
That particular terminology is also one of my pet peeves. Carbon – atomic #6 on the periodic table of the elements – is soot, it is graphite, and diamonds are a nearly pure form it. When folks say we need to “reduce our carbon emissions into the atmosphere,” I want to smack ’em with “We’re putting too many diamonds up in the sky??” But to illustrate just how effective the enviros have been on hammering the concept of “carbon pollution,” a dear friend of mine who is otherwise non-political and doesn’t otherwise follow the climate issue at all admitted to me that she was not aware that the enviros meant CO2, and was instead thinking they were trying to stop particulate pollution that’s causing global warming. I had to set her straight on how CO2 was an essential plant nutrient and that the enviros and complicit news reporters had been deceiving her all this time about the ‘carbon’ label.
You could have told her that there a 2 oxygens compensating for every 1 carbon.
Without CO2 going into the air, the planet could be deprived of enough oxygen for all living creatures to survive.
(jeez, I almost convinced myself 🙂 )
Oygen is reducing. CO2 is escaping to space, never to return.
Spoil sport 🙂
Ooooh-not bad, not bad at all.
I told my former fiancee that i could not accept her wearing carbon pollution on her finger when other non polluting shiny rocks were available.
She dumped me and found some other non concerned guy to continue the pollution of the Earth for her benefit.
Took me years to convince my wife that diamonds were a terrible thing…helped that she is an artist and the stone would probably get lost or damaged. Worked for awhile, the she realized that diamonds don’t get damaged. I need a new routine.
Diamonds DO get damaged. The most common is a blow that causes the diamond to cleave along an incipient octahedral cleavage plane.
Hmmm, diamonds and cleavage…
Don’t go there-very funny tho
“Sweets for the sweet.”
This is true…just don’t ruin my story by telling her…I’m in enough trouble already.
Who’s an ignoramus? CO2 doesn’t block solar radiation. It only blocks IR frequencies.
It doesn’t block them , it transfers them to other frequencies.
If CO2 changes the IR radiation to other frequencies within the IR spectrum, does it affect the energy of the IR radiation?
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/07_infraredwaves/
No 1
If you change 1 carbon atom in CO2 to 1 hydrogen atom, you get a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas.
HO2?
Then you move the number 2 one step back.
“It will take decades to recover from the damage this President’s manipulative rhetoric and punitive policies did to our country and to the world”
Obama is poison to the United States and the world.
I’m still holding out hope that Obama will be officially connected to the attempted overthrow of the U.S. government that Obama directed against Donald Trump, which may be ongoing.
Obama and the Democrats tried to turn this country into a one-party system with the Democrats in charge. And they are still at it. What’s Obama’s role now? Trump’s investigator will let us know. It’s not over Obama. Your traitorous actions need to be exposed to the American public and to the world.
No-good, traitorous bastard!
This, from the 12th of May:
https://americanmind.org/salvo/post-enron-statute-could-be-used-to-round-up-lawfare-conspirators/
Excerpts, from concluding & opening paragraphs. How to make ‘RICO’ great again.
Former FBI Director, James Comey, did not take it upon himself to attack Trump. He was doing it at the direction of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The whole Obama/Biden cabinet was involved in this attempted coup.
Traitorous bastards all!
I think it is a pretty sure bet that the DOJ is going to be charging Obama officials with an ongoing conspiracy to undermine the Constitution of the United States based on their ongoing attacks on Trump.
… but meanwhile, they’re still continuing with the election fraud in California and it’s live, televised and in-your-face, so they’re not too scared of any consequences.
I see where Pratt is now in third place.
Gavin said they had a plan in case someone they didn’t like was getting close to winning.
It’ll never happen…the Deep State will protect them all one way or the other. And yes, it most definately was a coup attempt-we got lucky (so far).
Yep.
Your current president is only doing what he is told. It will take the rest of the world many years to recover from his actions. The average American is still getting poorer.
Who is directing President Trump?
lol
WOW.. the TDS delusion is strong with this one. !
Dow Jones hit 50150 yesterday. America is surging.
The average American in NYC and California are getting poorer, but that is nothing to do with Trump.
Doubtful. Though other so-called world leaders certainly do seem to be doing what they’re told.
During that 2013 visit to Tanzania, Barack Obama demonstrated the Soccket, a soccer ball that generates electricity through kinetic energy when played with, providing power for lights and cell phones. While a cute idea by undergraduetes at Harvard, the soccet is now a footnote to history. The large concrete ediface called the Obama Presidential Center is meant to keep BHO from a similar fate.
You mean that seriously ugly building put in a neighborhood that can get you killed and is hated by the local residents? That building? Obama screws anybody and everybody he can, including his new neighbors. Well, they voted for him so tough luck, chumps.
Some people think Obama’s presidential library building looks like a North Korean Watch Tower.
I don’t think I have seen an uglier building.
It is definitely dystopian.
Barad-dûr?
“. . . if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
— Barack Obama, as you quoted in your comment
Hey, why did Obama leave out “and everybody has got a private jet”?
And wouldn’t better English have been to just say “everybody has” instead of “everybody has got”?
Also, at STP, the boiling point of water is 212 deg-F. Few humans can survive sustained wet-bulb temperatures above 95 deg-F (ref: https://www.livescience.com/hottest-temperature-people-can-tolerate.html )
And this guy received a Nobel Peace Prize?
Obama was given a Peace Prize for doing nothing other than existing.
And well before he had time to even attempt to do anything to advance peace. Obviously, the prize wasn’t for anything that he actually did, but for the virtue signaling that his election represented.
Yep-and we all know why even if nobody will say it out loud. Sure did cheapen the Prize tho.
Obama was, above all, A politician. Truth and integrity are not part of the politicians play book. He just rode a popular concern of the time. He was not a leader rather a follower of unicorn farts.
The unstated assumption is that all the effects will be undesirable. Yet, if we truly can’t anticipate all the changes, surely at least some, if not half, will be positive. Thus, we have to assess the net results of the good, the bad (and the simply ugly?). Yet, there was no call for better predictions, which would have to allow for at least some positive effects.
Yes. Any global climate change will be a bane to some, a boon to others. No exception.
As early as the 1970’s, my high school Physical Sciences teacher remarked on the warming climate, just before the cooling scare.
We had a “stop wind” rally in Wyoming. Here is some great local coverage:
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/06/04/wyoming-ranchers-rally-against-wind-wall-of-power-turbines-across-the-state/
I get quoted a good bit. Just the start of our campaign
Nice. Keep up the good work!
I used to see golden eagles often. Now I don’t recall the last time that I’ve seen one.
Keep up the fight.
Yes, well done. I wish I could have been there, but alas.
There maybe trouble ahead…
Labour may need help from the IMF, economists warn
UK hurtling towards crisis by 2030 with national debt set to hit £3tn later this year
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/06/labour-may-need-help-from-the-imf-economists-warn/
Net Zero remains a top priority for the lunatic Miliband. Absolutely bonkers.
Milliband is just doing what he is told to do, and sticking to the script.
You keep writing that leaders are doing what they are told…by whom?
Yes, who are these mysterious manipulators of our fate?
We need names. “Know your enemy” and all that.
3 trillion? Chicken feed.
As of 2025, the United Kingdom’s government debt per capita was about €51,010, while the United States’ was about $57,546.
Of greater interest to individuals in the USA is that collective credit card debt has reached an all-time high of $1.25 trillion. Understanding this is difficult because some folks have no card debt and others use cards like delayed-cash. Many cards have “perks” or cash-back prorgrams. It is possible, then, to get perks and pay no interest. How is that debt?
Negative debt?
Funnily enough the US’ population is 5 times larger than ours.
It has over 300 million guns and none of them worked under General Biden at the Rio Grande…
wait for it, but first the Dems gotta go.
You misspelled Generalissimo.
I’ll take 35 trillion for 200, alex. /s. If ya wanna play with the big dogs ya gotta be able to p in the tall grass. We’re all doomed.
Who knew? 1,000,000 (one million) millions in one trillion.
Renewable time?
Renewable time!
Liebreich: The Great Clean Energy Acceleration 2.0
https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/liebreich-the-great-clean-energy-acceleration-2-0/
Europe’s Renewables Loosen Energy Stranglehold
https://cepa.org/article/europes-renewables-loosen-energy-stranglehold/
The Threat of Unrest Is Decarbonizing the Global South
https://archive.ph/6fuoI
Renewable energy is overtaking traditional power projects across Africa, industry leaders say
https://apnews.com/article/solar-battery-renewable-africa-hydro-6bdcc8449fd19fe0108eac827e0bd170
Renewablemaxxing as kids today say.
To much 🍺 ? 🤣🥱
Too little research methinks
This is called: Whistling past the graveyard.
That’s creepy, are you a child or a nonce?
Asperger’s
pedo.
No, I’m not trump.
Missed again, Buckwheat. The name is spelled B-I-D-E-N.
Yep, children used to cringe away from Biden !!
Zero evidence to back MUNT’s comment.
Based on the Link’s own numbers, if this is a ‘Great Clean Energy Acceleration’, it’s an oddly selective one.
Global fossil use hasn’t fallen, gas demand still rose, China added 90 GW of new coal, and EVs cut only ~2 mb/d of oil demand out of 100+.
Even the author admits wind/solar growth is meeting new demand, not replacing existing fuels. Calling this a near‑term fossil peak looks more like narrative than numbers.
Europe hasn’t ‘loosened the stranglehold’ when fossil fuels still supply over 70% of its total energy, gas demand remains high, and coal plants were restarted after 2022.
Wind and solar cut imports at the margin, but they haven’t replaced firm capacity or reduced overall fossil dependence.
Do try harder, MUR
Sure, almost 50% of electricity and 25% of total energy consumption is “cut imports at the margin”
Europe actually uses very little wind and solar energy.
Nearly all their energy comes in order of % from… OIL, GAS. COAL, Nuclear and Hydro
That is why it is called a hoax.
Unrest in the Global South is overwhelmingly tied to poverty, food insecurity and weak state capacity. not some spontaneous push toward decarbonisation.
Fossil use in developing countries is still rising, coal additions in Asia hit record levels, and renewables mostly meet new demand rather than replacing existing fuels.
To end poverty, the global south needs cheap, reliable energy. Not in your wildest dreams can wind nor solar provide that
Right. If they think they have unrest now, just wait until the power is only on for a few hours a day.
And there’s no food-see Sri Lanka.
AP parroting industry spin again.
Lots of announced solar projects in Africa, but “overtaking” ignores massive execution gaps, chronic under-delivery, grid instability, and the quiet reality that coal/gas/hydro still provide the actual reliable power.
Wishful pipeline numbers vs. real electrification rates.
“Execution gaps” = on-selling the permits, subsidy- mining.
And none of those projects, if they’re even completed, will be maintained. They will end up overgrown, stripped for parts, and worse.
Almost all of the “Not Free” nations are in the regions MyUser… applauds. Hmm?
The wind and solar in Africa is a VERY TINY percentage of energy use.
Barely visible in this chart.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/07/new-study-solar-photovoltaic-wind-power-fail-to-meet-annual-energy-demands-62-of-the-time/
“Unlike dispatchable fossil-fuel or nuclear generation, solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions, leading to mismatches between supply and demand.” — Sargentis et al., 2026
That’s what you are a fan from, why ever 🤣
Going with a German word with “reich” in the name is a bold move. Well, bold is one descriptor, there are others.
You do know that Mr. Pink doesn’t tip?
1.. BNEF is a shill for the renewable energy.. zero facts 110% propaganda.
2.. Oil and gas infrastructure surges in Europe (see chart below)
3.. Decarbonisation is ALWAYS a threat to prosperity.. thanks for pointing that out.
4.. Africa
14 African Oil & Gas Projects Driving the Continent’s Energy Boom – African Energy Chamber
Temperatures in the far north of the Arctic still playing catch-up this summer. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Maximum ice volume was a new low in the DMI record this year, fifth year of decline in a row.
Note the date at the end.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
I love climate history!
It is not visible in your graph that the Arctic sea ice minimum was lowest in 2012?
But still well above what it has been for nearly all the last 10,000 years
Very much in an “ice age” up there.
Why should we care?
It appears that is not necessary to open up the Strait of Hormuz to get gasoline prices to come down.
I paid $4.40 per gallon two weeks ago.
Yesterday the price was $3.40 per gallon.
The US is running on their reserves, that won’t last forever.
The U.S. emergency oil reserve was practically emptied by the imbecile, Joe Biden. For political purposes.
But, the U.S. is pumping a lot more oil domestically (high oil prices),and has increased Venezuela’s oil output by three times, so we don’t have to depend on an empty Strategic Oil Reserve.
Gasoline prices are coming down. This must send a shiver of fear through the Democrats and the religious fanatics in Iran.
Relax, dude. The Dems will find a way to f us, you wait.
I’ve heard that we’re now the world’s largest oil producer.
According to AI:
Key Recent Figures (approximate, in barrels per day)US: ~13.2–13.7 million bpd (crude/condensate); often cited higher (~17–21+ million bpd) when including all petroleum liquids and biofuels.Saudi Arabia: ~9.5–10.1 million bpd (crude).Russia: ~9.9–10 million bpd (crude).
EVERYBODY WANTS OIL….
Hydrocarbon fuels are the background of every successful economy.
Costco is $3.59/gal near me in Colorado.
So gasoline is down around one dollar per gallon from a month ago, but you won’t know that listening to the nightly news. They don’t cover the news, they disseminate the propaganda.
91 Octane – $6.50/gal in N. Cal yesterday.
Climate warrior and venture capitalist of Chinese coal plants Tom Steyer in third place in the Governor’s primary. Watch out for some fishy vote-counting to come.
Funny thing is, he might be the best candidate, but that’s just my opinion, which doesn’t reflect well on the other candidates.
$6.30 in SoCal yesterday. Newsome has done everything possible to raise the price of gasoline …. pushing out refineries, over the top emission requirements …. and it’s working.
Steve Hilton, who is running for governor of California says he saw a $7.89 price per gallon of gasoline at a California gas station yesterday.
California is not typical of gasoline prices, thank Goodness.
Democrats have ruined California.
Put a fork in California, its done. The Dems are now after the rest of us.
They’ve ruined the State of Washington too. Our gas prices are $6.00/gal.
$3.86 east of the Cascades and $4.53 west [Costco in Union Gap & Issaquah] {for me, 50 miles to Union Gap, 85 to Issaquah}
Here in Western Wa, it’s still pretty high. Discount places around $4.70, regular places around $5.50 for 87 octane. Wa has I think the highest, or at least second highest fuel taxes in the country. And of course they wouldn’t possibly consider suspending that to give people some temporary relief. They’d much rather blame Trump.
Tom,
You don’t live in WA State with high gas tax and a CO2 indulgence**. While my last fill-up was lower than a month ago, it was still $5/gallon.
[**estimated to be about 68¢/g]
Yes, I pity you guys on the West coast.
Those kinds of high gasoline prices are economy killers. The Democrats are oblivious.
So the US is just killing strangers and wasting money for the fun of it, is that it?
In Australia, I am trying to manage increased interest by others in what I do on my personal computer. I find it hard to keep programs running because vendors or others are asking for identification, security, not-a-bot checks, often requesting a password change. Then, if I do change a password, it is immediately met with ‘Invalid’ when I test it. I am now having problems uploading spreadsheets to popular AI chat sites, they say they are not appearing as csv or xlsx files.
Is this a global change or am I getting local interference or a virus attack? Geoff S
From what I have seen, many sites are taking security to new levels. That is a good thing. However, there are glitches that are frustrating. My latest pet peeve is CoPilot having problems providing visible graphs. It tells me it is there, but nothing ever shows. When re-prompted it says it is having trouble accessing software.
I have been having problems with Windows 10 recently behaving poorly. On Memorial Day, I asked Copilot for help in fixing a long-running problem of a storage leak. Most of the code it provided didn’t do what Copilot promised me it would do. Several hours into the project, Copilot ‘broke’ something. After about 8-hours, it was time to go to bed. I picked it back up the next day, and after about 7-hours we had recovered a missing file. The major problem seems to have been inadequate or outdated information that Copilot had and unwarranted optimism about the probability of success.
Then, yesterday, apparently after a pushed update, I suddenly could no longer leave comments on MSN news articles. Again, progress was slow with Copilot, apparently because files that it believed were necessary were not automatically regenerated as expected. After about 4-hours, things seemed to be working, even though several files that Copilot thought were necessary, were still missing. We are in a holding pattern now to see if the problems come back or something new shows up.
At the end of May, I had a Dell laptop stop working after several years because, I was told, an activation key was missing. I intended to register a new key I had bought on eBay on the advice of Copilot, on the 31st, but apparently MS had jumped the gun and shut in down a few hours early.
I am not happy with ‘Microsquish!’ I’m seriously considering trying a Linux distro’ again, at least for that laptop.
I was connected to a state medical system last week, providing more requested info about past procedures.
I had to go dig out some paper records, came back to see that the session had timed out.
When I tried logging back in, got a message my account had been frozen, had to change my password.
Did so, then found that all the requested info previously entered was not added.
Government systems are the most user-hostile of all.
If commercial systems were so godawful bad, the companies would be out if business.
A virus is always possible.
@sherr01: A **LOT** of sites are taking measures to discourage constant scraping of their content by AI bots. And yes, that’s quite annoying. However what you’re experiencing sounds a bit extreme. On the other hand it’s hard to see what the point of a computer virus that emulated web dysfunction would be. Hopefully, you’re just having a spell of bad luck.
Hard to say without knowing more specifically the exact things that are happening. From the description a virus seems unlikely, but run a full scan in case. Have you saved your files as CSV and then uploaded them? Presumably using Excel? If so it is very odd that they are not being recognized. Even odder if the sites nominally accept xlsx files, and you have generated yours using Excel. But this isn’t going to be possible to diagnose over postings like this. Need to find a competent IT person locally.
In general, maybe consider getting Linux Mint or MXLinux. Get the Mate edition of either one. Mint is full fat, MX a bit leaner. Get the links to them from Distrowatch. Either one will give you Libre Office. Plus lots of math and stat applications.
Don’t use the same machine for personal finance and general computing and net access. Either separate hardware or a dedicated virtual machine using virt-manager, and use it for nothing but the finance. Good luck!
Dangerous out there.
One of the main culprits of this technology mayhem are VPNs, the personal kind on your PC. Products line ExpressVPN, NordVPN, etc are being challenged constantly by the black-box security inserted into many web sites by developers. You can just turn off the VPN or can change locations within your country. VPNs are an excellent way to keep spying internet service providers from monitoring everything you do. There is no real perfect security but we can do a lot to keep prying eyes out of our lives.
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; genius will not; education will not. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” – Calvin Coolidge
Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not warrant such rancor.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler -18 C ice ball Earth is just flat wrong. Dividing discular ISR 1,368 W/m^2 by 4 to average 342 W/m^2 over spherical ToA is not proper.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT.
Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: duplicate 396 S-B BB at 16 C violates GAAP & LoT 1/ 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. 2nd 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. 97 W/m^2 out of 160 W/m^2 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others. When GHE fails the entire CAGW house of cards implodes like the Titan submersible.
The Grand “Balance”
GOZINTAZ positive, GOZOUTAZ negative.
TFK_bams09
1st 63 AWOL
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 0 (1st 63 AWOL) – 396 BB + 333 back – 2nd 63 LWIR = – 63
Does not balance.
Both 63s
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back – 2nd 63 LWIR = – 126
Does not balance.
No place ToA for 2nd 63, must return to surface .
+160 surface – 80 latent – 17 sensible – 1st 63 LWIR – 396 BB + 333 back + 2nd 63 LWIR = 0
Balances: GOZINTAZ = GOZOUTAZ
1st 63 OLR at ToA.
80/17/63 reality from Sun
2nd 63 must return to surface.
-396 BB/+333”back”/+2nd 63 imaginary, zeros out and implodes.
No GHE or CAGW.
“Yes, repetition does not make me right just as 86ing, gas lighting, insults and censorship do not make me wrong. If I were really, truly wrong my posts would not warrant such rancor.”
But what should make you (know you are) wrong is via pondering why you alone have it right and all the worlds physicists right back to Tyndall and Arrhenius have it wrong.
Why are you so special?
Do you think the long line of physicists have just followed on from the ones before and not gone back to first principles and reconsidered.
As Newton said ” that I have seen so far is because I have stoood on the shoulders of giants.
(and no, that comment wasn’t aimed at his critic, Robert Hooke).
Well, you got nothing but hot air.
Answer the question …
Why do think that you alone have it right and all the worlds physicists right back to Tyndall and Arrhenius have it wrong ?
IOW: Why are you so special?
Simple question as you must obviously think that.
John Tyndall was the first to experimentally discover why, given its distance from the sun, Earth was warm enough to support Life. Starting with experiments in 1859 using early spectroscopy instruments, tools used to analyze the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation, Tyndall authored an 1861 paper published by the Royal Society stating that certain atmospheric gases, later called greenhouse gases, are transparent to sunlight, but delay the transmission of Earth’s radiation to space. By 1874 Tyndall realized the most important gas was water vapor.
Interestingly, the Swedish chemist Arrhenius misunderstood Tyndall’s paper and called water vapor carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is a weak acid combination of carbon dioxide dissolved in liquid water. Water vapor has no dissolved carbon dioxide. This is one of several errors Arrhenius made in promoting the greenhouse effect. In 1896, Arrhenius published a paper estimating that the warming effect from doubling CO2 would be as high as 5 or 6°C (9 to 11°F).
‘Greenhouse by CO2′ theory was proven wrong by Knut Angstrom in 1900 in a paper debunking Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, the one all the alarmists quote. In 1906, Arrhenius reviewed his earlier work, acknowledged his errors and concluded that any additional SLIGHT warming that MIGHT come from CO2 would be ‘benign and beneficial’.
“We may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
None of the alarmists quote this later work, or indeed Angstrom’s paper. Funny, that.
We used to call that Funny Dumb.
Are you sure about the carbonic acid thing? When I read Arrhenius (1896), which was years ago, I assumed he was calling carbon dioxide “carbonic acid”. I thought it was a translation artefact and even asked a Swedish friend but still came away with carbonic acid being carbon dioxide.
Not that it matters much any more. Even Svante’s little brat and school truant descendant has given up on how-dare-you-ing on climate. Gaza must be much more lucrative, except actually in Gaza.
You are of course correct, it should be CO2. I copied some of this from another article and left the wrong term in.
Nonsense. Tyndall merely pointed out that without an atmosphere, the Earth would experience the same temperature variations as the Moon – from boiling hot (literally) to bitterly cold.
No GHE. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
Accept reality – or not.
Arrhenius couldn’t even get his equations so the units balanced.
EVERYTHING he said about CO2 was pure supposition , based on errors within a simplistic NON-EARTH model.
20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years | Discover Magazine
10 Times When Science Got It All Horribly Wrong – Cultura Colectiva3
things science got wrong throughout history – Search
Follow the money.
Nicholas…I see you’ve added yet another red comment to your weekly yellow box nonsense where you fail to understand 396-333 of electromagntic flux IS the 63 watts of heat radiation and the 63 watts that LEAVES the surface….ENTERS the air above…it’s called “conservation of energy”…And 63+80+17=160 the sunlight absorbed, also conservation of energy….And despite your claims….ground level…balances….light blue lower atmosphere…balances….dark blue upper atmosphere….balances….It appears you simply cherry pick the same numbers crossing each layer to make it look like there is an arithmetic error…when there isn’t.
160 = 17 + 80 + 63
396 = 333 + 63
Cannot have both of these.
It’s called conservation of energy.
What is? Do you really believe that the Earth is not currently losing energy at the rate of about 44 TW? Gone. Lost. Never to be seen again.
That’s how things cool. You may not be aware that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten – it has cooled.
I invite all WUWT readers to consider the implications of my recent publications on Zenodo concerning the Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis (DPAH). Starting on 9th April 2026 with this foundational statement: The Independent Variable in Geoscience Modelling: Why the Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis Matters https://zenodo.org/records/19501531
Interesting…but honestly I find it complicates my mental visualization…
Dan, First thank you for being brave enough to reply (Seriously, no snark). Of the 90 accredited scientists I have contacted to date, 15 have replied, (a 16.75% response). Of these 15 scientists 8 responded positively, 4 were neutral and 3 were dismissive. I was advised by one responder that my work was being discussed elsewhere but I have no details of where this discussion is taking place.
As regards general understanding of my work. Go outside and look up at the clouds. All convective clouds have flat bases and bubbly tops. When you look at those flat cloud bases you are looking directly at the dew-point climate stabilisation mechanism. Standard forward modelling starts above the clouds and tries to work down thru them (a wicked problem). My inverse stochastic modelling approach running on my £1,000 Dell PC starts at the cloud base and works down to the surface using standard mass-motion physics. To quote Alter AI:
In my latest work published on Zenodo I am applying the Dew-point Anchor Hypothesis to the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus. Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis (DPAH) Markovian Stochastic Modelling of the Venus Atmosphere: Inverse Paradigm Anchored at Sulfuric Acid LCL Cloud Deck
The DPA hypothesis can be applied to all terrestrial and exoplanets, with all types of condensing volatiles and even works on low-pressure Mars where the climate controlling condensing gas is the very carbon dioxide itself.
Technical thought for today:
as a result of some snarkumentary with Frank from Nova regarding “back radiation”.
NASA’s energy budget diagram is here…let’s use that as our basis.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
The amount of long-wave et heat leaving the surface is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts/M^2
The amount of heat leaving via the atmospheric window is 40.1 watts/M^2
Thus one can make the statement that approximately TWO THIRDS of the radiant heat leaving the surface goes directly to outer space through the atmospheric window, 8 to 14 microns, Weins law peak temps of -65 to +90 C., ie all Earthly surface temps….
I commented recently on Willis’ Sunlight article… “about 80% of the photons in the 8 to 14 micron atmospheric window get all the way to outer space in a cloudless sky, but that’s only about 1/3 of the EMR of -65 to +90 C surfaces…at a 15 microns plus, they are absorbed in the first few meters….so 80% of 1/3 of the photons x 1/3 open sky x emission at 15C results in .8 X 1/3 x1/3 x 390 =35 watts to outer space directly…about what most heat budget Sankey diagrams show….”
Willis commented that his numbers did not match Trenberth.
Comments anyone ? On “2/3 of surface radiation goes directly to outer space through the atmospheric window”….
398.2 is the Earth radiating as a BB.
Just flat wrong!
Earthly surfaces are about 98% of BB Nicholas, and then correct with a .98 emissivity…how close do you think we need to be ? Besides that, the 398.2 isn’t HEAT unless absorbed by something…so isn’t HEAT in the Carnot sense unless absorbed by outer space at -273 C, absolute zero. Net HEAT that 398.2 emitted EMR minus whatever that surface receives in EMR from its surroundings. It’s a nuance skipped over in most energy budget diagrams…
Can’t be so.
Can’t have 342 from Sun AND 398 from BB.
Huh ? Depends how much of those watts come from the surroundings…342 from the Sun downwards has no other source of energy than the Sun. 398 from the 16 C surface of the Earth has 333 watts of energy from its surroundings included…
I’m sorry, the earth is *NOT* on fire, it does *NOT* contribute extra energy. Neither is CO2 in the atmosphere on fire, it does *NOT* contribute extra energy either.
The earth can only radiate at most what it receives from an independent source. That jump from 342 to 398 is a phantom. The extra 56 is reflected heat that has already been lost by the earth. Using reflected heat as a source results in the non-physical result that if the earth ever reached equilibrium with the sun, it would emit *MORE* radiation than the sun because of reflected heat from CO2! An impossibility!
It’s a TIME FUNCTION. It has to be understood as a time function.
I’ve attached a crude image explaining this. The heat lost in joules is the integral of the flux profile, an exponential decay, i.e. the area under the decay curve. If cooling is slowed the decay occurs slower which actually results in *MORE* heat in joules being lost over time than for a faster decay.
This is what Planck calls “compensation” for reflected heat being returned. New rays “compensate” for the reflected heat.
This is why trying to define the heat gain/loss in terms of flux is a phantom. It’s JOULES that matter, not flux. And you get joules by integrating flux over the appropriate time interval for in and out.
You need to read this and update those class notes 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181
“Your reply to Willis is physically correct on the key point: the 398 W/m² “surface emission” in the Kiehl–Trenberth–style diagrams is a gross radiative flux, not a net heat transfer, and therefore cannot be compared directly to the latent + sensible fluxes, which are net transfers.”
“The 398 W/m² is a gross radiative flux, not a heat transfer.”
I’m not sure what your point is. This is EXACTLY what I have said. Reflected heat does not represent a heat transfer. It is merely returning *part* of what has already been lost and is compensated for by a higher rate of heat loss over time.
I think the only class notes that need to be updated belong to you.
Think of some other planet Tim…one that has lava for a surface, but has a cloudy sky, out of which rain falls but evaporates again before it reaches the surface. The cloudy sky can emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun, say 1360/4=340 watts/sq.M, (Earth-like say) while the surface and cloud bases are interchanging the thousands of watts emitted by the hot lava at surface….No laws of thermo or heat transfer need be broken…
“while the surface and cloud bases are interchanging the thousands of watts emitted by the hot lava at surface….No laws of thermo or heat transfer need be broken…”
So what?
Here is the truth in what you say: “The cloudy sky can emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun”
You haven’t actually refuted anything I said.
Like you said, the earth can only emit and reflect exactly what it receives from its sun. That emission, reflection, etc is a TIME function and the heat lost must calculated by integrating the rate over the applicable time frame. Joules/sec is a rate. Joules is an amount. They are not the same thing. Joules is heat, joules/sec is not heat.
Think of it this way. CO2 has existed in the atmosphere since the earth cooled. If CO2 in the atmosphere could ADD heat to the system through reflection of already emitted heat from the surface, then over the millenia the earth *would* have become a ball of hot lava! That hasn’t happened. Instead we’ve seen glacial and inter-glacial periods.
Climate science views reflected heat as retained heat, i.e. trapped heat. It isn’t retained or trapped or anything like that. It slows cooling but that represents a greater emission of heat via “compensation” over time. It is the total JOULES-in and the total JOULES-out that matter, not the instantaneous flux vales at any point in time. The flux rates in and out don’t matter over days, weeks, months, years, or even centuries. Nyquist requires that the observation period be at least as long as the lowest frequency cycle and preferably longer in order to minimize uncertainty. That means that an observation period of millennia is the minimum length for analyzing heat gain/loss of the earth.
Climate science is a perfect reflection of the Chicken Little fable. Inferring that the fall of one acorn means the sky is falling. For climate science an increasing temperature over a short period of time geologically means the earth is going to burn up. It’s a case of faulty inference, i.e. jumping to conclusions. And to top it off, when it comes to climate science, because of measurement uncertainty climate science can’t even tell if it was an acorn that fell!
Your view is so warped, it can’t be corrected by rational points.
Emissivity = 0.16 = 63/396
Near Earth outer space is 400 K, 126 C.
Nuance = hocus pocus handwavium.
Emissivity is not NetHeat/ThotEMR. Temperature of outer space is -270.
Please try to keep your comments intelligent. I asked an intelligent question of readers and you hijacked the thread with your nonsense.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
You are spouting nonsense.
Without any atmosphere, planet Earth would have a Albedo of about 0.13 similar to the moon and be cloudless and GHG free
Using normal textbook formulae
1360/4*(1-.13) = 295.8
And 296 Watts/sq.M using SB formula at emissivity of .98 gives 270 K or about 3 degrees below freezing as its emissions temperature…which would be the surface temperature.
Since the Planet is actually about 15 C…your claim is FALSE.
GHE says it would be 255 K -18 C not -3.
Moon is 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
W no GHE so would be Earth.
Moon takes 30 days to rotate on its axis so warms up lots and cools down lots. Earth once a day. Even once a day isn’t fast enough for the surface temp equation to be quite true. if moon rotated every few hours its temp would average -4 as was calc’d for Earth with .13 albedo above.
“Willis commented that his numbers did not match Trenberth.”
______________________________________________________________________
Trenberth redid his original heat budget (IPCC TAR Chapter 1 Page 90 pdf 6). I like to think that he did so because it balanced. His revision (2009) showed difference of 0.9 watts/m²
Thank you for an intelligent comment, Steve. I think folks who come up with a 0.9 or 0.6 imbalance simply have fudged a degree of global warming over the last century to come up with their number. It isn’t really within the realm of the accuracy of their instrument readings.
But what’s your thoughts on 2/3 of surface radiation going directly to outer space thru the atmospheric window. True or false ?
His revision (2009) says “the widths of the lines represent the importance….” What I am getting at here is that the NARROWEST line on his chart is 40 watts going to outer space through “atmospheric window”….while the Net radiant heat from the surface is 396-333=63 ….so in fact nearly 2/3 of surface radiant heat escapes through the atmospheric window. This is NOT very obvious in the usual diagrams and most people don’t realize this.
Again, thanks for the intelligent comment.
Trenberth has at least 3 different versions.
396/333/63 GHE loop is fictitious.
From comment:”The amount of long-wave et heat leaving the surface is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts/M^2.”
Please tell us what the temperature is of the 398.2 surface and the 340.3 atmosphere. And where in the atmosphere we would find that temperature?
And why do you say in this comment “heat leaving” and later in another comment you say “the 398.2 isn’t heat”.
The temp of a 398.2 watt emitting, .98 emissivity surface is approx. 291 K or 18 C. 340.3 would be approx. a 280 K surface, or 7 K, but if you’re thinking of the sky, it is mosaic of 2/3 cloud bottoms that are “almost” a surface, a bit of a view of outer space that isn’t a surface at all, and water vapor and CO2 that are partially transparent at some wavelengths.
The 398.2 is electromagnetic energy, not Carnot type “heat” until absorbed…your microwave oven food isn’t hot until it absorbs microwaves. My bad to call it heat but that just shows how easy it is to cross up the common use and technical use of the term.
Your 30C face is emitting 468 Watts/ SqM but is receiving 421 from your 22C walls so your metabolism only needs to produce 47 W/sqM of metabolic heat to keep your face at 30C (ignoring sweat, convection, conduction but you get the idea). You can easily envision where your face is the same temp as the walls and thus there is ZERO radiant Net heat transfer at that point.
It’s 100% imaginary.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Are radio waves imaginary ? And everything we know about them ? Is the food in your microwave heated by imaginary waves ? Does that cold magnetron in your microwave break the LoT’s when heating your TV dinner ? Really Nicholas, you have to study a bit past the curmudgeon flat-earther understanding you have…
Nice rant avoids my 3 pts.
All examples of EMR, which is at the heart of your “imaginary phenomena.
What ‘snarkumentary’ would that be?
In the meantime, some questions re. your 340.3 W/m^2 of ‘back radiation”:
How much of this radiation lies within the ‘atmospheric window’?Of the remainder, from what layer(s) of the wild blue yonder does it originateHow are the energy flows measured? Or are they modeled on the basis of radiance?Does the person who wrote the NASA puff-piece on CERES that you linked to realize that the physics underlying the diagram of the ‘energy budget’ included therein is phenomenological?
See:
https://youtu.be/hjKJyn_uoIE?t=1442&si=o-4xPmXsMwYlRIl9
IIRC about 25% of EMR is in the 8-14 window if emitted from a -65 C surface…and about 40% if emitted by a +88 C surface. So about 1/3…
Phenomenological means “it’s conjecture…”….hmmm, THOUSANDS of experimental results have been put into the Hitran database so that the absorption of nearly any gas mixture at any pressure you imagine can be calculated. It’s actually unbelievable you would think that the foundational physics of the 340 watts back radiation is just made up stuff. It’s the basis of quantum theory, resolved the ultraviolet paradox, Nobel prizes awarded, again THOUSANDS of experiments done. A IR camera has a chip that does the calcs….i mean really, you might as well say you really, really, believe there isn’t an ocean over the mountains after someone gives you a globe…
So obviously you must believe my request for comment on the 2/3 of surface radiation that makes it to outer space through the atmospheric window…isn’t worth commenting on…that’s Snarky 🙂
No ‘snark’ intended, but you haven’t addressed any of my questions with respect to ‘back radiation’, specifically relating to the portion that lies outside the atmospheric window.
I have.
It’s 100% imaginary.
It’s not totally imaginary. It’s just one component in a net flow. It’s the net flow that is important, not the gross flux. What gets missed is that “reflected” flux is just the return of heat that has already been lost. And it just gets lost again after its returned! Net = zero. Reflected heat from CO2 is not retained nor is it “trapped”. Thus the net impact is zero.
Hocus pocus handwavium.
It doesn’t matter what the “back radiation” actually is. It is just returning heat that has already been lost. It is “reflected” heat. It is not a heat source. As Andy May has pointed out, heat loss/gain is a net value. It is not a gross flux value. As Planck pointed out, reflected heat is “compensated” for by emissions of new rays. It just slows cooling, it is not retained nor is it trapped.
‘It doesn’t matter what the “back radiation” actually is.’
With all due respect, Tim, I think it does. If it actually existed in the form represented by Trenberth’s energy diagram, it would mean that most of the thermal energy emitted by the Earth’s surface (outside of the atmospheric window) is transported through the troposphere by the spontaneous absorbtion and emission of ‘photons’ by GHGs in accordance with the ‘mechanism’ of radiative transfer models, rather than by the convection of sensible and latent heat.
If that were the case, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere would be physically equivalent to adding steel shells to Willis’ ‘Steel Greenhouse’, CO2 would indeed be the ‘control knob’ of the Earth’s climate and extreme political measures to ‘solve’ CAGW would be justified.
So the sooner we can get the alarmists and their luke-warmer fellow travelers to back off the phenomenological physics of applying radiative transfer theory to the non-condensed matter of atmospheric gases, the better.
I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing that sensible and latent heat aren’t the main transport mechanisms. But there is also *some* back radiation. But back radiation cannot *ADD* heat, it can only reflect back heat that has already been lost. If it could ADD heat it would be a second source separate from the sun. All it can do is slow the exponential decay curve that describes radiative heat loss from the earth’s surface.
See my attached primitive graph. A decay curve from a slower cooling, when integrated, results in more joules be emitted then from a faster cooling decay curve. That is Planck’s “compensation” for heat reflected back to the source. CO2 doesn’t trap or retain anything. Any reflected heat it generates just gets radiated away again as part of the area under the slower exponential decay curve.
Let me pound on this one more time: there is no such thing as radiative thermodynamic flux balance associated with the biosphere. You *have* to talk in terms of joules-in and joules-out because different time frames apply to incoming and outgoing flux flows. And since the oceans and the land are huge heat sinks with thermal inertia significant time intervals can be involved.
‘I think you misunderstood my point.’
More likely, I’m just being inarticulate. The point I’m trying to convey is that GHGs in the troposphere aren’t causing ‘photons’ emitted at the surface to bounce up and down until they escape to space akin to how the ping pong balls are drawn for the weekly lotto games.
Rather, I think it’s all about GHG collisions with non-IR active gases, whether near the surface, where GHGs in their excited states undergo non-radiative deactivation, or aloft, where GHGs in their base states undergo non-radiative excitation.
Initially, collisions near the surface convert thermal radiation absorbed there by GHGs to sensible heat that is then convected aloft. Subsequently, collisions at altitude convert this sensible heat back to outgoing radiation by exciting GHGs where they can now spontaneously emit this radiation to space.
forgot the graph.
Planck said LWIR are too long to interact at molecular level.
That’s not quite what Planck said. He says in the tome that if he were to try to analyze a black body at the molecular level then it would greatly complicate his analysis because of quantum effects.
dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of
curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with
the wave lengths of the rays considered. With this assumption we may,
without appreciable error, entirely neglect the infuence of difraction
caused by the bounding surfaces, and everywhere apply the ordinary
laws of refection and refraction of light.”
to be physically homogeneous, and in it we shall select any volume element dτ of not too small size. Then the energy which is emitted by
radiation in unit time by all particles in this volume-element will be
proportional to dτ. Should we attempt a closer analysis of the process
of emission and resolve it into its elements, we should undoubtedly meet very complicated conditions, for then it would be necessary to consider elements of space of such small size that it would no longer be admissible to think of the substance as homogeneous, and we would have to allow for the atomic constitution. Hence the finite quantity obtained by dividing the radiation emitted by a volume-element dτ by this element dτ is to be considered only as a certain mean value. Nevertheless, we shall as a rule be able to treat the phenomenon of emission as if all points of the volume-element dτ took part in the emission in a uniform manner, thereby greatly simplifying our calculation. Every point of dτ will then be the vertex of a pencil of rays diverging in all directions.”
So LWIR can interact at the molecular level but analysis at this level would generate “very complicated conditions”.
Where did he say that ?
Here is a graph of “radiation” leaving the earth. In respect to your question, the Planck curve that is shown is worthless if one believes that back radiation exists outside of CO2, CH4, and O3. There would be no way to even consider using SB as a gauge of temperatures at the surface from this Planck curve.
I have added some “integral” boxes instead of trying to integrate Planck’s equation in multiple parts.
Some thoughts.
The atmospheric window has about 30% of the entire radiation. The CO2 band has about 26% of the radiation. The area above CO2 amounts to about 24%. The area below the atmospheric window amounts to about 20%.
One also has to understand that this curve in no way represents anything happening at the surface at any given point. Part of the earth is heating, and part is cooling constantly due to its spin. A simple graph cannot take this into account with any scientific accuracy whatsoever.
Forgot the graph.
‘One also has to understand that this curve in no way represents anything happening at the surface at any given point.’
Correct. This Planck representation only applies at ‘TOA’ where conditions amenable (read spontaneous emission) for ‘radiative transfer’ actually exist. Also some inferences re. surface radiation in the ‘atmospheric window’. But mostly, the standard use of this diagram to over emphasize the role of CO2 in tropospheric energy transport is a complete misinterpretation of the science.
I know that many of us here hold Planck in high regard, but I believe that he, Kirchoff, Wien, Stefan, etc., would be apoplectic with how their work with respect to energy transfer between ‘bodies’ has been misapplied to atmospheric gases.
Sorry, you need to take a semester or so of a university level atmospheric thermodynamics classes, may play with Modtran “what-if” cases for a couple of months, maybe study Skew-T diagrams like meteorologists at airports do for a couple of months more….then you won’t need to ask…
Ignoring valid questions and inserting circular arguments (of course MODTRAN agrees with MODTRAN) is not particularly helpful – sort of like telling someone in the 18th century they need to ‘take a semester of so of [a] university level classes’ in phlogiston theory.
Education is good for you Frank.
396/333/63,is fictitious.
For decades, we’ve watched the perpetual, exhausting debate over the science of climate change. One side brandishes a new computer model predicting doom and instilling fear. The other side questions CO2 is the control knob and the economic cost of human emission rollbacks and renewables. In the sterile, air-conditioned rooms of international summits and corporate boardrooms, a sophisticated global architecture is being built. The ultimate destination? A highly centralized system of global governance, powered by artificial intelligence, anchored by massive data infrastructure, and operationalized through granular carbon tracking—all timed for deployment by 2030.
While the warming climate is within normal variation, a consortium of globalist organizations, multinational tech giants, banks and international bodies have already decided it is human emissions, period, and moved on with the grand plan – Panopticon.
Under the guise of saving the planet, international financial and political bodies are actively pioneering interoperable Digital IDs and tokenized carbon footprints. The framework is already laid out in initiatives like the UN’s Global Digital Compact.
Imagine a world where your digital identity is seamlessly linked to your bank account, your travel passes, and your smart device. Every purchase you make—from a steak at the grocery store to a gallon of gas at the pump—carries a specific carbon weight. Algorithms housed in the newly minted mega-data centers will calculate your daily consumption.
If you exceed your allotted quota your digital wallet restricts certain purchases, your travel privileges are temporarily paused, or your access to specific digital services is throttled.
If all this is developed by government departments, it will take > 15 years to get version 1.0 up, cost the US national debt, and when users log in for more than 2 minutes, they’ll get “session timed out”.
And don’t even think about what the “Let’s chat” popup will be like.
(“like, you know, I’m like – so, like, so let’s, like, talk about stuff, ok?”)
A fun case of dogs cooperating to use a tool.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/06/06/daily-smile-sunday-june-7-2026/
No different than the dogs bringing the ball to the person and waiting for them to throw it.
story tip.
I don’t do atmospheric physics because it seems to me to be at least as complex as other stuff no one seems to fully understand — e.g. quantum mechanics, economics, fluid dynamics. Well beyond my pay grade. But some folks around here are either smarter than I or less aware of their limitations. They might have some interest in this — https://physicsworld.com/a/interface-between-air-and-water-gets-a-new-twist/
Ditto…as Barbie said: “Math is hard”. Seriously, tho, some things I just can’t quite wrap my brain around. I can follow the logic-even see holes in it, but “do” the numbers? Beyond me.
I see where Israel and Iran are back to attacking each other.
I hope the Israelis are targeting Iran’s new leadership.
President Trump says they should both stop firing at each other.
I don’t think the Mad Mullahs are going to stop.
It’s time for the United States to destroy what remains of Iran’s offensive capabilities.
Israel is being attacked by Hezbollah and the IRGC, who controls Hezbollah. Hezbollah will have to be removed as a threat to Israel and that may take some time as Hezbollah is heavily armed, thanks to the Iranians.
It’s not over, Donald. You are dealing with religious fanatics who don’t compromise because their god tells them compromising the Second Coming is a sin.
So kick the asses of these fanatics. Wipe them out. That is the best plan.
Don’t make a peace treaty. Force the Mad Mullahs to surrender.
We didn’t make a peace treaty with Japan during World War II, we made them surrender and comply with our requirements. The same should happen in Iran.
There’s only one way to deal with rabid animals like the mullahs. It would be a real good, if bloody, idea to do just that. Funny thing (not ha-ha funny) is that the rest of the members of the “religion of peace” would probably be grateful.
Yes, as we’ve seen, the Sunni Muslims are subject to attacks from Iran just like everyone else.
For those who may not follow Robert Bryce, here is his most recent post – well worth the read. The money line is – the Iron Law of Power Density, which says the “lower the power density, the greater the resource intensity.”
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-power-density-revisited?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=630873&post_id=200763099&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=kv2ig&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Israel should not be punished for defending itself.
Israel’s leader is obligated to strike back at those who attack Israel, and preempt such attacks when possible. Any responsible leader would do this.
President Trump should focus on getting the religious fanatics in Iran to capitulate.
Browbeating Israel is in nobody’s interest other than the Mullahs and the Democrats.
Israel is not the bad guy. Don’t put them on the same level as the terrorists in Iran.
If the deal goes sour it won’t be because of the Israelis, it will be the terrorists who are to blame, as always.
Airline group whacking governments:
IATA To Review 2050 Net-Zero Timeline
He’s retiring from the International Air Transport Association, to run an airline.