I hate the term “trapping heat” as if these molecules grab the heat and refuse to let it go. Surely a more correct expression would be GHGs slow down the rate of heat loss to space, or raise the level in the atmosphere where heat is lost to space?
I saw a truly horrible example of this sophistry at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga. A young docent (in his mid 20’s, maybe) was giving a talk to a group of elementary school age children. As we walked into that area he’s explaining how CO2 works in the atmosphere. He holds up a globe and wraps it in a blanket!!! This is how fanatics are made.
I get that from my favorite James Hansen quote: IPCC AR4 page 631
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
It can be shown that replacing CO2 with CH4 and 1.2°C with ?.?°C and submitting that to Google AI it will come back as 0.3°C or at least it did when I asked a few months ago. Google AI isn’t consistent (-:
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of methane in dry air is currently 1.94 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1,290 grams and contains mere 3.8 milligrams of methane. The reasons there is such a small amount of methane in the air are that discharges of lightning initiates its combustion, and that it is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of ice cold water can hold up to 33 ml of methane. The cold polar waters remove most of the methane emitted from all sources.
All processes of combustion using air burn up methane. Jet planes with there enormous engines are flying incinerators for methane.
The claim that methane is more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide by a factor of 82.5 is flat out incorrect because methane has no major absorption bands in the long wavelength IR emissions from the earth surface at ambient temperatures.
A substantial amount of methane in the air comes from swamps, bogs, fens, muskegs, seeps from the oceans and wetlands, wild ruminate animals, and termites, especially African termites.
We really do not have to worry about the emission of methane from all sources, and the claims by corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous scientists
can be ignored.
“The reasons there is such a small amount of methane in the air are that discharges of lightning initiates its combustion . . .”
That’s total, unscientific folklore.
The lower flammability limit (LFL) or lower explosive limit (LEL) of methane in air at standard temperature and pressure (STP) is about 5% by volume (commonly cited to be in the range of 4.4% to 5.0% depending on exact test standards and definitions). Below this concentration, the mixture is too lean to burn.
5% by volume is 50,000 ppmv (equivalent to about 28,000 ppmw). This level is almost never found in nature (excluding perhaps in pockets in deep mines, in bubbles arising from underwater organic decay in swamps, in waterlogged bogs and polygonal troughs and gully bottoms in tundra, in natural methane seeps from geological formations, and in landfills that have been covered over by dirt/soil).
Instead, the typical lifetime of methane in the atmosphere, at the typical concentrations that it is found there, is only about 12 years because it is relatively quickly destroyed by chemical reactions NOT including combustion. The main process is a reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH-), known as the atmosphere’s “detergent,” which breaks down methane into water and carbon dioxide. Sunlight helps create the OH- radicals that do this work.
“Swamp gas has been causing issues for hundreds of years.”
Got any credible data to put on that nothing burger? IOW, what “issues”?
Oh, perhaps you are referring to the common folklore: claimed natural ignition of marsh gases has been historically cited as the origin of floating lights in swamps, known as will-o’-the-wisps, which have inspired ghost stories for centuries. That would certainly be some really slow burning methane!
Here’s what Google’s AI bot has to say on the subject: “There are no credible reports of large-scale destructive fires or explosions caused by naturally accumulating, unconfined swamp gas (methane) in the open wild. While swamp gas is flammable and can be lit manually in small bottled bubbles or linked to small, fleeting “will-o’-the-wisp” flashes, natural open-air dispersion prevents it from reaching the concentrated, enclosed thresholds needed for major combustion.”
NOVA had a TV program on Arctic methane. They chopped a hole in the ice in a small pond, provided a flame, and nearly got knocked on their butts from the reaction of the ‘non-explosive’ methane. Don’t believe the first thing that an AI agent tells you.
Clyde, I’m sorry to see that you apparently missed reading this sentence in my OP above: “This level is almost never found in nature (excluding perhaps in pockets in deep mines, in bubbles arising from underwater organic decay in swamps, in waterlogged bogs and polygonal troughs and gully bottoms in tundra, in natural methane seeps from geological formations, and in landfills that have been covered over by dirt/soil).”
That “ice in a small pond” in the NOVA program was for a small pond in the middle of tundra.
I forgot to add that the combustion of methane only occurs in the path of the lightning discharge and there is no propagation of the combustion of methane due to its very low concentration in the air. There are over 8 million discharges of lightning everyday (c.f., Wikipedia). I know about the oxidation of methane by hydroxyl radicals but failed to mention it.
Discharges of lightning generate ozone which would oxidize methane to carbon dioxide and water.
Don’t forget that methane is slightly soluble in water and the oceans absorb some of the methane.
Go to Flight Aware. There are a great many of those flying incinerators out there. All the vehicles in the transportation sector use air and burn up methane. There are a huge amount of cargo ships out there.
All the wildfires in Europe, the US, and Canada are burning up lots of methane. How much gets burned up in back yard barbeques?
Just read your article. You show that we don’t have to make any effort to control emission of methane from activities of humans. Everybody especially those in the oil and gas industries should get a copy of it.
Do you know what proportion of methane in the air is from natural all natural sources?
BTW: What type of scientist or engineer are you? I am a retired organic chemist.
For decades, the “heat” “trapping” misconception about rising concentrations of CO2 has been pushed relentlessly to oppose the use of natural hydrocarbons as fuel.
Here a time lapse video of Band 16 visualizations from GOES East for the full disk of the planet is revisited. In my opinion, this helps to counter the line of misdirected persuasion using the static “warming” tendency from radiative transfer computation. First posted in 2023.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Here are the key points, copied and pasted from the text description at the Youtube video:
***************
Readme: Are emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat “trap” explains the observed result.
This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated by NOAA from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16.
NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR (infrared) band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the “atmospheric window” part of the infrared spectrum. The “brightness temperature” color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed.
So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is a response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. These dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG “forcing”) experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space as longwave radiation.
The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance as an emitter and as a controller of longwave emission from the surface. What do we see and learn from watching it perform? The visualization helps us grasp that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been experienced and measured down here, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.
So as I see it, is there risk of harmful warming from GHGs? No. We can see from space that it doesn’t work that way.
[Remainder omitted, as the color scale relation to “brightness temperature” and to radiance is given below.]
**********
Radiance vs “Brightness Temperature” used by NOAA for the visualization. I plotted the equation from the user manual and matched up the color scale to it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=sharing
The significance of Band 16 to the computed incremental static warming effect of 2XCO2 (i.e. 560 ppmv vs 280 ppmv) is shown in magenta in this plot I generated using MODTRAN.
In short, the performance of the longwave emitter is all about the motion-driven formation and dissipation of clouds, along with the highly time-dependent rise and decay of emission to space from the skin surfaces of land and oceans under clear skies.
The spectrum calculated by MODTRAN shows a maximum at about 10 microns (750 wavenumbers). CO2 has an absorption max at 15 microns (667 wavenumbers) with no absorptions at 750 wns. What is really being calculated?
Thanks for your reply and pointing out that I posted the wrong wavenumber for the maximum of MODTRAN calculation. The IR absorption spectrum of CO2 shows no absorptions at 1000 or 752 wavenumbers. Main absorptions are at 667 and 2300 wavenumbers. I am still confused about the MODTRAN calculation.
“The IR absorption spectrum of CO2 shows no absorptions at 1000 or 752 wavenumbers.” This is incorrect. There is partial absorption in the region of wavenumber 752.
There is detail here, in the image at the bottom of page 2 in this document on Band 16. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band16.pdf
MODTRAN uses the partial absorption properties in steps of 2 wavenumbers to compute radiances from wavenumbers 2 through 2200. I used the model output of radiances in text form, for 70 km looking down, for the 560 ppmv CO2 case and the 280 ppmv CO2 case to generate the plot I linked in my original post, including a computation of the difference between those two cases. Linked again here for convenience.
You can go to the University of Chicago MODTRAN web page and click “show raw model output” to see an example of the text output. https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
So demonstrative as usual, David. Sunlight reflective clouds (in white) seem to get bigger after the sun warms the ground to about +30 C (yellow)…daily surge is visible. The planet’s primary temperature control scheme becomes evident. More heat absorption by CO2 forcing would simply make the “warm areas” slightly larger, and/or more cloud tops to reflect solar away. The redistribution of heat by “weather fronts” is immense.
Chris Rentsch was able to detect the change in the CO2 absorption band after discarding 94.5% of the available AIRS satellite data by excluding all daytime data due to reflection of short wave and 89% of nighttime data due to ice absorption in clouds dominating over CO2 absorption. RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
The lowest solar energy input over half the global area from 30S to 30N occurred in the 13th century in the present precession cycle with daily average of 8.621ZJ. Using that as a baseline, the cumulative addition of tropical solar energy since the 13th century is 250ZJ.
Possibly more importantly, the area of the tropics now exceeding 425W/m^2 is 3.3% higher than in 1800 with SH down 2.5% while NH up 6.4%. This has driven tropical moisture up by 2mm since 1988.
I am prepared to wager that increasing solar energy over the tropics is the prime driver of climate change. CO2 making a big contribution to biosphere productivity.
May I add a mind picture – a laser beam of light in the CO2 molecule relevant spectrum will be scattered going through a region of 100% Co2 in the lab.
At the same time, some will be absorbed and re-emitted. The absorbed rays are linear, going in just one direction, the re-radiated photons are emitted in all directions like a point-source. The absorption/emission is also subject to thermodynamic waste, entropy increases. All that is ignored in the thought experiments being discussed.
Skipping over your graceless attempt at a joke, you are right. Not that there are more Jason Ardays—he’s surely a one-off—but that British academia is shot through with people who should not be allowed near impressionable youngsters nor allowed to suck at the public teat.
I shake my head at the number of “professors” of Lego, but they’re probably not trying to dismantle decent society.
It’s Farah Ahmed and the many like her that I’d cheerfully see thrown onto the street, along with the people who hired them. In fact I’d like to start with the people who did the hiring; no sense getting new furniture while the roof is still leaking.
Like I said, now he’s gone they can quietly sweep most of the damage under the carpet. Everybody’s moved on. He’s done them an immeasurable service by ending up brown bread before anything got started.
now he’s gone they can quietly sweep most of the damage under the carpet.
That was my first thought on hearing the news. My second thought is they might not be very quiet about it. They may loudly insist that due diligence is actually intolerable aggression; something nice people don’t do, and anyone who tries is a spiteful monster.
strativarius
August 16, 2026 2:54 am
An eclipse, 90%ish that is, an hour before sunset when the Sun is low on the horizon, anyway….
Great Britain is braced to pay millions for backup electricity supplies to prevent a shortfall on Wednesday evening as the near-total solar eclipse is expected to wipe out solar power generation. – The Guardian
That’s how dim they believe us to be. The Guardian isn’t at all interested in how much Great Britain wastes daily on wind, not a bit of it.
So far in 2026, Britain has wasted £1,030,991,530 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on. – Wasted Wind
And on a very nice summer?
The last time I felt wind this warm it was coming off the Gulf of Mexico into Galveston. In Texas, it was tolerable. It came with the territory. But blowing hotly into Cardiff off the Bristol Channel? Nah, sorry. All wrong. We’re doomed.
Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster, writer and Guardian columnist
Adrian Chiles just happens to be the husband of Katherine Viner, the… editor of the Guardian and he’s a BBC broadcaster, to boot.
An eclipse, 90%ish that is, an hour before sunset when the Sun is low on the horizon, anyway….
I initially rolled my eyes at the WUWT article posted on Wednesday (pre-eclipse) titled “Octopus Energy: Don’t use electricity during solar eclipse”.
Turns out the effect was actually large enough to be “noticeable” in the electricity generation numbers, but as usual the level of media “spin” was excessive.
18/12/2025 : The lowest daily numbers for the 2025/6 winter. 1.374 GWh total electrical energy generated from “Solar (PV)”, 342 MW peak.
12/7/2026 : New highest daily records set. ~127.7 GWh total, ~15.4 GW peak.
Note that the (purely theoretical, nominal / nameplate / faceplate) “capacity” for the GB grid’s overall “Solar (PV) fleet” has now reached somewhere around 22.5 to 23.5 GW, depending on the source (the latest NESO file says 23301 MW).
11/8/2026 : The day before the eclipse, for direct comparison purposes.
Note that “only” ~118.1 GWh was generated from solar panels that day, but the peak was (just) over 15 GW again.
12/8/2026 : The 30-minute averages are highlighted, showing a definite “notch / dip” around the eclipse (peak from 19:00 to 19:15 BST).
.
Editorial note : Following CTM’s comments I am experimenting with reducing the size in pixels of the image files generated locally on my PC. I may have overdone it slightly …
strativarius
August 16, 2026 3:41 am
How to create a panic over nothing by A. Burnham (Nudge test #94)
Andy Burnham’s emergency alert backfires as Britons ‘opt out’ of receiving new signals Friday saw an unexpected alert sent to millions of mobile phones at around 7pm with no warning. Andy Burnham urged Britons to take the warning “seriously”
It is understood the alert was initially only supposed to be sent to those in fire affected areas; however, that decision was changed in the hours leading up to the alert on Friday.
The decision to send it to all Britons was based on calls from the Fire and Rescue Service. Users on social media were furious with the alert, with one user accusing the Government of abusing the system. They said on X: “You’ve totally undermined the purpose of the system. Send a text, for sure, but don’t abuse emergency broadcast systems to tell us about not using BBQs.” Many critics of the alert warned that it put lives at risk by going off without warning. Amy Felton, a journalist, wrote: “All you’ve done sending that alert out is put loads of lives at risk on the M61 making everyone panic thinking the world’s about to end. Outrageous.” She said people were “swerving all over” and that “one man had pulled over onto the hard shoulder”. GBN
𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬
This is just my opinion, but I think we’re missing something important in the climate debate.
We talk constantly about CO₂ rising by about 1 ppm a year. Yes, CO₂ matters. Yes, it has a warming effect. But Earth is not a simple machine with one dial. It’s a chaotic system and chaotic systems don’t behave in straight lines.
There are dozens of natural forces capable of delivering climate shocks far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂, and we barely talk about them.
I believe Volcanoes are the biggest natural wildcards
We have seen a number of Earthquakes recently which can trigger volcanoes.
Notable Volcanoes have changed climate before and dramatically.
• Pinatubo (1991) cooled the planet by 0.5°C for two years.
• Tambora (1815) caused “The Year Without a Summer.”
• Laki (1783) cooled Europe and contributed to famine.
• Eyjafjallajökull (2010) shut down European airspace and dimmed sunlight.
• Hunga Tonga (2022) injected 150 million tonnes of water vapour into the stratosphere and warmed the planet.
These were single events, not long-term trends yet they produced climate shocks far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂.
And then there’s Antarctica.
There are around 20 confirmed volcanoes under the ice, and many more suspected. If even one erupts, it ‘could’:
• melt ice from below
• destabilise glaciers
• inject aerosols into the atmosphere
• alter ocean circulation
• affect climate unpredictably
It may not be likely today but absolutely cannot be ruled out, and absolutely no climate model can foresee it.
Ocean cycles: El Niño can dwarf CO₂ changes
A strong El Niño can warm global temperatures by 0.1–0.2°C in a single year.
That’s 10–20 times the annual effect of 1 ppm CO₂.
And we cannot predict:
• how strong it will be
• how long it will last
• whether it will flip early
• whether it will become a “Super El Niño”
Again it would be chaos.
As stated earlier – Earthquakes are not climate drivers, but are volcanic triggers. Earthquakes alone don’t change climate. But they can destabilise magma systems, and destabilised magma systems can erupt.
And eruptions do change climate.
This is the chain reaction that no model can predict.
Antarctic meltwater: another unpredictable forcing
If a subglacial volcano erupts:
• meltwater pulses enter the Southern Ocean
• deep-water formation changes
• global circulation shifts
• weather patterns adjust
This is one of the biggest climate wildcards on Earth.
And again NO model can predict it.
Meanwhile, global CO₂ policy is uneven
This is just my opinion but it seems odd that:
• over half the world is not currently committed to meaningful CO₂ reductions,
• while the Western world is expected to shoulder the burden.
And even then:
• we reduce emissions at home,
• THEN import goods from countries using coal-heavy manufacturing,
• transported by diesel-powered ships,
• adding more CO₂ through long-distance shipping.
The net effect?
We reduce locally, but increase globally.
This isn’t political it’s practical. It’s physics. It’s economics. To me it’s just common sense.
My actual point is Earth is a chaotic system. We can model trends, but we cannot predict shocks.
Volcanoes, earthquakes, El Niño, Antarctic meltwater, solar cycles any of these can deliver climate impacts far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂.
We should absolutely reduce waste and pollution. We should improve efficiency. We should innovate.
Yet pretending that CO₂ is the only thing that matters while ignoring the natural forces that have shaped climate for millions of years just doesn’t make any sense to me.
My firm belief is that nature will still have the final say!
It could be that CO2 levels below 800 PPM cause stupidity among climatologist, because when a volcano blasts 500 feet of sea water into the Stratosphere, the data is clear, you are going live with that for several years. The attached plot are the global water vapor anomalies at 45,000 feet.
“. . . the data is clear, you are going live with that for several years.”
Let’s see, the Hunga-Tonga undersea volcanic eruption that sent some amount of water into Earth’s stratosphere was in January 2022 . . . that is more than four years ago, not “several”.
Also very strange that your posted graphic of Aura MLS data shows a MASSIVE increase in water vapor at the 147 hPa pressure altitude level starting Q2 2024, yet nothing really unusual in Q1 2022. What’s up with that???
Now, you were saying something about “stupidity” . . .
That is because it ejected into the Mid Stratosphere 10’s of thousands of feet above the Troposphere, which is stratified. I presented evidence, you presented none, so Scientifically you are just a wind bag, if you cannot present an alternative explanation to the anomaly. But even at this altitude, the anomaly started at -25 degrees (precisely in the area of HT in the Southern Hemisphere in 2023. Every time I hear someone whining about why they do not see an instant climatic response from a Stratospheric event, I am reminded that not everyone is a Scientist, and those who are know very little about the mechanisms in the Stratosphere. So just remember for you and yours alike, when the mouth opens the learning stops.
I don’t find the term “wind bag” anywhere in any description of The Scientific Method, nor that the Method requires others to present “alternative explanations” for any give hypothesis.
As for your statement: “But even at this altitude, the anomaly started at -25 degrees (precisely in the area of HT in the Southern Hemisphere in 2023”,
in your presented Aura contour graph I see legend colors equal to or indicating even higher ppm H20 than that of 2023 between 10-15 degrees North latitude going as far back as 2016, as well as occasional instances of plotted colors equal to or indicating even higher ppm H20 than that of 2023 in same plot appearing more or less randomly from about -20 degrees to as far south as -75 degrees, again in years preceding 2023 or even January 2022, going as far back as to 2004, the earliest data plotted.
Bottom line: the phrase “precisely” as you used it is, ummm, not supportable based on the presented data.
It all goes to remind me that not everyone is a scientist.
” nor that the Method requires others to present “alternative explanations” for any give hypothesis.”
Richard Feynman has said exactly that. Of course he wasn’t qouting from a “Method” book.
“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”
[more in his 1974 Caltech commencement address]
If I was a gambling man, I would say last year’s volcanic activity which I believe caused the short-lived La-Nina from the ash, and now there are clouds of SO2 swirling around in the Stratosphere causing cooling in some regions, and if you are not under one of them in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s hotter than a two peckered rooster.
An increase of 2w/m^2 causes a temperature increase of 0.14C-0.28C.
The temperature increased by about 0.5C in 2023.
Do solar radiation variations have a greater impact than estimated?
“TSI increased by 2W/m^2 in 2023.”
SC 25 at start in 2019 was ~1360.5 at TOA and at max (2024) was ~ 1362.
So an increase at TOA of ~1.5W/m^2 in those 5 yrs.
Which translates to a RF of 0.373 W/m^2 at Earth’s surface absent of albedo.
Average distance: 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers
Closest point (January): 91.4 million miles or 147.1 million km
Farthest point (July): 94.5 million miles or 152.1 million km
The graph must be already corrected for the January to July variance which is on the order of (1.521/147.1)^2 which is 90 watts and the graph shows ~2 watts…
Can the discovery of a distinct 60-year oscillation in the apparent drift of the solstices explain the Earth’s temperature variations?
Correlation certainly does not imply causality when there is no accompanying model. But in the case studied in this paper, Equation (1) can be considered as a model that is widely accepted. Equation (1) links the time derivative of insolation with the inverse square of the Sun–Earth distance. In Figure 10, shifting the inverse square of the 60 year iSSA drift of solstices by 15 years with respect to the first derivative of the 60 year iSSA trend of temperature, that is exactly a quadrature in time, puts the two curves in quasi-exact agreement. This is a case of agreement between observations and a mathematical formulation. This new finding joins a host of recent results that argue in the same direction [17]; the hypothesis proposes that a forcing by the giant Jovian planets is exerted on a vast number of solar and terrestrial phenomena, including, as shown in this paper, global surface temperature. This forcing induces a number of responses from the Earth’s rotation axis, hence on climate at many time scales. This is a sort of extension of the Milankovic theory of climate to a range of periods that are much shorter than the ∼20,000 year minimum often associated with this theory.
TSI at Earth distance is cyclic with the cycle 1 year duration.
Max is in the SH summer
Min is in the NH summer.
So to say “TSI increased by 2W/m^2 in 2023.” Makes no sense
I can see no sig variation that lasted long enough before a reversal took place.
The variation is ~ 2.5 W/m^2 or ~ 0.6 Wm^ at the Earth’s surface absent of albedo.
No doubt that was a big kick, had to have an influence, but we know why it gets cold in the desert at night, and with that overhead it cannot get as cold.
Yes, climedown made his/her OP with the statement exactly as you quoted it.
My context is that most scientists use based on data from NOAA’s Mauna Loa observatory: a rate of atmospheric CO2 increase of about 2.6 ppmv per year as averaged over the last decade (2015–2024).
Instead, how about we look at “it” this way: the Aura MLS contour plot that you presented above at August 16, 2026 5:12 am has a color code legend that ranges from -1 to +1 ppm H20. So before we go focusing on the ~0 to +1 rise in anomaly that has occurred in both the NH and SH starting around Q4 2023, why don’t we first explain the ~ annual swings from -1 to +1 in H2O anomalies that the plot indicates have regularly occurred over latitude range of -20 to -40 degrees from mid-2004 to end-2023?
You know, explain how this cycling happens in a stratified layer of the stratosphere which you fronted as the reason for the ~two year delay in the Hunga-Tonga water vapor appearing at the given 147 hPa altitude level based on that same Aura MLS plot?
This simple question put to you by a wind bag, of course.
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 770 pdf3 The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
I do not deem the IPCC as the divine oracle infallible about the system which is operating on the energy exchange of planet earth under its present solar system conditions.
More accurately, it is a non-linear complex system dealing with periodic and apparently random perturbations such as volcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes
If it were chaotic, the past climates would be all over the place.
No, it is a COMPLEX system subject to chaotic events which is has proven to be capable of handling even when they have been quite extreme.
“If it were chaotic, the past climates would be all over the place.”
Hmmmm . . .
The five identified major Ice Ages: “all over the place” in timing-of-onset and duration.
The cycles of glacial/interglacial intervals during Ice Ages, such as the current Quaternary: were cycling with periods of about 41,000 years apart but about a million years ago relatively suddenly shifted to having a cycle period of ~100,000 years . . . length of warm vs. cold varies with each cycle.
The brief periods of warming followed by cooling occurring during glacial periods: known as Dansgaard–Oeschger events and having somewhat irregular timing of occurrence and random duration.
The US Geological Survey is of the opinion that emissions from terrestrial volcanoes are trivial. However, I seriously doubt that anyone has a firm grasp of the amount of CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes and spreading centers. Do we even know if CO2 is emitted by transform faults? Recent surveys strongly suggest that there are far more submarine volcanoes than previously estimated. The only reason that we know that dangerous quantities of CO2 are coming from Long Valley Caldera (Calif.) is that it was killing trees. Therefore, the cause was investigated.
Gaseous CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes and spreading centers, given the typical depth of such in oceans and the ready solubility of CO2 in ocean water, should be essentially dissolved into ocean waters well before it reaches the ocean’s surface and could possibly enter the atmosphere.
It’s one of the reasons that deep ocean “thermal vents” were never located by observations of a localized areas of bubbles in the ocean’s surface.
John Oliver
August 16, 2026 5:11 am
I have not been here in years. I am glad to see that it looks like a little island of sanity still exists here on this site. Here in parts of the US we sure as heck would not want a wild fire warning system used for something that sounds like just an outdoor burning ban if that is what happened.
Last Sunday, on OPEN THREAD, I posted a comment about the pass from Argentina to Chile being closed for nearly a month, due to record snowfall. It’s still closed, day 34. The cold and snowfall records continue. The snow depth has leveled off at four to five meters, as compaction keeps up with snowfall. At least 4,000 trucks are stranded, waiting to cross. So, where are the Global Warming stories about this? Waiting….waiting….waiting…. (what the hell, I’d even settle for a Climate Weirding story at this point)….
Yes, we in rural Australia have just had a cold summer and are still in a very cold winter. Just local news. However, news from around the world suggests that the warming has stopped about 2020 and a mild cooling which will last until 2035 has started as Svensmark and Zharkova have foreshadowed.
MrGrimNasty
August 16, 2026 5:29 am
Funny how Google AI agrees with the recent headlines ‘unprecedented rainfall/floods in Japan’ spouted by the MSM. Until you ask it about the 1940s and 50s megafloods and mahoosive rain totals. Then it comes clean about the uncertainty and short term nature of comparable data records.
Blue states with climate or net-zero policies have higher energy rates, report finds
“Blue States, High Rates” study analyzes climate and net-zero policies in each state and shows that the common factor when it comes to high electricity rates is whether a state has these policies in place. And those are primarily blue states.
Look at this chart. It completely exposes the “hockey stick” for what it actually is—a marketing tool built on a simple baseline that fails to account for real-world variables.
For years, the standard narrative leaned on a predictable, pure logarithmic curve based on rising CO2. But look at what the actual temperatures did: back from 1930 up through the 1980s, the real-world numbers stayed suppressed because of masking, sitting right down there below the curve. Then post-2010, once that masking lifted, the actual temperature line shoots straight up to 1.30 °C by 2026, while the basic logarithmic model only gets you to 0.70 °C.
While a pure logarithmic CO2 curve assumes a smooth, isolated response, actual recorded temperatures diverge because the Earth’s system is constantly pushed and pulled by variable real-world factors. Internal oscillations like El Niño shift massive amounts of heat between the deep ocean and the atmosphere, while shifting cloud cover and surface albedo alter how much solar energy is absorbed or reflected back into space. Because these dynamic variables fluctuate independently of steady greenhouse gas math, actual temperatures frequently outpace or suppress a clean baseline curve.
The discrepancy isn’t some mysterious crisis—it’s just what happens when you look at actual recorded temperatures shaped by real-world variables instead of a neat curve designed to sell a narrative. Anyone else see it that way?
That graph does not include associated warming via increased WV which follows as the temp rises.
The combined effect is roughly 2x of CO2 alone …. (as your graphshows)
“For well over 100 years it has been known that increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will warm the planet. As the lowest layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (surface to ~7 miles), is warmed, the air becomes more humid because warmer air holds more water vapor. This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
That graph does not include associated warming via increased WV which follows as the temp rises
That graph has temperature on the y-axis. Would you explain how latent heat increases sensible temperature. The last I knew latent heat is called that for the simple reason that it doesn’t add to sensible temperature.
‘This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide.’
Convection is the predominant mechanism of upward heat transport through the troposphere, hence cloud formation via the condensation of water vapor at altitude is a negative feedback mechanism.
Your ‘allegiance’ to the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory would be admirable but for its deleterious impact on public policy.
The currently alive grand master of radiative physics is labelled one of the most evil climate deniers, did you know?
Does the existence of the CO2 laser bring anyone to mind?
Just because the mistake of conflating atmospheric ‘radiance’ with radiative energy transfer is common to you and other alarmist ‘peeps’ doesn’t make it ‘science’.
Here’s an article by a well-known NASA-GISS physicist. Pay special attention to Section 3 therein and learn the difference:
“The purpose of using the pure logarithmic CO2 curve isn’t to act as a standalone forecast, but rather to establish a clean, calculable baseline—since CO2 is visible and constant per ppm.
Instead of blending everything into a black box, the analytical framework treats each physical driver as a separate force:
CO2 Base: Provides the steady, foundational baseline tied directly to parts-per-million concentration.Water Vapor Feedback: Operates as a known, temperature-driven multiplier (governed by thermodynamics) layered on top of that base.Aerosol Masking and Unmasking: Acts as a distinct, historically shifting physical force that temporarily suppresses or reveals the underlying trend (such as the 1930–1980 masking and the later unmasking period).Albedo and Other Physical Forces: Stand as separate, measurable mechanisms that alter the surface and atmospheric energy balance.By classifying them as separate physical forces rather than ignoring them, the gap between the isolated CO2 baseline and the actual observed record becomes an explicit accounting ledger where every individual factor is evaluated on its own terms.”
Actual Observed Temp = CO2 (Log Baseline) + Water Vapor Feedback ± Aerosol Forcing + Albedo Shifts + Σ(Other Variables)
No.
You said …. ”……when you look at actual recorded temperatures shaped by real-world variables instead of a neat curve designed to sell a narrative”
The rest of your post is fine, and indeed points out why the global temperature did not follow straightforward solar forcing. The presence of NV, especially before the 80’s when CO2 forcing was relatively small and was offset by atmospheric aerosols.
Brice, you are correct, the line is deliberately left stand alone CO2 because it is meant to be used as the base line. All other physical forces are tracked separately. Using this formula: Actual Observed Temp = CO2 (Log Baseline) + Water Vapor Feedback ± Aerosol Forcing + Albedo Shifts + Σ(Other Variables) each item can be determined to get a good idea what makes up the temperature and comparing it over time. The graph itself shows this in the two boxes one which is masking period the other unmasking period of SO2 and other aerosols.
That graph does not include associated warming via increased WV which follows as the temp rises.
The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship expresses a potential rise, but it is supply-limited. Therefore, it is an upper-bound on the potential rise. The C-C relationship is typically only achieved over the oceans and along the coasts. The interiors of continents, as confirmed by the types of vegetation and Köppen climate classification, rarely achieve the potential.
I suspect that the “Actual Observed Warming” in your posted graph HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTEDfor UHI corruption of surface temperature data (given that its red curve starts in 1900, well before satellite measurements of GLAT began).
This fact would make the real correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and increasing Earth GLAT stronger (i.e., lowering the actual increase in real temperature).
Wind/Solar electricity is at least 3 times more expensive than coal electricity.
US utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% 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.
.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW; turnkey-cost $10 billion; life 50 y; Capacity factor 0.9; no direct subsidies; Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed; efficiency 0.4
Annual production = 1,800,000 kW x 8,766 h/y x 0.9 = 14,200,920,000 kWh
Coal heat value = 2000 lb/US ton x 8600 Btu/lb = 17,200,000 Btu/US ton
Year 1 coal cost = 14,200,920,000 kWh/yx (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US tonx $15/US ton = $105,639,983/y Year 1 O&M and other costs = 3 c/kWh. See Note.
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.078/kWh = $1,107,671,760/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $316 million/y x 50 y = $15.8 billion Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of 10% for 50 y Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y Year 1 electricity price $0.078/kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
.
Per google AI, the owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at a strong 5.55% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($514.8M) and hits 44.18% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.04% exact IRR.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt. . NOTE:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US. . For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV) https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
We should have started upgrading any number of older coal plants that run at 30-35% efficiency to AUSC 20 years ago to today. Instead we wasted time fussing with renewables, and now people point out that new electric generation needed quickly, in a couple of years in other words, can only be supplied with wind and solar.
Old plants can be upgraded by ORC, Kalina cycle, or better Rankine steam cycle tech. A big problem is that the upgrade is more expensive than just building a new plant. But Kevin is right..if the money was spent on these upgrades instead of 6 hour per day weather dependent power sources….we would be in a much more reliable situation today.
“Old plants can be upgraded by ORC, Kalina cycle, or better Rankine steam cycle tech. A big problem is that the upgrade is more expensive than just building a new plant.”
That would be two steps backward.
That is the reason I recommend razing old coal plants and replace them with USC plants, which is what China had been doing for at least 15 years.
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.078/kWh = $1,107,671,760/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $316 million/y x 50 y = $15.8 billion Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of 10% for 50 y Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y Year 1 electricity price $0.078/kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
Assume no up-front cash tax credits, 20-y depreciation, loan interest deduction.
.
Per google AI, the Owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at a strong 5.55% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($514.8M) and hits 44.18% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.04% exact IRR.
Correction which replaces prior correction I made some additional refinement
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.082kWh = $1,164,475,440/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $317.2 million/y x 50 y = $15.86 billion
Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of minimum of 10% for 50 y
Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y
Year 1 electricity price $0.082kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years Assume 20-y MACRS depreciation, if applicable Assume no up-front tax credits; assume loan interest deduction from taxable income
.
Per google AI, the Owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at 6.31% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($533.24 Million) and hits 47.52% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.77% exact IRR.
It is worth watching the Youtube video Clean Coal Technologies – A Masterclass by Professor Rosemary Falcon
(Emeritus Professor Clean Coal Technology Research Group at the University of Witwatersrand)
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” – Unknown, emphasizing the fear-driven nature of censorship
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan
Earth is cooler w the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t balance and violate both GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from an upwelling black body surface impossible.
Schroeder, you have been corrected many times on your nonsense in the past…and are now claiming “censorship” on a site that has let your weekly “open thread” comments essentially detract from the intelligence of article authors and cause new reader confusion…for a long time already…
Earth is NOT a black body. Look at the pictures – a beautiful bright blue marble with white patches!
In the context of scientific discourse and not about billiard balls, the words “black body” refer to a TYPE of radiation spectrum. As DISTINCT from a EMISSION/ABSORPTION radiation spectrum. Can you not get that into your head?
The interior air of most greenhouses is almost always warmer than the air surrounding the greenhouse. That is what the greenhouse effect is all about, a medium allowing much more radiant energy from a much hotter source than it allows to escape from the much cooler interior which consists of soil, plants and other stuff. It works, it is real. Before a storm blew it down, my one worked every day, sunshine or overcast cloudy and was still warm at dawn.
‘That is what the greenhouse effect is all about, a medium allowing much more radiant energy from a much hotter source than it allows to escape from the much cooler interior which consists of soil, plants and other stuff. It works, it is real.’
Just to clarify your comment, by ‘medium’ I assume you’re referring to the glass, right? And was the interior of your former greenhouse warmer than ambient conditions due predominantly to the absorption / emission of outgoing IR or to the impeding of convective overturning by this medium?
“Earth is cooler w the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.”
Yes, cooler with an albedo of about 0.3 than it would be with a lower albedo . . . so what?
No, not cooler with an atmosphere than it would be without one. Common example used to demonstrate this: the average surface temperature of the Moon (max and min at equator averaged: about -5 deg-C) versus that of Earth (about +15 deg-C), even though the Moon has a lower albedo (about 0.12) than Earth’s 0.3.
“Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t balance and violate both GAAP and LoT.”
Please show your work that demonstrated either of these claims, especially given that observations (measurement data) show that Earth’s power flux balance has been extraordinarily well-balanced over the last 2000 years or so, hence Earth’s average surface temperature averaging a nearly constant ~15 deg-C over that time period (when adjusted for UHI effects).
Next,
“Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from an upwelling black body surface impossible.”
Earth’s surface is correctly modelled as a grey body with average emissivity varying with frequency of thermal radiation (mostly in the LWIR range) . . . it is highly inaccurate to consider it emitting surface radiation as a “black body”.
Being a receiver of LWIR surface radiation, there is no possibility that greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere affect “upwelling” surface radiation at any frequency. You really need to understand the physics behind the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation equation for a grey body.
“GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.”
The “greenhouse gas” effect in Earth’s atmosphere is real, but I do admit that CAGW is a scam perpetuated by climate alarmists having little scientific knowledge.
“Please show your work that demonstrated either of these claims, especially given that observations (measurement data) show that Earth’s power flux balance has been extraordinarily well-balanced over the last 2000 years or so”
While I agree with the conclusion, I don’t think it can be confirmed with measurements from 2000 years ago!
I would also note that it is not the power flux but the integral of the incoming and outgoing fluxes that balances, i.e. joules in vs joules out.
Please look into paleoclimatology proxies . . . measurements of those can be your friend.
As to power flux balance, almost every scientific article discussing earth energy imbalance (EEI) of which I’m aware does balance calculations in W/m^2, NOT in total energy in versus out (that is, in units of joules). The obvious problem with accounting for a double integral of power flux over area and time is standardizing the start time and end time of the integration among the various scientists involved in the matter.
The obvious problem with accounting for a double integral of power flux over area and time is standardizing the start time and end time
The same issue has to do with determining the value of fluxes. How do you determine what happened before the start time and what happened after the end time?
You’ve never drag raced have you? The top speed doesn’t always win. Do you know why? It is applicable to balancing fluxes.
“Please look into paleoclimatology proxies . . . measurements of those can be your friend.”
Accurate enough to determine temperatures differences in the hundredths digit? I don’t think so!
“As to power flux balance, almost every scientific article discussing earth energy imbalance (EEI) of which I’m aware does balance calculations in W/m^2, NOT in total energy in versus out (that is, in units of joules). “
The issue is that in/out flux will *NEVER* balance. Not even the average values. Inward flux occurs over a different time frame than outward flux. If the flux values were the same then the earth would lose approximately twice the amount of heat that it receives.
This means that *some* sort of calculation of total joules in and out is required in order to normalize the two values to a common time frame.
“The obvious problem with accounting for a double integral of power flux over area and time is standardizing the start time and end time of the integration among the various scientists involved in the matter.”
Like I just said, the only way to come up with a balance in the flux is to normalize in and out to a common timeframe. Meaning that total joules of each has to be calculated – which requires a time frame to be specified.
The earth is not a black body, heck it isn’t even really a grey body, it doesn’t have a constant emissivity across the entire surface. It is a huge heat sink with all kinds of various retention times for heat – meaning temperature at which flux is radiated is different and so is the emissivity.
So what does climate science do? Climate science assumes the earth is a gray body with an “average” emissivity. The problem is that there is a variance associated with the average that is ignored. If that variance is greater than the difference between the in/out values then you really don’t KNOW if the difference exists. The range of emissivity across the earth can be from as low as 0.75 to as high as .99, a pretty large range, meaning the variance is also probably pretty large.
Trying to find a difference in flux or joules down to 0.3% (.003 ratio) seems to me to be nothing more than a guess from someone’s cloudy crystal ball. A quite common occurrence in climate science.
Climate science likes to make it seem like they have calculated everything accurately down to the hundredths digit. But the full radiative-transfer for the earth is too complex for full analytical analysis. So they just make guesses at approximations, e.g. earth’s “effective” emissivity – and then try to convince everyone that there is no uncertainty associated with the results.
(Sigh) . . . I was talking about power flux calculations and Earth’s energy imbalance . . . you turn right around and conflate (or is it misdirect?) the conversation to temperatures and there never being a BALANCE. And still insist that using joules is “the only way”.
Power flux will *NEVER* be in balance in the Earth’s thermodynamic system because of the different time intervals involved and the different temperatures at play.
Got it? NEVER
Power flux is based on T^4. If the temperatures are different then the POWER FLUX rates will be different – NO BALANCE.
T1^4 ≠ T2^4 unless T1 = T2. Where in the Earth’s system is T1 = T2?
The only way to balance HEAT is by using values whose dimension is HEAT, i.e. Joules. Joules/sec will NEVER balance unless you have equilibrium.
This may be a hard truth to accept but it is the truth nonetheless.
Climate science playing with radiative flux balance is just one more piece of garbage science. The satellites will *NEVER* read the same flux from the sun and the Earth at the same instant in time.
I was talking about power flux calculations and Earth’s energy imbalance
You first need to accept that insolation power flux over a period of time is absorbed by both the oceans and the land. That time period results in some number of joules/meter². Some of those joules are STORED for hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries. Those long term stored joules do not contribute to the outgoing power flux from the surface at the time when absorption occurs. Therefore power fluxes will never balance.
dh-mtl
August 16, 2026 8:42 am
For those looking for the cause of this summer’s wild fires in North America and low river levels in Europe, one needs to look no further than ENSO.
According to NOAA, from 2020 to 2025 (6 years) there were 51 months of La Nina conditions as opposed to 8 months of El Nino. El Nino is a major source of atmospheric humidity. The lack of El Ninos means less atmospheric moisture, leading to less rain, and thus the conditions that we see this summer.
The relative paucity of El Ninos since 2020, is an indicator of lower tropical ocean heat content, and thus global cooling, rather than global warming. This is the result of the recently weak solar cycles as we approach the minima of the Gleissberg cycle.
Just saw this headline: South Africa is overlooking solar technology that can keep generating electricity after sunset
South Africa’s coal-fired power stations are retiring. The country must replace a huge amount of electricity over the next two decades. Currently, coal still supplies 74% of the country’s power. But the government’s national energy plan has largely overlooked one technology South Africa is particularly suited to build: concentrating solar power.
(From The Conversation, August 16, 2026)
I would like to ask the fine professor who wrote this a few questions:
• If this were possible, why are there no wealthy business people in the world who have invested millions in concentrating solar power?
• Surely they would be eager to do so because they would have a monopoly and be well on their way to make a killing earning billions?
• Is he unaware of the abysmal failures in the US of achieving goals in supplying solar power cost effectively?
How dumb can the crackpots on the Conversation get !!
Beta Blocker
August 16, 2026 7:28 pm
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are seeing one dam thing after another.
The governors of Washington and Oregon have now come out in favor of breaching and removing another four large hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest — in addition to the four Lower Snake River (LSR) dams — for a total of eight large dams targeted for removal.
The additional dams targeted for breaching and removal would be the four large Lower Columbia River (LCR) dams — McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville.
The average annual generation in recent years derived from the LCR and LSR dams has been 2,535 and 686 average megawatts (aMW) respectively. The combined 3,200 aMW from the eight dams represents 44% of total Northwest federal hydropower production.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
. Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh
. Financial Analysis of Megapack Battery System; 2023 pricing
Assume battery capacity at 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh
Turnkey cost $104.5 million;
Specific cost $104,500,000 /181,900 kWh = $574.5/kWh
Amortize bank loan, $52.25 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years,
Owner investment, $52.25 million, minimum 10%/y for 15 years,
Assume battery daily usage at 40% of capacity, which decreases with aging
Battery system capacity aging at 1.5%/y loss for 15 years Year 1 arbitrage
Year 1 roundtrip battery system loss factor = 0.9 *0.9 = 0.81
Battery delivers to HV grid at peak hours = 365 d/y x 181,900 kWh x 0.4, usagex 0.9 = 21,511,494 kWh/y, which Owner sells at wholesale price of 12 c/kWh
Battery takes from HV grid at midday = 26,557,400 kWh/y, which Owner buys at wholesale price of 6 c/kWh
Battery roundtrip loss = 5,045,906 kWh/y Year 15 arbitrage
Year 15 roundtrip loss factor 0.81 x (1 – 0.015) ^14 = 0.655
Battery delivers to HV grid at peak hours = 365 d/y x 181,900 kWh x 0.4, usagex 0.655 = 17,395,097 kWh/y, which Owner sells at wholesale price of 12 c/kWh
Battery takes from HV grid at midday = 26,557,400 kWh/y, which Owner buys at wholesale price of 6 c/kWh
Battery roundtrip loss = 9,162,303 kWh/y
Fixed O&M costs $20/kW-year Payment levels determined by Grid Operator to “help make batteries pay”
Owner receives capacity payments of $3/kW-month
Owner receives ancillary services payments of $12/kW-month
Assume subsidies at 30% up-front cash tax credits, 6-y depreciation, loan interest deduction.
Assume Owner has other profitable businesses which would fully utilize any tax credits Financial Metrics, per Google AI
Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 11.74% vs 10% hurdle Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt. . NOTE: Excluded costs are: 1) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 2) downtime of parts of the system, 3) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites.
About 40% annual throughput, by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, as in sunny California, would be extremely hard to achieve. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks. See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% annual throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system to maximize profits. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, plus they added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the system. http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
. Loss factor is from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid.
. NOTE:EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
. NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese.
Rational Keith
August 18, 2026 7:16 am
I see anti-catastrophist groups on Facebook, such as Climate Con (but quality of posts is wanting).
But Marxist Naomi Klein is a climate alarmist, presently getting publicity for that ideology.
The Guardian newspaper out of Britain has an article by Klein. Seems alarmist so I unsubscribed from its mailings.
‘How we defeat this end times fascism’, 18Aug26, whines about news media retreating from climate alarmism.
“The tech oligarchs leading this race are proving all too willing to sacrifice the habitability of the planet for their end times fever dreams, believing that their wealth, and the various high-end bunkers it buys, will protect them from the hell they are unleashing on the rest of us.”
She attacks ‘Silicon Valley’ businesses.
Polar bears don’t need the sea ice, it’s the seals that need the ice.
Methane is not 82.5 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.
If/when the Himalayan glaciers melt away, the rivers will still flow.
Corals live in the tropics warmer water does not cause bleaching.
Tide gauges show acceleration of sea level rise to be a negligible 0.01mm/yr²
I hate the term “trapping heat” as if these molecules grab the heat and refuse to let it go. Surely a more correct expression would be GHGs slow down the rate of heat loss to space, or raise the level in the atmosphere where heat is lost to space?
Yes it is scary incorrect language like acidification. Nor need the slowing effect even occur and it has not.
And when incorrect or misleading language doesn’t work, just change the defintion.
I saw a truly horrible example of this sophistry at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga. A young docent (in his mid 20’s, maybe) was giving a talk to a group of elementary school age children. As we walked into that area he’s explaining how CO2 works in the atmosphere. He holds up a globe and wraps it in a blanket!!! This is how fanatics are made.
If CO2 doubles in the atmosphere it should cause about ~1.2°C of warming.
If CH4 doubles in the atmosphere it should cause about ~0.3°C of warming.
1.2/0.3=4 not 82.5
The “Media” NEVER says how much warming CH4 will cause.
Might cause, not should cause. These tiny forcing can easily be negated by other features, like nonlinear dynamics.
I get that from my favorite James Hansen quote: IPCC AR4 page 631
In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
It can be shown that replacing CO2 with CH4 and 1.2°C with ?.?°C and submitting that to Google AI it will come back as 0.3°C or at least it did when I asked a few months ago. Google AI isn’t consistent (-:
0.3/1.2=0.25 not 82.5
Ya know…
Ya, fergot tuh put it in quotes.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of methane in dry air is currently 1.94 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1,290 grams and contains mere 3.8 milligrams of methane. The reasons there is such a small amount of methane in the air are that discharges of lightning initiates its combustion, and that it is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of ice cold water can hold up to 33 ml of methane. The cold polar waters remove most of the methane emitted from all sources.
All processes of combustion using air burn up methane. Jet planes with there enormous engines are flying incinerators for methane.
The claim that methane is more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide by a factor of 82.5 is flat out incorrect because methane has no major absorption bands in the long wavelength IR emissions from the earth surface at ambient temperatures.
A substantial amount of methane in the air comes from swamps, bogs, fens, muskegs, seeps from the oceans and wetlands, wild ruminate animals, and termites, especially African termites.
We really do not have to worry about the emission of methane from all sources, and the claims by corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous scientists
can be ignored.
“The reasons there is such a small amount of methane in the air are that discharges of lightning initiates its combustion . . .”
That’s total, unscientific folklore.
The lower flammability limit (LFL) or lower explosive limit (LEL) of methane in air at standard temperature and pressure (STP) is about 5% by volume (commonly cited to be in the range of 4.4% to 5.0% depending on exact test standards and definitions). Below this concentration, the mixture is too lean to burn.
5% by volume is 50,000 ppmv (equivalent to about 28,000 ppmw). This level is almost never found in nature (excluding perhaps in pockets in deep mines, in bubbles arising from underwater organic decay in swamps, in waterlogged bogs and polygonal troughs and gully bottoms in tundra, in natural methane seeps from geological formations, and in landfills that have been covered over by dirt/soil).
Instead, the typical lifetime of methane in the atmosphere, at the typical concentrations that it is found there, is only about 12 years because it is relatively quickly destroyed by chemical reactions NOT including combustion. The main process is a reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH-), known as the atmosphere’s “detergent,” which breaks down methane into water and carbon dioxide. Sunlight helps create the OH- radicals that do this work.
From post:”…organic decay in swamps,…”
Swamp gas has been causing issues for hundreds of years. I the show “Connections” it was as the starting point for the internal combustion engines.
Got any credible data to put on that nothing burger? IOW, what “issues”?
Oh, perhaps you are referring to the common folklore: claimed natural ignition of marsh gases has been historically cited as the origin of floating lights in swamps, known as will-o’-the-wisps, which have inspired ghost stories for centuries. That would certainly be some really slow burning methane!
Here’s what Google’s AI bot has to say on the subject:
“There are no credible reports of large-scale destructive fires or explosions caused by naturally accumulating, unconfined swamp gas (methane) in the open wild. While swamp gas is flammable and can be lit manually in small bottled bubbles or linked to small, fleeting “will-o’-the-wisp” flashes, natural open-air dispersion prevents it from reaching the concentrated, enclosed thresholds needed for major combustion.”
NOVA had a TV program on Arctic methane. They chopped a hole in the ice in a small pond, provided a flame, and nearly got knocked on their butts from the reaction of the ‘non-explosive’ methane. Don’t believe the first thing that an AI agent tells you.
IIRC, there was Russian company that proposed harvesting methane from Arctic muskeg.
Clyde, I’m sorry to see that you apparently missed reading this sentence in my OP above:
“This level is almost never found in nature (excluding perhaps in pockets in deep mines, in bubbles arising from underwater organic decay in swamps, in waterlogged bogs and polygonal troughs and gully bottoms in tundra, in natural methane seeps from geological formations, and in landfills that have been covered over by dirt/soil).”
That “ice in a small pond” in the NOVA program was for a small pond in the middle of tundra.
“Sunlight helps create the OH- radicals that do this work” So does lightning.
Yes lightning does . . . at a ratio probably around 1:1,000,000.
I forgot to add that the combustion of methane only occurs in the path of the lightning discharge and there is no propagation of the combustion of methane due to its very low concentration in the air. There are over 8 million discharges of lightning everyday (c.f., Wikipedia). I know about the oxidation of methane by hydroxyl radicals but failed to mention it.
Discharges of lightning generate ozone which would oxidize methane to carbon dioxide and water.
Don’t forget that methane is slightly soluble in water and the oceans absorb some of the methane.
Go to Flight Aware. There are a great many of those flying incinerators out there. All the vehicles in the transportation sector use air and burn up methane. There are a huge amount of cargo ships out there.
All the wildfires in Europe, the US, and Canada are burning up lots of methane. How much gets burned up in back yard barbeques?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
Just read your article. You show that we don’t have to make any effort to control emission of methane from activities of humans. Everybody especially those in the oil and gas industries should get a copy of it.
Do you know what proportion of methane in the air is from natural all natural sources?
BTW: What type of scientist or engineer are you? I am a retired organic chemist.
The bartender asks the seal what he’ll have, “anything but a Canadian club.”
That’s Canada dry humour, surely….
Still, it gets my seal of approval.
Best WUWT one-liner run evah !
For decades, the “heat” “trapping” misconception about rising concentrations of CO2 has been pushed relentlessly to oppose the use of natural hydrocarbons as fuel.
Here a time lapse video of Band 16 visualizations from GOES East for the full disk of the planet is revisited. In my opinion, this helps to counter the line of misdirected persuasion using the static “warming” tendency from radiative transfer computation. First posted in 2023.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Here are the key points, copied and pasted from the text description at the Youtube video:
***************
Readme: Are emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat “trap” explains the observed result.
This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated by NOAA from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16.
NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR (infrared) band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the “atmospheric window” part of the infrared spectrum. The “brightness temperature” color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed.
So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is a response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. These dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG “forcing”) experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space as longwave radiation.
The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance as an emitter and as a controller of longwave emission from the surface. What do we see and learn from watching it perform? The visualization helps us grasp that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been experienced and measured down here, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.
So as I see it, is there risk of harmful warming from GHGs? No. We can see from space that it doesn’t work that way.
[Remainder omitted, as the color scale relation to “brightness temperature” and to radiance is given below.]
**********
Radiance vs “Brightness Temperature” used by NOAA for the visualization. I plotted the equation from the user manual and matched up the color scale to it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=sharing
The significance of Band 16 to the computed incremental static warming effect of 2XCO2 (i.e. 560 ppmv vs 280 ppmv) is shown in magenta in this plot I generated using MODTRAN.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=sharing
In short, the performance of the longwave emitter is all about the motion-driven formation and dissipation of clouds, along with the highly time-dependent rise and decay of emission to space from the skin surfaces of land and oceans under clear skies.
That is all for now.
The spectrum calculated by MODTRAN shows a maximum at about 10 microns (750 wavenumbers). CO2 has an absorption max at 15 microns (667 wavenumbers) with no absorptions at 750 wns. What is really being calculated?
Thank you for your reply.
The wavenumber for 10 microns is 1000, not 750.
Band 16 is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns (wavenumber 752). CO2 exhibits partial absorption in this range of wavelengths.
I hope that helps.
Thanks for your reply and pointing out that I posted the wrong wavenumber for the maximum of MODTRAN calculation. The IR absorption spectrum of CO2 shows no absorptions at 1000 or 752 wavenumbers. Main absorptions are at 667 and 2300 wavenumbers. I am still confused about the MODTRAN calculation.
“The IR absorption spectrum of CO2 shows no absorptions at 1000 or 752 wavenumbers.”
This is incorrect. There is partial absorption in the region of wavenumber 752.
There is detail here, in the image at the bottom of page 2 in this document on Band 16.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band16.pdf
MODTRAN uses the partial absorption properties in steps of 2 wavenumbers to compute radiances from wavenumbers 2 through 2200. I used the model output of radiances in text form, for 70 km looking down, for the 560 ppmv CO2 case and the 280 ppmv CO2 case to generate the plot I linked in my original post, including a computation of the difference between those two cases. Linked again here for convenience.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=sharing
You can go to the University of Chicago MODTRAN web page and click “show raw model output” to see an example of the text output.
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Thank you for your interest in my post.
So demonstrative as usual, David. Sunlight reflective clouds (in white) seem to get bigger after the sun warms the ground to about +30 C (yellow)…daily surge is visible. The planet’s primary temperature control scheme becomes evident. More heat absorption by CO2 forcing would simply make the “warm areas” slightly larger, and/or more cloud tops to reflect solar away. The redistribution of heat by “weather fronts” is immense.
Thanks for your reply.
Your point about the “daily surge” is important.
Two years ago I put together a time matchup of hourly “geocolor” images vs. Band 16 for the CONUS view from GOES East. 7 days ending 8-19-2024.
Band 16 here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wi7V-2MZPdv1kDCKVzWewkqZgFUqTNnX/view?usp=sharing
Geocolor (i.e. close to true visual) here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QyLHuJIc41J6VdtbQ2fvQyQ4kPrTll1x/view?usp=sharing
That “daily surge” of cloud formation and dissipation is readily appreciated.
Chris Rentsch was able to detect the change in the CO2 absorption band after discarding 94.5% of the available AIRS satellite data by excluding all daytime data due to reflection of short wave and 89% of nighttime data due to ice absorption in clouds dominating over CO2 absorption.
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
The lowest solar energy input over half the global area from 30S to 30N occurred in the 13th century in the present precession cycle with daily average of 8.621ZJ. Using that as a baseline, the cumulative addition of tropical solar energy since the 13th century is 250ZJ.
Possibly more importantly, the area of the tropics now exceeding 425W/m^2 is 3.3% higher than in 1800 with SH down 2.5% while NH up 6.4%. This has driven tropical moisture up by 2mm since 1988.
I am prepared to wager that increasing solar energy over the tropics is the prime driver of climate change. CO2 making a big contribution to biosphere productivity.
May I add a mind picture – a laser beam of light in the CO2 molecule relevant spectrum will be scattered going through a region of 100% Co2 in the lab.
At the same time, some will be absorbed and re-emitted. The absorbed rays are linear, going in just one direction, the re-radiated photons are emitted in all directions like a point-source. The absorption/emission is also subject to thermodynamic waste, entropy increases. All that is ignored in the thought experiments being discussed.
Jason Arday was found dead, so did he fake his death as well?
R.I.P. regardless the fraudster he was, there are still plenty of them left…
You could say he fell on his sword to save his DIE people…
Skipping over your graceless attempt at a joke, you are right. Not that there are more Jason Ardays—he’s surely a one-off—but that British academia is shot through with people who should not be allowed near impressionable youngsters nor allowed to suck at the public teat.
I shake my head at the number of “professors” of Lego, but they’re probably not trying to dismantle decent society.
It’s Farah Ahmed and the many like her that I’d cheerfully see thrown onto the street, along with the people who hired them. In fact I’d like to start with the people who did the hiring; no sense getting new furniture while the roof is still leaking.
Like I said, now he’s gone they can quietly sweep most of the damage under the carpet. Everybody’s moved on. He’s done them an immeasurable service by ending up brown bread before anything got started.
That was my first thought on hearing the news. My second thought is they might not be very quiet about it. They may loudly insist that due diligence is actually intolerable aggression; something nice people don’t do, and anyone who tries is a spiteful monster.
An eclipse, 90%ish that is, an hour before sunset when the Sun is low on the horizon, anyway….
Great Britain is braced to pay millions for backup electricity supplies to prevent a shortfall on Wednesday evening as the near-total solar eclipse is expected to wipe out solar power generation. – The Guardian
That’s how dim they believe us to be. The Guardian isn’t at all interested in how much Great Britain wastes daily on wind, not a bit of it.
So far in 2026, Britain has wasted £1,030,991,530 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on. – Wasted Wind
And on a very nice summer?
The last time I felt wind this warm it was coming off the Gulf of Mexico into Galveston. In Texas, it was tolerable. It came with the territory. But blowing hotly into Cardiff off the Bristol Channel? Nah, sorry. All wrong. We’re doomed.
Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster, writer and Guardian columnist
Adrian Chiles just happens to be the husband of Katherine Viner, the… editor of the Guardian and he’s a BBC broadcaster, to boot.
Wasted wind is just a part of the story:
https://subsidyclock.co.uk/
Don’t get me started…
“Wasted wind is just a part of the story:”
That is why you should try hold it until you are in a lift with other people. ! 😉
so you’re the culprit.
The fantom farter strikes again 🙁
I remember Adrian Chiles as a reporter and commentator on Football (soccer) for many years!
I initially rolled my eyes at the WUWT article posted on Wednesday (pre-eclipse) titled “Octopus Energy: Don’t use electricity during solar eclipse”.
Turns out the effect was actually large enough to be “noticeable” in the electricity generation numbers, but as usual the level of media “spin” was excessive.
.
Data from the NESO website :
URL 1, data from 1/7/2026 : https://www.neso.energy/data-portal/daily-demand-update
URL 2 : Data for (2001 to) 2025 : https://www.neso.energy/data-portal/historic-demand-data
18/12/2025 : The lowest daily numbers for the 2025/6 winter. 1.374 GWh total electrical energy generated from “Solar (PV)”, 342 MW peak.
12/7/2026 : New highest daily records set. ~127.7 GWh total, ~15.4 GW peak.
Note that the (purely theoretical, nominal / nameplate / faceplate) “capacity” for the GB grid’s overall “Solar (PV) fleet” has now reached somewhere around 22.5 to 23.5 GW, depending on the source (the latest NESO file says 23301 MW).
11/8/2026 : The day before the eclipse, for direct comparison purposes.
Note that “only” ~118.1 GWh was generated from solar panels that day, but the peak was (just) over 15 GW again.
12/8/2026 : The 30-minute averages are highlighted, showing a definite “notch / dip” around the eclipse (peak from 19:00 to 19:15 BST).
.
Editorial note : Following CTM’s comments I am experimenting with reducing the size in pixels of the image files generated locally on my PC. I may have overdone it slightly …
How to create a panic over nothing by A. Burnham (Nudge test #94)
Andy Burnham’s emergency alert backfires as Britons ‘opt out’ of receiving new signals
Friday saw an unexpected alert sent to millions of mobile phones at around 7pm with no warning. Andy Burnham urged Britons to take the warning “seriously”
It is understood the alert was initially only supposed to be sent to those in fire affected areas; however, that decision was changed in the hours leading up to the alert on Friday.
The decision to send it to all Britons was based on calls from the Fire and Rescue Service.
Users on social media were furious with the alert, with one user accusing the Government of abusing the system.
They said on X: “You’ve totally undermined the purpose of the system. Send a text, for sure, but don’t abuse emergency broadcast systems to tell us about not using BBQs.”
Many critics of the alert warned that it put lives at risk by going off without warning.
Amy Felton, a journalist, wrote: “All you’ve done sending that alert out is put loads of lives at risk on the M61 making everyone panic thinking the world’s about to end. Outrageous.”
She said people were “swerving all over” and that “one man had pulled over onto the hard shoulder”. GBN
Yep, it startled the s*** out of me, if I’d been driving it might well have caused a crash.
I’ve turned it off now.
The danger of a wildfire in Tooting? Net zero.
𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬
This is just my opinion, but I think we’re missing something important in the climate debate.
We talk constantly about CO₂ rising by about 1 ppm a year. Yes, CO₂ matters. Yes, it has a warming effect. But Earth is not a simple machine with one dial. It’s a chaotic system and chaotic systems don’t behave in straight lines.
There are dozens of natural forces capable of delivering climate shocks far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂, and we barely talk about them.
I believe Volcanoes are the biggest natural wildcards
We have seen a number of Earthquakes recently which can trigger volcanoes.
Notable Volcanoes have changed climate before and dramatically.
• Pinatubo (1991) cooled the planet by 0.5°C for two years.
• Tambora (1815) caused “The Year Without a Summer.”
• Laki (1783) cooled Europe and contributed to famine.
• Eyjafjallajökull (2010) shut down European airspace and dimmed sunlight.
• Hunga Tonga (2022) injected 150 million tonnes of water vapour into the stratosphere and warmed the planet.
These were single events, not long-term trends yet they produced climate shocks far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂.
And then there’s Antarctica.
There are around 20 confirmed volcanoes under the ice, and many more suspected. If even one erupts, it ‘could’:
• melt ice from below
• destabilise glaciers
• inject aerosols into the atmosphere
• alter ocean circulation
• affect climate unpredictably
It may not be likely today but absolutely cannot be ruled out, and absolutely no climate model can foresee it.
Ocean cycles: El Niño can dwarf CO₂ changes
A strong El Niño can warm global temperatures by 0.1–0.2°C in a single year.
That’s 10–20 times the annual effect of 1 ppm CO₂.
And we cannot predict:
• how strong it will be
• how long it will last
• whether it will flip early
• whether it will become a “Super El Niño”
Again it would be chaos.
As stated earlier – Earthquakes are not climate drivers, but are volcanic triggers. Earthquakes alone don’t change climate. But they can destabilise magma systems, and destabilised magma systems can erupt.
And eruptions do change climate.
This is the chain reaction that no model can predict.
Antarctic meltwater: another unpredictable forcing
If a subglacial volcano erupts:
• meltwater pulses enter the Southern Ocean
• deep-water formation changes
• global circulation shifts
• weather patterns adjust
This is one of the biggest climate wildcards on Earth.
And again NO model can predict it.
Meanwhile, global CO₂ policy is uneven
This is just my opinion but it seems odd that:
• over half the world is not currently committed to meaningful CO₂ reductions,
• while the Western world is expected to shoulder the burden.
And even then:
• we reduce emissions at home,
• THEN import goods from countries using coal-heavy manufacturing,
• transported by diesel-powered ships,
• adding more CO₂ through long-distance shipping.
The net effect?
We reduce locally, but increase globally.
This isn’t political it’s practical. It’s physics. It’s economics. To me it’s just common sense.
My actual point is Earth is a chaotic system. We can model trends, but we cannot predict shocks.
Volcanoes, earthquakes, El Niño, Antarctic meltwater, solar cycles any of these can deliver climate impacts far larger than 1 ppm of CO₂.
We should absolutely reduce waste and pollution. We should improve efficiency. We should innovate.
Yet pretending that CO₂ is the only thing that matters while ignoring the natural forces that have shaped climate for millions of years just doesn’t make any sense to me.
My firm belief is that nature will still have the final say!
It could be that CO2 levels below 800 PPM cause stupidity among climatologist, because when a volcano blasts 500 feet of sea water into the Stratosphere, the data is clear, you are going live with that for several years. The attached plot are the global water vapor anomalies at 45,000 feet.
Let’s see, the Hunga-Tonga undersea volcanic eruption that sent some amount of water into Earth’s stratosphere was in January 2022 . . . that is more than four years ago, not “several”.
Also very strange that your posted graphic of Aura MLS data shows a MASSIVE increase in water vapor at the 147 hPa pressure altitude level starting Q2 2024, yet nothing really unusual in Q1 2022. What’s up with that???
Now, you were saying something about “stupidity” . . .
That is because it ejected into the Mid Stratosphere 10’s of thousands of feet above the Troposphere, which is stratified. I presented evidence, you presented none, so Scientifically you are just a wind bag, if you cannot present an alternative explanation to the anomaly. But even at this altitude, the anomaly started at -25 degrees (precisely in the area of HT in the Southern Hemisphere in 2023. Every time I hear someone whining about why they do not see an instant climatic response from a Stratospheric event, I am reminded that not everyone is a Scientist, and those who are know very little about the mechanisms in the Stratosphere. So just remember for you and yours alike, when the mouth opens the learning stops.
I don’t find the term “wind bag” anywhere in any description of The Scientific Method, nor that the Method requires others to present “alternative explanations” for any give hypothesis.
As for your statement:
“But even at this altitude, the anomaly started at -25 degrees (precisely in the area of HT in the Southern Hemisphere in 2023”,
in your presented Aura contour graph I see legend colors equal to or indicating even higher ppm H20 than that of 2023 between 10-15 degrees North latitude going as far back as 2016, as well as occasional instances of plotted colors equal to or indicating even higher ppm H20 than that of 2023 in same plot appearing more or less randomly from about -20 degrees to as far south as -75 degrees, again in years preceding 2023 or even January 2022, going as far back as to 2004, the earliest data plotted.
Bottom line: the phrase “precisely” as you used it is, ummm, not supportable based on the presented data.
It all goes to remind me that not everyone is a scientist.
” nor that the Method requires others to present “alternative explanations” for any give hypothesis.”
Richard Feynman has said exactly that. Of course he wasn’t qouting from a “Method” book.
“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”
[more in his 1974 Caltech commencement address]
I’m not discounting your broad message, but the growth rate of CO2 today is more than twice 1 ppm. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Well as we speak, even CO2 is not cooperating with Noaa.
Trend of a trend, monthly/decade. I don’t think NOAA has any influence over [CO2] whatsoever.
As we speak, I’m waiting for it to get warm enough and light enough to go for a bike ride. It’s just about dawn and 60F in my Colorado location.
If I was a gambling man, I would say last year’s volcanic activity which I believe caused the short-lived La-Nina from the ash, and now there are clouds of SO2 swirling around in the Stratosphere causing cooling in some regions, and if you are not under one of them in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s hotter than a two peckered rooster.
The trend in how much CO2 is retained in the atmosphere each month has been dropping for two years now. It propably has nothing to do with emissions.
Yeah, human emissions continue to rise, and the boiling oceans narrative doesn’t hold water.
It would seem there is a need to get the back of the napkin climatic forcings clear, before throwing billions at modeling it.
An increase of 2w/m^2 causes a temperature increase of 0.14C-0.28C.
The temperature increased by about 0.5C in 2023.
Do solar radiation variations have a greater impact than estimated?
TSI increased by 2W/m^2 in 2023.
Natural variations in the Earth’s orbit affect solar radiation and the climate on Earth.
“TSI increased by 2W/m^2 in 2023.”
SC 25 at start in 2019 was ~1360.5 at TOA and at max (2024) was ~ 1362.
So an increase at TOA of ~1.5W/m^2 in those 5 yrs.
Which translates to a RF of 0.373 W/m^2 at Earth’s surface absent of albedo.
You are still using TSI at 1AU.
Use TSI at Earth distance.
Average distance: 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers
Closest point (January): 91.4 million miles or 147.1 million km
Farthest point (July): 94.5 million miles or 152.1 million km
The graph must be already corrected for the January to July variance which is on the order of (1.521/147.1)^2 which is 90 watts and the graph shows ~2 watts…
Can the discovery of a distinct 60-year oscillation in the apparent drift of the solstices explain the Earth’s temperature variations?
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/12/12/448
TSI at Earth distance is cyclic with the cycle 1 year duration.
Max is in the SH summer
Min is in the NH summer.
So to say “TSI increased by 2W/m^2 in 2023.”
Makes no sense
You see the variations if you do an anomaly of daily TSI at Earth distance.
Do you mean what is plotted here ? ….
I can see no sig variation that lasted long enough before a reversal took place.
The variation is ~ 2.5 W/m^2 or ~ 0.6 Wm^ at the Earth’s surface absent of albedo.
Orbit is an eccentric ellipse.
Yes, as my post describes – max at Peri in Jan and min at Ap in July.
Can you use/write Python Colab?
No
No doubt that was a big kick, had to have an influence, but we know why it gets cold in the desert at night, and with that overhead it cannot get as cold.
Why does your CO2 graph not look anything like mine, which is derived from Mauna Loa data (Scripps/NOAA)?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
1 ppm is not a rate, neither is “twice 1 ppm”.
Context. Climedown made the following statement: “We talk constantly about CO₂ rising by about 1 ppm a year.”
Yes, climedown made his/her OP with the statement exactly as you quoted it.
My context is that most scientists use based on data from NOAA’s Mauna Loa observatory: a rate of atmospheric CO2 increase of about 2.6 ppmv per year as averaged over the last decade (2015–2024).
Look at it another way, Stratospheric water vapor content is 3 – 6 PPM, the anomalies indicate a possible max increase in water vapor of 33%.
Instead, how about we look at “it” this way: the Aura MLS contour plot that you presented above at August 16, 2026 5:12 am has a color code legend that ranges from -1 to +1 ppm H20. So before we go focusing on the ~0 to +1 rise in anomaly that has occurred in both the NH and SH starting around Q4 2023, why don’t we first explain the ~ annual swings from -1 to +1 in H2O anomalies that the plot indicates have regularly occurred over latitude range of -20 to -40 degrees from mid-2004 to end-2023?
You know, explain how this cycling happens in a stratified layer of the stratosphere which you fronted as the reason for the ~two year delay in the Hunga-Tonga water vapor appearing at the given 147 hPa altitude level based on that same Aura MLS plot?
This simple question put to you by a wind bag, of course.
Yes, it is running 2-3 PPMv annually, with it being on the high side during El Nino years.
Thanks for all of that (-:
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 770 pdf3
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore
the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
I do not deem the IPCC as the divine oracle infallible about the system which is operating on the energy exchange of planet earth under its present solar system conditions.
More accurately, it is a non-linear complex system dealing with periodic and apparently random perturbations such as volcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes
If it were chaotic, the past climates would be all over the place.
No, it is a COMPLEX system subject to chaotic events which is has proven to be capable of handling even when they have been quite extreme.
Hmmmm . . .
The five identified major Ice Ages: “all over the place” in timing-of-onset and duration.
The cycles of glacial/interglacial intervals during Ice Ages, such as the current Quaternary: were cycling with periods of about 41,000 years apart but about a million years ago relatively suddenly shifted to having a cycle period of ~100,000 years . . . length of warm vs. cold varies with each cycle.
The brief periods of warming followed by cooling occurring during glacial periods: known as Dansgaard–Oeschger events and having somewhat irregular timing of occurrence and random duration.
The US Geological Survey is of the opinion that emissions from terrestrial volcanoes are trivial. However, I seriously doubt that anyone has a firm grasp of the amount of CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes and spreading centers. Do we even know if CO2 is emitted by transform faults? Recent surveys strongly suggest that there are far more submarine volcanoes than previously estimated. The only reason that we know that dangerous quantities of CO2 are coming from Long Valley Caldera (Calif.) is that it was killing trees. Therefore, the cause was investigated.
Gaseous CO2 coming from submarine volcanoes and spreading centers, given the typical depth of such in oceans and the ready solubility of CO2 in ocean water, should be essentially dissolved into ocean waters well before it reaches the ocean’s surface and could possibly enter the atmosphere.
It’s one of the reasons that deep ocean “thermal vents” were never located by observations of a localized areas of bubbles in the ocean’s surface.
I have not been here in years. I am glad to see that it looks like a little island of sanity still exists here on this site. Here in parts of the US we sure as heck would not want a wild fire warning system used for something that sounds like just an outdoor burning ban if that is what happened.
If you want to ramp up alarm – and they do.
Last Sunday, on OPEN THREAD, I posted a comment about the pass from Argentina to Chile being closed for nearly a month, due to record snowfall. It’s still closed, day 34. The cold and snowfall records continue. The snow depth has leveled off at four to five meters, as compaction keeps up with snowfall. At least 4,000 trucks are stranded, waiting to cross. So, where are the Global Warming stories about this? Waiting….waiting….waiting…. (what the hell, I’d even settle for a Climate Weirding story at this point)….
Yes! What do the climate alarmists attribute all the snow and cold weather to?
space aliens
the usual suspect –
that “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system”
They don’t! That’s the problem.
Yes, we in rural Australia have just had a cold summer and are still in a very cold winter. Just local news. However, news from around the world suggests that the warming has stopped about 2020 and a mild cooling which will last until 2035 has started as Svensmark and Zharkova have foreshadowed.
Funny how Google AI agrees with the recent headlines ‘unprecedented rainfall/floods in Japan’ spouted by the MSM. Until you ask it about the 1940s and 50s megafloods and mahoosive rain totals. Then it comes clean about the uncertainty and short term nature of comparable data records.
AI – Anthropogenically Instructed – but then it does its own thing…
AI=GIGO!
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/states-pursued-climate-or-net-zero-policies-have-higher-rates-those-without
Look at this chart. It completely exposes the “hockey stick” for what it actually is—a marketing tool built on a simple baseline that fails to account for real-world variables.
For years, the standard narrative leaned on a predictable, pure logarithmic curve based on rising CO2. But look at what the actual temperatures did: back from 1930 up through the 1980s, the real-world numbers stayed suppressed because of masking, sitting right down there below the curve. Then post-2010, once that masking lifted, the actual temperature line shoots straight up to 1.30 °C by 2026, while the basic logarithmic model only gets you to 0.70 °C.
While a pure logarithmic CO2 curve assumes a smooth, isolated response, actual recorded temperatures diverge because the Earth’s system is constantly pushed and pulled by variable real-world factors. Internal oscillations like El Niño shift massive amounts of heat between the deep ocean and the atmosphere, while shifting cloud cover and surface albedo alter how much solar energy is absorbed or reflected back into space. Because these dynamic variables fluctuate independently of steady greenhouse gas math, actual temperatures frequently outpace or suppress a clean baseline curve.
The discrepancy isn’t some mysterious crisis—it’s just what happens when you look at actual recorded temperatures shaped by real-world variables instead of a neat curve designed to sell a narrative. Anyone else see it that way?
That graph does not include associated warming via increased WV which follows as the temp rises.
The combined effect is roughly 2x of CO2 alone …. (as your graphshows)
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/water-vapor-upper-atmosphere-amplifies-global-warming-says-new-study
“For well over 100 years it has been known that increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will warm the planet. As the lowest layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (surface to ~7 miles), is warmed, the air becomes more humid because warmer air holds more water vapor. This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
That graph has temperature on the y-axis. Would you explain how latent heat increases sensible temperature. The last I knew latent heat is called that for the simple reason that it doesn’t add to sensible temperature.
“Would you explain how latent heat increases sensible temperature. “
No:
As it is obvious.
Ask the guy who posted the original graph – John Pabst
‘This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide.’
Convection is the predominant mechanism of upward heat transport through the troposphere, hence cloud formation via the condensation of water vapor at altitude is a negative feedback mechanism.
Your ‘allegiance’ to the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory would be admirable but for its deleterious impact on public policy.
“Your ‘allegiance’ to the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory would be admirable but for its deleterious impact on public policy.”
It’s called science, practised by peeps who know more than you or I.
“deleterious impact on public policy.”
That’s not the fault of the science
so just another study?
Pro tip – there’s no shortage of “studies” about climates’ behaviors doing the rounds these days.
And AI “scientists” haven’t really got started yet.
You won’t be able to keep up.
Sorry, but I believe radiative physics is well know as it is.
The currently alive grand master of radiative physics is labelled one of the most evil climate deniers, did you know?
Does the existence of the CO2 laser bring anyone to mind?
Just because the mistake of conflating atmospheric ‘radiance’ with radiative energy transfer is common to you and other alarmist ‘peeps’ doesn’t make it ‘science’.
Here’s an article by a well-known NASA-GISS physicist. Pay special attention to Section 3 therein and learn the difference:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140012672/downloads/20140012672.pdf
“The purpose of using the pure logarithmic CO2 curve isn’t to act as a standalone forecast, but rather to establish a clean, calculable baseline—since CO2 is visible and constant per ppm.
Instead of blending everything into a black box, the analytical framework treats each physical driver as a separate force:
CO2 Base: Provides the steady, foundational baseline tied directly to parts-per-million concentration.Water Vapor Feedback: Operates as a known, temperature-driven multiplier (governed by thermodynamics) layered on top of that base.Aerosol Masking and Unmasking: Acts as a distinct, historically shifting physical force that temporarily suppresses or reveals the underlying trend (such as the 1930–1980 masking and the later unmasking period).Albedo and Other Physical Forces: Stand as separate, measurable mechanisms that alter the surface and atmospheric energy balance.By classifying them as separate physical forces rather than ignoring them, the gap between the isolated CO2 baseline and the actual observed record becomes an explicit accounting ledger where every individual factor is evaluated on its own terms.”
Actual Observed Temp = CO2 (Log Baseline) + Water Vapor Feedback ± Aerosol Forcing + Albedo Shifts + Σ(Other Variables)
No.
You said ….
”……when you look at actual recorded temperatures shaped by real-world variables instead of a neat curve designed to sell a narrative”
The rest of your post is fine, and indeed points out why the global
temperature did not follow straightforward solar forcing.
The presence of NV, especially before the 80’s when CO2 forcing was relatively small and was offset by atmospheric aerosols.
Graph totally neglects the changes in absorbed solar radiation due to changes in cloud cover, and puts fake and unmeasured forcings for CO2.
The air movements with the atmosphere totally dwarf any tiny theoretical “forcing” by CO2 or any other gas.
ie.. your graph is totally BOGUS !
Brice, you are correct, the line is deliberately left stand alone CO2 because it is meant to be used as the base line. All other physical forces are tracked separately. Using this formula: Actual Observed Temp = CO2 (Log Baseline) + Water Vapor Feedback ± Aerosol Forcing + Albedo Shifts + Σ(Other Variables) each item can be determined to get a good idea what makes up the temperature and comparing it over time. The graph itself shows this in the two boxes one which is masking period the other unmasking period of SO2 and other aerosols.
The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship expresses a potential rise, but it is supply-limited. Therefore, it is an upper-bound on the potential rise. The C-C relationship is typically only achieved over the oceans and along the coasts. The interiors of continents, as confirmed by the types of vegetation and Köppen climate classification, rarely achieve the potential.
I suspect that the “Actual Observed Warming” in your posted graph HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED for UHI corruption of surface temperature data (given that its red curve starts in 1900, well before satellite measurements of GLAT began).
This fact would make the real correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and increasing Earth GLAT stronger (i.e., lowering the actual increase in real temperature).
NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
Wind/Solar electricity is at least 3 times more expensive than coal electricity.
US utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% 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.
.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW; turnkey-cost $10 billion; life 50 y; Capacity factor 0.9; no direct subsidies; Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed; efficiency 0.4
Annual production = 1,800,000 kW x 8,766 h/y x 0.9 = 14,200,920,000 kWh
Coal heat value = 2000 lb/US ton x 8600 Btu/lb = 17,200,000 Btu/US ton
Year 1 coal cost = 14,200,920,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton x $15/US ton = $105,639,983/y
Year 1 O&M and other costs = 3 c/kWh. See Note.
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.078/kWh = $1,107,671,760/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $316 million/y x 50 y = $15.8 billion
Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of 10% for 50 y
Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y
Year 1 electricity price $0.078/kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
.
Per google AI, the owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at a strong 5.55% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($514.8M) and hits 44.18% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.04% exact IRR.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
NOTE:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
We should have started upgrading any number of older coal plants that run at 30-35% efficiency to AUSC 20 years ago to today. Instead we wasted time fussing with renewables, and now people point out that new electric generation needed quickly, in a couple of years in other words, can only be supplied with wind and solar.
How convenient.
Keven,
Here we are talking about Ultra Super Critical, USC, plants, as built in China and Germany.
Standard plants of 30 – 40 years ago cannot be upgraded.
They need to be removed and USC plants built, so the existing distribution gridwork can be utilized
Old plants can be upgraded by ORC, Kalina cycle, or better Rankine steam cycle tech. A big problem is that the upgrade is more expensive than just building a new plant. But Kevin is right..if the money was spent on these upgrades instead of 6 hour per day weather dependent power sources….we would be in a much more reliable situation today.
“Old plants can be upgraded by ORC, Kalina cycle, or better Rankine steam cycle tech. A big problem is that the upgrade is more expensive than just building a new plant.”
That would be two steps backward.
That is the reason I recommend razing old coal plants and replace them with USC plants, which is what China had been doing for at least 15 years.
Correction which replaces above relevant section
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.078/kWh = $1,107,671,760/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $316 million/y x 50 y = $15.8 billion
Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of 10% for 50 y
Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y
Year 1 electricity price $0.078/kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
Assume no up-front cash tax credits, 20-y depreciation, loan interest deduction.
.
Per google AI, the Owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at a strong 5.55% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($514.8M) and hits 44.18% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.04% exact IRR.
Correction which replaces prior correction
I made some additional refinement
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.082kWh = $1,164,475,440/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $317.2 million/y x 50 y = $15.86 billion
Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of minimum of 10% for 50 y
Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y
Year 1 electricity price $0.082kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
Assume 20-y MACRS depreciation, if applicable
Assume no up-front tax credits; assume loan interest deduction from taxable income
.
Per google AI, the Owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at 6.31% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($533.24 Million) and hits 47.52% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.77% exact IRR.
It is worth watching the Youtube video
Clean Coal Technologies – A Masterclass by Professor Rosemary Falcon
(Emeritus Professor Clean Coal Technology Research Group at the University of Witwatersrand)
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” – Unknown, emphasizing the fear-driven nature of censorship
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan
Earth is cooler w the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t balance and violate both GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from an upwelling black body surface impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.
Schroeder, you have been corrected many times on your nonsense in the past…and are now claiming “censorship” on a site that has let your weekly “open thread” comments essentially detract from the intelligence of article authors and cause new reader confusion…for a long time already…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/04/10/matt-ridley-thinks-the-climate-parrot-is-almost-dead/#comment-4183604
Earth is NOT a black body. Look at the pictures – a beautiful bright blue marble with white patches!
In the context of scientific discourse and not about billiard balls, the words “black body” refer to a TYPE of radiation spectrum. As DISTINCT from a EMISSION/ABSORPTION radiation spectrum. Can you not get that into your head?
The interior air of most greenhouses is almost always warmer than the air surrounding the greenhouse. That is what the greenhouse effect is all about, a medium allowing much more radiant energy from a much hotter source than it allows to escape from the much cooler interior which consists of soil, plants and other stuff. It works, it is real. Before a storm blew it down, my one worked every day, sunshine or overcast cloudy and was still warm at dawn.
‘That is what the greenhouse effect is all about, a medium allowing much more radiant energy from a much hotter source than it allows to escape from the much cooler interior which consists of soil, plants and other stuff. It works, it is real.’
Just to clarify your comment, by ‘medium’ I assume you’re referring to the glass, right? And was the interior of your former greenhouse warmer than ambient conditions due predominantly to the absorption / emission of outgoing IR or to the impeding of convective overturning by this medium?
Gosh, where to begin replying?
First, speaking of nonsense:
Yes, cooler with an albedo of about 0.3 than it would be with a lower albedo . . . so what?
No, not cooler with an atmosphere than it would be without one. Common example used to demonstrate this: the average surface temperature of the Moon (max and min at equator averaged: about -5 deg-C) versus that of Earth (about +15 deg-C), even though the Moon has a lower albedo (about 0.12) than Earth’s 0.3.
Please show your work that demonstrated either of these claims, especially given that observations (measurement data) show that Earth’s power flux balance has been extraordinarily well-balanced over the last 2000 years or so, hence Earth’s average surface temperature averaging a nearly constant ~15 deg-C over that time period (when adjusted for UHI effects).
Next,
Earth’s surface is correctly modelled as a grey body with average emissivity varying with frequency of thermal radiation (mostly in the LWIR range) . . . it is highly inaccurate to consider it emitting surface radiation as a “black body”.
Being a receiver of LWIR surface radiation, there is no possibility that greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere affect “upwelling” surface radiation at any frequency. You really need to understand the physics behind the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation equation for a grey body.
The “greenhouse gas” effect in Earth’s atmosphere is real, but I do admit that CAGW is a scam perpetuated by climate alarmists having little scientific knowledge.
“Please show your work that demonstrated either of these claims, especially given that observations (measurement data) show that Earth’s power flux balance has been extraordinarily well-balanced over the last 2000 years or so”
While I agree with the conclusion, I don’t think it can be confirmed with measurements from 2000 years ago!
I would also note that it is not the power flux but the integral of the incoming and outgoing fluxes that balances, i.e. joules in vs joules out.
Please look into paleoclimatology proxies . . . measurements of those can be your friend.
As to power flux balance, almost every scientific article discussing earth energy imbalance (EEI) of which I’m aware does balance calculations in W/m^2, NOT in total energy in versus out (that is, in units of joules). The obvious problem with accounting for a double integral of power flux over area and time is standardizing the start time and end time of the integration among the various scientists involved in the matter.
The same issue has to do with determining the value of fluxes. How do you determine what happened before the start time and what happened after the end time?
You’ve never drag raced have you? The top speed doesn’t always win. Do you know why? It is applicable to balancing fluxes.
Accurate enough to determine temperatures differences in the hundredths digit? I don’t think so!
The issue is that in/out flux will *NEVER* balance. Not even the average values. Inward flux occurs over a different time frame than outward flux. If the flux values were the same then the earth would lose approximately twice the amount of heat that it receives.
This means that *some* sort of calculation of total joules in and out is required in order to normalize the two values to a common time frame.
Like I just said, the only way to come up with a balance in the flux is to normalize in and out to a common timeframe. Meaning that total joules of each has to be calculated – which requires a time frame to be specified.
The earth is not a black body, heck it isn’t even really a grey body, it doesn’t have a constant emissivity across the entire surface. It is a huge heat sink with all kinds of various retention times for heat – meaning temperature at which flux is radiated is different and so is the emissivity.
So what does climate science do? Climate science assumes the earth is a gray body with an “average” emissivity. The problem is that there is a variance associated with the average that is ignored. If that variance is greater than the difference between the in/out values then you really don’t KNOW if the difference exists. The range of emissivity across the earth can be from as low as 0.75 to as high as .99, a pretty large range, meaning the variance is also probably pretty large.
Trying to find a difference in flux or joules down to 0.3% (.003 ratio) seems to me to be nothing more than a guess from someone’s cloudy crystal ball. A quite common occurrence in climate science.
Climate science likes to make it seem like they have calculated everything accurately down to the hundredths digit. But the full radiative-transfer for the earth is too complex for full analytical analysis. So they just make guesses at approximations, e.g. earth’s “effective” emissivity – and then try to convince everyone that there is no uncertainty associated with the results.
(Sigh) . . . I was talking about power flux calculations and Earth’s energy imbalance . . . you turn right around and conflate (or is it misdirect?) the conversation to temperatures and there never being a BALANCE. And still insist that using joules is “the only way”.
It all just a word salad.
Power flux will *NEVER* be in balance in the Earth’s thermodynamic system because of the different time intervals involved and the different temperatures at play.
Got it? NEVER
Power flux is based on T^4. If the temperatures are different then the POWER FLUX rates will be different – NO BALANCE.
T1^4 ≠ T2^4 unless T1 = T2. Where in the Earth’s system is T1 = T2?
The only way to balance HEAT is by using values whose dimension is HEAT, i.e. Joules. Joules/sec will NEVER balance unless you have equilibrium.
This may be a hard truth to accept but it is the truth nonetheless.
Climate science playing with radiative flux balance is just one more piece of garbage science. The satellites will *NEVER* read the same flux from the sun and the Earth at the same instant in time.
You first need to accept that insolation power flux over a period of time is absorbed by both the oceans and the land. That time period results in some number of joules/meter². Some of those joules are STORED for hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries. Those long term stored joules do not contribute to the outgoing power flux from the surface at the time when absorption occurs. Therefore power fluxes will never balance.
For those looking for the cause of this summer’s wild fires in North America and low river levels in Europe, one needs to look no further than ENSO.
According to NOAA, from 2020 to 2025 (6 years) there were 51 months of La Nina conditions as opposed to 8 months of El Nino. El Nino is a major source of atmospheric humidity. The lack of El Ninos means less atmospheric moisture, leading to less rain, and thus the conditions that we see this summer.
The relative paucity of El Ninos since 2020, is an indicator of lower tropical ocean heat content, and thus global cooling, rather than global warming. This is the result of the recently weak solar cycles as we approach the minima of the Gleissberg cycle.
Nothing to do with CO2
More to do with arsonists than anything else.
Just saw this headline:
South Africa is overlooking solar technology
that can keep generating electricity after sunset
South Africa’s coal-fired power stations are retiring. The country must replace a huge amount of electricity over the next two decades. Currently, coal still supplies 74% of the country’s power. But the government’s national energy plan has largely overlooked one technology South Africa is particularly suited to build: concentrating solar power.
(From The Conversation, August 16, 2026)
I would like to ask the fine professor who wrote this a few questions:
• If this were possible, why are there no wealthy business people in the world who have invested millions in concentrating solar power?
• Surely they would be eager to do so because they would have a monopoly and be well on their way to make a killing earning billions?
• Is he unaware of the abysmal failures in the US of achieving goals in supplying solar power cost effectively?
Why are the billionaire alarmists not setting an example and pouring their money into these schemes but expect huge government subsidies?
Africa needs electricity after dark ! Who knew !!
How dumb can the crackpots on the Conversation get !!
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are seeing one dam thing after another.
The governors of Washington and Oregon have now come out in favor of breaching and removing another four large hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest — in addition to the four Lower Snake River (LSR) dams — for a total of eight large dams targeted for removal.
“Dam” the Torpedoes: Northwest Hydropower Under Attack (Rick Dunn, August 2nd, 2026)
The additional dams targeted for breaching and removal would be the four large Lower Columbia River (LCR) dams — McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville.
The average annual generation in recent years derived from the LCR and LSR dams has been 2,535 and 686 average megawatts (aMW) respectively. The combined 3,200 aMW from the eight dams represents 44% of total Northwest federal hydropower production.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Financial Analysis of Megapack Battery System; 2023 pricing
Assume battery capacity at 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh
Turnkey cost $104.5 million;
Specific cost $104,500,000 /181,900 kWh = $574.5/kWh
Amortize bank loan, $52.25 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years,
Owner investment, $52.25 million, minimum 10%/y for 15 years,
Assume battery daily usage at 40% of capacity, which decreases with aging
Battery system capacity aging at 1.5%/y loss for 15 years
Year 1 arbitrage
Year 1 roundtrip battery system loss factor = 0.9 *0.9 = 0.81
Battery delivers to HV grid at peak hours = 365 d/y x 181,900 kWh x 0.4, usagex 0.9 = 21,511,494 kWh/y, which Owner sells at wholesale price of 12 c/kWh
Battery takes from HV grid at midday = 26,557,400 kWh/y, which Owner buys at wholesale price of 6 c/kWh
Battery roundtrip loss = 5,045,906 kWh/y
Year 15 arbitrage
Year 15 roundtrip loss factor 0.81 x (1 – 0.015) ^14 = 0.655
Battery delivers to HV grid at peak hours = 365 d/y x 181,900 kWh x 0.4, usagex 0.655 = 17,395,097 kWh/y, which Owner sells at wholesale price of 12 c/kWh
Battery takes from HV grid at midday = 26,557,400 kWh/y, which Owner buys at wholesale price of 6 c/kWh
Battery roundtrip loss = 9,162,303 kWh/y
Fixed O&M costs $20/kW-year
Payment levels determined by Grid Operator to “help make batteries pay”
Owner receives capacity payments of $3/kW-month
Owner receives ancillary services payments of $12/kW-month
Assume subsidies at 30% up-front cash tax credits, 6-y depreciation, loan interest deduction.
Assume Owner has other profitable businesses which would fully utilize any tax credits
Financial Metrics, per Google AI
Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 11.74% vs 10% hurdle
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt.
.
NOTE: Excluded costs are: 1) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 2) downtime of parts of the system, 3) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites.
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all battery systems operate at less than 10%. They are typically used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. See URL.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
About 40% annual throughput, by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, as in sunny California, would be extremely hard to achieve. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% annual throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system to maximize profits. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, plus they added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
.
Loss factor is from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid.
.
NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
.
NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese.
I see anti-catastrophist groups on Facebook, such as Climate Con (but quality of posts is wanting).
But Marxist Naomi Klein is a climate alarmist, presently getting publicity for that ideology.
Naomi Klein – Wikipedia
The Guardian newspaper out of Britain has an article by Klein. Seems alarmist so I unsubscribed from its mailings.
‘How we defeat this end times fascism’, 18Aug26, whines about news media retreating from climate alarmism.
“The tech oligarchs leading this race are proving all too willing to sacrifice the habitability of the planet for their end times fever dreams, believing that their wealth, and the various high-end bunkers it buys, will protect them from the hell they are unleashing on the rest of us.”
She attacks ‘Silicon Valley’ businesses.
The rise of end times fascism | Far right (US) | The Guardian