In 1938, Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained VERY POLITELY to Guy Callendar the physical reasons why his attribution of reported station warming should be reconsidered.
This is Callendar’s response, from the transcript of the discussion of his paper published by the Royal Meteorological Society:
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
More here about all that. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Where does the matter stand today, after so many decades of investigation?
Has attribution of any portion of the reported warming to incremental CO2 been reliably established? No.
Can the theoretical warming tendency be reliably demonstrated to operate within the real atmosphere so as to inevitably result in the accumulation of absorbed energy down here as sensible heat? Also no.
Have the pre-stabilized, time-step-iterated computer models told us anything more than that a presumption of a “forcing” effect leads to projected warming over time? Also no. It has been a circular exercise all along. In other words, do the models provide a valid ceteris paribus platform for isolating the radiative component for investigation? No. Not even close. The “warming” result is baked in from the start, but the unavoidable buildup of uncertainty is orders of magnitude greater than the factor being examined. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
My aim, decades after Callendar, Simpson, and Brunt, is to VERY POLITELY offer explanations and demonstrations, even to skeptics of climate alarm, that the computed static radiative effect of incremental CO2 need not be expected to produce a perceptible “warming” response. That “warming” tendency is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
There will certainly be some effect. Is it large enough to measure? Maybe. The effect would seem to be mostly in daily Tmin temperatures. The effect, however, gets lost by climate science when it focuses on a mid-range temperature which has a large uncertainty, especially when projected via step-by-step models over a large number of steps.
It is NOT certain. The substance, carbon dioxide, is a dependent variable.
Always, whatever small fraction it has been in the atmosphere it has followed the changes of temperature of the oceans.
That is data, not opinion or theory.
That relationship has been established over millions of years and there has been no magic “accelerating” change on earth recently or evident in the past records.
That may be true as seen in proxies over geologic time, but that temperature dependency of CO2 in the atmosphere does not explain the current rate and magnitude of CO2 increases in the modern atmosphere. However, the mere fact that humans are now liberating trapped carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and limestone back into the atmosphere from whence it came does not address David Dibbell’s point. Even today after more than 40 years of intense research and investigation, there’s still great uncertainty as to the measurable effect that this added CO2 has on the global temperatures.
At the mild rate of warming measured over the last several decades, even if it continues unabated, local climates around the world are unlikely to be noticeably different or more harmful a century from now. Given the biological principle that warm is good in terms of thriving biological activity, it is very likely that we will be better off with a slightly warmer and CO2 enriched world. That is why the climate alarmist camp is continually switching their focus: global warming —> climate change —> weather attribution. Neither do they really care about climate change or they would demand concessions from China and India and the developing world, and they would individually be living primitive lives, devoid of fossil fuels and the products enabled by fossil fuels.
The lag time for the release of carbon dioxide from the huge volume of sea water in which it is dissolved is in centuries.
The current level, and the continuation of the rise is totally explained by the slow warming of the oceans as the world emerges from the latest ice age. It has nothing to do with the paltry amounts released by the use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Slower cooling would raise the Tmin temperature. The fact that such an effect is being seen in longer growing seasons has been pretty well established by agricultural science. Earlier last frost dates and later first frost dates are hard to argue with.
Has the earth cooled over the millenia? Yep. Slower cooling doesn’t prevent that from happening.
‘The ~4 W/m^2 incremental IR absorbing power of the 2XCO2 case is a fraction of the width of the “0” mark on the horizontal axis of these scatter plots. Negligible. It is vanishingly weak within the dynamics of the circulation.’
You’re indeed very polite. As for me, I think the entire concept of the ~4 W/m^2 ‘forcing’ needs to be examined given its origin from the conjecture that the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory explains the mechanism by which the bulk of the thermal energy emitted by the Earth’s surface is transported through the troposphere.
The bulk of the LWIR radiative energy distribution throughout Earth’s atmosphere does not involve the “latent heat” of the phase change of water . . it is instead directly associated with molecule-to-molecule collisions between LWIR-active gases (aka “greenhouse gases”, including water vapor) and non-LWIR active gases (overwhelmingly, N2 and O2).
The point you miss, or try to deflect is that a tiny perturbation of molecular energy exchange via electromagnetic-kinetic interaction is overwhelmed by the magnitude of energy conversion accomplished by the heat engine of the atmosphere, mostly via convection and the almost magical and huge amounts of energy involved in water’s phase transitions.
It takes almost an Olympic Swimming Pool of heat to evaporate one kg of water. 😉
The point you miss it that what matters in determining Earth’s climate warming versus cooling versus being nearly constant over consecutive millenia is the comparison of net radiative power in versus net radiative heat out. That balance is not determined just by atmospheric convection or conduction, although both are occurring continuously.
The issue of how the Earth’s heat engine (a misnomer if I ever saw one . . . better to just say hydrologic cycle) works is secondary to the physics of balancing net power in/out of a control volume drawn around Earth, which only involves radiative (that is, EM) heat flows.
I don’t think we’ll come to agreement on this. I don’t dispute that radiation is how the earth looses energy.
You’d call it a forcing.
I’d call it a trivial change to a complex system that is never at equilibrium.
I don’t think many folks who have studied Engineering or Thermodynamics would have a problem thinking of the atmosphere as a heat engine. I think its one level of abstraction higher than thinking of it as expanded foam insulation board.
No, I absolutely would not, as thermal radiation from matter above absolute zero is a physical law. It just exists.
Thermodynamic engines move heat from a hot source to a cold source to produce both work and “waste heat” (entropy) that pass across a control volume drawn around the engine itself. So, where is Earth’s work output to the solar system/universe?
No one disputes that the Earth can gain and lose energy only through radiation. We can certainly agree that some incoming radiation will be scattered (visible light, in all directions) or absorbed (LWIR, by GHGs) in the dry atmosphere, most incoming energy will reach the surface, water (70+%) or land. The source, amount, and origin of outgoing radiation energy is much more complex.
Dry air will absorb energy from the surface and thus increase its radiative energy ability, but water vapor absorbs about 3 times as much energy per unit of mass/K as dry air and is therefore able to transport more energy/g. Considering that H2O can be about 2-4% of the atmosphere while CO2 is roughly 0.04%, water vapor is a few hundred times more important than CO2 in providing the atmosphere with excess energy to be radiated away.
But let’s get to latent energy. A surface that receives additional energy, whether water or moist land, can maintain its temperature by evaporating moisture isothermally. The energy necessary to evaporate one gram of surface water would be sufficient to raise the temperature of a kilogram of CO2 one K. So, how much energy is removed from the surface and transported to an altitude from which it can radiate to space? Well, each and every day, the precipitation on the Earth is of the same order of magnitude as the total CO2 content of the atmosphere (10^12 metric tons). Again, the water cycle is several orders of magnitude more important than CO2 in transporting energy.
Now, let’s get to the clouds themselves, which are very complex processes, involving the exchange of several forms of energy that wind up supporting the isothermal condensation which releases the energy that can be radiated. In addition to direct radiation of energy that has been transported from the surface, clouds reflect, or absorb and reradiate up to 1/3 of the direct sun’s energy. To say that the hydrological cycle is secondary to the study of the Earth’s “heat flows” is to completely misunderstand energy transport in the atmosphere.
Is the “heat” in that hypothetical Olympic Swimming Pool that available in the H20 temperature above absolute zero, or that available in the H20 that is at some temperature above its fusion temperature (~273 K?)?
BTW, the specific heat of liquid water is 4,184 J per kg per K, whereas the heat of vaporization of liquid water at sea-level pressure and 373 K is about 2.3e^6 J per kg.
Therefore, if I conservatively assume the available “heat” in that swimming pool is just based on a temperature difference of 22 deg-C above water’s freezing point, then it will take only the enthalpy change of 25 kg of water going from 0 to 22 deg-C to be equivalent to evaporating 1 Kg of water.
Were you perhaps referring to a Olympic swimming pool for Lilliputians? IOW, you last sentence is just plain wrong.
I suppose you mean that a large component of the energy transport is by fluid dynamics, the cyclones and anticyclones in the atmosphere and the huge currents in the large oceans both transporting the energy of the incoming solar radiation in all wavelengths morphed into heat energy from the tropics to the polar areas
None of what can be called warming can be attributed to what is anecdotally called the Greenhouse effect.
The combined and varied properties of the atmosphere can be thought of as setting the thermostat. The energy exchange processes then work to increase of decrease the rate of shedding or retaining energy around the norm of the thermostat setting.
The ability of more carbon dioxide to influence the thermostat setting is vanishingly small past the 300 ppm level.
Heating is ONLY coming from the sun and cooling is varying within limits in response to changes in insolation – and insolation is altered by variations in the sun and the solar system, not in the earth.
“The combined and varied properties of the atmosphere can be thought of as setting the thermostat. The energy exchange processes then work to increase of decrease the rate of shedding or retaining energy around the norm of the thermostat setting.”
Absurd.
So if,hypothetically, the Sun unexpectedly flared so as to double the TOA solar insolation at Earth, that atmospheric-set “thermostat” will make sure all life on planet Earth never knows the difference?
Moreover any such hypothetical “thermostat” must be declared to be faulty because it is a scientifically-established FACT that over the last million or so years of Earth’s history, Earth has had about ten cycles between “glacial” (i.e. “relatively cool”) intervals and “interglacial” (i.e. relatively warm”) intervals.
“. . . and insolation is altered by variations in the sun and the solar system, not in the earth.”
Not really.
Earth surface insolation, as a determining factor in establishing Earth’s near-term (>30 years) and long term (>10,000 years) climates, is highly dependent on Earth’s albedo and its atmospheric water vapor content (by far the dominant of all “greenhouse gases”).
Also, the inclination of the Earth’s spin axis with respect to the fixed plane of ecliptic determines the variations in solar insolation that occur over the seasons . . . this is NOT a variation in “the Sun and the solar system”.
The precession of the equinox and the alteration in the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun IS/ARE part of the solar system/sun relationship.
The variation in the insolation by clouds likewise. Cosmic ray variation due to solar magnetic field variation likewise.
Use of the term “thermostat” serves to attribute the nature of the phenomenon called “Greenhouse” within deliberation of what are the mechanisms which actually confine the global conditions within an envelope that when reached turns the direction back.
You have not demonstrated the slightest understanding of the multiplicity of processes involved in the ever changing condition at the surfaces of the land and the sea.
Your myopia that insolation of the surface is the totality of the energy input is nonsense as all the atmospheric particles and ions and gasses and vapours in their various forms and nature get hit by the solar radiation falling on them no matter how far from the surface they be. Once absorbed as a beam, they ALL radiate as spherical surfaces in all directions.
In my immediately prior post, I referred to the angle of Earth’s spin axis relative to the plane of the ecliptic (aka the “obliquity of the ecliptic” in astronomer-talk). THAT is totally different from the precession of the equinoxs!
Obliquity is measured in units of angular degrees. Precession of the equinoxs is measured in units of degrees change per unit of time (i.e., each equinox is shifting westward in the sky at about 1 degree every 72 years).
Separately, the variation of insolation by clouds affects only incoming solar radiation received at Earth’s surface . . . atmospheric clouds do NOT affect incoming radiation from the Sun at TOA, hence they play no part in the “the solar system/sun relationship”.
David,
Some history about global warming. Quote follows: The final scientific draft of the IPCC’s 1995 Third Assessment Report, submitted by hundreds of participating scientists, had concluded five times that no manmade warming influence is yet discernible:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.”
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’”
The IPCC did not want any of these things said. It asked a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to rewrite the already-concluded final draft to remove all five statements shown above, and to replace them with: “The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.” However, the “body of evidence” in the temperature record showed no such thing. Skewing Data to Favor Global Warming – Part II by Lord Christopher Monckton
Geoff S
Thank you, Geoff. All that time, the concepts which Simpson and Brunt had explained, and others had developed – particularly Edward Lorenz – were being directly incorporated into the numerical models of the general circulation for weather prediction and for reanalysis. It astounds me that such manipulation and misdirection was exerted to overrule what the disciplines of meteorology and atmospheric science understood about the needle-in-the-haystack problem of detection and attribution.
By the way, in the early 2000’s, the ERA-40 reanalysis computed the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter that I find so compelling to keep posting about.
All the best to you.
I’m going to be difficult today, David, so bear with me.
Can the theoretical warming tendency be reliably demonstrated to operate within the real atmosphere so as to inevitably result in the accumulation of absorbed energy down here as sensible heat? Also no.
Back in my essay of a couple days ago, I pointed to the fact that the spectrometer showed absorption of LWIR from CO2 in a 2.6 atm-cm path. As I asked where does the energy involved go? It goes into raising the energy states of molecules, but this in turn leads to transferring some or a lot of that energy into kinetic energy of the nitrogen that also fills the sample container. This raises the temperature of the system which you could prove with a thermometer — which in fact has been done. Thus LWIR raises the temperature of an atmosphere containing only CO2 and N2.
Let’s go to the atmosphere. Up at 10km above ground looking down the atmosphere contains around 400 atm-cm of CO2. That is a lot of CO2. It absorbs the pertinent wavelengths of black-body radiation from the ground surface, and maintains a local thermodynamic equilibrium where there is some LWIR lost to help maintain temperature of the atmosphere, some is re-radiated. Thus just like the spectrometer CO2 absorbs radiant energy from the Earth or from the surroundings which helps to maintain a “temperature”, and also emits radiant energy. Otherwise there is no reasonable explanation for observing a portion of the IR spectrum at height that looks like a segment of the Planck function at the local temperature. So, that CO2 absorbs energy and stores some as sensible heat I claim represents not only what was observed in the laboratory, but is measured as going on also in the atmosphere. Denuy that the impact of CO2 can be measured and you will have trouble with the First LAw of Thermodynamics throughout.
but the unavoidable buildup of uncertainty is orders of magnitude greater than the factor being examined.
With all due regard to calculations of uncertainty, which I firmly know how to do, it applies most surely to the construction and calibration of instruments and to the application of a “measurement equation” that connects what is measured to what one hopes to obtain from the measurements — the GUM will verify what I am saying.
When it comes to the solution of differential equations, there may be some uncertainty of the parameters that constrain the equation; there is possibly round-off uncertainty from finite length arithmetic, and even trucation error from the approximation of the PDE; but, a lot of mathematics involves exact constants that have no uncertainty. I am not joining the chorus of uncertainty accumulating until we have no idea what the projected temperature is in a year — not until I have thought about this a lot more carefully.
Thank you for this reply, Kevin. Don’t worry about being “difficult.”
“So, that CO2 absorbs energy and stores some as sensible heat I claim represents not only what was observed in the laboratory, but is measured as going on also in the atmosphere.”
This has not been in dispute in the entire time I have been posting here at WUWT. But the warming tendency (from incremental CO2) realized instantaneously as sensible heat does not persist uniquely as internal energy. That is why the concept of energy conversion is so important to the question of the resulting influence on the climate system. One also must remember that absorbed solar energy arrives in daily pulses at each location, to which the atmosphere responds.
“I am not joining the chorus of uncertainty accumulating until we have no idea what the projected temperature is in a year — not until I have thought about this a lot more carefully.”
The issue is not about whether “we have no idea.” With no models at all, we have a pretty good idea that next year will be a lot like this year. The model itself produces a deterministic projection – a single value. The issue is what happens to the uncertainty interval (i.e. the interval of ignorance within which the exact value cannot be determined) when each computational time step produces an updated representation of the complete mass and energy state of the atmosphere, coupled with the land and oceans. That step introduces its own uncertainty to combine with the uncertainty received in the result from the previous step. In my comment to the DOE on the Critical Review report, I generated a simplified exercise to demonstrate this point, isolating the source of uncertainty to only that of an external input – the central value of TSI – which MUST operate at each step to compute the evolution of the energy state. The true value of TSI, within the uncertainty interval, is not known at any time step, nor is it known what it should have been in any previous time step.
So I encourage you to do as you have indicated, to think this through “a lot more carefully.” If you have not yet done so, please read the full exercise in that comment to DOE I linked to above.
All the best to you. Please keep up the good work out West against the destructive proliferation of intermittent power sources.
It would be great if you could respond yes or no to each step of my interpretation of what you are saying in your first paragraph. So, let me give this a try.
This has not been in dispute in the entire time I have been posting here at WUWT.
I think this is in dispute constantly here. Is the stance taken by so many people here that so-called thermalization results in CO2 doing nothing more than absorbing LWIR and handing the energy so absorbed to the KE of the diatomic gasses? That CO2 never emits significant LWIR itself because the hand-off is so fast?
But the warming tendency (from incremental CO2) realized instantaneously as sensible heat does not persist uniquely as internal energy.
You are saying that adding an increment of CO2 produces only a transient warming, and it is quickly converted into something other than internal energy?
That is why the concept of energy conversion is so important to the question of the resulting influence on the climate system.
Are you speaking of conversation to other microscopic forms? Or macro mechanical forms?
One also must remember that absorbed solar energy arrives in daily pulses at each location, to which the atmosphere responds.
I don’t understand the pertinence of this obvious point. Are you concerned that people tend to neglect that daily cycling essentially resets the weather each day?
Good morning, Kevin! Thank you for your reply. I will address each point with more than a yes/no.
“I think this is in dispute constantly here. Is the stance taken by so many people here that so-called thermalization results in CO2 doing nothing more than absorbing LWIR and handing the energy so absorbed to the KE of the diatomic gasses? That CO2 never emits significant LWIR itself because the hand-off is so fast?”
It doesn’t matter either way, for my point about energy conversion to hold. In other words, the IR absorbing power of incremental CO2 is what matters to the acknowledged “warming” tendency, even if it is water and other IR-active molecules, aerosols, clouds, etc. that are the main emitters in the IR coupling of the surface to the near atmosphere and in the final longwave emission to space. Also, when I say, “not in dispute” I am referring to my own sense, not speaking for anyone else on the platform here.
“You are saying that adding an increment of CO2 produces only a transient warming, and it is quickly converted into something other than internal energy?” And “Are you speaking of conversation [sic] to other microscopic forms? Or macro mechanical forms?” The two-way energy conversion between [internal energy + potential energy] and [kinetic energy] is as defined within the ERA5 model. The kinetic energy is computed from the bulk (macro) wind velocity. The potential energy is the work required to raise a unit mass to altitude. Internal energy includes molecular-scale motion and energy states. The transient nature of it all is readily apparent in the time-lapse video, which is in the Google Drive folder at the third link above in my post. The full explanation is in the Readme document in that folder, including links to the ERA5 definitions.
”
One also must remember that absorbed solar energy arrives in daily pulses at each location, to which the atmosphere responds.
I don’t understand the pertinence of this obvious point. Are you concerned that people tend to neglect that daily cycling essentially resets the weather each day?”
The reason I mentioned this is to emphasize that a static or averaged-value framing of the question of sensitivity to incremental CO2 is incorrect.
I am not joining the chorus of uncertainty accumulating until we have no idea what the projected temperature is in a year — not until I have thought about this a lot more carefully.
Please keep us informed as to what your thoughts are. Let me make a couple of points to think about.
Resolution. Resolution of a measuring instrument is a floor for uncertainty. Let’s talk about digital devices since they are easier to describe.
If I measure the same thing with a device that has two decimal digits, that value is all I KNOW. The third decimal digit could be anywhere from 0.000 to 0.009, or even 0.0000 to0.0099. There is no way to ascertain what the following digits are with any accuracy. And, remember that is a floor for uncertainty, not a maximum. Other influence quantities come into play that add to the resolution uncertainty.
The GUM is very specific about using a random variable with multiple observations of the same measurand in order to use a Type A statistical analysis of the subsequent probability distribution.
Read GUM F.1.1.2 carefully for its meaning. You need to be clear about what a property of a material is. Is a monthly average a property or a single instance of a measurand? Does a single sample of the property have multiple observations? GUM H.6 what must be done when you only one observation of a sample of a property at a time. One must take multiple one-time samples, in this case hardness of a material. It also covers the different influence quantities with each observation. Sound like a monthly average of a temperature at a station?
In the US, we also need progress on water law. Following an important Supreme Court finding a couple of years ago, EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers can no longer declare every puddle after a rain storm to be jurisdictional waters of the US. Nevertheless., the deep state immediately set about trying to work around or undermine the Supreme Court decision. How we define jurisdictional waters has a huge impact on the cost and viability of development and land use change.
strativarius
July 19, 2026 3:30 am
To paraphrase George Orwell:
“The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Environmentalists, the clean energy transition does not mean a willing movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which “we”, the clever ones, are going to impose upon “them”, the Lower Orders.’
And then, the indoctrinated and gullible get sucked in by the promises of easy money….
Britain’s biggest community solar project has been forced to shut for the duration of its first summer by the government’s energy system operator to avoid overloading the local grid with renewable energy. … The timing of the shutdown at the beginning of its first summer “could not be worse”, according to the board, and would “substantially impact” the scheme’s finances, including payments to members. … The project does not expect to receive compensation or insurance to cover the lost summer revenue from the solar park, which was funded by £20m raised from members of the cooperative and a £22m long-term bank loan. Members originally joined the scheme through Ripple Energy, which offered households the chance to invest in Britain’s first “shared” solar park to earn average savings on their energy bills of at least £200 a year. – Guardian
Sorry guys, the offer is off the table. Maybe next year?
The British public should begin taking “small but important steps” to secure and protect water, power supplies and basic phone signal in case of further severe weather emergencies, national crises or cyber-attacks, Downing Street has said.
Do we storm the offices of water and energy companies to ‘secure’ our supplies?
Do we put a guard on phone masts?
I’ll give the last word to George…
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
‘Britain’s biggest community solar project has been forced to shut for the duration of its first summer by the government’s energy system operator to avoid overloading the local grid with renewable energy.’
Waiting for the usual suspects to opine that the above is exactly why we need much more solar — 10,9,8…
The owners of this solar electricity source must come up with some device that needs only to run ~8 hours per day to be profitable and then devote the farm’s output to that device. Just what could it be? That’s the problem with it and all other solar farms.
“Effective Home Ltd, which operated as one of the UK’s larger installers of domestic solar panels and energy-saving measures, officially called in administrators on June 26.” https://offer.effectivehome.co.uk/
There was so much discussion on Hunga Tonga over the last few years anytime the word volcanics was mentioned, that I decided to update my strato-aerosol database, and that is anything natural that can alter the radiative properties of the stratosphere. Which are the names and down triangles on graph 1 which is optical transparency at Mauna Loa. This sensor sits in the middle of the Pacific and can detect aerosols. The air was becoming clearer up until 2018 (Reduction of SO2 emissions), and it was warming, and since then a continuous barrage of not huge but significant sulfur laden stratospheric breaches. One of the Lewotobi eruptions last year made it to 72,000 feet. Graph 2 and 3 are Northern Hemisphere, Noaa Sea Surface and UAH Lower Troposphere, it seems the Earth is not ready to warm. Note: Correlating some eruptions to Mauna Loa can be tricky, an event at the right time in the southern hemisphere, can take almost a year for Mauna Loa to see it. Every event was verified by instrumentation, there were many more eruptions, these are just the ones that would have caused a > -0.5 wsm forcing. El-Ninos light red vert bands, La-Nina light purple. Hayli Gubbi (After 12,000 years of dormancy) late last year was the last SO2 event.
I am still wrestling with that, but here is my current Alamo position: AI’s summary of course…
The 2018 Ambae eruption (Vanuatu) was the year’s largest stratospheric aerosol event. In July, the volcano explosively injected approximately 400,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) up to 10.5 miles (17 km) high, which converted into reflective sulfate aerosols. This temporarily increased the global Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth (SAOD) by up to 0.011. [1,2,3,4] Key Details & Climate Impacts
April vs. July Plumes: Two main eruptions occurred in 2018 (April 5-6 and July 27). The April plume initially only impacted the Southern Hemisphere, while the larger July plume circulated into both hemispheres via the Brewer-Dobson circulation. [1,2,3,4]
Radiative Forcing: The Ambae eruption caused an estimated top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing between -0.45 and -0.6 W/m², acting as a temporary, localized cooling effect on the Earth’s climate. [1,2,3,4]
Persistence: Satellite and ground-based lidar measurements recorded elevated background stratospheric aerosols for over a year after the July event. [1,2,3]
As far as SO2 causing a warm forcing, it does not become a warming forcing at the surface. It is either reflecting incoming Visible and or SW IR, but has no effect on outgoing IR.
The reason I asked is because at one time some of us were discussing the very hot 1930’s, and I asked how CO2 could be the control knob of Earth’s temperatures, when CO2 was increasing in the 1940’s, yet temperatures cooled all during the 1940’s, and a SO2-control knob theorist chimed in and said the cooling of the 1940’s was due to increased SO2 in the air, and then I asked about what caused the subsequent warming in the 1950’s and the SO2 promoter said it was because of less SO2 in the air.
So, going by his claims, there must be an inflection point where SO2 stops cooling and starts warming. What is that number. The SO2 advocate could not give me a number. It must be a quantity that occurred during the 1940’s. Right? What’s that number?
One thing to consider is that, at no time that humanity pointed an instrument at the sky attempting to resolve anything to do with climate, there has always been an anthropogenic cloud of SO2 overhead, we do not know what a pristine baseline measurement of the atmosphere with no SO2, would look like, You can see that in the late 20’s to mid 30’s SO2 emissions declined (the great depression) and caused a slight warming bump. A sudden increase in SO2 emissions possibly caused the pause in the early 2000’s The SO2 radiative model is essentially SO2 emissions flipped and converted to an empirical model of Deg C. forcing. The warming bubble around WWII and droughts that followed can only be explained by one thing, massive high altitude water vapor emissions over the English Channel (B17 & B24 raids). A taste of what humanity would see starting in the late 70’s when civil aviation would lead up to as of last year 120 billion gallons per year of high-altitude water vapor emissions. Currently SO2 emissions (from land sources) are increasing again.
You are comparing SO2 amounts with a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart. The Hockey Stick temperature profile does not exist in the real world, so any conclusions made using it will be just as bogus as the Hockey Stick chart itself.
It was just as hot in the 1930’s as it is today. The Hockey Stick chart creators downplay past temperatures for political purposes. It’s a Big Lie! It is the Big Lie of alarmist climate science. Alarmist climate science would not exist but for the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
You should use something else to verify your SO2 claims. See how SO2 matches up with the temperature movements of the U.S. regional chart.
NOOA Sea Surface temperatures are not a bastardized Hockey Stick, the little Ice Age was a real event, the Earth has warmed considerably. The various grid of land temperature records, agrees with each other, what temperature dataset do you trust to look at historical warming trends? I don’t do Hockey sticks, if you want the truth I can provide it. Nothing you have said has anything to do with the truth.
Tom, the other thing to consider if you want to be at the top of your game on this subject (radiative properties of SO2), is that SO2 by itself does not cause the forcing, it must be lifted to the cloud tops, there in the intense UV and water vapor it converts to sulfuric acid aerosols and that is where the high reflectivity magic occurs, atmospheric chemistry and sunlight, and only in the sunlight. A 1% reduction of incoming under an SO2 / Su cloud will certainly cause local perturbations of continent size regions for several months, a daunting task for a climate model.
We are witnessing a couple of examples of blaming the victim on climate change.
1 Blaming Europeans for their lack of air conditioning, when the USA is the nation that has put the greatest amount of carbon dioxide into the sky.
2 Blaming Canada for not controlling their wildfires, when we don’t control our own wildfires here, and when, again, the USA has put more CO2 into the sky than any other nation.
Air conditioning is, shall we say, frowned upon in the UK
Britons ordered to remove air conditioning from homes in 40C heat under Net Zero crackdown
The Carbon footprint is apparently far too great for mother Earth to bear. But just to firm that position up, they have the ready support of the health fascists…
Dr Opel Baker, a GP at Mayfield Clinic in Brighton & Hove, and Dr Lucy Hooper, a London-based GP and co-founder of Coyne Medical, have shared their insights on these lesser-known side effects. … moisture depletion can manifest in several uncomfortable ways, including dryness, a sensation of tightness, and visible flaking. “This can lead to dry skin, tightness, flaking and might even lead to increased sensitivity, eczema or chapped lips,” said Dr Baker. “Those who already struggle with sensitive or dry skin conditions may find their symptoms considerably worsened by prolonged AC exposure. … “Similarly, air con can dry your eyes out and might lead to burning or stinging.
I’ve never heard such a load of garbage. Air con is rather rare over here.
We have never needed air conditioning in the past due to our older housing stock, including Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian up to mid 20th century, which act more like caves. Air conditioning is found in more modern hotels, supermarkets and some offices and maybe retrofitted in some older properties with the same functions.
Our NHS hospitals are unlikely to have air conditioning except in very specific areas like radiology and MRI scanner rooms. There may be some inertia against installing it across the board because of the perceived potential for infection as well as the cost to retrofit it to older buildings.
Private dwellings are very unlikely to have air con fitted as standard, in fact modern builds, including extensions to older properties are insulated against the cold in all three dimensions.
Does the U.K. need air conditioning as standard? That’s the $64000 question. I think that decision has to be up to the home owner.
I would explain it to you, but that would require the use of calculus used in your “oracle” computer models and it is obvious that middle school algebra was very stressful to you.
increasing atm co2 elevates global temperatures and extends wildfire seasons. In the American West, increasing droughts enhance conditions for more extensive wildfires.
Mate, bushlands & grasslands are always drier in summer & autumns.
It’s the lightning events & escaping lit fires that set bushland fires going.
And then it’s the prevailing wind speeds & directions that make bushfires lethal for life & property.
If you’ve ever had to deal head-on with an approaching bushfire, you’d know that whether the air temp was 35C degrees or 40C degrees, you wouldn’t really notice the difference.
The smoke would be your main nemesis.
You can’t see shit in any direction.
Mate, the effects of a rapidly warming climate include increasing regional droughts,(eg, in the American West) which exacerbate fire conditions and cause wildfires to be more easily triggered and last longer.
The US West has always had drought, sometimes really bad, sometimes just only bad. Earlier Paleo-Indians had local cultures wiped out, and others moved or adapted. Cali has always burned-soil profiles prove that. Prairie fires have always been a scourge for both natives and settlers. Ever hear of relic trees-some stands on broken land date to the retreat of the Ice but couldn’t get burnt because there was no grass to burn around them, and some were of a species that survived and were used as local landmarks for some centuries. And there’s so much more. Climate change? No, just climate. In short, go read some geography and get your head out… Jeez, some people’s kids..
scientists have extensively documented that human-caused climate change is actively increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of regional droughts across the globe.
Rather than just relying on a lack of rainfall, climate change drives regional droughts through two primary, proven mechanisms:
Increased Atmospheric Evaporation: Higher global temperatures cause the atmosphere to act like a sponge. The “thirst” of the atmosphere increases exponentially with heat, drawing vital moisture directly out of soils, vegetation, and surface reservoirs. For example, a study by UCLA and NOAA found that evaporative demand accounted for 61% of the severity of the 2020–2022 American West drought.
Altered Precipitation and Snowpack: Warming temperatures alter global atmospheric circulation and jet streams. This shifts storm tracks away from historically wet regions, while also causing more winter precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. This results in a smaller mountain spring snowpack, which is a critical water source for regions like the American Southwest during the dry summer months.
I live in the U.S. Midwest called the Great Plains. Prairie fires have been occurring for thousands of years. Long before CO2 increases in concentration increased. Build up of thatch over years of growth stimulated by increased CO2 creates a higher fuel load and more susceptibility to fire. Drought only encourages more dry conditions.
You seem to be entirely ignorant of agriculture and nature. Maybe you should research some of the issues you comment on prior to just assuming increased anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of all problems.
Warren:
Droughts do make it easier for fires but wildfires in the US are not more extensive than in the past. However, the fires are different related to excessive fuel load & tree crowding due to mismanagement by humans.
Here is a quote from the linked Nature paper of Feb 2025:
“”…[the] goal was to determine whether contemporary (1984–2022) forest and woodland fire regimes represented by NAFSN are still departed from the historical (1600–1880) levels of burning given increased fire activity in recent decades.” Answer: “only 23% of what would be expected under the historical fire regime.”
“The fire deficit from 1984–2022 only adds to the fire deficit that accrued during the late 19th and 20th centuries, which has resulted in well-documented fuel accumulation and increases in canopy density across many forest types in North America1,… … our results suggest that the area burned by wildfires during the last few decades remains relatively low considering the historical prevalence…” and “[due] to aggressive fire suppression, disruption of traditional burning, and forest loss and fragmentation from land development and other land uses (e.g., conversion of forests and woodlands to agriculture)” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56333-8?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
[I would have included a graphic of CONUS wildfires 1926-2017 but have not figured-out how to add attachments since the system has changed. There is no “attachment button” in this comment window as there used to be. Anyone have a suggestion? Thx!]
Do a search using your favorite engine for “free image storage and sharing sites. There are a number of them available. I use “imgbb”. You should be able to obtain a url for each image and then you can post the url here and wordpress will add the image to your post.
First off, the topic of CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with both of your points.
The fact remains that it was a lack of air conditioning during the recent, slightly warmer than average, heat wave that caused many of the deaths.
The fact environmental nut jobs in both the US and Canada have for decades, prevented proper management of forests in both countries is the cause of the big fires in both countries. The only role CO2 may have played is to help the plants that are burning grow faster, so that there is more fuel.
The saying, which you so masterly invoke, is a reminder of the English way of staffing and paying sailors. Rhythmical work chanties and the ritual straw horse { See “The Dead Horse” chanty} are mostly forgotten except for someone ocassionally mentioning the Horse Latitudes.
I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it. But I do expect everyone to either accept the findings of peer reviewed research, or if they disagree, to submit their contrary analysis to a respected scientific journal for publication.
Unfortunately, too many on WUWT think they can get away with nonsense, and never submit their comments to real scientists for review.,
Peer reviewed research is worthless, as climate science has proven.
No matter how bad the methods, no matter how made up the data, as long as it supports the “consensus” it will be published.
Likewise nothing that refutes the consensus will ever see the light of day in the so called journals.
There is no science in climate science, nor are there any scientists.
“Peer reviewed research is worthless” spoken like a true science denier.
A small but non-negligible fraction of peer-reviewed papers are formally retracted (proven wrong or seriously flawed), while a much larger portion is suspected of being wrong, irreproducible, or unreliable based on surveys, replication efforts, and analyses of errors, bias, and misconduct.
John Ioannidis’ influential 2005 analysis: Most published research findings are probably false (>50% chance for a random paper), due to small samples, bias, and selective reporting.
“Climate scientist” peer review other climate scientists?
Their version of peer review is to agree with the “consensus” while the real meaning of peer review was to doubt the report and do the experiments again and see if they get the same results. I have been science literate at post-grad level for more than 75 years.
That is two words! You appear to be innumerate. There is a lot of wisdom in the old saying that getting a PhD is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, or hoop jumping.
Chalmers: “The lag time for the release of carbon dioxide from the huge volume of sea water in which it is dissolved is in centuries. The current level, and the continuation of the rise is totally explained by the slow warming of the oceans as the world emerges from the latest ice age. It has nothing to do with the paltry amounts released by the use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”
NASA Earth Sciences:
The increased atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is primarily driven by human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). Land-use changes, such as deforestation and agricultural expansion, are the second largest contributors. These combined actions have increased atm CO2 by roughly 50%.
Carbon isotope analyses confirm these findings, showing that the isotopic fingerprint of the excess carbon matches fossilized organic matter rather than naturally cycling carbon. For detailed breakdowns of global and historical emission trends, you can explore the NASA Climate Change Causes portal or review the data on Our World in Data.
Land-use changes, such as deforestation and agricultural expansion, are the second largest contributors.
So you believe everything the government tells you, right? No wonder you are a dedicated socialist wanting to tell others how they should live and what they should do.
Deforestation by itself does not release carbon dioxide. Much cutting of timber is turned into lumber for construction. No release of carbon.
Agriculture? I can tell immediately the people who wrote this are far removed from agriculture as are you. If I plow under sod, I am destroying a system with large roots and little greenery. When I plant soybeans, corn, wheat, or other crop I am replacing that low greenery plant with flora that contains multiple more value of carbon in its greenery. When I disk that crop residue back into the soil, carbon isn’t released into the air, it is converted by microbes into richer soil.
Soils sequester carbon. Plowing releases that carbon. Your ignorance of farming is showing.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Where did you get your information, from a GHG spreadsheet? CO2 in the soil comes from microbes breaking down plant material. It is a byproduct of respiration. Some of the CO2 is converted into other organic compounds that sequester the “carbon” and can be useful for the next round of growing. You have no idea what good, black topsoil is made of do you? Do you think the potting soil you use for your plants was created in the back of the garden store by someone pushing a button on a Startrek replicator?
Have you ever mucked out stalls and pens to get cow, horse and chicken dung then loaded it into a spreader to put on a field? Do you think that gets down in the soil by osmosis? It takes plowing or disking to break up the soil and put that fertilizer deeper in the soil .
Good grief, if you know as much about CO2 and climate as you know about farming, you have no business telling others what you think you know.
Your ignorance of farming is even more profound than I thought, Gorman. Soils sequester carbon, and plowing causes it to be released to the atmosphere:
“plowing and tilling release carbon from the soil. When soil is disturbed, organic matter that was previously locked away is exposed to oxygen. This speeds up microbial breakdown, releasing carbon stored in the soil into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide To minimize this loss, many farmers adopt conservation tillage (such as reduced tillage or no-till). This practice reduces soil disturbance, helping to keep carbon securely locked underground.”
Until you learn more about farming, I’d stick to cleaning out hog and chicken pens, if I were you.
Still afraid to show the website or book from which you took that?
CO2 and CH4 are the only gases that would be released. CH4 is a poison. CO2 can’t be absorbed by the roots and used in photosynthesis. Other Carbon compounds are not “released” into the air. Most are nutrients. The only reason one would be critical of “CO2 release” is some warmist concerned about CAGW.
There is one reason to plow or disk soil, to loosen it in preparation for planting. Have you ever tried to plant a grain crop in untilled soil? Good luck in getting it to germinate. Mostly disk harrows used these days with planter technology helping in planting.
Tell us where you grew up. I’ll bet it was in a city and that you’ve never scooped poop for spending money. How many hours have you spent on a tractor seat or hay wagon?
Right now I have 9 acres with 6 cow/calf pairs, 3 hogs, and 25 chickens. It’s a hobby farm as it never really left my system. I do speak from experience which you obviously don’t.
No-till farming improves soil health, prevents erosion, and boosts water retention. By leaving crop residue on the surface and avoiding plowing, it protects beneficial microbes, locks carbon in the ground, and significantly lowers diesel and labor costs.
The primary benefits of this agricultural method include:
Erosion Reduction: Leaving plant residue on the surface protects the ground from wind and water erosion, often cutting soil loss by up to 90% compared to tilled fields.
Better Moisture Retention: Undisturbed root channels and decaying organic matter allow the ground to absorb and hold water longer. This builds drought resilience and can result in up to two additional inches of moisture available to crops during late summer.
Enhanced Soil Biology: Without the disruptive churning of a plow, earthworms and beneficial fungi (mycorrhiza) multiply, creating a nutrient-rich environment for stronger root systems.
Lower Operational Costs: Eliminating tillage passes saves heavy machinery wear-and-tear and significantly cuts down on tractor fuel.
Climate Change Mitigation: No-till practices reduce carbon dioxide emissions by preventing stored soil carbon from escaping into the atmosphere, helping build carbon-rich, healthier agricultural ecosystems.
check out the USDA Guide to No-Till farming if you want to learn more.
“No-till” is a somewhat misleading nomenclature. Planting under no-till *still* requires opening a channel in the soil in which the seed is planted. Without that channel that disturbs the mulch, thatch, and crust in the topsoil some of the seed won’t be able to reach the surface after germination. That channel also allows water to reach the seed before and after germination instead of running off because of covering mulch and thatch.
What the no-till method provides is elimination of wide-spread soil disturbance over the entire planting area.
The remaining residue after harvest *still* decays releasing the exact same amount and type of components for both. The only difference is that no-till releases components like CO2 over a longer period of time, i.e. at a lower rate but a longer period, while tillage releases the CO2 in pulses over shorter intervals, i.e. a higher rate over a shorter period. The residue *still* decays on a seasonal basis, otherwise no-till would result in such a build-up of mulch and residue that it would interfere with the ability of moisture to penetrate into the soil.
If the removal rate of CO2 is longer than a year then the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will be just about the same for both methods.
Another example of Gorman’s errors in go it alone science without the benefit of real expertise in the subject:
According to data hosted by Purdue University, no-till systems do more than just lower direct gas releases; they also store (sequester) 0 to 0.4 metric tons of carbon per acre every single year. On a macro scale, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that adopting no-till practices across the U.S. has safely kept 241 million metric tons of CO₂ locked in the earth since the 1970s—the equivalent of removing 50 million vehicles from the road for a year.
Tell us all how no-till can sequester carbon IN the soil when it is left on top of the soil?
tell us how an increase in carbon in the soil doesn’t cause an increase in mulch, thatch, and other components over time.
Pastures are perfect example of no-till practice. Yet pastures are many times burned off to eliminate, mulch, thatch, weeds, etc while allowing the wanted crop to flourish.
Here are some references:
Six et al. (2004)Soil Science Society of America Journal Shows that no‑till slows decomposition but total CO₂ released from residue is similar, with no‑till storing more carbon in aggregates.
Ogle et al. (2012) — Meta‑analysis of tillage systems Finds no significant long‑term difference in total CO₂ emissions, though no‑till improves soil carbon retention.
USDA‑ARS Morris, MN Shows that no‑till reduces peak CO₂ flux but does not significantly reduce total annual CO₂ emissions.
I can get you more if you want. You are GASLIGHTING everyone by trying to equate carbon storage in the soil with CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Again, you are GASLIGHTING everyone. CO2 emissions are *NOT* reduced by no-till practices. This whole sub-thread was started by you claiming that no-till practices reduce the emission of CO2.
While no-till is agronomically advantageous and results in higher yields, farmers wishing to adopt the system face a number of challenges. Established farms may have to face a learning curve, buy new equipment, and deal with new field conditions.[3][4] Perhaps the biggest impediment, especially for grains, is that farmers can no longer rely on the mechanical pest and weed control that occurs when crop residue is buried to significant depths. No-till farmers must rely on chemicals, biological pest control, cover cropping, and more intensive management of fields.[5][6][7]
Tillage is dominant in agriculture today, but no-till methods may have success in some contexts. In some cases minimum tillage or “low-till” methods combine till and no-till methods. For example, some approaches may use shallow cultivation (i.e. using a disc harrow) but no plowing or may use strip tillage.
Please note the bold test done by me. Chemical and cover cropping are expensive requirements and in today’s environment income margins are not increased when doing this. The cost of diesel fuel for doing shallow tillingonce is much less than the fuel for adding chemicals and planting cover crops.
Please note the term “disk harrow” that I used and that appears here. And no, I didn’t read this before I used that term. That is what farmers here on the Great Plains use to prepare the ground for row crops. There is little “plowing” and turning over the ground by 14 or 16 inch moldboards anymore.
Your use of things you find on the internet rather than personal experience only shows your lack of knowledge of what actually occurs. I can look out my window and see what farmers are doing. I talk to farmer friends and I know the economics control what is actually done.
The USDA is fine, but it is a government agency staffed with academically trained people who have no accountability for making a profit on an actual farm. Their recommendations assume farmers can run out and turn over the current equipment for new technology every year. It totally ignores depreciation schedules and how long it takes to payoff loans. Their recommendations for cover crops are fine for farmers who only plant one crop per year. Here in the Great Plains wheat is planted in the fall, harvested in May/June and immediately planted to corn or soybeans that are harvested in September/October and immediately planted back to wheat. No cover crop needed. Maximum income from land that sells for 10 -20000 dollars per acre.
So you grew up on a “hobby farm”, never had to make a profit, but just claimed the tax deductions. Your 9 acres is about 0.6% or 0.006 the size of my farm, and we make a profit every year. Sheep, chickens, apples, cherries, and a few peaches.
And we know the value of no-till farming. Sounds like you’re still in the Dark Ages.
Did I say that? You just illustrated your reading comprehension. Do you know why I always try to show quotes from a post? So there can be no misunderstanding about what I am replying to. Here is what I said.
Right now I have 9 acres with 6 cow/calf pairs, 3 hogs, and 25 chickens. It’s a hobby farm as it never really left my system.
See that bolded “Right now”. Somehow your cognitive function translated that to mean I grew up on a hobby farm. You could not be more wrong.
I suspect that your cognitive function has been limited in its scope to preconceived ideas that you have been indoctrinated with. You would do well to recognize that limitation and do some actual learning and research into the subject you believe you know about.
FYI, I am 75 yo and spent the first 22 years working on farms and earning my Electrical Engineering degree. My spare time was spent assisting my father (an Internation Harvester dealer) work on farm equipment, trucks, and semi’s. After retiring I decided to dip my feet into raising animals again by creating a small hobby farm. Most of my life has been on acreage outside of a city. I am not a city boy.
Cherries, apples, and peaches. That is row crop farming at its finest isn’t it? So, you live on a 1500-acre farm. That’s great. How much of that do you seed in row crops? How do you harvest those row crops? Do you grow brome and alfalfa for hay for your sheep? Do you cut it and bale it? Do you keep your pregnant sheep in a barn? Do you muck it out? How about your chickens? Do you clean their coops out?
but just claimed the tax deductions.
Tax deductions? Again, you show how little you know. Hobby farms don’t get tax deductions, nor do they get to use red diesel fuel. If you don’t make a profit in 3 out of 5 years, the IRS rules make you a hobby farm. The “profit” I make goes into regular personal income. Expenses are for a hobby and not deductible.
We have 1000 acres of row crops. And we use the advisory services of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture. They actually practice Science instead of denying it like you.
That’s great. I am glad you have the time to do no-till and the finances to purchase cover crop seed and fertilizer along with weed killer to keep them from overtaking the field. Do you double crop or just leave it fallow over the remaining part of the year? What crop(s) do you grow?
Well let’s see. 55,000 × 800 acres = 44,000,000 acres total. That is probably close. I didn’t include wheat ground in southwest Kansas because they don’t do a lot of double cropping. Also, there are a lot of other row crops such as milo and sunflowers. A lot of pastures for grazing and hay. Again, you just reveal your cognitive problems with not fully researching the issue.
The number I quoted came from Kansas State University. Hopefully they aren’t making the numbers up.
And guess what, Gorman:
In Kansas, no-till farming is practiced on 40% to 50% of the state’s total cropland, translating to over 11.74 million acres. This massive adoption makes Kansas the #1 state in the United States for total no-till acreage.” According to the Kansas Reflector.
When will you upgrade your farming and practice no till?
You are only a shave and a haircut away from the many people who have told me that they refuse to read WUWT because it isn’t peer reviewed. Actually, it is a good example of what peer review should be — a direct analysis of claims made by researchers, with a short turn-around time, by some of the brightest and best educated people I have encountered on the internet. Whether the commenters here are playing Devil’s Advocate or are convinced that the consensus paradigm is wrong, they serve a useful function in that they ask inconvenient questions and point out errors in the claims made by alarmists.
I’ve never quite seen so many claims by non experts and flat earthers that they have discovered fundamental errors in the work of experts. Dunning Kruger runs rampant here.
But I do expect everyone to either accept the findings of peer reviewed research
Ah, the old argumentative fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
As the author of your own assertions, it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim. It is not up to others to do the research and locate the proper resources. That provides people the ability to address your evidence directly.
All government science if rife with incompetence and corruption.
As Ike stated-“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.” Dwight Eisenhower
I have read many so-called scientific books on climate, and never once seen reasonably solid scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming at current incremental levels.
Its all based on models that don’t remotely resemble the Earth’s atmosphere, and unproven conjectures.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
David Dibble and several others, have shown that any tiny theoretical warming from CO2 radiative affects is absolutely dwarfed by energy moved by atmospheric air movement, so as to make any CO2 radiative effect totally insignificant.
In other words, you are exactly the kind of person you claim comments here, and yet you speak as though you know better than them. Do you not see the problem with your position?
If you truly read actual science, then you should have the ability to reference it. Do you know how large my bibliography is of university web sites and book references along with published papers? You should do the same if you want to participate scientific conversation.
A denier is always be unable to recognize or understand published science by experts in the field. Instead he dreams that CO2 has little to no effect on climate, even though thousands of scientists have proven him wrong for more than a century.
“. . . even though thousands of scientists have proven him wrong for more than a century.”
If you really “knew” 10^-6 of what you try to assert to others, you would know that there is no such thing as “proof” in The Scientific Method.
And your absurd statement elicits the story—true or folklore—that when Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed “One hundred German physicists claim Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong” Einstein’s reply was supposedly, “If I were wrong, it would only take one.”
All current textbooks for school and undergraduate instruction are full of the consensus lies and errors. Whole generations of youth are being deceived, and you are obviously one of them.
I pity you, you might even be smart but you are a typical garbage in, garbage out product of the corrupt academic system.
No, it is time for you to show that you have taken the time and expense to purchase or download free textbook/lab notes and have studied them to the point you can post their contents in appropriate arguments.
Otherwise you are just repeating statements from catastrophic global warming sites. That is the origin of why your assertions are considered argumentative fallacies. Claiming facts without appropriate resources is NEVER allowed in physical science. That is why quote marks and footnotes are used. You should learn how that practice works.
1.. There is absolutely zero relationship between air-conditioning and atmospheric CO2.
2.. Your second point also has zero relevance. Canada is currently putting a lot of CO2, and smoke, into the air. This happens regularly in their summer… and always will.
All wood, all twigs, all flowers and all leaves either rot or burn returning the organic material to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
These young people are being taught nothing about the real world.
He, he! Do you know what petrified actually means?
It means, “turned to stone” Silicates have REPLACED the carbon compounds.
We are in the process of burning that really old wood and slime as we speak. Coal and oil.
You do know that there were fires in coal deposits long before people arrived on the planet, likewise oil seeps and natural gas springs and peat bogs. That IS the real world.
No matter how long it is sequestered, it is turned over. Same with carbonate rocks, they are also cannot resist the mantle heat when it reaches them. Also methane, what is not oxidised in the atmosphere dissolves in the sea water and when that water reaches the depths, it rains out into pools on the ocean floor, gets covered in sediment and eventually makes it way as natural gas deposits on land and seabed.
“Also methane, what is not oxidised in the atmosphere . . .”
Asked of Google’s AI bot:
“Is methane oxidized in the atmosphere?”
Immediate reply from Google’s AI bot: “Yes, methane is oxidized in the atmosphere. Over 90% of atmospheric methane isnaturally broken down through chemical reactions. It reacts primarily with hydroxyl radicals (OH), often called the atmosphere’s “detergent,” which converts the methane into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) . . . This oxidation process determines the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is relatively short at about 9 to 12 years.”
(my bold emphasis added for your benefit)
BTW, you apparently don’t know that petrification of organic materials occurs BEFORE those materials have a chance to “rot” and certainly without them having previously burned.
And BTW^2, burning coal and oil is not the same as burning “really old” wood and slime. English Language Comprehension 101.
I’ve never met anyone so ignorant of basic combustion chemistry to claim or imply that the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity and power our cars doesn’t release large quantities of cO2 to our atmosphere (approx 40 billion tons of CO2 each year, worldwide)
burning of fossil fuels … release large quantities of cO2
So what? Does it allow more people to live on the planet and have more productive and happy lives? Exactly, and I do mean exactly, are the dollar costs of CO2 versus the dollar benefits of longer, happy lives? What are the costs of exact costs of mitigation versus the exact costs of elimination of CO2?
If you can’t answer these with evidentiary derived dollars, then all you are doing is pushing your opinions as fact.
There are several economic studies showing that the most expensive course of action is to do nothing, ie, don’t take action to reduce co2 emissions. Meanwhile, you’re so out of touch that you either think co2 emissions don’t matter, or that fossil fuel burning doesn’t release co2.
[“We have mirrors. Try using one every so often.“]
Never again !!
Last time I looked in one, there was a bald, miserable, wrinkled old man in there;
Where’s the beautiful Adonis with peach-like skin & flowing tousled locks that used to look out at me ?? (:-((
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the “woke again” indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls.
This Burnhamfellow, the new leader in the UK, sounds like a real loser.
He thinks government does not have enough control over the private business sector.
Goodby Free Enterprise.
Is it true that Burnham was elected with only 27,000 votes, and then he is appointed the leader of the country?
President Trump got 77 million votes to become the leader in the United States.
Trump will like that Burnham is going to drill in the North Sea, but I doubt they are going to get along on many other things. I hear Burnham wants to surrender the Chagos islands to communist China. Trump definitely won’t like that. The U.S. may have to make them a territory if Burnham runs away from his defense responsibilities.
Burnham contacted 25 Labour MPs asking them to stand down for him. On the 26th attempt the already disgraced MP for Makerfield agreed – for a job in government – to stand down.
Burnham is Starmer in jeans. He’s had no questions asked and no scrutiny whatsoever. Things are going to get a whole lot worse.
There is now a growing belief that energy secretary Ed Miliband is going to be handed the role of foreign secretary in Mr Burnham’s government, with explicit permission to prioritise tackling climate goals through the department. Independent
And of course, they’re going to increase foreign aid…
Given an interest in global warming, one might begin by asking what defines temperature? Typical AI response, “Temperature quantifies the hotness or coldnessof an object or environment and is directly related to the kinetic energy of its particles—the faster the particles move, the higher the temperature, and vice versa.” True, but temperature is also directly related to the rotational and vibrational energies of its particles and all temperatures are only equal for isothermal systems, e.g. the Boltzmann distribution.
Physical Science considers equilibrium a state of uniform temperature and maximum entropy (Maxwell, Boltzmann). In Meteorology (RCE), it’s a state of uniform entropy (Kelvin). In gravitational fields, the latter, the lesser. Chemists are taught 1/T(x), is an integrating factor rendering entropy an exact differential, dS = (1/T) dQ. Integrating factors are mathematical functions for solving differential equations yielding path-independent solutions. Consider a closed surface with multiple thermal contacts. Measure the energy fluxes in and out. Next arbitrarily vary the contact temperatures, finally returning them to their original values. Should the system return to a steady state, the original fluxes will be restored should 1/T(x) be an integrating factor. Information of its history, however, remains forever unrecoverable as increased entropy. The existence of temperature requires steady-state reproducibility. How might we define temperature for time-dependent systems? Linear dissipation theory assumes arbitrarily small, time-dependent perturbations of an equilibrium distribution. Understanding chemical reaction rates remains more an art form than a mathematical exercise.
For the iconoclastic reader, Atmospheric Thermodynamics, Bohren & Albrecht (Oxford University Press 1998)
Word Counts:
Integrating Factor 12
Greenhouse 0
Climate Change 0
Radiation 72
Convection 43
QED
An interesting post as always. Let me respond to a couple of things.
but temperature is also directly related to the rotational and vibrational energies of its particles and all temperatures are only equal for isothermal systems, e.g. the Boltzmann distribution.
Yes! Though, I have little success trying to get this idea across. What is interesting is that many ideas that readers here accept readily, and which they suppose prevents radiation they don’t like, say back toward the surface, is aided by the stationary Boltzmann distribution and the LTE that it implies by the very high rate of energy conversions by collisions in the atmosphere.
Chemists are taught 1/T(x), is an integrating factor rendering entropy an exact differential, dS = (1/T) dQ.
Engineers too. Assuming that dQ/T does actually make a state function, we have used measurements to produce tables of entropy. Atmospheric scientists have also, although these folks obscure it by using “potential temperature”. But tables of entropy are very useful for figuring energy exchanges in processes and machinery.
Should the system return to a steady state, the original fluxes will be restored should 1/T(x) be an integrating factor. Information of its history, however, remains forever unrecoverable as increased entropy.
In a strict sense only because no one worried about the actual path the system took, which could be discovered with enough intermediate measurements.
The existence of temperature requires steady-state reproducibility. How might we define temperature for time-dependent systems?
My view is that in many cases just following a parcel of air large enough to be significant yet small enough that we can speak of a uniform state (T, P, V, composition, or S).
Even getting an estimate of the irreversibility is possible. For example, in this image from something I wrote for WUWT a couple of years ago, Paths 1->3 of the S-T diagram are measured along the flow path into a polar low or deduced from atmospheric soundings. Path 3->4->1 occurs high in the polar troposphere or in descent over the polar ice, wasn’t measured, but one can surmise that it represents decreasing entropy because heat is being exported, irreversibly, from air parcels to space — so we have an idea of a minimum of the irrevesibilities involved here. One can also figure the other reversibilities. At least get an idea of minimum values.
For the non-scientists: The concepts and definitions of the basic units which are dealt with in thermodynamics are very hard to properly imagine from familiarity with ordinary life.
Entropy, enthalpy, energy, conduction, convection, radiation, heat and work all have very specific definition within the discipline which vary from the vernacular. The three laws are not logical, they are specific to the discipline and are not easy to explain to the novice or the lay person.
Thermodynamics, a little hard to understand? Yes, perhaps. Conduction, convection are not thermodynamics in the strict sense. They are transport theory — non-equilibrium. Radiation is thermodynamics in a sense, but also transport theory and quantum mechanics and even electromagnetism.
The laws are not logical in the sense that they were developed from pure thinking, logic, but are the codified results of experience, observation, measurements, and experiments over hundreds of years.
Thermodynamics is probably the most widely applicable discipline within physics. Applications to biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, physics itself, astrophysics and cosmology, engineering and even economics to a degree.
Sometimes quibbles really piss me off!
Thermo-dynamics – “heat”-“flow”
Duh!
Did you get that the subject matter of the physics of energy is in no way simple, straightforward nor subject to “common sense”
A number of commentators here totally misuse snippets of knowledge to reach absurd conclusions when trying to explain their guesses about the dynamics and controlling factors in the energy transfers which keep the earth in a kind of steady state within limits which seem to change throughout geological time.
I’m not sure what you are speaking of, but getting definitions correct are not quibbles, but rather essential to prevent people speaking past one another.
A number of commentators here totally misuse snippets of knowledge to reach absurd conclusions when trying to explain their guesses about the dynamics and controlling factors…
I agree with you entirely on this point. Richard Feynman wrote in his “Lecture on Physics” that (paraphrasing here) “if you start an argument at a certain place and then do not follow it to its logical conclusion you are likely to prove almost anything.” There is a lot of not taking things to a conclusion here that would probably demonstrate a fallacy or an absurdity that would make one pause.
‘What is interesting is that many ideas that readers here accept readily, and which they suppose prevents radiation they don’t like, say back toward the surface, is aided by the stationary Boltzmann distribution and the LTE that it implies by the very high rate of energy conversions by collisions in the atmosphere.’
Kevin, at the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge in what Phillip Chalmers aptly points out are difficult concepts for non-scientists, I’d kindly ask to see some details from Quondam’s comment and/or the “Atmospheric Thermodynamics” text he cites, that supports why some of us should ‘like’ back radiation.
In particular, I’m skeptical that either of these sources supports invoking LTE, which I understand is a necessary condition for radiative energy transfer through the troposphere (*) when, by all accounts, we are dealing with a highly convective (non-isothermal) troposphere.
Also on the subject of atmospheric LTE, there’s this:
(*) – I would have said ‘necessary and sufficient’, except I still maintain that conflating the thermal radiative properties of condensed matter with those of atmospheric gases is not supported by actual physics.
I can’t find a link to Quondam’s website right this moment, but if I could he quotes Sommerfeld as saying that the first encounter with thermo results in one not understanding it. The second encounter makes one confident they do. The third encounter convinces them that they don’t, but by then they’ve gotten so use to it that it doesn’t matter.
I’m not going to bother with finding and reading Craig Bohren’s book. Because it may tell the tale from another and equally confusing standpoint.
Yes, thermo is hard to understand. It took me a long time even after four college courses from different standpoints and years of study on my own and teaching the engineering course sixteen times, I think. But thermo is not entirely at the core of this issue — so is transport, quantum physics and statistical physics. I know a lot about what people don’t understand, but not why.
LTE is not a necessary condition for radiative transfer through the troposphere. If one does not have LTE to use as a means of calcuting emitted power within an atmosphere, though, then a person will have to substitute some other basis for calculations. And I mean will have to, because emitted energy from the atmosphere is an established fact from measurements — so it must occur by some means. The Schwarzschild transport equation would still apply, but the intensity function within it would have a form probably not as simple as LTE.
With regard to LTE, people here argue that the rapidity of de-excitation of CO2 at 15um by collisions with diatomic molecules precludes radiation in the 15um band, or maybe just downward radiation toward the surface. So, they like this rapid transfer of energy, but then fail to reason that this is what establishes a Boltzmann-like distribution of energy, from which I calculated that 0.036 of CO2 molecules will be found in the higher energy state at typical atmospheric temperatures. Doesn’t sound like much but at STP each cubic meter of atmosphere contains around 5.8 times ten to the 20th molecules of CO2 in this energy state — radiating in all direction in spontaneous or stimulated EM transition back to the ground state. In other words, they like detailed balance when they think it argues against what they don’t like, but in fact it enables what they don’t like.
Here is one final word on LTE. If you agree that temperature is a meaningful concept for the Earth’s atmosphere, and that a thermometer measures it, then you already accept an atmosphere in LTE.
Finally, with regard to Eric Weisstein, I really like Wolfram world, but he is prone to make god-like pronouncements without evidence. He summarizes the calculation using the Planck function just fine, but then says that real atmospheres are not in LTE. Look at LWIR spectra recorded by satellites or even just high-flying aircraft or balloons, in fact recorded at the ground looking upward, and note that they are piecewise segments of the Planck function at various temperatures. Recognizing this one has to be a d*mned fool not to realize that this implies that each visible portion of the atmosphere is emitting in LTE or very close to it at its local temperature.
What you’ve provided looks like a very spirited defense of LTE. As I don’t have your extensive background in the subject, I’ll resort to a bit of what Wikipedia says about it:
“Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) is mainly used as a simplifying assumption in radiative transfer, because it lets the emission and absorbtion coefficients be treated as functions of temperature and density only. It’s applied when the absorbing/emitting matter (often massive particles) is in local equilibrium even though the radiation field itself is not.”
The clear rationale for invoking LTE, then, is so that it can be assumed that atmospheric GHG molecules are spontaneously absorbing and emitting ‘photons’ in accordance with Kirchoff’s Law. But as you also note, these molecules are undergoing collisions with non-IR active gas species, meaning they are much more likely (50,000:1, see reference, below) to undergo non-radiative deactivation and excitation processes, which do not involve ‘photons’, hence Kirchoff’s Law can no longer be assumed to apply.
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why using the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory to model energy transport through the troposphere, while expedient, is incorrect. Unfortunately, it also gives rise to the serious mistake of conflating multi-directional atmospheric radiance with two-way energy flow, i.e. ‘back radiation’, which itself has never been measured.
I’ve given it my best here, Frank, but what you need to do is first study what temperature has to do with the stationary distributions known as Boltzmann-Maxwell (having to do with molecular speeds) or Boltzmann distribution (energy levels) which is the stationary distributions with temperature and energy levels as parameters. Sample all the molecular speeds, for example, build a histogram and see what temperature in the Maxwell distribution best fits the histogram — that is the gas temperature. Same is so for Boltzmann distribution and energy levels. Use the energy difference of a 15um radiation, and see the equilibrium factions of population between two levels at this energy.
I downloaded this 26 page contribution. They are working with a deficient definition of thermalization is their biggest problem. That and not recognizing the concept of detailed balance within each ensemble that is large enough to speak of thermal equilibrium. Make a few claims that are easily dismissed. They are correct about a number of things, Boltzmann distribution. Calculation of fractions of CO2 in excited states at various temperatures.
But then make absurd conclusions. I wrote up a detailed critique but it would be too long to post as a comment and would just cause a non-productive argument because Shula has mocked my explanations.
I thank you for this most recent comment. I am pleased to see that you have actually taken the time to review the Shula-Ott article from Andy May’s website and put together a review of it. I agree that the comments section is not the place for one to air what has to be a substantial review, but am certain it would be a well received article here given the number of comments your previous articles on this subject have generated.
I really believe that such an article would be productive, if only by dispelling the notion that any idea that disagrees with the current RTT paradigm is routinely ignored or suppressed. And if the conclusions that Shula-Ott come to are absurd, well that’s good to know, too.
I know it’s not my place to assign work to others, but I don’t have the required background to produce such an article. I’ll conclude by saying that the real tragedy here is that no one in the climate science ‘mainstream’ has previously taken it upon themselves to publicly review these ideas or engage in their debate.
Given an interest in global warming, one might begin by asking what defines temperature?
An interesting question and you propose some interesting conditions.
Temperature on the earth is never in equilibrium. If it ever becomes so, the sun has died. in the meantime, temperatures go up and go down in constantly changing fashion. Insolation is a pulse over some period of time, say 12 hours, while cooling is a decay function over 24 hours. The effects of these are also varied by the earth’s rotation and the forces it engenders, along with variance in surface type, clouds, localized effects, aerosols, etc.
The question you pose: “How might we define temperature for time-dependent systems?” is probably unanswerable in a chaotic system over time. I would propose that climate science lose its fascination with temperature which is only sensible heat and begin to analyze enthalpy (sensible+latent) instead. Temperature just isn’t a good proxy for atmospheric heat on a water world.
So, why do I stand my ground?
Pretty much anywhere I post my points the mods cancel, block & censor what they consider “misinformation.”.
Why do they feel so threatened?
If I were wrong they would not care.
You are stubborn and impervious to factual data and clear explanations.
Who would fear you pitiful nonsense?
You get contradicted by people who do not wish this website to contain errors and propaganda unchallenged and to clarify what ideas are based in data from reality, results from models which are not fit for purpose and issues that are not resolved yet despite much effort to do so from real scientists and investigators.
Between mid-June and mid-July 2026, one confirmed dead whale washed ashore near Boston. ( Winthrop)
Crabs readily eat dead whales. They act as vital scavengers on the seafloor and along coastlines, stripping whale carcasses of flesh and breaking them down over time.
When a dead whale sinks to the deep ocean floor, it creates a thriving, long-lasting micro-ecosystem called a whale fall. Ocean scavengers, including various types of crabs and sharks, arrive to feed on the blubber and muscles.
In 2025, 15 dead whales were reported washing ashore or found floating off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, according to ongoing stranding data tracked by NOAA Fisheries
Starting in January 2016, NOAA tracked a significant die-off of humpback whales from Maine to Florida.
Coincidentally, 2016 was the start of offshore wind construction. NOAA Fisheries has declared multiple “Unusual” Mortality Events (UMEs).
NOAA, in collusion mode, is careful not to blame high decibel construction noise for blinding the sonar systems of whales, who become disoriented, cannot find their mates or foo, and bounce into sea-going ships, which kills them.
HIGH COST OF OFFSHORE WIND ELECTRICITY PER kWh. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-of-offshore-wind-electricity-per-kwh .
The reason costs are ballooning is because the focus has been on the cost of offshore wind electricity, say 15 c/kWh, after the equivalent of 50% federal and state subsidies.
. Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (windmill to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about.
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh .
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, with equivalent of50% subsidies
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants. Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European/Chinese supply of W/S systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
1) The European elites have screwed themselves by going hog-wild for wind, solar, batteries, etc.
They closed their near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants and their coal plants and refuse to frack for clean-burning gas.
.
2) Because of grossly too many rules and regulations emanating from Brussels, and a lack of nuclear plant building experience, all recent nuclear plants cost $10,000+/installed kW and take 10+ years to build; China and Russia build such plants for about 6,000/kW and take about 5-6 years
.
3) These elites are encouraging the displacement of native populations. A total of 64.2 million unvetted, uneducated, untrained, culturally different, non-citizens were in Europe at end 2025 (not counting their children and grandchildren born in Europe). In 2025, the A-to-Z cost was about $160 billion to grow the economy to provide goods and services for the additional people. How will Europe ever get rid of these people, before its rapidly growing population is greater than the shrinking population of natives?
.
4) These elites imposed a ban on Russian low-cost fossil fuels and other natural resources much needed by Europe, so Russia cannot profit from them; the sanctions backfired on Europe.
.
5) After NATO was established in 1949, these elites, dependent for defense on the US, saved themselves $trillions by spending only 0.5 to 1.5% of GDP on their own defense, while the US spent about 4 to 5% to keep the peace in the world. How can you claim to be sovereign and not be able to defend yourself?
.
That grossly inequitable situation came to a screeching halt in 2025, when Trump required Europe to spend up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, because the US was “busy elsewhere”.
For MAGA, Trump 1) imposed tariffs on European imports to reduce the US trade deficit, 2) will reduce US troops and their costs in Europe, 3) requires Europe pay for its own defense, 4) no longer pays for Ukraine, but will provide US weapons, if Europe pays for them.
Despite the Western media propeganda, and paying at least $75 BILLION in 2026 to support Ukraine, Russia is destroying Ukraine and its armed forces. Here is an example.
Bodies exchanged in 2026 (the first three quantities are high, because Ukraine refused to receive bodies).
Turns out the dead are about 1/3 of all casualties (dead, seriously wounded, MIA)
Jan 19, 1000 Ukraine, 38 Russian
Feb 26, 1000 Ukraine, 35 Ukraine
April 9, 1000 Ukraine, 41 Russian
May 15, 526 Ukraine, 41 Russian
Jun 18, 522 Ukraine, 33 Russian
Jul 16, 501 Ukraine, 31 Russian
“Ukraine does not comment on how many bodies of Russian soldiers have been returned since the beginning of the invasion. This information is also not publicly available. Therefore, it is impossible to verify the Russian claims about the number of bodies received at this time.
In addition, Russia manipulates the figures regarding the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers handed over. Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Ihor Klymenko stated that during recent repatriations, Russians also handed over bodies of Russian soldiers, mixed in with the bodies of Ukrainians. If we assume that Russia hands over more bodies, this is likely explained by the course of hostilities. Russia has been on the offensive for much of the invasion, while Ukraine defends. Some bodies of fallen Ukrainian soldiers remain in territories occupied by Russia.
In any case, the statistics of transferred bodies are incorrectly correlated with the overall number of losses. According to independent sources, since 2022, Russia has lost significantly more soldiers than Ukraine.”
Zelensky has extremely low popularity among Ukrainians.
Putin has high popularity among Russians.
A few years ago, a Russian engineer came to my house to repair my kitchen oven. Spoke fluent English, but with an accent. I asked how he liked Putin. He said Putin was the best thing that ever happened to Russia.
I asked why he was working as repairman. He said he could not get a job as engineer in his specialty, which was electronic systems design, plus he wanted to be near his wife’s family.
Ukraine losses are about 1350 to 1550 per day as reported by Russia.
Of those losses about 250 are dead, 1000 seriously wounded, 150 MIA. It is rare an MIA turns up alive.
Ukraine + Mercenary bodies found by Russians, identified (tagged), and refrigerated is about 17.5 x 30 = 525 per month.
NOTE: Many bodies are unrecognizable, burnt to a crisp, some, near an explosion, literally evaporate, some are buried under collapsed buildings, some eaten by wild pets and wildlife, so it is no surprise relatively few bodies get exchanged.
I spent 3 years in the US Army, saw a lot of instructional movies for training purposes, which discussed such numbers.
The Russian army appears more diligent collecting the dead, Russian as well as Ukrainian, so the Ukraine army has fewer Russian dead to collect and exchange.
In fact, Russia offered several 6-h cease fires to enable Ukraine to collect its dead, but Ukraine refused.
Also, from a we-are-winning PR aspect, Ukraine does not want to admit it has so many deaths, due to the superior firepower of Russia.
Its proportion of deaths among daily losses likely is much greater than of Russia, despite all the videos on X, which can easily be fabricated.
TYS,
I believe you need to sharpen your imagination. I interpret the image as me {other WUWT readers can likewise see themselves} watching and contemplating the astounding place in which we live.
[I know not Gandalf or Thanos, CR or Hogwarts.]
John, I really am saddened to hear that. Gandalf, Thanos and Hogwarts inhabit the minds of many WUWT readers, and millions upon million of other humans having “sharpened” imaginations. It might serve you well to become knowledgable of their (hi)stories.
Yes, the universe in which we live is an astounding “place”, despite science now teaching us that we really don’t know what comprises 95 % (+/-) of it!
And yes, I’m personally always seeking ways to sharpen my imagination . . . I wouldn’t have it any other way.
BTW: CR is my shorthand for Charles Rotter, author of the above article who I imagined (hah!) may have some knowledge behind his selection and use of that great lead-in graphic.
THE moon landing was faked. Oh really? THE landing? Were all six!! of them faked??
The Earth is flat. What??? You must be joking??
Are these posters canceled? Blocked? Sent to the bottom of the thread, a closet at the back of the room.
So why me?? What do they fear?? I might be right?
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
GHE balance graphics don’t plus violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render 396 W/m^2 BB upwelling “extra” energy (and 333 back radiation) impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.
“Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.”
No. Cooler on daytime surfaces due to albedo; warmer on nighttime surfaces due to atmospheric impedance of surface LWIR radiation directly to space with resulting “back radiation” of the warm atmosphere to the surface, either from water vapor (GHE) or from visible clouds.
1) “Earth is cooler…”…WRONG…It’s warmer with its 30% albedo, WV, clouds, and oceans than it would be if it was daily-rotating regolithic sphere in a vacuum…
2) “GHE graphics don’t balance…” WRONG..yes they do, the people who do them aren’t dummies. Admittedly a single arrow 396-333=63 wide for radiation from surface with a 40 wide arrow directly from surface to outer space would make more sense to junior high school students who haven’t covered Planck in science class yet….
2(a)”…violate LoT”….WRONG…no they don’t…back radiation does not exist without a larger amount of “fore” radiation so heat flow is always from warm to cooler….no LoT broken here…
3) 396-333=63 net heat radiation from surface upwards as calculated from EMR. No “extra” radiation here.
Give us a break!
Stop whining about your “brilliance” being censored by biased MODS.
I remember seeing a number of comments with your name in other threads.
If there’s a way to rank the people with the most “down votes”, you’ll find that they are still allowed to comment here.
Stop whining!
PS Here on WUWT, if your comments have been “censored” like you claim (which I doubt), you must have been saying some really crazy stuff!
[I spent a lot of effort and typed a lot words explaining it to you. You can either follow the rules set for you, yes, you alone, or comment somewhere else. I would have loved nothing more than for you to have complied for a few months so I could remove the moderation hold and not have to read every one of your comments, but you can’t behave for a day. Now I know that even if you started, it would be based on trying to trick me, so it’s not going to happen. Do you think I like putting in this effort? I work 24/7 at multiple jobs.-ctm]
Now I know that even if you started, it would be based on trying to trick me . . .
No offence intended, but that sounds similar to Phil Jones refusing to divulge data because the requester might try to find something wrong with Phil’s conclusions.
As to trickery, “Mike’s Nature trick” seemed to convince the ignorant and gullible that Mann could determine past near surface air temperatures by communing with lumps of timber – but not me!
Trickery doesn’t change physical facts either. Mind you, a good illusionist can convince me that magic exists.
What an incredibly orthogonal and irrelevant response. It’s like you saw “trick” and didn’t read any of those other things called “words” that offer “context” .
Again, no offence intended, but this is part of what you wrote previously –
Now I know that even if you started, it would be based on trying to trick me, so it’s not going to happen.
If you are convinced that someone is out to “trick” you, it should be reasonably easy to avoid the “trick”. On the other hand, I enjoy being tricked by a professional (or even proficient amateur) magician. It’s a matter of choice, I suppose.
You wrote –
What an incredibly orthogonal and irrelevant response.
In your opinion, of course, which you believe is far more worthy than my opinion – which is that my response was not particularly orthogonal or irrelevant. If you are offended by my reference to “Mike’s Nature trick”, that’s your choice. For my part, I have little respect for the opinions of a documented faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
I’m sorry that you feel offended, and I assume your response was intended to be sarcastic. If not, maybe you could correct any erroneous statements in the comment which resulted in your apparent feelings of annoyance?
Here is something I ran up against when investigating how the temperature of the land and atmosphere are related.
1) The Optical Path Length defines the decay of radiation across an absorbing media. This must be used to determine intensity at a given altitude. If one assumes that τ=1 at the height where most of the earth’s radiation at CO2’s absorption band occurs, say 20 m, then the intensity has decayed to I_decay = I_start × 0.37. Radiation from this height back to earth will also encounter decay as other CO2 molecules absorb it. By the time radiation from 20 m reaches the earth the equation will give I_back = I_start × 0.37² = I_start × 0.135. Of course, as radiation from lower altitudes occurs it will decay less. However, that brings us to the second issue.
2) As Frank from NoVA has pointed out, gases do not emit like liquids and solids. It is usual to assume that the earth emits as a grey body with an emissivity of let’s say, 0.95. That makes a Planck curve look correctly shaped, just a little less overall. Gases however only absorb and emit at given frequency (bands) and do not generate Planck curves of the emission. Their emissivity may be high at their inherent frequency, say 0.95, but very low elsewhere in the IR band, say 0.02.
This has a profound effect on what the shape of the Planck curve is for back radiation. One cannot simply identify a value like 4 W/m² at 1500 um and then use the SB equation to determine a temperature change. That 4 W/m² is only added at say 1500 um, and nothing elsewhere. That violates the fundamental assumption of the SB two body equation which requires black bodies with equal emissivity’s.
All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
I have always taken it as true for matter in the gaseous state. I accept the existence of individual absorption and emission spectra while understanding that a body of atmospheric gas has such complex structure within it that thermal radiation exists within it.
Can you direct me to evidence to the contrary.
Depends how one defines ‘thermal radiation’. If you’re referring to radiation produced by the thermal motion of atoms that gives rise to oscillations in electric density and produces oscillating electric dipoles, i.e., ‘black body’ radiation? If so, it doesn’t occur in gases at the temperatures and pressures normally occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere.
All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
That is true. But gases do not emit as a black body with a full Planck curve. Gases absorb and emit only at given points in the spectrum. CO2 is around 15 um with other lines close to that value. Here is an image of the absorbance/transmittance spectrum.
A short explanation. CO2 both absorbs and emits at unique points. It does not absorb nor does it emit outside those points. If CO2 emitted as a black body (or even a grey body) the black portion for CO2 would look like a Planck curve.
Here is an image I quickly put together for another post. It is by no means correct, but I wanted to show how little CO2 contributes to the overall energy emitted by the surface.
The area inside the blue line and the Planck curve is the “power” back radiation has. I intended that to show how much it would affect the Planck curve if it was reemitted only at the CO2 frequency. As the surface absorbs that energy from CO2, it is retransmitted by the surface based on the shown Planck curve. It is not just retransmitted at the CO2 frequency.
What that really means is take some playdough the size of the CO2 power and stretch it and roll it out until it covers the entire area under the Planck curve. That will give you an idea of how little that amount of energy matters in the scheme of things.
Gases absorb and emit only at given points in the spectrum.
No. For example, the air compressed in a Diesel engine to 500 C contains CO2. The CO2 temperature is the same as the oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and emits the same frequencies.
It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.
People get confused by things like spectroscopy, which studies how matter interacts with light.
“It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.”
The Planck radiation from CO2 is pretty small and is masked totally by the Planck radiation from the major components of the rest of the atmosphere at the same temperature. It is *only* the CO2 radiation from vibratory absorption that is attributed as ‘back radiation”. That is not temperature related and is not a Planck radiation spectrum.
”The Planck radiation spectrum describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a perfect blackbody in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature. It is characterized by a continuous, asymmetric curve with a distinct peak that shifts to shorter wavelengths as the temperature increases, forming the foundation of quantum mechanics.”
– apparently according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.
No reference to CO2 there!
I assume you don’t agree with my statement “It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.”, but can’t quite figure out how to do it.
If you have facts to support your disagreement, I will certainly change my view – but you haven’t, have you?
ToldYouSo stepping in here because this is an issue “near and dear to my heart”:
Although they DO emit thermal radiation, atmospheric gases do not emit radiation according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law because they are “selective emitters” that only absorb and radiate at very specific wavelengths defined by quantum mechanics, rather than across the entire electromagnetic spectrum such as occurs with “condensed matter” occurring as solids and liquids.
The fundamental physics that account for this difference:
—Lack of continuous emission: The Stefan-Boltzmann law calculates the total power radiated across all wavelengths. Because atmospheric gases consist of molecules (like H2O and CO2) with specific bonds, they can only emit and absorb radiation in narrow, distinct energy bands, and
— Emissivity and density: The Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes an emissivity factor (most often represented by the Greek symbol epsilon) to adjust for departure from ideal black body behavior of real matter. For a gas, this emissivity varies wildly depending on the wavelength, gas density, and temperature, meaning there is no single constant value that can be used in the SB equation.
Any Web search engine can be your friend in providing scientific evidence—such as full length scientific articles—supporting the above facts.
Pretty good, except I don’t think that the properties that enable matter to emit thermal radiation exist in gases. The key takeaway here is that applying the laws of S-B, Planck, Kirchoff, Wien, etc. to atmospheric ‘slabs’ like one would to an ‘object’, i.e., some form of condensed matter, is incorrect.
I have no idea when the conflation of ‘objects’ with ‘all matter’ began, but this is basically where the cli-sci camel got its nose under the tent. What probably started out as convenient / heuristic method to model radiance has since morphed into a false narrative of radiative energy transport through the troposphere.
Unfortunately, while that may seem to have little import with respect to our daily lives, this conjecture has since been hijacked by the Left, as a means to effect societal control.
Ahem . . . there is no such thing as “the SB two body equation which requires black bodies with equal emissivity’s”.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law (equation) for radiation power flux emitted by a given surface of condensed matter (e.g., solid or liquid) with a temperature above absolute zero depends ONLY on the effective absolute temperature of that matter. It can be applied to “black bodies” with emissivity set to 1.0, or to “grey bodies” with emissivity set to < 1.
The SB law applies to only one individual body, but many people mistakenly believe it was formulated to calculate the radiation exchange between one warm body and another, cooler body.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law (equation) for radiation power flux emitted by a given surface of condensed matter (e.g., solid or liquid) . . .
Nonsense. An obvious example is sunlight emitted by the photosphere of the Sun – at around 5800 K. Most definitely gaseous, and hot enough to give an excellent approximation of a black body.
Irrelevant in the case of the non-existent (but widely accepted) GHE anyway.
You aren’t silly enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, are you?
A good search engine, should you care to use one to supplement your “knowledge”, could be your friend.
Here, from Google’s AI bot, in response to the inquiry “Are there absorption lines in the light emitted by the Sun’s photosphere?”:
“Yes, the light emitted by the Sun’s photosphere displays a bright, continuous rainbow (thermal spectrum) punctuated by thousands of dark absorption lines known as Fraunhofer lines. These occur because the cooler, upper layers of the photosphere absorb specific wavelengths of light emitted by the hotter, denser layers below.”
Now, I need to independently add this for your edification: black body radiation exists as a smooth continuous spectrum of radiation without any absorption lines.
As for your last question, please do continue to add it to each and every one of your replies to me . . . I’m always on the lookout to collect examples of the logical fallacy of the strawman argument. (Yeah, I expect you’ll have to look that up!)
These occur because the cooler, upper layers of the photosphere absorb specific wavelengths of light emitted by the hotter, denser layers below.
An example of a natural spectroscope, but you obviously don’t understand the difference between light emitted as a result of temperature, or the fact that matter can selectively absorb, reflect or transmit light which impinges upon it. In this case, light from the hotter core interacting with cooler less dense gas surrounding it as it passes through.
Unfortunately for dimwitted GHE cultists (who can’t even describe their GHE in any rigorous fashion), all matter above absolute zero emits radiation. The wavelengths are strictly proportional to absolute temperature.
Don’t blame me for your ignorance and gullibility. If you want to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, or that the Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, be my guest.
By the way, physical facts are not swayed by argument, logical or otherwise.
Billyjack
July 20, 2026 9:05 am
I read an article by the Church of Warming about the horrors of methane emissions by cattle. I find it interesting that these same acolytes never mention anything about the millions of cubic feet of methane released when they blew up the Nordstream 2 pipeline.
Methane is the least of all issues in the climate crisis complex.
It has a short half life in air, oxidising to water and carbon dioxide fairly rapidly. The most interesting thing about it is how soluble in sea water it is and how sea water containing it when it descends into the deep arrives at a temperature and pressure where it comes out of solution and rains in droplets into basins in the ocean floor as a liquid. Methane generated in the long past collected like this was covered by silt and eventually became deposits of “natural gas” in sedimentary rock.
The expansion is of its big pipeline system from NE BC to SW BC, part of its present and expanded volume supplies the NW US (and I presume well beyond). (Can Enbridge charge Donald a tariff? :-o)
The article omits that the pipeline has a new spur to the Squamish LNG terminal north of Vancouver BC, which is well under construction.
US citizens pay Trump’s tariffs. If U.S. providers are for some reason less economical than Canadian sources…the U.S. providers just increase their price by the amount of the tariff less a wee bit…cuz…free profit…
Rational Keith
July 21, 2026 10:14 am
Whereas BC’s government monopoly electricity provider is adding battery storage.
Vancouver Island depends on cables from the mainland for a major proportion of its electricity. So supply to level supply and provide emergency supply seems worthwhile. But elsewhere?
BC Hydro has added local hydro-electric capacity on VI in recent years, and strengthened dams like the Jordan River Diversion Dam.
NG is piped to VI, but if only one pipe is vulnerable I suggest.
The article mentions wind generation at the north end of the island. There’s also some in NE BC which is windy, even though that is close to huge power dams.
Simon
July 21, 2026 11:51 am
What about Andrew Tate and his brother. All round good guys it seems. Seven counts of rape, three counts of sex trafficking, three counts of assault and 19 more charges relating to “indecent images of a child and extreme pornography”.
I wonder how some of those who have supported them in the past…. Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Candice Owens, Alina Habba, Donald Trump Jnr are feeling about them now?
Advice to you: in the future, please state what the link is about and/or why it may be important to WUWT readers.
As regards the cited link containing “facebook” in its URL, you should be aware—perhaps you are, as I still haven’t clicked on your link—that posted URLs can easily be faked so that the real, embedded URL takes you an unpleasant Web site.
From Google’s AI bot:
“Posted URLs are counterfeited through visual trickery, hidden anchors, and domain manipulation, primarily using lookalike domains, homograph attacks, and text masking. These methods deceive users into thinking a link leads to a safe, trusted site when it actually routes to a malicious clone.”
And this common “safe surfing” advice for all WUWT readers: never click directly on an offered URL if you are unfamiliar with/suspicious about the poster . . . instead copy and paste the URL into your Web/Internet browser because this will defeat any embedded counterfeiting.
In 1938, Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained VERY POLITELY to Guy Callendar the physical reasons why his attribution of reported station warming should be reconsidered.
This is Callendar’s response, from the transcript of the discussion of his paper published by the Royal Meteorological Society:
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
More here about all that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Where does the matter stand today, after so many decades of investigation?
Has attribution of any portion of the reported warming to incremental CO2 been reliably established? No.
Can the theoretical warming tendency be reliably demonstrated to operate within the real atmosphere so as to inevitably result in the accumulation of absorbed energy down here as sensible heat? Also no.
Have the pre-stabilized, time-step-iterated computer models told us anything more than that a presumption of a “forcing” effect leads to projected warming over time? Also no. It has been a circular exercise all along. In other words, do the models provide a valid ceteris paribus platform for isolating the radiative component for investigation? No. Not even close. The “warming” result is baked in from the start, but the unavoidable buildup of uncertainty is orders of magnitude greater than the factor being examined.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
My aim, decades after Callendar, Simpson, and Brunt, is to VERY POLITELY offer explanations and demonstrations, even to skeptics of climate alarm, that the computed static radiative effect of incremental CO2 need not be expected to produce a perceptible “warming” response. That “warming” tendency is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
There will certainly be some effect. Is it large enough to measure? Maybe. The effect would seem to be mostly in daily Tmin temperatures. The effect, however, gets lost by climate science when it focuses on a mid-range temperature which has a large uncertainty, especially when projected via step-by-step models over a large number of steps.
The effect, however gets lost. . .
______________________________
Like Bryson’s spit in a huricane
It is NOT certain. The substance, carbon dioxide, is a dependent variable.
Always, whatever small fraction it has been in the atmosphere it has followed the changes of temperature of the oceans.
That is data, not opinion or theory.
That relationship has been established over millions of years and there has been no magic “accelerating” change on earth recently or evident in the past records.
That may be true as seen in proxies over geologic time, but that temperature dependency of CO2 in the atmosphere does not explain the current rate and magnitude of CO2 increases in the modern atmosphere. However, the mere fact that humans are now liberating trapped carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and limestone back into the atmosphere from whence it came does not address David Dibbell’s point. Even today after more than 40 years of intense research and investigation, there’s still great uncertainty as to the measurable effect that this added CO2 has on the global temperatures.
At the mild rate of warming measured over the last several decades, even if it continues unabated, local climates around the world are unlikely to be noticeably different or more harmful a century from now. Given the biological principle that warm is good in terms of thriving biological activity, it is very likely that we will be better off with a slightly warmer and CO2 enriched world. That is why the climate alarmist camp is continually switching their focus: global warming —> climate change —> weather attribution. Neither do they really care about climate change or they would demand concessions from China and India and the developing world, and they would individually be living primitive lives, devoid of fossil fuels and the products enabled by fossil fuels.
The lag time for the release of carbon dioxide from the huge volume of sea water in which it is dissolved is in centuries.
The current level, and the continuation of the rise is totally explained by the slow warming of the oceans as the world emerges from the latest ice age. It has nothing to do with the paltry amounts released by the use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Unlikely. Increase in Tmin temps is due to increased anthropogenic heat, the effect of which is unnoticeable during the day in sunlit conditions.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, atmospheric CO2 content notwithstanding.
Thats reality.
Slower cooling would raise the Tmin temperature. The fact that such an effect is being seen in longer growing seasons has been pretty well established by agricultural science. Earlier last frost dates and later first frost dates are hard to argue with.
Has the earth cooled over the millenia? Yep. Slower cooling doesn’t prevent that from happening.
From your first link:
‘The ~4 W/m^2 incremental IR absorbing power of the 2XCO2 case is a fraction of the width of the “0” mark on the horizontal axis of these scatter plots. Negligible. It is vanishingly weak within the dynamics of the circulation.’
You’re indeed very polite. As for me, I think the entire concept of the ~4 W/m^2 ‘forcing’ needs to be examined given its origin from the conjecture that the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory explains the mechanism by which the bulk of the thermal energy emitted by the Earth’s surface is transported through the troposphere.
You are certainly correct to question that “conjecture”, given that the “bulk” of atmospheric energy transport is the latent energy of H2O.
The bulk of the LWIR radiative energy distribution throughout Earth’s atmosphere does not involve the “latent heat” of the phase change of water . . it is instead directly associated with molecule-to-molecule collisions between LWIR-active gases (aka “greenhouse gases”, including water vapor) and non-LWIR active gases (overwhelmingly, N2 and O2).
The point you miss, or try to deflect is that a tiny perturbation of molecular energy exchange via electromagnetic-kinetic interaction is overwhelmed by the magnitude of energy conversion accomplished by the heat engine of the atmosphere, mostly via convection and the almost magical and huge amounts of energy involved in water’s phase transitions.
It takes almost an Olympic Swimming Pool of heat to evaporate one kg of water. 😉
The point you miss it that what matters in determining Earth’s climate warming versus cooling versus being nearly constant over consecutive millenia is the comparison of net radiative power in versus net radiative heat out. That balance is not determined just by atmospheric convection or conduction, although both are occurring continuously.
The issue of how the Earth’s heat engine (a misnomer if I ever saw one . . . better to just say hydrologic cycle) works is secondary to the physics of balancing net power in/out of a control volume drawn around Earth, which only involves radiative (that is, EM) heat flows.
I don’t think we’ll come to agreement on this. I don’t dispute that radiation is how the earth looses energy.
You’d call it a forcing.
I’d call it a trivial change to a complex system that is never at equilibrium.
I don’t think many folks who have studied Engineering or Thermodynamics would have a problem thinking of the atmosphere as a heat engine. I think its one level of abstraction higher than thinking of it as expanded foam insulation board.
No, I absolutely would not, as thermal radiation from matter above absolute zero is a physical law. It just exists.
Thermodynamic engines move heat from a hot source to a cold source to produce both work and “waste heat” (entropy) that pass across a control volume drawn around the engine itself. So, where is Earth’s work output to the solar system/universe?
Draw the envelope (control volume) anywhere you want. They are free.
It’s called “PV” work. Part of the Enthalpy (U + PV) story. Read up.
Of course my last sentence is wrong. I was making fun of you.
No one disputes that the Earth can gain and lose energy only through radiation. We can certainly agree that some incoming radiation will be scattered (visible light, in all directions) or absorbed (LWIR, by GHGs) in the dry atmosphere, most incoming energy will reach the surface, water (70+%) or land. The source, amount, and origin of outgoing radiation energy is much more complex.
Dry air will absorb energy from the surface and thus increase its radiative energy ability, but water vapor absorbs about 3 times as much energy per unit of mass/K as dry air and is therefore able to transport more energy/g. Considering that H2O can be about 2-4% of the atmosphere while CO2 is roughly 0.04%, water vapor is a few hundred times more important than CO2 in providing the atmosphere with excess energy to be radiated away.
But let’s get to latent energy. A surface that receives additional energy, whether water or moist land, can maintain its temperature by evaporating moisture isothermally. The energy necessary to evaporate one gram of surface water would be sufficient to raise the temperature of a kilogram of CO2 one K. So, how much energy is removed from the surface and transported to an altitude from which it can radiate to space? Well, each and every day, the precipitation on the Earth is of the same order of magnitude as the total CO2 content of the atmosphere (10^12 metric tons). Again, the water cycle is several orders of magnitude more important than CO2 in transporting energy.
Now, let’s get to the clouds themselves, which are very complex processes, involving the exchange of several forms of energy that wind up supporting the isothermal condensation which releases the energy that can be radiated. In addition to direct radiation of energy that has been transported from the surface, clouds reflect, or absorb and reradiate up to 1/3 of the direct sun’s energy. To say that the hydrological cycle is secondary to the study of the Earth’s “heat flows” is to completely misunderstand energy transport in the atmosphere.
Is that in units of a “cubic Olympian?”
Is the “heat” in that hypothetical Olympic Swimming Pool that available in the H20 temperature above absolute zero, or that available in the H20 that is at some temperature above its fusion temperature (~273 K?)?
BTW, the specific heat of liquid water is 4,184 J per kg per K, whereas the heat of vaporization of liquid water at sea-level pressure and 373 K is about 2.3e^6 J per kg.
Therefore, if I conservatively assume the available “heat” in that swimming pool is just based on a temperature difference of 22 deg-C above water’s freezing point, then it will take only the enthalpy change of 25 kg of water going from 0 to 22 deg-C to be equivalent to evaporating 1 Kg of water.
Were you perhaps referring to a Olympic swimming pool for Lilliputians? IOW, you last sentence is just plain wrong.
I suppose you mean that a large component of the energy transport is by fluid dynamics, the cyclones and anticyclones in the atmosphere and the huge currents in the large oceans both transporting the energy of the incoming solar radiation in all wavelengths morphed into heat energy from the tropics to the polar areas
Yes, up to about 300 ppmv CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere . . . beyond this, ZILCH.
None of what can be called warming can be attributed to what is anecdotally called the Greenhouse effect.
The combined and varied properties of the atmosphere can be thought of as setting the thermostat. The energy exchange processes then work to increase of decrease the rate of shedding or retaining energy around the norm of the thermostat setting.
The ability of more carbon dioxide to influence the thermostat setting is vanishingly small past the 300 ppm level.
Heating is ONLY coming from the sun and cooling is varying within limits in response to changes in insolation – and insolation is altered by variations in the sun and the solar system, not in the earth.
Absurd.
So if,hypothetically, the Sun unexpectedly flared so as to double the TOA solar insolation at Earth, that atmospheric-set “thermostat” will make sure all life on planet Earth never knows the difference?
Moreover any such hypothetical “thermostat” must be declared to be faulty because it is a scientifically-established FACT that over the last million or so years of Earth’s history, Earth has had about ten cycles between “glacial” (i.e. “relatively cool”) intervals and “interglacial” (i.e. relatively warm”) intervals.
Not really.
Earth surface insolation, as a determining factor in establishing Earth’s near-term (>30 years) and long term (>10,000 years) climates, is highly dependent on Earth’s albedo and its atmospheric water vapor content (by far the dominant of all “greenhouse gases”).
Also, the inclination of the Earth’s spin axis with respect to the fixed plane of ecliptic determines the variations in solar insolation that occur over the seasons . . . this is NOT a variation in “the Sun and the solar system”.
The precession of the equinox and the alteration in the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun IS/ARE part of the solar system/sun relationship.
The variation in the insolation by clouds likewise. Cosmic ray variation due to solar magnetic field variation likewise.
Use of the term “thermostat” serves to attribute the nature of the phenomenon called “Greenhouse” within deliberation of what are the mechanisms which actually confine the global conditions within an envelope that when reached turns the direction back.
You have not demonstrated the slightest understanding of the multiplicity of processes involved in the ever changing condition at the surfaces of the land and the sea.
Your myopia that insolation of the surface is the totality of the energy input is nonsense as all the atmospheric particles and ions and gasses and vapours in their various forms and nature get hit by the solar radiation falling on them no matter how far from the surface they be. Once absorbed as a beam, they ALL radiate as spherical surfaces in all directions.
In my immediately prior post, I referred to the angle of Earth’s spin axis relative to the plane of the ecliptic (aka the “obliquity of the ecliptic” in astronomer-talk). THAT is totally different from the precession of the equinoxs!
Obliquity is measured in units of angular degrees. Precession of the equinoxs is measured in units of degrees change per unit of time (i.e., each equinox is shifting westward in the sky at about 1 degree every 72 years).
Separately, the variation of insolation by clouds affects only incoming solar radiation received at Earth’s surface . . . atmospheric clouds do NOT affect incoming radiation from the Sun at TOA, hence they play no part in the “the solar system/sun relationship”.
David,
Some history about global warming. Quote follows:
The final scientific draft of the IPCC’s 1995 Third Assessment Report, submitted by hundreds of participating scientists, had concluded five times that no manmade warming influence is yet discernible:
The IPCC did not want any of these things said. It asked a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to rewrite the already-concluded final draft to remove all five statements shown above, and to replace them with:
“The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.”
However, the “body of evidence” in the temperature record showed no such thing.
Skewing Data to Favor Global Warming – Part II by Lord Christopher Monckton
Geoff S
Thank you, Geoff. All that time, the concepts which Simpson and Brunt had explained, and others had developed – particularly Edward Lorenz – were being directly incorporated into the numerical models of the general circulation for weather prediction and for reanalysis. It astounds me that such manipulation and misdirection was exerted to overrule what the disciplines of meteorology and atmospheric science understood about the needle-in-the-haystack problem of detection and attribution.
By the way, in the early 2000’s, the ERA-40 reanalysis computed the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter that I find so compelling to keep posting about.
All the best to you.
Yes, alarmist climate science is actually political science/lying.
The alarmists rewrote the science to suit their political agenda.
There is still no discernible CO2 effect on the Earth’s atmosphere or weather. This hasn’t changed in 50 years.
I’m going to be difficult today, David, so bear with me.
Back in my essay of a couple days ago, I pointed to the fact that the spectrometer showed absorption of LWIR from CO2 in a 2.6 atm-cm path. As I asked where does the energy involved go? It goes into raising the energy states of molecules, but this in turn leads to transferring some or a lot of that energy into kinetic energy of the nitrogen that also fills the sample container. This raises the temperature of the system which you could prove with a thermometer — which in fact has been done. Thus LWIR raises the temperature of an atmosphere containing only CO2 and N2.
Let’s go to the atmosphere. Up at 10km above ground looking down the atmosphere contains around 400 atm-cm of CO2. That is a lot of CO2. It absorbs the pertinent wavelengths of black-body radiation from the ground surface, and maintains a local thermodynamic equilibrium where there is some LWIR lost to help maintain temperature of the atmosphere, some is re-radiated. Thus just like the spectrometer CO2 absorbs radiant energy from the Earth or from the surroundings which helps to maintain a “temperature”, and also emits radiant energy. Otherwise there is no reasonable explanation for observing a portion of the IR spectrum at height that looks like a segment of the Planck function at the local temperature. So, that CO2 absorbs energy and stores some as sensible heat I claim represents not only what was observed in the laboratory, but is measured as going on also in the atmosphere. Denuy that the impact of CO2 can be measured and you will have trouble with the First LAw of Thermodynamics throughout.
With all due regard to calculations of uncertainty, which I firmly know how to do, it applies most surely to the construction and calibration of instruments and to the application of a “measurement equation” that connects what is measured to what one hopes to obtain from the measurements — the GUM will verify what I am saying.
When it comes to the solution of differential equations, there may be some uncertainty of the parameters that constrain the equation; there is possibly round-off uncertainty from finite length arithmetic, and even trucation error from the approximation of the PDE; but, a lot of mathematics involves exact constants that have no uncertainty. I am not joining the chorus of uncertainty accumulating until we have no idea what the projected temperature is in a year — not until I have thought about this a lot more carefully.
Thank you for this reply, Kevin. Don’t worry about being “difficult.”
“So, that CO2 absorbs energy and stores some as sensible heat I claim represents not only what was observed in the laboratory, but is measured as going on also in the atmosphere.”
This has not been in dispute in the entire time I have been posting here at WUWT. But the warming tendency (from incremental CO2) realized instantaneously as sensible heat does not persist uniquely as internal energy. That is why the concept of energy conversion is so important to the question of the resulting influence on the climate system. One also must remember that absorbed solar energy arrives in daily pulses at each location, to which the atmosphere responds.
“I am not joining the chorus of uncertainty accumulating until we have no idea what the projected temperature is in a year — not until I have thought about this a lot more carefully.”
The issue is not about whether “we have no idea.” With no models at all, we have a pretty good idea that next year will be a lot like this year. The model itself produces a deterministic projection – a single value. The issue is what happens to the uncertainty interval (i.e. the interval of ignorance within which the exact value cannot be determined) when each computational time step produces an updated representation of the complete mass and energy state of the atmosphere, coupled with the land and oceans. That step introduces its own uncertainty to combine with the uncertainty received in the result from the previous step. In my comment to the DOE on the Critical Review report, I generated a simplified exercise to demonstrate this point, isolating the source of uncertainty to only that of an external input – the central value of TSI – which MUST operate at each step to compute the evolution of the energy state. The true value of TSI, within the uncertainty interval, is not known at any time step, nor is it known what it should have been in any previous time step.
So I encourage you to do as you have indicated, to think this through “a lot more carefully.” If you have not yet done so, please read the full exercise in that comment to DOE I linked to above.
All the best to you. Please keep up the good work out West against the destructive proliferation of intermittent power sources.
David,
It would be great if you could respond yes or no to each step of my interpretation of what you are saying in your first paragraph. So, let me give this a try.
I think this is in dispute constantly here. Is the stance taken by so many people here that so-called thermalization results in CO2 doing nothing more than absorbing LWIR and handing the energy so absorbed to the KE of the diatomic gasses? That CO2 never emits significant LWIR itself because the hand-off is so fast?
You are saying that adding an increment of CO2 produces only a transient warming, and it is quickly converted into something other than internal energy?
Are you speaking of conversation to other microscopic forms? Or macro mechanical forms?
I don’t understand the pertinence of this obvious point. Are you concerned that people tend to neglect that daily cycling essentially resets the weather each day?
Good morning, Kevin! Thank you for your reply. I will address each point with more than a yes/no.
“I think this is in dispute constantly here. Is the stance taken by so many people here that so-called thermalization results in CO2 doing nothing more than absorbing LWIR and handing the energy so absorbed to the KE of the diatomic gasses? That CO2 never emits significant LWIR itself because the hand-off is so fast?”
It doesn’t matter either way, for my point about energy conversion to hold. In other words, the IR absorbing power of incremental CO2 is what matters to the acknowledged “warming” tendency, even if it is water and other IR-active molecules, aerosols, clouds, etc. that are the main emitters in the IR coupling of the surface to the near atmosphere and in the final longwave emission to space. Also, when I say, “not in dispute” I am referring to my own sense, not speaking for anyone else on the platform here.
“You are saying that adding an increment of CO2 produces only a transient warming, and it is quickly converted into something other than internal energy?”
And “Are you speaking of conversation [sic] to other microscopic forms? Or macro mechanical forms?”
The two-way energy conversion between [internal energy + potential energy] and [kinetic energy] is as defined within the ERA5 model. The kinetic energy is computed from the bulk (macro) wind velocity. The potential energy is the work required to raise a unit mass to altitude. Internal energy includes molecular-scale motion and energy states. The transient nature of it all is readily apparent in the time-lapse video, which is in the Google Drive folder at the third link above in my post. The full explanation is in the Readme document in that folder, including links to the ERA5 definitions.
”
I don’t understand the pertinence of this obvious point. Are you concerned that people tend to neglect that daily cycling essentially resets the weather each day?”
The reason I mentioned this is to emphasize that a static or averaged-value framing of the question of sensitivity to incremental CO2 is incorrect.
I hope this helps.
Be well.
Thanks for the reply, David.
Please keep us informed as to what your thoughts are. Let me make a couple of points to think about.
Resolution. Resolution of a measuring instrument is a floor for uncertainty. Let’s talk about digital devices since they are easier to describe.
If I measure the same thing with a device that has two decimal digits, that value is all I KNOW. The third decimal digit could be anywhere from 0.000 to 0.009, or even 0.0000 to0.0099. There is no way to ascertain what the following digits are with any accuracy. And, remember that is a floor for uncertainty, not a maximum. Other influence quantities come into play that add to the resolution uncertainty.
The GUM is very specific about using a random variable with multiple observations of the same measurand in order to use a Type A statistical analysis of the subsequent probability distribution.
Read GUM F.1.1.2 carefully for its meaning. You need to be clear about what a property of a material is. Is a monthly average a property or a single instance of a measurand? Does a single sample of the property have multiple observations? GUM H.6 what must be done when you only one observation of a sample of a property at a time. One must take multiple one-time samples, in this case hardness of a material. It also covers the different influence quantities with each observation. Sound like a monthly average of a temperature at a station?
Last month I wrote a piece on the mistaken concept of “harm” in the ESA regs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/25/an-impossibly-vague-concept-of-harm-plagues-the-endangered-species-act/
They have now rescinded that bad concept:
https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2026-07/department-interior-restores-clear-esa-enforcement-rescinding-misguided-harm
Progress!
Rescinded 15 days after your June 25, 2026 comment. You are truly a remarkable actor! What’s next?
The proposal was in April so the most I might have done is nudge it. But I have more coming on ESA and we need legislation on this one.
In the US, we also need progress on water law. Following an important Supreme Court finding a couple of years ago, EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers can no longer declare every puddle after a rain storm to be jurisdictional waters of the US. Nevertheless., the deep state immediately set about trying to work around or undermine the Supreme Court decision. How we define jurisdictional waters has a huge impact on the cost and viability of development and land use change.
To paraphrase George Orwell:
“The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Environmentalists, the clean energy transition does not mean a willing movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which “we”, the clever ones, are going to impose upon “them”, the Lower Orders.’
And then, the indoctrinated and gullible get sucked in by the promises of easy money….
Britain’s biggest community solar project has been forced to shut for the duration of its first summer by the government’s energy system operator to avoid overloading the local grid with renewable energy.
…
The timing of the shutdown at the beginning of its first summer “could not be worse”, according to the board, and would “substantially impact” the scheme’s finances, including payments to members.
…
The project does not expect to receive compensation or insurance to cover the lost summer revenue from the solar park, which was funded by £20m raised from members of the cooperative and a £22m long-term bank loan.
Members originally joined the scheme through Ripple Energy, which offered households the chance to invest in Britain’s first “shared” solar park to earn average savings on their energy bills of at least £200 a year. – Guardian
Sorry guys, the offer is off the table. Maybe next year?
The British public should begin taking “small but important steps” to secure and protect water, power supplies and basic phone signal in case of further severe weather emergencies, national crises or cyber-attacks, Downing Street has said.
Do we storm the offices of water and energy companies to ‘secure’ our supplies?
Do we put a guard on phone masts?
I’ll give the last word to George…
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
‘Britain’s biggest community solar project has been forced to shut for the duration of its first summer by the government’s energy system operator to avoid overloading the local grid with renewable energy.’
Waiting for the usual suspects to opine that the above is exactly why we need much more solar — 10,9,8…
The owners of this solar electricity source must come up with some device that needs only to run ~8 hours per day to be profitable and then devote the farm’s output to that device. Just what could it be? That’s the problem with it and all other solar farms.
“Effective Home Ltd, which operated as one of the UK’s larger installers of domestic solar panels and energy-saving measures, officially called in administrators on June 26.”
https://offer.effectivehome.co.uk/
Good news … but not for the creditors !!
There was so much discussion on Hunga Tonga over the last few years anytime the word volcanics was mentioned, that I decided to update my strato-aerosol database, and that is anything natural that can alter the radiative properties of the stratosphere. Which are the names and down triangles on graph 1 which is optical transparency at Mauna Loa. This sensor sits in the middle of the Pacific and can detect aerosols. The air was becoming clearer up until 2018 (Reduction of SO2 emissions), and it was warming, and since then a continuous barrage of not huge but significant sulfur laden stratospheric breaches. One of the Lewotobi eruptions last year made it to 72,000 feet. Graph 2 and 3 are Northern Hemisphere, Noaa Sea Surface and UAH Lower Troposphere, it seems the Earth is not ready to warm. Note: Correlating some eruptions to Mauna Loa can be tricky, an event at the right time in the southern hemisphere, can take almost a year for Mauna Loa to see it. Every event was verified by instrumentation, there were many more eruptions, these are just the ones that would have caused a > -0.5 wsm forcing. El-Ninos light red vert bands, La-Nina light purple. Hayli Gubbi (After 12,000 years of dormancy) late last year was the last SO2 event.
What amount of SO2 does it take to switch the atmosphere from cooling to warming, or warming to cooling?
I am still wrestling with that, but here is my current Alamo position: AI’s summary of course…
The 2018 Ambae eruption (Vanuatu) was the year’s largest stratospheric aerosol event. In July, the volcano explosively injected approximately 400,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) up to 10.5 miles (17 km) high, which converted into reflective sulfate aerosols. This temporarily increased the global Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth (SAOD) by up to 0.011. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Details & Climate Impacts
As far as SO2 causing a warm forcing, it does not become a warming forcing at the surface. It is either reflecting incoming Visible and or SW IR, but has no effect on outgoing IR.
The reason I asked is because at one time some of us were discussing the very hot 1930’s, and I asked how CO2 could be the control knob of Earth’s temperatures, when CO2 was increasing in the 1940’s, yet temperatures cooled all during the 1940’s, and a SO2-control knob theorist chimed in and said the cooling of the 1940’s was due to increased SO2 in the air, and then I asked about what caused the subsequent warming in the 1950’s and the SO2 promoter said it was because of less SO2 in the air.
So, going by his claims, there must be an inflection point where SO2 stops cooling and starts warming. What is that number. The SO2 advocate could not give me a number. It must be a quantity that occurred during the 1940’s. Right? What’s that number?
One thing to consider is that, at no time that humanity pointed an instrument at the sky attempting to resolve anything to do with climate, there has always been an anthropogenic cloud of SO2 overhead, we do not know what a pristine baseline measurement of the atmosphere with no SO2, would look like, You can see that in the late 20’s to mid 30’s SO2 emissions declined (the great depression) and caused a slight warming bump. A sudden increase in SO2 emissions possibly caused the pause in the early 2000’s The SO2 radiative model is essentially SO2 emissions flipped and converted to an empirical model of Deg C. forcing. The warming bubble around WWII and droughts that followed can only be explained by one thing, massive high altitude water vapor emissions over the English Channel (B17 & B24 raids). A taste of what humanity would see starting in the late 70’s when civil aviation would lead up to as of last year 120 billion gallons per year of high-altitude water vapor emissions. Currently SO2 emissions (from land sources) are increasing again.
You are comparing SO2 amounts with a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart. The Hockey Stick temperature profile does not exist in the real world, so any conclusions made using it will be just as bogus as the Hockey Stick chart itself.
It was just as hot in the 1930’s as it is today. The Hockey Stick chart creators downplay past temperatures for political purposes. It’s a Big Lie! It is the Big Lie of alarmist climate science. Alarmist climate science would not exist but for the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
You should use something else to verify your SO2 claims. See how SO2 matches up with the temperature movements of the U.S. regional chart.
NOOA Sea Surface temperatures are not a bastardized Hockey Stick, the little Ice Age was a real event, the Earth has warmed considerably. The various grid of land temperature records, agrees with each other, what temperature dataset do you trust to look at historical warming trends? I don’t do Hockey sticks, if you want the truth I can provide it. Nothing you have said has anything to do with the truth.
Tom, the other thing to consider if you want to be at the top of your game on this subject (radiative properties of SO2), is that SO2 by itself does not cause the forcing, it must be lifted to the cloud tops, there in the intense UV and water vapor it converts to sulfuric acid aerosols and that is where the high reflectivity magic occurs, atmospheric chemistry and sunlight, and only in the sunlight. A 1% reduction of incoming under an SO2 / Su cloud will certainly cause local perturbations of continent size regions for several months, a daunting task for a climate model.
Interview with Andrew Montford on Gorilla TV:
https://rumble.com/v7crm4a-the-martin-durkin-podcast-2-andrew-montford.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_upp_v
We are witnessing a couple of examples of blaming the victim on climate change.
1 Blaming Europeans for their lack of air conditioning, when the USA is the nation that has put the greatest amount of carbon dioxide into the sky.
2 Blaming Canada for not controlling their wildfires, when we don’t control our own wildfires here, and when, again, the USA has put more CO2 into the sky than any other nation.
We have mirrors. Try using one every so often.
Air conditioning is, shall we say, frowned upon in the UK
Britons ordered to remove air conditioning from homes in 40C heat under Net Zero crackdown
The Carbon footprint is apparently far too great for mother Earth to bear. But just to firm that position up, they have the ready support of the health fascists…
Dr Opel Baker, a GP at Mayfield Clinic in Brighton & Hove, and Dr Lucy Hooper, a London-based GP and co-founder of Coyne Medical, have shared their insights on these lesser-known side effects.
…
moisture depletion can manifest in several uncomfortable ways, including dryness, a sensation of tightness, and visible flaking.
“This can lead to dry skin, tightness, flaking and might even lead to increased sensitivity, eczema or chapped lips,” said Dr Baker.
“Those who already struggle with sensitive or dry skin conditions may find their symptoms considerably worsened by prolonged AC exposure.
…
“Similarly, air con can dry your eyes out and might lead to burning or stinging.
I’ve never heard such a load of garbage. Air con is rather rare over here.
We have never needed air conditioning in the past due to our older housing stock, including Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian up to mid 20th century, which act more like caves. Air conditioning is found in more modern hotels, supermarkets and some offices and maybe retrofitted in some older properties with the same functions.
Our NHS hospitals are unlikely to have air conditioning except in very specific areas like radiology and MRI scanner rooms. There may be some inertia against installing it across the board because of the perceived potential for infection as well as the cost to retrofit it to older buildings.
Private dwellings are very unlikely to have air con fitted as standard, in fact modern builds, including extensions to older properties are insulated against the cold in all three dimensions.
Does the U.K. need air conditioning as standard? That’s the $64000 question. I think that decision has to be up to the home owner.
Yes, that is indeed nonsense. As is denial of the effects of increasing atm co2 on global temperatures.
“the effects of increasing atm co2 on global temperatures.”
Which is essentially ZERO….. immeasurable and insignificant.
I would explain it to you, but that would require the use of calculus used in your “oracle” computer models and it is obvious that middle school algebra was very stressful to you.
You are assuming things not in evidence when it comes to CO2.
Alarmists do this a lot.
I blame climate change for the new mile record.
British runner Josh Kerr broke the men’s mile world record at the London Diamond League on July 18, 2026, clocking an astonishing 3:42.66.
Yes, they need to start ‘normalizing’ records for temperature. /s
I remember when they were still trying to break the four-minute mile.
Kerr’s time is hard to imagine. Good for him.
What’s CO2 got to do with bushfires being started by lightning and/or careless people?
increasing atm co2 elevates global temperatures and extends wildfire seasons. In the American West, increasing droughts enhance conditions for more extensive wildfires.
Mate, bushlands & grasslands are always drier in summer & autumns.
It’s the lightning events & escaping lit fires that set bushland fires going.
And then it’s the prevailing wind speeds & directions that make bushfires lethal for life & property.
If you’ve ever had to deal head-on with an approaching bushfire, you’d know that whether the air temp was 35C degrees or 40C degrees, you wouldn’t really notice the difference.
The smoke would be your main nemesis.
You can’t see shit in any direction.
Mate, the effects of a rapidly warming climate include increasing regional droughts,(eg, in the American West) which exacerbate fire conditions and cause wildfires to be more easily triggered and last longer.
The US West has always had drought, sometimes really bad, sometimes just only bad. Earlier Paleo-Indians had local cultures wiped out, and others moved or adapted. Cali has always burned-soil profiles prove that. Prairie fires have always been a scourge for both natives and settlers. Ever hear of relic trees-some stands on broken land date to the retreat of the Ice but couldn’t get burnt because there was no grass to burn around them, and some were of a species that survived and were used as local landmarks for some centuries. And there’s so much more. Climate change? No, just climate. In short, go read some geography and get your head out… Jeez, some people’s kids..
Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it.
So, tell me about it, O Blissful One. I haven’t begun to talk about US droughts or wildfires-and you probably shouldn’t.
You haven’t begun to think.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still! My grandma!
A man who doesn’t learn contributes nothing to his fellow man
[I know you are but what am I responses also pollute discourse -ctm]
Petty. !! that is what you have become.
You must be very blissful!
You obviously lead a very blissful existence, but strangely enough, I don’t envy you.
One essential indication of insanity is the rejection of reality – you obviously revel in blissful ignorance.
Hello, the globe is greening. Someone put it like this, there is now more leaf area on the planet equivalent to two extra Amazon rain forests.
Irrelevant to the topic
Completely myopic, stinking, made up, alarmist dribbling.
There is ZERO scientific evidence of increased drought due to added CO2 in the atmosphere.
scientists have extensively documented that human-caused climate change is actively increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of regional droughts across the globe.
Rather than just relying on a lack of rainfall, climate change drives regional droughts through two primary, proven mechanisms:
I live in the U.S. Midwest called the Great Plains. Prairie fires have been occurring for thousands of years. Long before CO2 increases in concentration increased. Build up of thatch over years of growth stimulated by increased CO2 creates a higher fuel load and more susceptibility to fire. Drought only encourages more dry conditions.
You seem to be entirely ignorant of agriculture and nature. Maybe you should research some of the issues you comment on prior to just assuming increased anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of all problems.
Warren:
Droughts do make it easier for fires but wildfires in the US are not more extensive than in the past. However, the fires are different related to excessive fuel load & tree crowding due to mismanagement by humans.
Here is a quote from the linked Nature paper of Feb 2025:
“”…[the] goal was to determine whether contemporary (1984–2022) forest and woodland fire regimes represented by NAFSN are still departed from the historical (1600–1880) levels of burning given increased fire activity in recent decades.” Answer: “only 23% of what would be expected under the historical fire regime.”
“The fire deficit from 1984–2022 only adds to the fire deficit that accrued during the late 19th and 20th centuries, which has resulted in well-documented fuel accumulation and increases in canopy density across many forest types in North America1,… … our results suggest that the area burned by wildfires during the last few decades remains relatively low considering the historical prevalence…” and “[due] to aggressive fire suppression, disruption of traditional burning, and forest loss and fragmentation from land development and other land uses (e.g., conversion of forests and woodlands to agriculture)”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56333-8?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
[I would have included a graphic of CONUS wildfires 1926-2017 but have not figured-out how to add attachments since the system has changed. There is no “attachment button” in this comment window as there used to be. Anyone have a suggestion? Thx!]
Do a search using your favorite engine for “free image storage and sharing sites. There are a number of them available. I use “imgbb”. You should be able to obtain a url for each image and then you can post the url here and wordpress will add the image to your post.
‘…when we don’t control our own wildfires…’
Actually, the problem here is that we DO control our wildfires — to the extent that overly high fuel loads inevitably result in disastrous fires.
First off, the topic of CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with both of your points.
The fact remains that it was a lack of air conditioning during the recent, slightly warmer than average, heat wave that caused many of the deaths.
The fact environmental nut jobs in both the US and Canada have for decades, prevented proper management of forests in both countries is the cause of the big fires in both countries. The only role CO2 may have played is to help the plants that are burning grow faster, so that there is more fuel.
Just Beet on .
That horse doesn’t care …
The saying, which you so masterly invoke, is a reminder of the English way of staffing and paying sailors. Rhythmical work chanties and the ritual straw horse { See “The Dead Horse” chanty} are mostly forgotten except for someone ocassionally mentioning the Horse Latitudes.
And the proof you offer that putting CO2 “into the sky” has any impact on global warming (to the extent of needing air conditioning) is ????
Some people say it is so. That is good enough for Beeton.
I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it. But I do expect everyone to either accept the findings of peer reviewed research, or if they disagree, to submit their contrary analysis to a respected scientific journal for publication.
Unfortunately, too many on WUWT think they can get away with nonsense, and never submit their comments to real scientists for review.,
Peer reviewed research is worthless, as climate science has proven.
No matter how bad the methods, no matter how made up the data, as long as it supports the “consensus” it will be published.
Likewise nothing that refutes the consensus will ever see the light of day in the so called journals.
There is no science in climate science, nor are there any scientists.
“Peer reviewed research is worthless” spoken like a true science denier.
“Peer reviewed research is worthless” spoken like a true science denier.
Keep on believing, dude Lol.
Your claim of anonymous peer reviewed research is what is worthless.
And we’re supposed to learn science from YOU instead of real experts? Did they laugh you out of University?
Warming from human CO2 remains an hypothesis – and always will.
Only according to science deniers
If someone can be criticized easily, by non-experts, for misstatements of facts or illogical statements, then they aren’t very competent “experts.”
Criticism without merit is cheap — and found everywhere on wuwt.
Of course, you are OBLIVIOUS to the fact that by inclusion of the phrase “everywhere on wuwt” in your statement, you just “shot yourself in the face”.
ROTFL.
You have yet to produce anything remotely scientific to back up your baseless conjectures.
“Climate scientist” peer review other climate scientists?
Their version of peer review is to agree with the “consensus” while the real meaning of peer review was to doubt the report and do the experiments again and see if they get the same results. I have been science literate at post-grad level for more than 75 years.
iOW, you have no university education in science, yet think you are as smart as any PhD. The word for that is Dunning Kruger.
Man you’re dumb.
That is two words! You appear to be innumerate. There is a lot of wisdom in the old saying that getting a PhD is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, or hoop jumping.
A hoop you never jumped.
I have university education in science and you are talking out of your rear orifice.
University graduate in Science and Medicine in 1968
Founding Registrar in Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology 1970, grasshopper.
Chalmers:
“The lag time for the release of carbon dioxide from the huge volume of sea water in which it is dissolved is in centuries.
The current level, and the continuation of the rise is totally explained by the slow warming of the oceans as the world emerges from the latest ice age. It has nothing to do with the paltry amounts released by the use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”
NASA Earth Sciences:
The increased atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is primarily driven by human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). Land-use changes, such as deforestation and agricultural expansion, are the second largest contributors. These combined actions have increased atm CO2 by roughly 50%.
Carbon isotope analyses confirm these findings, showing that the isotopic fingerprint of the excess carbon matches fossilized organic matter rather than naturally cycling carbon. For detailed breakdowns of global and historical emission trends, you can explore the NASA Climate Change Causes portal or review the data on Our World in Data.
So you believe everything the government tells you, right? No wonder you are a dedicated socialist wanting to tell others how they should live and what they should do.
Deforestation by itself does not release carbon dioxide. Much cutting of timber is turned into lumber for construction. No release of carbon.
Agriculture? I can tell immediately the people who wrote this are far removed from agriculture as are you. If I plow under sod, I am destroying a system with large roots and little greenery. When I plant soybeans, corn, wheat, or other crop I am replacing that low greenery plant with flora that contains multiple more value of carbon in its greenery. When I disk that crop residue back into the soil, carbon isn’t released into the air, it is converted by microbes into richer soil.
Your ignorance is showing!
Soils sequester carbon. Plowing releases that carbon. Your ignorance of farming is showing.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Where did you get your information, from a GHG spreadsheet? CO2 in the soil comes from microbes breaking down plant material. It is a byproduct of respiration. Some of the CO2 is converted into other organic compounds that sequester the “carbon” and can be useful for the next round of growing. You have no idea what good, black topsoil is made of do you? Do you think the potting soil you use for your plants was created in the back of the garden store by someone pushing a button on a Startrek replicator?
Have you ever mucked out stalls and pens to get cow, horse and chicken dung then loaded it into a spreader to put on a field? Do you think that gets down in the soil by osmosis? It takes plowing or disking to break up the soil and put that fertilizer deeper in the soil .
Good grief, if you know as much about CO2 and climate as you know about farming, you have no business telling others what you think you know.
Your ignorance of farming is even more profound than I thought, Gorman. Soils sequester carbon, and plowing causes it to be released to the atmosphere:
“plowing and tilling release carbon from the soil. When soil is disturbed, organic matter that was previously locked away is exposed to oxygen. This speeds up microbial breakdown, releasing carbon stored in the soil into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide To minimize this loss, many farmers adopt conservation tillage (such as reduced tillage or no-till). This practice reduces soil disturbance, helping to keep carbon securely locked underground.”
Until you learn more about farming, I’d stick to cleaning out hog and chicken pens, if I were you.
Afraid to show the website or book from which you took that? As I said, you probably got that from a greenie publication about CO2.
You’re kidding, right? All farmers know that.you should too– unless you’ve spent all your time cleaning out chicken coops.
Still afraid to show the website or book from which you took that?
CO2 and CH4 are the only gases that would be released. CH4 is a poison. CO2 can’t be absorbed by the roots and used in photosynthesis. Other Carbon compounds are not “released” into the air. Most are nutrients. The only reason one would be critical of “CO2 release” is some warmist concerned about CAGW.
There is one reason to plow or disk soil, to loosen it in preparation for planting. Have you ever tried to plant a grain crop in untilled soil? Good luck in getting it to germinate. Mostly disk harrows used these days with planter technology helping in planting.
Tell us where you grew up. I’ll bet it was in a city and that you’ve never scooped poop for spending money. How many hours have you spent on a tractor seat or hay wagon?
Right now I have 9 acres with 6 cow/calf pairs, 3 hogs, and 25 chickens. It’s a hobby farm as it never really left my system. I do speak from experience which you obviously don’t.
No-till farming improves soil health, prevents erosion, and boosts water retention. By leaving crop residue on the surface and avoiding plowing, it protects beneficial microbes, locks carbon in the ground, and significantly lowers diesel and labor costs.
The primary benefits of this agricultural method include:
check out the USDA Guide to No-Till farming if you want to learn more.
“No-till” is a somewhat misleading nomenclature. Planting under no-till *still* requires opening a channel in the soil in which the seed is planted. Without that channel that disturbs the mulch, thatch, and crust in the topsoil some of the seed won’t be able to reach the surface after germination. That channel also allows water to reach the seed before and after germination instead of running off because of covering mulch and thatch.
What the no-till method provides is elimination of wide-spread soil disturbance over the entire planting area.
The remaining residue after harvest *still* decays releasing the exact same amount and type of components for both. The only difference is that no-till releases components like CO2 over a longer period of time, i.e. at a lower rate but a longer period, while tillage releases the CO2 in pulses over shorter intervals, i.e. a higher rate over a shorter period. The residue *still* decays on a seasonal basis, otherwise no-till would result in such a build-up of mulch and residue that it would interfere with the ability of moisture to penetrate into the soil.
If the removal rate of CO2 is longer than a year then the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will be just about the same for both methods.
Another example of Gorman’s errors in go it alone science without the benefit of real expertise in the subject:
According to data hosted by Purdue University, no-till systems do more than just lower direct gas releases; they also store (sequester) 0 to 0.4 metric tons of carbon per acre every single year. On a macro scale, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that adopting no-till practices across the U.S. has safely kept 241 million metric tons of CO₂ locked in the earth since the 1970s—the equivalent of removing 50 million vehicles from the road for a year.
Here are some references:
Six et al. (2004)Soil Science Society of America Journal Shows that no‑till slows decomposition but total CO₂ released from residue is similar, with no‑till storing more carbon in aggregates.
Ogle et al. (2012) — Meta‑analysis of tillage systems Finds no significant long‑term difference in total CO₂ emissions, though no‑till improves soil carbon retention.
USDA‑ARS Morris, MN Shows that no‑till reduces peak CO₂ flux but does not significantly reduce total annual CO₂ emissions.
I can get you more if you want. You are GASLIGHTING everyone by trying to equate carbon storage in the soil with CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Wikipedia article is wrong, just like you. Our farm has used no till for years, and chemical usage has been reduced, as have operational expenses.
Again, you are GASLIGHTING everyone. CO2 emissions are *NOT* reduced by no-till practices. This whole sub-thread was started by you claiming that no-till practices reduce the emission of CO2.
IT DOESN’T.
While I am loathe to use Wikipedia as a source of information, in this case it has a pretty good summary of no-till farming and its problems.
No-till farming – Wikipedia
Please note the bold test done by me. Chemical and cover cropping are expensive requirements and in today’s environment income margins are not increased when doing this. The cost of diesel fuel for doing shallow tillingonce is much less than the fuel for adding chemicals and planting cover crops.
Please note the term “disk harrow” that I used and that appears here. And no, I didn’t read this before I used that term. That is what farmers here on the Great Plains use to prepare the ground for row crops. There is little “plowing” and turning over the ground by 14 or 16 inch moldboards anymore.
Your use of things you find on the internet rather than personal experience only shows your lack of knowledge of what actually occurs. I can look out my window and see what farmers are doing. I talk to farmer friends and I know the economics control what is actually done.
The USDA is fine, but it is a government agency staffed with academically trained people who have no accountability for making a profit on an actual farm. Their recommendations assume farmers can run out and turn over the current equipment for new technology every year. It totally ignores depreciation schedules and how long it takes to payoff loans. Their recommendations for cover crops are fine for farmers who only plant one crop per year. Here in the Great Plains wheat is planted in the fall, harvested in May/June and immediately planted to corn or soybeans that are harvested in September/October and immediately planted back to wheat. No cover crop needed. Maximum income from land that sells for 10 -20000 dollars per acre.
So you grew up on a “hobby farm”, never had to make a profit, but just claimed the tax deductions. Your 9 acres is about 0.6% or 0.006 the size of my farm, and we make a profit every year. Sheep, chickens, apples, cherries, and a few peaches.
And we know the value of no-till farming. Sounds like you’re still in the Dark Ages.
Sounds to me like you have no idea of how no-till actually works. Just following the recommendations of the local Extension agent, eh?
So you grew up on a “hobby farm”
Did I say that? You just illustrated your reading comprehension. Do you know why I always try to show quotes from a post? So there can be no misunderstanding about what I am replying to. Here is what I said.
See that bolded “Right now”. Somehow your cognitive function translated that to mean I grew up on a hobby farm. You could not be more wrong.
I suspect that your cognitive function has been limited in its scope to preconceived ideas that you have been indoctrinated with. You would do well to recognize that limitation and do some actual learning and research into the subject you believe you know about.
FYI, I am 75 yo and spent the first 22 years working on farms and earning my Electrical Engineering degree. My spare time was spent assisting my father (an Internation Harvester dealer) work on farm equipment, trucks, and semi’s. After retiring I decided to dip my feet into raising animals again by creating a small hobby farm. Most of my life has been on acreage outside of a city. I am not a city boy.
All the more surprising that you are so misinformed about no till and climate change.
Again, no-till has NO impact on climate change if it is CO2 emissions that are being considered.
Stop gaslighting everyone.
If No till helps the soul RETAIN carbon, then by definition, long term emissions are decreased.
Cherries, apples, and peaches. That is row crop farming at its finest isn’t it? So, you live on a 1500-acre farm. That’s great. How much of that do you seed in row crops? How do you harvest those row crops? Do you grow brome and alfalfa for hay for your sheep? Do you cut it and bale it? Do you keep your pregnant sheep in a barn? Do you muck it out? How about your chickens? Do you clean their coops out?
Tax deductions? Again, you show how little you know. Hobby farms don’t get tax deductions, nor do they get to use red diesel fuel. If you don’t make a profit in 3 out of 5 years, the IRS rules make you a hobby farm. The “profit” I make goes into regular personal income. Expenses are for a hobby and not deductible.
We have 1000 acres of row crops. And we use the advisory services of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture. They actually practice Science instead of denying it like you.
That’s great. I am glad you have the time to do no-till and the finances to purchase cover crop seed and fertilizer along with weed killer to keep them from overtaking the field. Do you double crop or just leave it fallow over the remaining part of the year? What crop(s) do you grow?
Our operating expenses have fallen since we began no till.
Just FYI, in Kansas where I live, there are about 11,000000 acres of corn and soybeans planted. That is a farm that would be 150 miles by 100 miles.
There are about 55,000 farms in Kansas, Gorman.
, with an average size just over 800 acres
And that proves what exactly?
Well let’s see. 55,000 × 800 acres = 44,000,000 acres total. That is probably close. I didn’t include wheat ground in southwest Kansas because they don’t do a lot of double cropping. Also, there are a lot of other row crops such as milo and sunflowers. A lot of pastures for grazing and hay. Again, you just reveal your cognitive problems with not fully researching the issue.
The number I quoted came from Kansas State University. Hopefully they aren’t making the numbers up.
And guess what, Gorman:
In Kansas, no-till farming is practiced on 40% to 50% of the state’s total cropland, translating to over 11.74 million acres. This massive adoption makes Kansas the #1 state in the United States for total no-till acreage.” According to the Kansas Reflector.
When will you upgrade your farming and practice no till?
Beeton doesn’t understand what “climate” peer review is all about.
It is NOT about science. !
You are only a shave and a haircut away from the many people who have told me that they refuse to read WUWT because it isn’t peer reviewed. Actually, it is a good example of what peer review should be — a direct analysis of claims made by researchers, with a short turn-around time, by some of the brightest and best educated people I have encountered on the internet. Whether the commenters here are playing Devil’s Advocate or are convinced that the consensus paradigm is wrong, they serve a useful function in that they ask inconvenient questions and point out errors in the claims made by alarmists.
I’ve never quite seen so many claims by non experts and flat earthers that they have discovered fundamental errors in the work of experts. Dunning Kruger runs rampant here.
Hear, hear!
“The Best and Brightest people I have found on the Internet”. IOW, review by your buddies, not expert reviewers. PAL review.
Ah, the old argumentative fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
As the author of your own assertions, it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim. It is not up to others to do the research and locate the proper resources. That provides people the ability to address your evidence directly.
All government science if rife with incompetence and corruption.
As Ike stated-“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.” Dwight Eisenhower
For sure, there is zero chance of Deniers achieving elite status.
The proof you need is found in high school science books or in College texts in atmospheric science. It might be time for you read up.
Then produce it…
I have read many so-called scientific books on climate, and never once seen reasonably solid scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming at current incremental levels.
Its all based on models that don’t remotely resemble the Earth’s atmosphere, and unproven conjectures.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
David Dibble and several others, have shown that any tiny theoretical warming from CO2 radiative affects is absolutely dwarfed by energy moved by atmospheric air movement, so as to make any CO2 radiative effect totally insignificant.
I don’t produce science — that’s for professional scientists. But I do read science, which sure beats your record.
again a petty attempt at an ad hom. ! And misses completely !
In other words, you are exactly the kind of person you claim comments here, and yet you speak as though you know better than them. Do you not see the problem with your position?
I certainly know more about science than Deniers who reject science.
If you truly read actual science, then you should have the ability to reference it. Do you know how large my bibliography is of university web sites and book references along with published papers? You should do the same if you want to participate scientific conversation.
Your posts indicate your bibliography has mostly ignorant blogs in it, not real science
Well said, and accepted.
On the other hand, I observed that you do produce the antithesis of science.
A denier is always be unable to recognize or understand published science by experts in the field. Instead he dreams that CO2 has little to no effect on climate, even though thousands of scientists have proven him wrong for more than a century.
If you really “knew” 10^-6 of what you try to assert to others, you would know that there is no such thing as “proof” in The Scientific Method.
And your absurd statement elicits the story—true or folklore—that when Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed “One hundred German physicists claim Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong” Einstein’s reply was supposedly, “If I were wrong, it would only take one.”
You are projecting again.
Never proven and your post is a logical fallacy
All current textbooks for school and undergraduate instruction are full of the consensus lies and errors. Whole generations of youth are being deceived, and you are obviously one of them.
I pity you, you might even be smart but you are a typical garbage in, garbage out product of the corrupt academic system.
It’s apparent to us that you’re not the product of any academic system.
Still the petty ad homs.. and nothing remotely scientific. !
And the mods let you keep going. !
it’s apparent to us that you definitely are.
Thank you.
No it isn’t.
Ask Will Happer about atmospheric science. He’ll put you right.
Happer is a fraud
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
—attributed to the wisdom of Socrates
Not slander, fact. Happier gets the science wrong, knows that he is wrong, but propagates his nonsense anyway.
I think that gets you into the region of being considered a troll
Indeed! One that I’m henceforth disengaging with for obvious reasons.
Wuwters apparently don’t like to be told that a) Happer is a fraud and b) Their rejection of the body of science is noted.
No, it is time for you to show that you have taken the time and expense to purchase or download free textbook/lab notes and have studied them to the point you can post their contents in appropriate arguments.
Otherwise you are just repeating statements from catastrophic global warming sites. That is the origin of why your assertions are considered argumentative fallacies. Claiming facts without appropriate resources is NEVER allowed in physical science. That is why quote marks and footnotes are used. You should learn how that practice works.
0.1C temperature change (totally immeasurable) for 10% atmospheric CO2.
1.. There is absolutely zero relationship between air-conditioning and atmospheric CO2.
2.. Your second point also has zero relevance. Canada is currently putting a lot of CO2, and smoke, into the air. This happens regularly in their summer… and always will.
All wood, all twigs, all flowers and all leaves either rot or burn returning the organic material to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
These young people are being taught nothing about the real world.
They learn what you describe in 6th grade science.
Again the petty ad homs.
You might want to visit/research the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, USA (https://www.nps.gov/pefo/index.htm ).
Also, you might want to investigate what science has to say about the origins of coal deposits found around Earth.
Now, you were mentioning something about “the real world” . . .?
He, he! Do you know what petrified actually means?
It means, “turned to stone” Silicates have REPLACED the carbon compounds.
We are in the process of burning that really old wood and slime as we speak. Coal and oil.
You do know that there were fires in coal deposits long before people arrived on the planet, likewise oil seeps and natural gas springs and peat bogs. That IS the real world.
No matter how long it is sequestered, it is turned over. Same with carbonate rocks, they are also cannot resist the mantle heat when it reaches them. Also methane, what is not oxidised in the atmosphere dissolves in the sea water and when that water reaches the depths, it rains out into pools on the ocean floor, gets covered in sediment and eventually makes it way as natural gas deposits on land and seabed.
Asked of Google’s AI bot:
“Is methane oxidized in the atmosphere?”
Immediate reply from Google’s AI bot:
“Yes, methane is oxidized in the atmosphere. Over 90% of atmospheric methane is naturally broken down through chemical reactions. It reacts primarily with hydroxyl radicals (OH), often called the atmosphere’s “detergent,” which converts the methane into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) . . . This oxidation process determines the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is relatively short at about 9 to 12 years.”
(my bold emphasis added for your benefit)
BTW, you apparently don’t know that petrification of organic materials occurs BEFORE those materials have a chance to “rot” and certainly without them having previously burned.
And BTW^2, burning coal and oil is not the same as burning “really old” wood and slime. English Language Comprehension 101.
I’ve never met anyone so ignorant of basic combustion chemistry to claim or imply that the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity and power our cars doesn’t release large quantities of cO2 to our atmosphere (approx 40 billion tons of CO2 each year, worldwide)
So what? Does it allow more people to live on the planet and have more productive and happy lives? Exactly, and I do mean exactly, are the dollar costs of CO2 versus the dollar benefits of longer, happy lives? What are the costs of exact costs of mitigation versus the exact costs of elimination of CO2?
If you can’t answer these with evidentiary derived dollars, then all you are doing is pushing your opinions as fact.
There are several economic studies showing that the most expensive course of action is to do nothing, ie, don’t take action to reduce co2 emissions. Meanwhile, you’re so out of touch that you either think co2 emissions don’t matter, or that fossil fuel burning doesn’t release co2.
Can’t answer my questions, can you? Figured that would be the case.
[“We have mirrors. Try using one every so often.“]
Never again !!
Last time I looked in one, there was a bald, miserable, wrinkled old man in there;
Where’s the beautiful Adonis with peach-like skin & flowing tousled locks that used to look out at me ?? (:-((
Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether the moronic posts like yours are from stupid people, the “woke again” indoctrinated government worshippers or paid propagandist trolls.
This Burnhamfellow, the new leader in the UK, sounds like a real loser.
He thinks government does not have enough control over the private business sector.
Goodby Free Enterprise.
Is it true that Burnham was elected with only 27,000 votes, and then he is appointed the leader of the country?
President Trump got 77 million votes to become the leader in the United States.
Trump will like that Burnham is going to drill in the North Sea, but I doubt they are going to get along on many other things. I hear Burnham wants to surrender the Chagos islands to communist China. Trump definitely won’t like that. The U.S. may have to make them a territory if Burnham runs away from his defense responsibilities.
Burnham contacted 25 Labour MPs asking them to stand down for him. On the 26th attempt the already disgraced MP for Makerfield agreed – for a job in government – to stand down.
Burnham is Starmer in jeans. He’s had no questions asked and no scrutiny whatsoever. Things are going to get a whole lot worse.
It does sound like things are going to get worse. Not good.
Word is Miliband might now be foreign secretary…
There is now a growing belief that energy secretary Ed Miliband is going to be handed the role of foreign secretary in Mr Burnham’s government, with explicit permission to prioritise tackling climate goals through the department. Independent
And of course, they’re going to increase foreign aid…
What is Mad Ed saying about drilling in the North Sea?
Socialists believe that all problems, at their root, are caused by the socialists not having enough control.
Who wouldn’t want to have the smartest people in control? /sarc
Hey Clyde. You might like to watch this….
Thank you. However, I don’t think we can say that the evidence has played out yet.
Fair enough. The trial will certainly be very interesting.
I see the judge for the case has said no more work should take place on the pool till the evidence has been collected and the rial complete. That seems sensible and necessary for a fair trial I would have thought.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2026/07/20/judge-warns-trump-about-ongoing-reflecting-pool-work-during-ex-olympian-trial/
Given an interest in global warming, one might begin by asking what defines temperature? Typical AI response, “Temperature quantifies the hotness or coldness of an object or environment and is directly related to the kinetic energy of its particles—the faster the particles move, the higher the temperature, and vice versa.” True, but temperature is also directly related to the rotational and vibrational energies of its particles and all temperatures are only equal for isothermal systems, e.g. the Boltzmann distribution.
Physical Science considers equilibrium a state of uniform temperature and maximum entropy (Maxwell, Boltzmann). In Meteorology (RCE), it’s a state of uniform entropy (Kelvin). In gravitational fields, the latter, the lesser. Chemists are taught 1/T(x), is an integrating factor rendering entropy an exact differential, dS = (1/T) dQ. Integrating factors are mathematical functions for solving differential equations yielding path-independent solutions. Consider a closed surface with multiple thermal contacts. Measure the energy fluxes in and out. Next arbitrarily vary the contact temperatures, finally returning them to their original values. Should the system return to a steady state, the original fluxes will be restored should 1/T(x) be an integrating factor. Information of its history, however, remains forever unrecoverable as increased entropy. The existence of temperature requires steady-state reproducibility. How might we define temperature for time-dependent systems? Linear dissipation theory assumes arbitrarily small, time-dependent perturbations of an equilibrium distribution. Understanding chemical reaction rates remains more an art form than a mathematical exercise.
For the iconoclastic reader,
Atmospheric Thermodynamics, Bohren & Albrecht (Oxford University Press 1998)
Word Counts:
Integrating Factor 12
Greenhouse 0
Climate Change 0
Radiation 72
Convection 43
QED
An interesting post as always. Let me respond to a couple of things.
Yes! Though, I have little success trying to get this idea across. What is interesting is that many ideas that readers here accept readily, and which they suppose prevents radiation they don’t like, say back toward the surface, is aided by the stationary Boltzmann distribution and the LTE that it implies by the very high rate of energy conversions by collisions in the atmosphere.
Engineers too. Assuming that dQ/T does actually make a state function, we have used measurements to produce tables of entropy. Atmospheric scientists have also, although these folks obscure it by using “potential temperature”. But tables of entropy are very useful for figuring energy exchanges in processes and machinery.
In a strict sense only because no one worried about the actual path the system took, which could be discovered with enough intermediate measurements.
My view is that in many cases just following a parcel of air large enough to be significant yet small enough that we can speak of a uniform state (T, P, V, composition, or S).
Even getting an estimate of the irreversibility is possible. For example, in this image from something I wrote for WUWT a couple of years ago, Paths 1->3 of the S-T diagram are measured along the flow path into a polar low or deduced from atmospheric soundings. Path 3->4->1 occurs high in the polar troposphere or in descent over the polar ice, wasn’t measured, but one can surmise that it represents decreasing entropy because heat is being exported, irreversibly, from air parcels to space — so we have an idea of a minimum of the irrevesibilities involved here. One can also figure the other reversibilities. At least get an idea of minimum values.
For the non-scientists: The concepts and definitions of the basic units which are dealt with in thermodynamics are very hard to properly imagine from familiarity with ordinary life.
Entropy, enthalpy, energy, conduction, convection, radiation, heat and work all have very specific definition within the discipline which vary from the vernacular. The three laws are not logical, they are specific to the discipline and are not easy to explain to the novice or the lay person.
Thermodynamics, a little hard to understand? Yes, perhaps. Conduction, convection are not thermodynamics in the strict sense. They are transport theory — non-equilibrium. Radiation is thermodynamics in a sense, but also transport theory and quantum mechanics and even electromagnetism.
The laws are not logical in the sense that they were developed from pure thinking, logic, but are the codified results of experience, observation, measurements, and experiments over hundreds of years.
Thermodynamics is probably the most widely applicable discipline within physics. Applications to biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, physics itself, astrophysics and cosmology, engineering and even economics to a degree.
Sometimes quibbles really piss me off!
Thermo-dynamics – “heat”-“flow”
Duh!
Did you get that the subject matter of the physics of energy is in no way simple, straightforward nor subject to “common sense”
A number of commentators here totally misuse snippets of knowledge to reach absurd conclusions when trying to explain their guesses about the dynamics and controlling factors in the energy transfers which keep the earth in a kind of steady state within limits which seem to change throughout geological time.
Is “snowball earth” within steady state limits?
Ridiculous babbling. The “Chalmers theory”, found nowhere in the scientific literature, only in Chalmers head.
Sorry, Phillip, but Thermo-dynamics is actually “Heat” and “Work”. It’s origins are in the study of work performed by steam engines.
I’m not sure what you are speaking of, but getting definitions correct are not quibbles, but rather essential to prevent people speaking past one another.
I agree with you entirely on this point. Richard Feynman wrote in his “Lecture on Physics” that (paraphrasing here) “if you start an argument at a certain place and then do not follow it to its logical conclusion you are likely to prove almost anything.” There is a lot of not taking things to a conclusion here that would probably demonstrate a fallacy or an absurdity that would make one pause.
‘What is interesting is that many ideas that readers here accept readily, and which they suppose prevents radiation they don’t like, say back toward the surface, is aided by the stationary Boltzmann distribution and the LTE that it implies by the very high rate of energy conversions by collisions in the atmosphere.’
Kevin, at the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge in what Phillip Chalmers aptly points out are difficult concepts for non-scientists, I’d kindly ask to see some details from Quondam’s comment and/or the “Atmospheric Thermodynamics” text he cites, that supports why some of us should ‘like’ back radiation.
In particular, I’m skeptical that either of these sources supports invoking LTE, which I understand is a necessary condition for radiative energy transfer through the troposphere (*) when, by all accounts, we are dealing with a highly convective (non-isothermal) troposphere.
Also on the subject of atmospheric LTE, there’s this:
https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LocalThermodynamicEquilibrium.html
(*) – I would have said ‘necessary and sufficient’, except I still maintain that conflating the thermal radiative properties of condensed matter with those of atmospheric gases is not supported by actual physics.
I can’t find a link to Quondam’s website right this moment, but if I could he quotes Sommerfeld as saying that the first encounter with thermo results in one not understanding it. The second encounter makes one confident they do. The third encounter convinces them that they don’t, but by then they’ve gotten so use to it that it doesn’t matter.
I’m not going to bother with finding and reading Craig Bohren’s book. Because it may tell the tale from another and equally confusing standpoint.
Yes, thermo is hard to understand. It took me a long time even after four college courses from different standpoints and years of study on my own and teaching the engineering course sixteen times, I think. But thermo is not entirely at the core of this issue — so is transport, quantum physics and statistical physics. I know a lot about what people don’t understand, but not why.
LTE is not a necessary condition for radiative transfer through the troposphere. If one does not have LTE to use as a means of calcuting emitted power within an atmosphere, though, then a person will have to substitute some other basis for calculations. And I mean will have to, because emitted energy from the atmosphere is an established fact from measurements — so it must occur by some means. The Schwarzschild transport equation would still apply, but the intensity function within it would have a form probably not as simple as LTE.
With regard to LTE, people here argue that the rapidity of de-excitation of CO2 at 15um by collisions with diatomic molecules precludes radiation in the 15um band, or maybe just downward radiation toward the surface. So, they like this rapid transfer of energy, but then fail to reason that this is what establishes a Boltzmann-like distribution of energy, from which I calculated that 0.036 of CO2 molecules will be found in the higher energy state at typical atmospheric temperatures. Doesn’t sound like much but at STP each cubic meter of atmosphere contains around 5.8 times ten to the 20th molecules of CO2 in this energy state — radiating in all direction in spontaneous or stimulated EM transition back to the ground state. In other words, they like detailed balance when they think it argues against what they don’t like, but in fact it enables what they don’t like.
Here is one final word on LTE. If you agree that temperature is a meaningful concept for the Earth’s atmosphere, and that a thermometer measures it, then you already accept an atmosphere in LTE.
Finally, with regard to Eric Weisstein, I really like Wolfram world, but he is prone to make god-like pronouncements without evidence. He summarizes the calculation using the Planck function just fine, but then says that real atmospheres are not in LTE. Look at LWIR spectra recorded by satellites or even just high-flying aircraft or balloons, in fact recorded at the ground looking upward, and note that they are piecewise segments of the Planck function at various temperatures. Recognizing this one has to be a d*mned fool not to realize that this implies that each visible portion of the atmosphere is emitting in LTE or very close to it at its local temperature.
Kevin,
What you’ve provided looks like a very spirited defense of LTE. As I don’t have your extensive background in the subject, I’ll resort to a bit of what Wikipedia says about it:
“Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) is mainly used as a simplifying assumption in radiative transfer, because it lets the emission and absorbtion coefficients be treated as functions of temperature and density only. It’s applied when the absorbing/emitting matter (often massive particles) is in local equilibrium even though the radiation field itself is not.”
The clear rationale for invoking LTE, then, is so that it can be assumed that atmospheric GHG molecules are spontaneously absorbing and emitting ‘photons’ in accordance with Kirchoff’s Law. But as you also note, these molecules are undergoing collisions with non-IR active gas species, meaning they are much more likely (50,000:1, see reference, below) to undergo non-radiative deactivation and excitation processes, which do not involve ‘photons’, hence Kirchoff’s Law can no longer be assumed to apply.
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why using the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory to model energy transport through the troposphere, while expedient, is incorrect. Unfortunately, it also gives rise to the serious mistake of conflating multi-directional atmospheric radiance with two-way energy flow, i.e. ‘back radiation’, which itself has never been measured.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
I’ve given it my best here, Frank, but what you need to do is first study what temperature has to do with the stationary distributions known as Boltzmann-Maxwell (having to do with molecular speeds) or Boltzmann distribution (energy levels) which is the stationary distributions with temperature and energy levels as parameters. Sample all the molecular speeds, for example, build a histogram and see what temperature in the Maxwell distribution best fits the histogram — that is the gas temperature. Same is so for Boltzmann distribution and energy levels. Use the energy difference of a 15um radiation, and see the equilibrium factions of population between two levels at this energy.
Best.
I downloaded this 26 page contribution. They are working with a deficient definition of thermalization is their biggest problem. That and not recognizing the concept of detailed balance within each ensemble that is large enough to speak of thermal equilibrium. Make a few claims that are easily dismissed. They are correct about a number of things, Boltzmann distribution. Calculation of fractions of CO2 in excited states at various temperatures.
But then make absurd conclusions. I wrote up a detailed critique but it would be too long to post as a comment and would just cause a non-productive argument because Shula has mocked my explanations.
I thank you for this most recent comment. I am pleased to see that you have actually taken the time to review the Shula-Ott article from Andy May’s website and put together a review of it. I agree that the comments section is not the place for one to air what has to be a substantial review, but am certain it would be a well received article here given the number of comments your previous articles on this subject have generated.
I really believe that such an article would be productive, if only by dispelling the notion that any idea that disagrees with the current RTT paradigm is routinely ignored or suppressed. And if the conclusions that Shula-Ott come to are absurd, well that’s good to know, too.
I know it’s not my place to assign work to others, but I don’t have the required background to produce such an article. I’ll conclude by saying that the real tragedy here is that no one in the climate science ‘mainstream’ has previously taken it upon themselves to publicly review these ideas or engage in their debate.
An interesting question and you propose some interesting conditions.
Temperature on the earth is never in equilibrium. If it ever becomes so, the sun has died. in the meantime, temperatures go up and go down in constantly changing fashion. Insolation is a pulse over some period of time, say 12 hours, while cooling is a decay function over 24 hours. The effects of these are also varied by the earth’s rotation and the forces it engenders, along with variance in surface type, clouds, localized effects, aerosols, etc.
The question you pose: “How might we define temperature for time-dependent systems?” is probably unanswerable in a chaotic system over time. I would propose that climate science lose its fascination with temperature which is only sensible heat and begin to analyze enthalpy (sensible+latent) instead. Temperature just isn’t a good proxy for atmospheric heat on a water world.
So, why do I stand my ground?
Pretty much anywhere I post my points the mods cancel, block & censor what they consider “misinformation.”.
Why do they feel so threatened?
If I were wrong they would not care.
“If I were wrong…” or maybe they just don’t like misinformation tainting their climate realism efforts…
You are stubborn and impervious to factual data and clear explanations.
Who would fear you pitiful nonsense?
You get contradicted by people who do not wish this website to contain errors and propaganda unchallenged and to clarify what ideas are based in data from reality, results from models which are not fit for purpose and issues that are not resolved yet despite much effort to do so from real scientists and investigators.
I have given detailed critiques multiple times and not once did you incorporate any needed corrections.
Offshore Wind is home to crabs as whale deaths continue
July 19, 2026
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-home-to-crabs-as-whales-deaths-continue
Between mid-June and mid-July 2026, one confirmed dead whale washed ashore near Boston. ( Winthrop)
Crabs readily eat dead whales. They act as vital scavengers on the seafloor and along coastlines, stripping whale carcasses of flesh and breaking them down over time.
When a dead whale sinks to the deep ocean floor, it creates a thriving, long-lasting micro-ecosystem called a whale fall. Ocean scavengers, including various types of crabs and sharks, arrive to feed on the blubber and muscles.
In 2025, 15 dead whales were reported washing ashore or found floating off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire, according to ongoing stranding data tracked by NOAA Fisheries
Starting in January 2016, NOAA tracked a significant die-off of humpback whales from Maine to Florida.
Coincidentally, 2016 was the start of offshore wind construction. NOAA Fisheries has declared multiple “Unusual” Mortality Events (UMEs).
NOAA, in collusion mode, is careful not to blame high decibel construction noise for blinding the sonar systems of whales, who become disoriented, cannot find their mates or foo, and bounce into sea-going ships, which kills them.
HIGH COST OF OFFSHORE WIND ELECTRICITY PER kWh.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-of-offshore-wind-electricity-per-kwh
.
The reason costs are ballooning is because the focus has been on the cost of offshore wind electricity, say 15 c/kWh, after the equivalent of 50% federal and state subsidies.
.
Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (windmill to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about.
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, with equivalent of 50% subsidies
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European/Chinese supply of W/S systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
1) The European elites have screwed themselves by going hog-wild for wind, solar, batteries, etc.
They closed their near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants and their coal plants and refuse to frack for clean-burning gas.
.
2) Because of grossly too many rules and regulations emanating from Brussels, and a lack of nuclear plant building experience, all recent nuclear plants cost $10,000+/installed kW and take 10+ years to build; China and Russia build such plants for about 6,000/kW and take about 5-6 years
.
3) These elites are encouraging the displacement of native populations. A total of 64.2 million unvetted, uneducated, untrained, culturally different, non-citizens were in Europe at end 2025 (not counting their children and grandchildren born in Europe). In 2025, the A-to-Z cost was about $160 billion to grow the economy to provide goods and services for the additional people. How will Europe ever get rid of these people, before its rapidly growing population is greater than the shrinking population of natives?
.
4) These elites imposed a ban on Russian low-cost fossil fuels and other natural resources much needed by Europe, so Russia cannot profit from them; the sanctions backfired on Europe.
.
5) After NATO was established in 1949, these elites, dependent for defense on the US, saved themselves $trillions by spending only 0.5 to 1.5% of GDP on their own defense, while the US spent about 4 to 5% to keep the peace in the world. How can you claim to be sovereign and not be able to defend yourself?
.
That grossly inequitable situation came to a screeching halt in 2025, when Trump required Europe to spend up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, because the US was “busy elsewhere”.
For MAGA, Trump 1) imposed tariffs on European imports to reduce the US trade deficit, 2) will reduce US troops and their costs in Europe, 3) requires Europe pay for its own defense, 4) no longer pays for Ukraine, but will provide US weapons, if Europe pays for them.
Despite the Western media propeganda, and paying at least $75 BILLION in 2026 to support Ukraine, Russia is destroying Ukraine and its armed forces. Here is an example.
Bodies exchanged in 2026 (the first three quantities are high, because Ukraine refused to receive bodies).
Turns out the dead are about 1/3 of all casualties (dead, seriously wounded, MIA)
Jan 19, 1000 Ukraine, 38 Russian
Feb 26, 1000 Ukraine, 35 Ukraine
April 9, 1000 Ukraine, 41 Russian
May 15, 526 Ukraine, 41 Russian
Jun 18, 522 Ukraine, 33 Russian
Jul 16, 501 Ukraine, 31 Russian
Those numbers are from the Russians.
This is from the other side ….
https://voxukraine.org/en/fake-ukraine-suffers-greater-losses-because-it-returns-18-times-fewer-bodies-of-soldiers-to-russia
“Ukraine does not comment on how many bodies of Russian soldiers have been returned since the beginning of the invasion. This information is also not publicly available. Therefore, it is impossible to verify the Russian claims about the number of bodies received at this time.
In addition, Russia manipulates the figures regarding the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers handed over. Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Ihor Klymenko stated that during recent repatriations, Russians also handed over bodies of Russian soldiers, mixed in with the bodies of Ukrainians.
If we assume that Russia hands over more bodies, this is likely explained by the course of hostilities. Russia has been on the offensive for much of the invasion, while Ukraine defends. Some bodies of fallen Ukrainian soldiers remain in territories occupied by Russia.
In any case, the statistics of transferred bodies are incorrectly correlated with the overall number of losses. According to independent sources, since 2022, Russia has lost significantly more soldiers than Ukraine.”
It’s like do you believe Zelinski, the guy wearing the track suit or Putin, the guy in the suit. Neither of them run countries close to a democracy.
Zelensky has extremely low popularity among Ukrainians.
Putin has high popularity among Russians.
A few years ago, a Russian engineer came to my house to repair my kitchen oven. Spoke fluent English, but with an accent. I asked how he liked Putin. He said Putin was the best thing that ever happened to Russia.
I asked why he was working as repairman. He said he could not get a job as engineer in his specialty, which was electronic systems design, plus he wanted to be near his wife’s family.
So now we know why the West hates Putin
Ukraine losses are about 1350 to 1550 per day as reported by Russia.
Of those losses about 250 are dead, 1000 seriously wounded, 150 MIA. It is rare an MIA turns up alive.
Ukraine + Mercenary bodies found by Russians, identified (tagged), and refrigerated is about 17.5 x 30 = 525 per month.
NOTE: Many bodies are unrecognizable, burnt to a crisp, some, near an explosion, literally evaporate, some are buried under collapsed buildings, some eaten by wild pets and wildlife, so it is no surprise relatively few bodies get exchanged.
I spent 3 years in the US Army, saw a lot of instructional movies for training purposes, which discussed such numbers.
The Russian army appears more diligent collecting the dead, Russian as well as Ukrainian, so the Ukraine army has fewer Russian dead to collect and exchange.
In fact, Russia offered several 6-h cease fires to enable Ukraine to collect its dead, but Ukraine refused.
Also, from a we-are-winning PR aspect, Ukraine does not want to admit it has so many deaths, due to the superior firepower of Russia.
Its proportion of deaths among daily losses likely is much greater than of Russia, despite all the videos on X, which can easily be fabricated.
Since this article is self-described as “the place for discussion”, I have to ask this regarding that interesting lead-in graphic at the top:
Is that Gandalf or Thanos or somebody else being portrayed as the being holding the staff with the glowing orb, crystal, whatever on top?
Does, CR, “man about town” in all respects for WUWT, even know?
Also, it that possibly Hogwarts off in the lower right?
Since the top of the staff is glowing blue, it could be an Ori prior from Stargate SG-1.
On second thought, maybe it’s just an AI CGI hallucination?
TYS,
I believe you need to sharpen your imagination. I interpret the image as me {other WUWT readers can likewise see themselves} watching and contemplating the astounding place in which we live.
[I know not Gandalf or Thanos, CR or Hogwarts.]
John, I really am saddened to hear that. Gandalf, Thanos and Hogwarts inhabit the minds of many WUWT readers, and millions upon million of other humans having “sharpened” imaginations. It might serve you well to become knowledgable of their (hi)stories.
Yes, the universe in which we live is an astounding “place”, despite science now teaching us that we really don’t know what comprises 95 % (+/-) of it!
And yes, I’m personally always seeking ways to sharpen my imagination . . . I wouldn’t have it any other way.
BTW: CR is my shorthand for Charles Rotter, author of the above article who I imagined (hah!) may have some knowledge behind his selection and use of that great lead-in graphic.
Definitely not Hogwarts.. the architecture and layout is all wrong.
And not Gandalf, because the he wears a ‘wizard’ hat, so its some other mage from some other story..
“And not Gandalf, because . . .”
Gandalf appears without his hat in The Two Towers and The Return of the King after returning as Gandalf the White. Just so you know.
Ah.. but he doesn’t have a hoody.. and that guy does. 🙂
“Hoody” or “bullet helmet” . . . makes no diff to me.
THE moon landing was faked. Oh really? THE landing? Were all six!! of them faked??
The Earth is flat. What??? You must be joking??
Are these posters canceled? Blocked? Sent to the bottom of the thread, a closet at the back of the room.
So why me?? What do they fear?? I might be right?
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
GHE balance graphics don’t plus violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render 396 W/m^2 BB upwelling “extra” energy (and 333 back radiation) impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.
Boo!!
Run away, run away!!!
“Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.”
No. Cooler on daytime surfaces due to albedo; warmer on nighttime surfaces due to atmospheric impedance of surface LWIR radiation directly to space with resulting “back radiation” of the warm atmosphere to the surface, either from water vapor (GHE) or from visible clouds.
1) “Earth is cooler…”…WRONG…It’s warmer with its 30% albedo, WV, clouds, and oceans than it would be if it was daily-rotating regolithic sphere in a vacuum…
2) “GHE graphics don’t balance…” WRONG..yes they do, the people who do them aren’t dummies. Admittedly a single arrow 396-333=63 wide for radiation from surface with a 40 wide arrow directly from surface to outer space would make more sense to junior high school students who haven’t covered Planck in science class yet….
2(a)”…violate LoT”….WRONG…no they don’t…back radiation does not exist without a larger amount of “fore” radiation so heat flow is always from warm to cooler….no LoT broken here…
3) 396-333=63 net heat radiation from surface upwards as calculated from EMR. No “extra” radiation here.
So do you understand why you are dissed now ?
Give us a break!
Stop whining about your “brilliance” being censored by biased MODS.
I remember seeing a number of comments with your name in other threads.
If there’s a way to rank the people with the most “down votes”, you’ll find that they are still allowed to comment here.
Stop whining!
PS Here on WUWT, if your comments have been “censored” like you claim (which I doubt), you must have been saying some really crazy stuff!
I dunno…. I get censored when I ask climate trolls [yes you do-ctm]
[I wrote a whole post explaining why your perspective on “evidence” is moronic and pollutes discourse – ctm]
[I spent a lot of effort and typed a lot words explaining it to you. You can either follow the rules set for you, yes, you alone, or comment somewhere else. I would have loved nothing more than for you to have complied for a few months so I could remove the moderation hold and not have to read every one of your comments, but you can’t behave for a day. Now I know that even if you started, it would be based on trying to trick me, so it’s not going to happen. Do you think I like putting in this effort? I work 24/7 at multiple jobs.-ctm]
I like that you feel the need to read my every comment. 🙂
It is great that you take such an interest.
You have a chance to learn. Why don’t you take it. ?
No offence intended, but that sounds similar to Phil Jones refusing to divulge data because the requester might try to find something wrong with Phil’s conclusions.
As to trickery, “Mike’s Nature trick” seemed to convince the ignorant and gullible that Mann could determine past near surface air temperatures by communing with lumps of timber – but not me!
Trickery doesn’t change physical facts either. Mind you, a good illusionist can convince me that magic exists.
What an incredibly orthogonal and irrelevant response. It’s like you saw “trick” and didn’t read any of those other things called “words” that offer “context” .
Again, no offence intended, but this is part of what you wrote previously –
If you are convinced that someone is out to “trick” you, it should be reasonably easy to avoid the “trick”. On the other hand, I enjoy being tricked by a professional (or even proficient amateur) magician. It’s a matter of choice, I suppose.
You wrote –
In your opinion, of course, which you believe is far more worthy than my opinion – which is that my response was not particularly orthogonal or irrelevant. If you are offended by my reference to “Mike’s Nature trick”, that’s your choice. For my part, I have little respect for the opinions of a documented faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
I’m sorry that you feel offended, and I assume your response was intended to be sarcastic. If not, maybe you could correct any erroneous statements in the comment which resulted in your apparent feelings of annoyance?
I wasn’t offended, just amazed at your inability to produce a coherent relevant point. I still am.
A powerful high-pressure system over the North Pacific (negative PDO) and a “highway” for tropical storms in the tropical Pacific.
There is some activity in the Gulf. Tropical storm or maybe a hurricane.
Here is something I ran up against when investigating how the temperature of the land and atmosphere are related.
1) The Optical Path Length defines the decay of radiation across an absorbing media. This must be used to determine intensity at a given altitude. If one assumes that τ=1 at the height where most of the earth’s radiation at CO2’s absorption band occurs, say 20 m, then the intensity has decayed to I_decay = I_start × 0.37. Radiation from this height back to earth will also encounter decay as other CO2 molecules absorb it. By the time radiation from 20 m reaches the earth the equation will give I_back = I_start × 0.37² = I_start × 0.135. Of course, as radiation from lower altitudes occurs it will decay less. However, that brings us to the second issue.
2) As Frank from NoVA has pointed out, gases do not emit like liquids and solids. It is usual to assume that the earth emits as a grey body with an emissivity of let’s say, 0.95. That makes a Planck curve look correctly shaped, just a little less overall. Gases however only absorb and emit at given frequency (bands) and do not generate Planck curves of the emission. Their emissivity may be high at their inherent frequency, say 0.95, but very low elsewhere in the IR band, say 0.02.
This has a profound effect on what the shape of the Planck curve is for back radiation. One cannot simply identify a value like 4 W/m² at 1500 um and then use the SB equation to determine a temperature change. That 4 W/m² is only added at say 1500 um, and nothing elsewhere. That violates the fundamental assumption of the SB two body equation which requires black bodies with equal emissivity’s.
All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
I have always taken it as true for matter in the gaseous state. I accept the existence of individual absorption and emission spectra while understanding that a body of atmospheric gas has such complex structure within it that thermal radiation exists within it.
Can you direct me to evidence to the contrary.
Depends how one defines ‘thermal radiation’. If you’re referring to radiation produced by the thermal motion of atoms that gives rise to oscillations in electric density and produces oscillating electric dipoles, i.e., ‘black body’ radiation? If so, it doesn’t occur in gases at the temperatures and pressures normally occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290528/difference-in-thermal-radiation-between-condensed-matter-and-gases
That is true. But gases do not emit as a black body with a full Planck curve. Gases absorb and emit only at given points in the spectrum. CO2 is around 15 um with other lines close to that value. Here is an image of the absorbance/transmittance spectrum.
A short explanation. CO2 both absorbs and emits at unique points. It does not absorb nor does it emit outside those points. If CO2 emitted as a black body (or even a grey body) the black portion for CO2 would look like a Planck curve.
Here is an image I quickly put together for another post. It is by no means correct, but I wanted to show how little CO2 contributes to the overall energy emitted by the surface.
The area inside the blue line and the Planck curve is the “power” back radiation has. I intended that to show how much it would affect the Planck curve if it was reemitted only at the CO2 frequency. As the surface absorbs that energy from CO2, it is retransmitted by the surface based on the shown Planck curve. It is not just retransmitted at the CO2 frequency.
What that really means is take some playdough the size of the CO2 power and stretch it and roll it out until it covers the entire area under the Planck curve. That will give you an idea of how little that amount of energy matters in the scheme of things.
No. For example, the air compressed in a Diesel engine to 500 C contains CO2. The CO2 temperature is the same as the oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and emits the same frequencies.
It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.
People get confused by things like spectroscopy, which studies how matter interacts with light.
“emits the same frequencies.”
“It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.”
The Planck radiation from CO2 is pretty small and is masked totally by the Planck radiation from the major components of the rest of the atmosphere at the same temperature. It is *only* the CO2 radiation from vibratory absorption that is attributed as ‘back radiation”. That is not temperature related and is not a Planck radiation spectrum.
– apparently according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.
No reference to CO2 there!
I assume you don’t agree with my statement “It is impossible to discriminate between unexcited gases purely on the basis of radiation emitted as a result of temperature.”, but can’t quite figure out how to do it.
If you have facts to support your disagreement, I will certainly change my view – but you haven’t, have you?
You do realize that pressure related temperature is not related to radiation from absorbed EM waves, right?
ToldYouSo stepping in here because this is an issue “near and dear to my heart”:
Although they DO emit thermal radiation, atmospheric gases do not emit radiation according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law because they are “selective emitters” that only absorb and radiate at very specific wavelengths defined by quantum mechanics, rather than across the entire electromagnetic spectrum such as occurs with “condensed matter” occurring as solids and liquids.
The fundamental physics that account for this difference:
—Lack of continuous emission: The Stefan-Boltzmann law calculates the total power radiated across all wavelengths. Because atmospheric gases consist of molecules (like H2O and CO2) with specific bonds, they can only emit and absorb radiation in narrow, distinct energy bands, and
— Emissivity and density: The Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes an emissivity factor (most often represented by the Greek symbol epsilon) to adjust for departure from ideal black body behavior of real matter. For a gas, this emissivity varies wildly depending on the wavelength, gas density, and temperature, meaning there is no single constant value that can be used in the SB equation.
Any Web search engine can be your friend in providing scientific evidence—such as full length scientific articles—supporting the above facts.
Pretty good, except I don’t think that the properties that enable matter to emit thermal radiation exist in gases. The key takeaway here is that applying the laws of S-B, Planck, Kirchoff, Wien, etc. to atmospheric ‘slabs’ like one would to an ‘object’, i.e., some form of condensed matter, is incorrect.
I have no idea when the conflation of ‘objects’ with ‘all matter’ began, but this is basically where the cli-sci camel got its nose under the tent. What probably started out as convenient / heuristic method to model radiance has since morphed into a false narrative of radiative energy transport through the troposphere.
Unfortunately, while that may seem to have little import with respect to our daily lives, this conjecture has since been hijacked by the Left, as a means to effect societal control.
https://modern-physics.org/thermal-radiation-spectrum/
You are, of course, allowed to think what you want to think.
Ahem . . . there is no such thing as “the SB two body equation which requires black bodies with equal emissivity’s”.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law (equation) for radiation power flux emitted by a given surface of condensed matter (e.g., solid or liquid) with a temperature above absolute zero depends ONLY on the effective absolute temperature of that matter. It can be applied to “black bodies” with emissivity set to 1.0, or to “grey bodies” with emissivity set to < 1.
The SB law applies to only one individual body, but many people mistakenly believe it was formulated to calculate the radiation exchange between one warm body and another, cooler body.
Nonsense. An obvious example is sunlight emitted by the photosphere of the Sun – at around 5800 K. Most definitely gaseous, and hot enough to give an excellent approximation of a black body.
Irrelevant in the case of the non-existent (but widely accepted) GHE anyway.
You aren’t silly enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, are you?
5800 is an “effective” temperature. The spectrum that is emitted is due to ionization not thermal heating of a substance. A whole different ballgame.
A good search engine, should you care to use one to supplement your “knowledge”, could be your friend.
Here, from Google’s AI bot, in response to the inquiry “Are there absorption lines in the light emitted by the Sun’s photosphere?”:
“Yes, the light emitted by the Sun’s photosphere displays a bright, continuous rainbow (thermal spectrum) punctuated by thousands of dark absorption lines known as Fraunhofer lines. These occur because the cooler, upper layers of the photosphere absorb specific wavelengths of light emitted by the hotter, denser layers below.”
Now, I need to independently add this for your edification: black body radiation exists as a smooth continuous spectrum of radiation without any absorption lines.
As for your last question, please do continue to add it to each and every one of your replies to me . . . I’m always on the lookout to collect examples of the logical fallacy of the strawman argument. (Yeah, I expect you’ll have to look that up!)
An example of a natural spectroscope, but you obviously don’t understand the difference between light emitted as a result of temperature, or the fact that matter can selectively absorb, reflect or transmit light which impinges upon it. In this case, light from the hotter core interacting with cooler less dense gas surrounding it as it passes through.
Unfortunately for dimwitted GHE cultists (who can’t even describe their GHE in any rigorous fashion), all matter above absolute zero emits radiation. The wavelengths are strictly proportional to absolute temperature.
Don’t blame me for your ignorance and gullibility. If you want to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, or that the Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, be my guest.
By the way, physical facts are not swayed by argument, logical or otherwise.
I read an article by the Church of Warming about the horrors of methane emissions by cattle. I find it interesting that these same acolytes never mention anything about the millions of cubic feet of methane released when they blew up the Nordstream 2 pipeline.
Methane is the least of all issues in the climate crisis complex.
It has a short half life in air, oxidising to water and carbon dioxide fairly rapidly. The most interesting thing about it is how soluble in sea water it is and how sea water containing it when it descends into the deep arrives at a temperature and pressure where it comes out of solution and rains in droplets into basins in the ocean floor as a liquid. Methane generated in the long past collected like this was covered by silt and eventually became deposits of “natural gas” in sedimentary rock.
I keep hearing some people calling for Trump to seize Iran’s Kharg Island, the place where Iranian oil is loaded onto oil tankers.
Some people think having American troops seize Kharg Island will give the United States control over all Iranian oil shipments.
But the U.S. already controls Iranian oil shipments with the U.S. blockade where no Iranian ship can come in or out.
So putting American troops in harm’s way on Kharg Island is totally unnecessary and should not be done.
Military experts. As in all aspects of life, some are good at what they do, and some are not.
What if Iran just says “thanks for the stationary targets”? How do American troops on Kharg Island defend themselves?
Additional testosterone is unlikely to help.
Enbridge natural gas pipeline company has a neat looking logo tag: ‘E = “.
Shown in Construction begins on $4B Enbridge natural gas pipeline expansion in B.C. – Victoria Times Colonist.
It pushes natural gas as a better fuel.
The expansion is of its big pipeline system from NE BC to SW BC, part of its present and expanded volume supplies the NW US (and I presume well beyond). (Can Enbridge charge Donald a tariff? :-o)
The article omits that the pipeline has a new spur to the Squamish LNG terminal north of Vancouver BC, which is well under construction.
US citizens pay Trump’s tariffs. If U.S. providers are for some reason less economical than Canadian sources…the U.S. providers just increase their price by the amount of the tariff less a wee bit…cuz…free profit…
Whereas BC’s government monopoly electricity provider is adding battery storage.
North Cowichan to host grid-scale battery-storage facility – Victoria Times Colonist
Vancouver Island depends on cables from the mainland for a major proportion of its electricity. So supply to level supply and provide emergency supply seems worthwhile. But elsewhere?
BC Hydro has added local hydro-electric capacity on VI in recent years, and strengthened dams like the Jordan River Diversion Dam.
NG is piped to VI, but if only one pipe is vulnerable I suggest.
The article mentions wind generation at the north end of the island. There’s also some in NE BC which is windy, even though that is close to huge power dams.
What about Andrew Tate and his brother. All round good guys it seems. Seven counts of rape, three counts of sex trafficking, three counts of assault and 19 more charges relating to “indecent images of a child and extreme pornography”.
I wonder how some of those who have supported them in the past…. Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Candice Owens, Alina Habba, Donald Trump Jnr are feeling about them now?
Anyone familiar with the study referenced in this video? https://www.facebook.com/reel/1034937256092077
Anyone here cautious enough to not click on unsolicited links posted on a Web chat group that permits pen names?
It’s a facebook video.
Or so you say.
Advice to you: in the future, please state what the link is about and/or why it may be important to WUWT readers.
As regards the cited link containing “facebook” in its URL, you should be aware—perhaps you are, as I still haven’t clicked on your link—that posted URLs can easily be faked so that the real, embedded URL takes you an unpleasant Web site.
From Google’s AI bot:
“Posted URLs are counterfeited through visual trickery, hidden anchors, and domain manipulation, primarily using lookalike domains, homograph attacks, and text masking. These methods deceive users into thinking a link leads to a safe, trusted site when it actually routes to a malicious clone.”
And this common “safe surfing” advice for all WUWT readers: never click directly on an offered URL if you are unfamiliar with/suspicious about the poster . . . instead copy and paste the URL into your Web/Internet browser because this will defeat any embedded counterfeiting.