Some talking points that need continuous exposure. Additions to the list are encouraged: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Surface area of Pacific atolls is increasing, sea level rise is not a threat.
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.
Tide gauges show acceleration of sea level rise to be nearly zero.
If the Himalayan glaciers melt away, the rivers will still flow.
Corals live in the tropics. Warm water does not cause bleaching.
Poor forest managment results in larger fires when they occur.
Carbon dioxide makes world greener and warmer with more rain.
There isn’t a down side to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
On edit, DONE, I expect I’ll post that list again with any additions. I have it saved in my files as “One Liners” and as such is pretty much the opposite of academic papers filled with mathematical equations and long lists of references. Both are useful and probably necessary to slay the Climate Cult Dragon.
I just turned 82 and hope that recent revelations will be instrumental in achieving the end of the nightmare before I drop dead.
Happy Birthday! I just turned 82 on Aug 1. Actually, it is quite easy to show that CO2 cannot and does not cause warming of the atmosphere. See my comment below.
We should stop talking about CO2 as if it is a disease.
That is what the self-serving IPCC crowd wants you to do.
They fill your head with nonsense. Do not repeat it!
Increased CO2 ppm is a major blessing.
It greens the earth, requires less water and fertilizer to grow green crops to better feed 8 billion people
Texas built the largest wind fleet in America. More than 30,000 turbines; costing tens of billions in subsidies; sold as clean, limitless energy. But those turbines need to be replaced every 20 years, rotor blades every 5 years. Total madness. Nuclear plants are good for 60 to 80 years, produces steady power that cost s much less/kWh……
But in February 2021, reality hit the wind madness.
A historic cold outbreak froze the turbines, because they were not equipped with winterizing packages, common in colder climates; save money/screw reliability.
Power output across the state collapsed within hours; the grid buckled; millions lost electricity; almost 1,000 people died.
The promise was clean energy. The reality was blackouts, Texans freezing to death, and a grid one cold snap away from collapse. Same is true in the UK, Spain, Germany, etc. Insanity on subsidized steroids!
“Polar bears don’t need the sea ice, it’s the seals that need the ice.” While Polie Bears will feed on many things, seals seem to be the main choice at the buffet. Thinking long term, what happens with decreased ice, should it happen? Is there a subsequent decline in seals to be followed by a decline in bears or their health and reproduction? With the cessation of recreational hunting the bears had a multi-generational recovery. Just wondering — not for a friend. 🙂
I suspect seals don’t really “need” sea ice either. They just use it because it’s there and convenient. Animals adapt, or they die. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be.
Biomarkers show that there was regularly less than 1 Wadham of sea ice during the Holocene Optimum.. Seals and polar bears had no problem until man started hunting them.
If sea ice declines, seals on the ice come closer to land .. so the PS’s don’t have as far to travel to the smorgasbord. 🙂
Polar bears and seals both survived the Eemian and the many other warm interglacials preceding that. Supposedly, Arctic temperatures were 6 deg warmer than present with CO2 at rising from about 260ppm to about 290ppm. I assume we can blame Big Oil for that as well… (sarc).
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 288 K or 15 C, while without it GMST would be 255 or -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also no consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper (walked back in 1906) and no GHE means no 30% albedo. Without GreenHouse Gas water vapor there is no GHE and Earth would become much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and a plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” surface energy upwelling as an imaginary, S-B, theoretical, calculated 396 W/m^2 black body impossible.
The GHE is failed science and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
Nicholas, let’s say the surface emits at 396 and you have an instrument that shows that amount . Knowing it is 98% of a BB you can calculate its temperature to be 15 C. Now point that instrument at the sky and it reads 333….you don’t have to even calculate the sky temperature, just know 333 is the Downwelling EMR…..so the net heat loss from surface skywards is 396-333=63 watts by radiation. Nothing imaginary, it’s just how the world works. At ground level, add in the 100 or so of thermals and evaporation and it balances the 160 absorbed by the surface from the sun. Thermodynamic heat flow is from warm surface to cool sky, numbers balance, no “extra” anywhere…you are going to need to explain your non scientific claims much better.
Solar balance, W/m^2 ISR
1,368
Divide by 4 to spread discular over spherical. Dumb, btw.
342
Diminish by 30% albedo that no one agrees on.
342 * .7 = 240
Minus 79 atmospheric absorb (not really)
161 net/net to surface
161 enters, 161 is all that can leave, LoT 1
Solar Outgoing, OLR
17 sensible + 80 Latent + 63 LWIR + .9 fudge = 161
Balance is closed!!
Calculated balance.
396 is BB at 16 C. Appears out of nowhere. More than 342 & 161 violates LoT 1.
333 “Back” violates LoT 2.
63 duplicate LWIR w nowhere to go violates LoT 1.
Remove from graphic and solar balance holds.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
(356-333=23+40=63 Table for one not two.)
“…you have an instrument (calibrated to) that shows that amount…” IR instruments read temperature and calibrate power flux assuming emissivity. Assuming BB assumes wrong. 63/396=0.16 & not BB
“396…appears out of nowhere”….no it is the EMR emitted by the surface at its temperature…very standard physics….
”333 Back violates LoT1”….well you only have the “minus” half of the equation…which for simple planar surfaces is…
…..P = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]….
….which means that heat flow is from surface to sky and on to outer space….as it’s supposed to be….hmmm…LoT1 is thus NOT broken….and 63 is not a duplicate….its just what the equation says the net heat transfer is due to the two different temperatures exchanging photons…
This is very basic physics, Nick. You need to use your 50 year’s ago engineering student brain and work out a few radiative exchange example problems from various online courses or lectures until you have a “light bulb” moment. The usual “Heat Budget” graphics do have a problem apparently mixing “Net Heat” numbers with Plank “absolute T” numbers…and you are not alone in your failure to grok it.
And the chart retains the same meaning if 396-333 arrows are replaced by one 63 upwards, with 40 directly to outer space…with a note underneath the graphic that the 63 is 396-333 worth of Planck photon exchange. I think you would not have a LoT or double accounting issue with such a depiction….
….oops exceeded my coffee time….gotta go….until next week when us septuagenarians can duke it out some more….good thing for readers our ability to post graphics have been taken away from us…
By definition a thermodynamic black body requires that all the energy entering (absorbed) and leaving(emitted) do so by radiation.
For the terrestrial system’s 1,368 W/m^2 ISR 30% is reflected and 70% absorbed. Emissivity is 0.7 & not a BB.
For the terrestrial system’s net albedo, net atmosphere surface 160 W/m^2 upwelling 17 W/m^2 is sensible, 80 W/m^2 is latent, 63 W/m^2 by remainder to balance. Emissivity 63/160=0.4 & not a BB.
1.0 Earth is cooler w atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
2.0 Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t plus violate LoT.
3.0 Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a BB system impossible.
Bizarre! When talking units, SIZE of units, C=K Any more nits to pick today?
The earth is a glowing blue white jewel as in all photos from space (not Photoshopped video from Al Gore)
Not a black body.
There is no such a thing as a Greenhouse Effect theory, there are real greenhouses and they work just the way they are built to work.
The truth prevails, an atmosphere around a planet contributes to the steady state of the surface of that planet.
Earth has an atmosphere which contains significant water vapour and trace carbon dioxide and other gases.
They set the baseline conditions around which the variable surface conditions vary as the input of total energy varies up and down by various other mechanisms.
Let’s revisit this graduate-level course material from the University of Washington about the kinetic energy cycle within the general circulation of the atmosphere. Please take the time to read the whole first page.
Key quotes:
“Motions driven either directly or indirectly by horizontal heating gradients in a stably stratified atmosphere account for more than 98% of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
“Motions driven by convective instability account for the remainder of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
Notice that it is “horizontal heating gradients,” not “temperature” gradients. This means that the minor improvement in the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere from rising concentrations of CO2 helps the atmosphere generate kinetic energy more responsively as the pulses of sunshine pass across the surface from east to west (as viewed from the fixed surface.)
And the slightly improved IR coupling of the surface to the lower atmosphere should also promote the onset of convection involved in the formation of cumulus clouds and other responses.
So what? These concepts demonstrate that the computation of a static radiative “warming” tendency for rising concentrations of CO2 does not mean that sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans must be expected as a result. The motion changes everything about where that energy ends up.
NO ONE KNOWS that emissions of CO2 operate as a “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise. The static framing of the question of climate system response has been a misdirection all along. The stepped-static radiative transfer components of the models don’t resolve that limitation either.
Dear Dr D Dibbell,
Thanks for the challenging reading assignment.
I skimmed the whole thing, and then read carefully (3X) that first page, with mark-up tools.
(Wondering all-the-while who was the author (lecturer) that compiled this, and how to access the illustrations cited within.)
A question for you, from the world of observational meteorology, its eventful record-of-change over the recent (4+) decades. There’s the vexing question of better ‘metrics’ (maths: ‘measure theory’). Changes in ‘zonal potential energy gradients’, latitudinal & altitudinal, attendant effects on the so-called General Circulation, or air currents (windspeeds, KE) in all 3D.
He’s a bit hard to read, because of the Socratic Method (dialogue) unclear demarcation, but JB* seems to be drawing similar conclusions to yours from the same observational pool, using temporal (annual) averages at each grid-point (in 3D),rather than the minute-by-minute illustrations you prefer.
Or how do you see it?
Same track (by different methods); parallel tracks; or orthogonal (cross purposes)?
Thank you for your reply. See here for the source of that link to the pdf, and the list of related material which includes the illustrations. The instructor is Professor (Emeritus) John. M. (Mike) Wallace. https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/
About the link to Joe Bastardi’s CFact post, thank you for that. I follow him on X with great respect for his insights and commentary. I see no conflict with what I’ve been posting about using hourly values from ERA5 and hourly images from GOES. Parallel tracks against the unwarranted alarm.
Thanks, Honorary-Dr DD, perhaps I’ve confused you with a ~ Chemical Engineer PhD ~ from the upstate-NY (Albany – Troy – Schenectady) region,* who writes as tho’ he’d suffered / survived a PhD program somewhere.
— RLW
P.S. Besides your own, I’ve long found inspiration at WUWT by posts authored by (2) personages I’d refer to collectively as Will-Will (or Will^2) and more recently the commentary of (2) others, Phil-Phil (Phil^2). They { Will^2 & Phil^2 } & you will know who they are.
The clue provided in January ( 2025 ) by Will(#1)-Eschenbach’s empirical constant (invariant) ~ 1.6524, or rather its 4th root (~ 17/15, 1.133…), seems to serve as a better foundation than just about any other recent discovery.
I’ve previously pointed out, in these pages, that this ‘magic ratio’ is compatible with (303 K / 267 K), i.e. the ‘steam-point’ critical temperature for sustained organized convection in the tropical equatorial zones (+30 Celsius serving as the fixed upper bound for the SST in the freely circulating ocean), to the ‘frost-point’ (-6 Celsius) at 5-km (16,000′), as the ceiling of those active zones.
This would point toward two (2) other underlying constants ( unique ‘adiabatic invariants‘) namely the Entropies (per H2O molecule)— respectively of the convective (H2O,air) updraft and its surrounding downdraft — within each unit cell.
As characteristic values of the primary heat (steam-frost) engine, located within the tropical lower troposphere, they specify the (distant) work-output, of the myriad cells, driving the broader (global) circulation.
In this frame, the recent rapid ‘climate change’ (aka ‘warming’ / re-humidification) of the skies is largely a matter of increasing the number (areal coverage) of these unitary primary-engine cells.
Or, in one word, Expanding-the-Tropics, mostly latitudinally (poleward). Not an original notion, in any sense. But a necessary one, given the perpetual penchant of the Cli-Sci-Cognoscenti for ‘runaway ‘ / infrared-catastrophic warming.
Quite Enough Done (for one pre-dawn hour)
*My own youth (mostly wasted) included (4) long winters in the nearby Finger-Lakes (Ithaca) region, 1980-84 A.D.
Thanks for the link and the authorship attribution…always better to know the pedigree of what has been written. I was somewhat bemused that the author could say lots about horizontal winds without mentioning the word “Coriolis” at least once…or maybe my skim-through missed it…
I’m just glad that I can sit here drinking my morning coffee without sliding off my chair, while ripping at high speed through space in some sort of epicyclic path around the sun. 🙂
You quoted “Motions driven either directly or indirectly by horizontal heating gradients in a stably stratified atmosphere account for more than 98% of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
That’s fine and is confirmed by a Web search . . . but the related question is “So what?” For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?
“For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?”
First, please understand that kinetic energy is not a vector quantity. For the purposes of this post and the material referenced, it just means that the scalar values of KE under discussion are computed using only the horizontal components of velocity.
I fully understand that local horizontally-oriented kinetic energy allows for a full 360 degrees of local azumithual variation, and thus IS NOT a physical vector parameter. As you stated, kinetic energy itself is not a vector parameter.
GLAT = Global Lower Atmospheric Temperature, an acronym commonly found in satellite temperature measurement data published by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
Thank you for your clarification.
Now back to your question, “For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?”
No. This is because neither value conveys a complete characterization of the total energy state of the atmosphere, whether evaluated locally or globally.
For the “so what” of my post, I am pasting it here again for your convenience. It’s conceptual.
“So what? These concepts demonstrate that the computation of a static radiative “warming” tendency for rising concentrations of CO2 does not mean that sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans must be expected as a result. The motion changes everything about where that energy ends up.
NO ONE KNOWS that emissions of CO2 operate as a “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise. The static framing of the question of climate system response has been a misdirection all along. The stepped-static radiative transfer components of the models don’t resolve that limitation either.”
” . . . temperature, a subjective static imaginary object better represented by dealing with amounts of energy”
Hmmm, in response I’m just wondering:
1) How many scientists, physicists and engineers consider temperature to be an “object”, real or imagined?
2) Why astronomers and cosmologists (and, of course, others) refer to a cosmic background temperature of about 2.7 K, instead of referring to the amount of energy associated with that?
3) Why scientists (and, of course, others) discuss temperatures as being meaningful—you know, things like the freezing point of water being 32 deg-F (0 deg-C) and the boiling point of water at STP being 212 deg-F (100 deg-C)—instead of discussing the associated “amounts of energy”?
4) Why thermometers we ever invented, and why are they are even used today by peoples of all walks of life? Energy meters would be much more suitable and meaningful, right?
5) Why the heck do weather forecasters dare to mention temperatures? Let’s hear it in ergs!
Unfortunately, your link didn’t work “on this server”. I’ve wondered about the KE in the air at the equator as it transits to the poles. There’s roughly the same amount of KE in a mass at the equator as there is as useable thermal energy. The KE is all gone when it reaches the pole.
“There’s roughly the same amount of KE in a mass at the equator as there is as useable thermal energy. The KE is all gone when it reaches the pole.”
That would be accurate in an inertial reference frame (i.e. stationary in respect to the earth’s axis of rotation). But for meteorological purposes, a rotating reference frame is used which is fixed to the spherical surface. We are familiar with this in the use of latitude, longitude, and altitude for position. So the velocities from which KE is computed are relative to the rotating reference frame; i.e., relative to the surface. Coriolis terms are used in the computations of motion to properly handle the difference in the reference frames. So in the course material and universally in the modeling of the general circulation, that is how it is handled.
If you had a wind turbine at the North or South Pole at the surface, and the wind was blowing at 20 mph, you would get approximately the same performance as anywhere else on Earth in converting KE to shaft work to generate electrical energy.
If you had a wind turbine at the North or South Pole at the surface, and the wind was blowing at 20 mph, you would get approximately the same performance as anywhere else on Earth . . .
Given that polar sea level air is generally denser than equatorial air, “approximately” covers a wide range. Maybe your statement implies something you didn’t mean.
A 10 – 15 % variation in power output at the same wind speed might be considered relevant by some.
Thank you for your reply.
Sheesh. That is exactly why I said “approximately” – knowing that temperature and air density would make somewhat of a difference, but in any case would be irrelevant to the point being made about how kinetic energy is figured for meteorological purposes.
Be well.
Bernoulli’s equation states that dP/rho =(V^2)/2, which translates to a characteristic aerodynamic force (F = dP*A = A*rho *(Cv,a)*(V^2)/2, where:
dP = pressure differential developed in fluid flow,
rho = density of the fluid (gas),
V = characteristic velocity across a surface,
F = force developed on a given surface in the flow having characteristic area A,
A = area in the flow that experiences force F, and
Cv,a = an overall coefficient that adjusts for shape and developed force varying as a function Reynolds number, flow turbulence, “lift coefficient”, etc. as they vary with various geometric and flow parameters, such as relative local velocity and turbulence.
So, to first order, the force developed by a wind turbine will vary directly proportional to atmospheric density, all other things being equal.
The density (rho) for air at 80 deg-F and 10,000 ft altitude (not unusual over earth’s surface) is about 56% of the air density at -20 deg-F at sea-level (not unusual for either of Earth’s poles during respective winters).
Therefore, up to a 50% or so variability in delivered power output for a given wind velocity might be seen depending on where a given wind turbine design is located and the associated ambient air pressure and temperature.
When David said “If you had a wind turbine at the North or South Pole at the surface, and the wind was blowing at 20 mph, you would get approximately the same performance as anywhere else on Earth in converting KE to shaft work to generate electrical energy.”, somebody might draw the conclusion that “approximately” meant “pretty close” or something equally misleading.
Terms such as “kinetic energy” and “potential energy” can be misleading without expansion of what the author is trying to say.
In any case, neither has any real value in relation to the atmosphere – about as pointless as temperature or pressure or wind direction.
They are what they are, but people love measuring them and thinking that enough measurements will allow the future to be seen clearly.
Others love wasting time doing calculations which don’t lead to advances in anything. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, never repeating a previous state. No one knows why, really. That’s just the way it is – and this fact is even grudgingly acknowledged by the collctively delusional IPCC.
. . . air at the equator as it transits to the poles.
The air at the equator doesn’t transit to the poles. Actually, the atmosphere is denser at the poles, and consequently the atmospheric thickness is less.
Air heats during the day by absorbing energy from the Sun, and cools at night in the absence of sunlight. Just like all matter.
The atmosphere is held in place around the roughly spherical Earth by gravity, believe it or not. Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line, unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
An atom or molecule acted on by the force of gravity stays where it is, unless forced to do otherwise. Heating at the equator for 12 hours or so does not cause a mad rush of air to flee polewards to escape the heat!
That’s a mad delusion fostered by pretend “climate scientists” and their gullible followers.
Oh well, my opinion has a value of precisely nil – the same as anybody else’s.
Actually, in this case your challenge of the statement “air at the equator as it transits to the poles” is quite valid. Thank you.
Here is what Google’s AI bot states:
“No, air from the equator does not directly travel to or deposit dust at the Earth’s poles.” (With link to source https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/global-atmospheric-circulations
that discusses the three major circulation cells preventing surface air movement directly from equator to pole: the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the Polar cell) “The Earth’s rotation and uneven solar heating divide each hemisphere into three separate atmospheric circulation cells rather than one continuous loop from equator to pole. “—The Hadley Cell: Warm air rises at the equator, moves toward the poles, but cools and sinks back down to the surface around 30 degrees latitude (the subtropics). It never reaches higher latitudes. — Mid-latitude and Polar cells: The Ferrel cell and Polar cell handle air movement further north and south, meaning air masses cycle in regional loops rather than moving globally from pole to equator.”
Thanks. I’ll disagree with the AI Hadley cell speculation, though. AI says –
Rising Air at the Equator: Intense sunlight heats the air near the equator, causing it to become warm and rise. This rising air creates a low-pressure zone . . .
Unfortunately, this is physically nonsensical. Why would rising air cause a low pressure zone? The height of the atmospheric column might change, but the total weight of air within the column will stay the same. About as silly as saying that pressure on the sea bed will change because the seas surface warms in sunlight.
None of this stuff is as simple as the people who sprout it. People who think –
Poleward Flow: Once the warm air reaches the upper atmosphere, it moves away from the equator toward the north and south.
Now why would it do that? The air is held in place on the roughly spherical globe by gravity, and won’t move unless subjected to a force.
And so it goes. On and on.
Nobody really understands Nature, down to the point where it turns out to be impossible to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a photon. As Feynman said, “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
Anybody who claims to be able to usefully predict (better than 12 years old child) future states of the atmosphere is either pulling your leg, or delusional.
The counties’ growth in per-capita income also has lagged behind the national average, even as their nominal gross domestic product nearly doubled, increasing their share of the country’s GDP by 6%. Basically, comparatively high economic output from the counties did not produce higher-than-average incomes for their residents.
“Despite immense economic growth as measured by GDP, Frackalachia is in a position of actually having lost jobs since the beginning of the natural-gas boom,” O’Leary said. In his view, the numbers contradict pro-industry pitches for more oil and gas development.
The number of orphan wells in need of cleanup nearly doubled over the last year to reach 3,388 compared to 1,719 the previous year.
In Alberta, any unsold wells, pipelines and facilities following the bankruptcy of an oil and gas company are declared orphans and become the responsibilities of the Orphan Well Association (OWA) to decommission and remediate.
Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
“fracking is not the job creator the industry claims”
_________________________________________________________
Hmmm. That means the industry has figured out a way to lower the cost, and I should enjoy lower prices for their product, and the labor force will be freed up to produce other goods and services.
You keep banging on that solar drum but the grid still needs base energy so still paying for two systems when one does the better job. Put down the drum, back away, chuck the sticks, and find a different instrument.
You have not run through the numbers. The long-term, full, cost of electricity from coal is cheaper than a renewables-based system. Yet employment in coal power plants is higher than on solar farms.
I generally shoot my own meat-care to come down and watch? Be sure to either gobble, or wear antlers, and trespass freely. You can fish my pond-the snapper and cats will take care of any humanoid meat that falls in. Look forward to seeing you…for awhile, anyways.
Speaking of TDS: while we have a national debt that has recently exceeded $40 trillion USD and major wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and a whacko political environment in the US with the President’s approval rating being less than 40%, please consider the following “winning”, mostly by ridiculous Executive Orders:
— renaming the “Gulf of Mexico”, which the rest of the world has largely ignored,
— renaming “Lake Ontario”, which the rest of the world will ignore,
— stating that Canada wants to become the 51st State in the US, with no evidence whatsoever to support such an absurd claim,
— stating that the US should just takeover Greenland and ignore what Denmark has to say about the matter (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_bRVOiKCfk ).
Coming next according to the pundits:
— Renaming Canadian geese to American geese,
— Renaming Canada Dry soda to American Dry soda,
— Renaming the area surrounding the nation’s Capitol to Washington, District of Greatness,
— Renaming the San Andreas fault to Joe Biden’s fault.
Personally, I choose to rename MAGA as “Making America Goofy Alright”.
And finally, I understand that there is a world-wide shortage on gold leaf due to all of Trump’s gilding of furniture, light fixtures, picture frames, fireplaces, and inside and outside ornamentation on Federal buildings throughout Washington, D.G. I further understand that the precious metals market has already “priced in” the several tons of gold leaf that Trump has directed by used inside in his new, “safety critical” custom ballroom building adjacent to the White House. /sarc
I read a story about how angry a wealthy yacht club is that their low wage help got deported. You lefties complain about the rich but do everything possible to help them 😉
Oh, no . . . not at all! I take particular delight in seeing fools being so obviously, well, foolish . . . such as in imagining they know what other people think/believe.
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” ― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
… with the President’s approval rating being less than 40%, …
With the country being as polarized as it is, I would be surprised if it ever reached 50%. Taking into account the Independents and Libertarians, 40% is probably about right.
The USA was highly polarized when the November 2024 Presidential elections were held, yet Donald Trump won the national popular vote with 49.8% to Kamala Harris’s 48.3%.
Most people would say 49.8% fairly rounds off to 50%.
Yes, I paid $3.61 per gallon of gasoline at my last fill-up. The one before that cost $3.67 per gallon. Prices are coming down and are much lower than the $5.00+ per gallon under Biden.
“USA has far cheaper petrol than anywhere in the EU.. again a fact you ignore.”
Brilliant comment . . . NOT.
Would that fact be due, perhaps, to the fact that the US is a net exporter of petroleum and its refined byproducts, mainly gasoline, diesel and jet fuel?
Poverty rates are declining and household incomes are rising across Appalachia. In places where “Net Zero” policies have been adopted, poverty has increased and GDP growth has slowed or declined.
Carbon Brief compared short-term very high electricity prices with a very low long-term auction price for offshore. So low that there were no takers.
Another myth they perpetuate is that there is a global gas price. I stated Aug 26 (using figures from tradingeconomics)
The current Louisiana Henry Hub natural gas price is around $2.80 per MMBtu. At current exchange rates this in ~20.5 GBp/thm. The same site gives the current British natural gas price at 159.45 GBp/thm, nearly 8 times more. Back in 2019 it was ~65% greater.
Alice Springs Int. Air Port: 1942-2026
Year——-Thi——-Tlo Temperatures are ° C
2026——30.3——13.4
1942——29.5——13.9
Change–+0.8——-0.5
CO2 Concentration Data:
2026: 429 ppmv (0.84 g CO2 per cu. m. of air)
1942: 312 ppmv (0.61 g CO2 per cu . m. of air)
Old Post Office at Alice Springs: 1879-1941
Year——Thi——-Tlo
1941 —–27.5—–12.7
1879 —–28.8—–11.9
Change- -0.7—+0.8
CO2 Concentration Data:
1941: 310 ppmv (0.61 g CO2 per cubic meter of air)
1879: 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2 per cubic meter of air)
Although the increase of CO2 concentration at the airport was 34%, this had little effect on air temperature. In particular, Tlo showed a slight decrease.
The reason CO2 had little effect on air temperature in desert city is because there is very little of it in the air.
The above empirical data and calculations falsifies the claim by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 in the air causes global warming.
I grew up in the fifties and into the sixties in a semi-desert town far from Alice Springs. I cannot remember anyone dying because of the heat but I remember one year going to look at the official temperature records at our weather station. During the previous year for three months in the summer there was not a single day when the maximum temperature was below 30° C and many of these days it was above 40° C. If my memory serves me right, every summer was bloody hot. We had plentiful water so people were able to grow fruit and vegetables which flourished and had few problems with pests because of the dry heat. The money squandered today on net zero would be far better spent on providing water for hot, dry areas.
In 1887 a Glaisher stand was used and not a Stevenson screen:
In a 60yr comparison from 1887 to 1947 between a Stevenson and a Glaisher screen using daily data at Adelaide, South Australia the delta between the two was nearly 1C – the Glaisher screen recording the highest.
In 1887 a Glaisher stand was used and not a Stevenson screen:
It is part and parcel of what climate science ignores – measurement uncertainty. Different devices may have different readings on exactly the same measurand. Each device may be 100% accurate when calibrated in a lab. Field measurements are a whole different story. Microenvironment must not mean much to you, so I expect you have never been responsible for making field measurements.
To compare reading from two different devices, both of which probably have different microenvironments illustrates how little thought you have put into determining if the readings are actually comparable in a scientific sense. You are extremely naive if you haven’t checked to see if the instruments were in the exact same location, if the shelters cause different readings, if trees and shrubs have changed the wind patterns. Why don’t you show us your compilation of uncertainty budgets for each and see if the overlap.
At the above URL for Alice Springs, you have the option of displaying temperature data for each month of the year.
You should check out the home page at: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. There are links in light blue to weather and climate data to many weather stations located around the world. There are also essays on weather and climate.
“At the above URL for Alice Springs, you have the option of displaying temperature data for each month of the year.“
Yes Harold, that’s where I got the numbers from.
In case you hadn’t realised – if you even out the yearly maxes to an average then you will necessarily lose most of the summer warming signal as that is when a heat-dome will be able to trap dry convection initiated by insolation under its inversion.
EWW uses data from the NOAA and CRU databases. Does NOAA do a reanalysis of the BoM temperature data before placing it in their database? I wonder. I’m giving the BoM a new nickname:
The Massage Salon.
KVS Marshall - Manicbeancounter
August 30, 2026 6:32 am
Here in the UK, there are two new oil fields awaiting final government sign-off for years. The latest scare story (to be published in Nature) uses grossly exaggerated carbon damage costs. It is no surprise to regular readers that The Guardian did an article on it. They stated
The climate damage caused by developing the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields under consideration by the UK government would destroy their economic benefits many times over, according to an analysis.
It estimates the economic damage caused by the carbon pollution from the oil and gas produced would be between £119bn and £336bn in the coming decades, compared with the £28.7bn in value to the UK estimated by Adura…
These are quite minor fields, containing enough oil to supply global demand for 3-4 days. Venezuela, by comparison, could meet global demand for ~9 years. The cost equates to climate damage costs of $770 to $2176 a tonne. Using those same costs, 2024 global GHG emissions of 57.7 GtCO2e produced damage costs of $44,429 to $125,555 billion. That is around 40-110% of global GDP. Clearly, the author does not understand costs. https://manicbeancounter.com/2026/08/27/idiotic-climate-cost-claims-for-rosebank-jackdaw/
How much damage is done by the 70 million kgs of CO2 exhaled everyday by the humans in the UK? Why does soda pop, beer, sparkling wines and French champagne get a free pass on CO2 emissions?
Can you imagine what would happen if the UK placed CO2 emission on beer?
At the MLO Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of CO2. This miniscule amount of CO2 does not have enough “molecular muscle” to harm a fly.
We should mention that oil companies produce fuels for emergency vehicles such as firetrucks and ambulances.
BTW: How is “climate damage” measured? About 71% of the earth’s climates are oceans and these gobble up most all the CO2 emitted from all sources. This is why there is very little CO2 in the air.
And interestingly, it is the part of the Earth that is probably the most uncertain because of the difficulty of sampling properly. I’ve been suspicious for some time that the Bean Counters working on the problem of the Carbon Cycle have assumed that the system was in equilibrium and after adding up the sinks and sources that are more easily measured, they assign values to the oceans that balance the masses.
Rick C
August 30, 2026 7:08 am
Has anyone seen any indication that the climate hysterics conglomerate has acknowledged IPCC’s demotion of SSP5-8.5 to completely implausible nonsense? I see nearly daily new alarmist articles claiming that climate change is meeting IPCC projections from decades ago that were derived from RCP-8.5 and subsequent extreme scenarios. You’d think that at least some of the “other sides” more rational members would be trying to dial down the stupid in their propaganda screeds. Maybe I’ve just missed it.
Any scenario based on warming by CO2 is implausible nonsense. !
D Reid
August 30, 2026 8:37 am
Earlier this week the NY Times (I know, but I have a student subscription, $2 a month, I keep it for the book review) ran a story about the El Niño we got going on, and as I am want to do, I scrolled through the comments. I’ll be honest and say I’m a young person, and through my upbringing in a first-world education system I have had a bit of ‘climate anxiety’ pushed into me by teachers and a bunch of places (you know how scientists and activists love telling children they have no future), and I like to read the comments to try and desensitize myself and also think logically about what these commenters are saying.
This time I saw something interesting. In response to a sentence in the article stating a division among scientists to explain the recent run of strong El Niños we have had, the commenter said
“How divided? I’m not a scientist, but I mean, of course its due to climate change. How can there possibly be a division about this at this point?”
Another commenter replied to the above with “Worse is how prominent [the sentence of division among scientists is] in the article. Like 200 climate scientists say ‘Yup, climate change,”‘and ten climate scientists say, ‘Nope, not climate change.’ Divided? Yes. Equally credible? No.”
There were a number of other comments that were equally dismissive over the possibility that something aside from AGW could be affecting the Nino/Nina cycle and strength, and the idea that the scientists don’t fully understand what is happening.
Guys, what happened? I thought we were the science deniers?
But seriously, i find it very interesting that the climate alarm that the alarmist NY Times is pushing isn’t alarming enough for the alarmists anymore…alarm alarm alarm.
There were comments about how there was no possible alternative, how the idea of division and uncertainty just provides another straw for conservative deniers to hold on to (i like how they all get lumped together, i mean I’m a fairly liberal person and I’m skeptical). A lot of these comments were essentially the big Greta “how dare you.”
For as often as skeptics get accused of denying the science, or cherry picking the data they want, its nice to see the five-alarm alarmists without a scientific background denying science, or at least the possibility that the science actually does not say what they want or is more uncertain than they care to accept, and cherry picking to support their own narrative. I mean I know this wouldn’t be the first time for the alarmists community to be denying and cherry picking, but its still very odd to see in the NY Times comments.
If the “illustrious” Dr. Mann came out tomorrow with a study that said all the increase of GMST over the past blah blah blah was due to an increase in blah blah, a decrease in blah, and was not related to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, would the alarmists even accept it?
I know, certain beyond all certainty, that the day will never come where Michael Mann gets called a climate change denier, but goodness gracious wouldn’t you love to see it? Wouldn’t it be nice for the alarmist community to transform into an oroborous of greater deniers than they accuse us of being?
I like how the Times wrote a Fauci story referring to some of his colleagues believed in a lab leak theory. That “some” was 8 out of 11. Ahhh liars indeed.
Many advances in understanding are accomplished by one person proving hunderds wrong. Maybe 10 versus 200 is a reflection of this.
If you search with this: “examples of one scientist proving others wrong”
.. examples are forthcoming.
My favorite is Harlen Bretz/JT Pardee and the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington State.
“My favorite is Harlen Bretz/JT Pardee and the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington State. “
Traditional geologist critics of the Bretz/Pardee thesis were challenging the occurrence of the catastrophic Glacial Lake Missoula floods well into the 1960’s, long after evidence gathered in the field had become conclusive that these floods had actually happened.
Why were those critics so determined to reject the Bretz/Pardee interpretation?
Since the turn of the 19th century into the 20th, modern geologists had been locked into an ongoing battle with those holding biblical interpretations of geology, particularly with those who believed in the Noah’s Ark biblical story.
For modern geologists of the first half of the 20th Century to acknowledge that a single catastrophic geologic event could affect such a huge area in such a short time would have had the collateral impact of giving biblical interpretations of geology credence among some portion of the population.
And so those modern geologists of the time could not take the risk of accepting the Bretz/Pardee thesis for what it was, clear evidence that the Missoula floods had in fact happened.
Like 200 climate scientists say ‘Yup, climate change,”‘and ten climate scientists say, ‘Nope, not climate change.’ Divided? Yes. Equally credible? No.
Einstein’s theory of relativity was not well received initially. 100 physicists wrote a paper criticizing it. Einstein’s response was, “Why 100 when it would only take one to prove me wrong?”
The elephant in the room we aren’t seeing: No Himalayas, no Nepal disaster. Tectonics caused the Himalayas, not climate change. The formation of the Himalayas began roughly 50 million years ago during the early Eocene epoch. When the Indian tectonic plate and the Eurasian plate finally slammed into each other, neither continental plate could easily subduct below the other due to their similar low densities. Instead, the crust buckled, crumpled, and thrust upward, uplifting sea-floor sediments and granite basements into massive mountain chains. This Collision Phase will continue for the next 20–50 Million Years.
Once tectonic uplift stops, mechanical and chemical weathering will take over completely. Without uplift to counteract erosion, massive mountain ranges generally take roughly 100 million to 200 million years to wear down into low-lying hills or flat cratons, as seen with the ancient Appalachian Mountains, which were once as tall as the Himalayas during the Alleghanian orogeny ~300 million years ago.
The physical existence of the Himalayas is both Nepal’s defining feature and its single greatest source of vulnerability: The Himalayas are young, actively rising mountains created by the ongoing collision of tectonic plates. Without this collision, Nepal would not experience catastrophic earthquakes, ice/rock slides and all the rest.
The tall mountain walls force moisture-laden monsoon winds upward, triggering torrential rains in steep valleys. Ultra-steep terrain combined with young, fragile sedimentary soil makes landslides, Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs), and flash floods geographically inevitable…in a word…Tectonics. Climate change, while real and normal, pales in comparison. No amount of money can change that.
Yes, I asked one of the people blaming the Nepal flood on climate change –
how do you think those watercourses & rivers at the bottoms of the deep Nepal canyons got formed over the eons? Did such erosion from glacier break-ups only start in ~2000 when “global warming” disaster movies started hitting our screens? Reality is, this latest event is not a first-time occurrence. It’s been happening since millions of years ago, even during those periods when atmospheric CO2 was off the scale compared to what it is today. And will continue happening, without any held from human activities.
If it were to suddenly turn cold, there would be less meltwater and therefore a water shortage. The irony is that if the glaciers started to grow, and move, such events such as what recently happened would probably happen more frequently.
So the construction of the Himalayas could take upto 100 million years to complete, yet wear down in 100 – 200 million. That’s not long, the power of nature is amazing.
Yet the climate alarmists claim mankind is more powerful than mother nature.
I think it is time for the Decapitation to take place in Iran.
Why do the Mad Mullahs of Iran still have missiles and drones to shoot at us?
Isn’t it about time we finish the job and eliminate the religious fanatics from rule in Iran?
Westfieldmike
August 31, 2026 4:12 am
Well I’ve just had two tons of logs delivered, that’s my forecast for this Winter in the communist State of the UK. Paid in cash, no tax on my heating, and no record of a payment.
Rational Keith
September 3, 2026 7:18 am
Windpower can be useful:
(20+) Facebook
Eastern Iowa is littered with defunct ones formerly used to pump water – some have been refurbished. Some generate electricity to power pump.
Yes, add solar panels to cover when wind not blowing.
Make both strong enough to resist tornado.
(I spent a few years as a youngster on a farm that had its own windmill and bank of glass-case batteries. Windy country. Had to make sure started windmill before charge depleted (it required electricity to start, ‘alternator’ I recall).
32vdc ran lights and refrigerator in house (ample firewood for heating in that area).
Owner paid for it by working in the oil patch in Alberta. 😉
Some talking points that need continuous exposure. Additions to the list are encouraged:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Surface area of Pacific atolls is increasing, sea level rise is not a threat.
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.
Tide gauges show acceleration of sea level rise to be nearly zero.
If the Himalayan glaciers melt away, the rivers will still flow.
Corals live in the tropics. Warm water does not cause bleaching.
Poor forest managment results in larger fires when they occur.
Carbon dioxide makes world greener and warmer with more rain.
There isn’t a down side to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sequestering carbon dioxide accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Climate scientists rewrite historical data continuously.
Geoengineering schemes are entirely without merit.
Climategate November 2009.
“Carbon dioxide makes world … warmer with more rain.”? Sounds like AGW.
Also I think you mean increasing CO2.
Thanks, I’ll fix that.
On edit, DONE, I expect I’ll post that list again with any additions. I have it saved in my files as “One Liners” and as such is pretty much the opposite of academic papers filled with mathematical equations and long lists of references. Both are useful and probably necessary to slay the Climate Cult Dragon.
I just turned 82 and hope that recent revelations will be instrumental in achieving the end of the nightmare before I drop dead.
Oh yeah, thanks for reading through my liist.
Happy Birthday! I just turned 82 on Aug 1. Actually, it is quite easy to show that CO2 cannot and does not cause warming of the atmosphere. See my comment below.
82?
When Dolly Parton passed at 80, my first thought was, “that ain’t old”. But, that’s because I’m 76. I used to think it was old. 🙂
Gee, I am almost 90.
Still ride my 30-speed road bike to the Library, downhill and then along the river and back uphill.
I am just getting up every day, go about my business. and see what happens, get a good night sleep and repeat.
Piece of cake
There’s a lady in the UK just celebrated her 117th birthday! So we’ve all got a long way to go yet.
The OM and I are 78. Both of our mothers are still living. We are working on it 😉
We should stop talking about CO2 as if it is a disease.
That is what the self-serving IPCC crowd wants you to do.
They fill your head with nonsense. Do not repeat it!
Increased CO2 ppm is a major blessing.
It greens the earth, requires less water and fertilizer to grow green crops to better feed 8 billion people
Texas built the largest wind fleet in America.
More than 30,000 turbines; costing tens of billions in subsidies; sold as clean, limitless energy.
But those turbines need to be replaced every 20 years, rotor blades every 5 years.
Total madness.
Nuclear plants are good for 60 to 80 years, produces steady power that cost s much less/kWh……
But in February 2021, reality hit the wind madness.
A historic cold outbreak froze the turbines, because they were not equipped with winterizing packages, common in colder climates; save money/screw reliability.
Power output across the state collapsed within hours; the grid buckled; millions lost electricity; almost 1,000 people died.
The promise was clean energy. The reality was blackouts, Texans freezing to death, and a grid one cold snap away from collapse. Same is true in the UK, Spain, Germany, etc.
Insanity on subsidized steroids!
“Polar bears don’t need the sea ice, it’s the seals that need the ice.”
While Polie Bears will feed on many things, seals seem to be the main choice at the buffet. Thinking long term, what happens with decreased ice, should it happen? Is there a subsequent decline in seals to be followed by a decline in bears or their health and reproduction? With the cessation of recreational hunting the bears had a multi-generational recovery.
Just wondering — not for a friend. 🙂
I suspect seals don’t really “need” sea ice either. They just use it because it’s there and convenient. Animals adapt, or they die. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be.
Biomarkers show that there was regularly less than 1 Wadham of sea ice during the Holocene Optimum.. Seals and polar bears had no problem until man started hunting them.
If sea ice declines, seals on the ice come closer to land .. so the PS’s don’t have as far to travel to the smorgasbord. 🙂
The polar bears diet could be supplemented with warmunists and lying politicians. Everybody happy.
Polar bears don’t want to be poisoned by warmists and lying politicians ( are there really any honest ones)?
Yeah, not on this site.
Polar bears and seals both survived the Eemian and the many other warm interglacials preceding that. Supposedly, Arctic temperatures were 6 deg warmer than present with CO2 at rising from about 260ppm to about 290ppm. I assume we can blame Big Oil for that as well… (sarc).
Human emissions of CO2 do not control atmospheric concentration.
Question: why did you stop at just the first 0.1% of the significant points?
Another one: Cold kills 9x more than warm. Warmer is better.
How can I pass up such an invitation?
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 288 K or 15 C, while without it GMST would be 255 or -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also no consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper (walked back in 1906) and no GHE means no 30% albedo. Without GreenHouse Gas water vapor there is no GHE and Earth would become much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and a plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” surface energy upwelling as an imaginary, S-B, theoretical, calculated 396 W/m^2 black body impossible.
The GHE is failed science and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
Nicholas, let’s say the surface emits at 396 and you have an instrument that shows that amount . Knowing it is 98% of a BB you can calculate its temperature to be 15 C. Now point that instrument at the sky and it reads 333….you don’t have to even calculate the sky temperature, just know 333 is the Downwelling EMR…..so the net heat loss from surface skywards is 396-333=63 watts by radiation. Nothing imaginary, it’s just how the world works. At ground level, add in the 100 or so of thermals and evaporation and it balances the 160 absorbed by the surface from the sun. Thermodynamic heat flow is from warm surface to cool sky, numbers balance, no “extra” anywhere…you are going to need to explain your non scientific claims much better.
Let’s say it doesn’t cause 396 BB/333 “back”/duplicate 63 is an imaginary calculation.
Like this??
See TFK_bams09
Solar balance, W/m^2 ISR
1,368
Divide by 4 to spread discular over spherical. Dumb, btw.
342
Diminish by 30% albedo that no one agrees on.
342 * .7 = 240
Minus 79 atmospheric absorb (not really)
161 net/net to surface
161 enters, 161 is all that can leave, LoT 1
Solar Outgoing, OLR
17 sensible + 80 Latent + 63 LWIR + .9 fudge = 161
Balance is closed!!
Calculated balance.
396 is BB at 16 C. Appears out of nowhere. More than 342 & 161 violates LoT 1.
333 “Back” violates LoT 2.
63 duplicate LWIR w nowhere to go violates LoT 1.
Remove from graphic and solar balance holds.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
(356-333=23+40=63 Table for one not two.)
“…you have an instrument (calibrated to) that shows that amount…”
IR instruments read temperature and calibrate power flux assuming emissivity. Assuming BB assumes wrong. 63/396=0.16 & not BB
“396…appears out of nowhere”….no it is the EMR emitted by the surface at its temperature…very standard physics….
”333 Back violates LoT1”….well you only have the “minus” half of the equation…which for simple planar surfaces is…
…..P = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]….
….which means that heat flow is from surface to sky and on to outer space….as it’s supposed to be….hmmm…LoT1 is thus NOT broken….and 63 is not a duplicate….its just what the equation says the net heat transfer is due to the two different temperatures exchanging photons…
This is very basic physics, Nick. You need to use your 50 year’s ago engineering student brain and work out a few radiative exchange example problems from various online courses or lectures until you have a “light bulb” moment. The usual “Heat Budget” graphics do have a problem apparently mixing “Net Heat” numbers with Plank “absolute T” numbers…and you are not alone in your failure to grok it.
And the chart retains the same meaning if 396-333 arrows are replaced by one 63 upwards, with 40 directly to outer space…with a note underneath the graphic that the 63 is 396-333 worth of Planck photon exchange. I think you would not have a LoT or double accounting issue with such a depiction….
….oops exceeded my coffee time….gotta go….until next week when us septuagenarians can duke it out some more….good thing for readers our ability to post graphics have been taken away from us…
The 396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate net is a total fabrication.
EMR needs corrected by emissivity which you conveniently ignore.
.P = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]….
This truncated equation is not “net.”
It is the energy the refrigeration work must remove from a singular area to change its temperature from Thot to T cold.
Ordinary AC loop.
IR instruments are calibrated (buggered) to conform to bogus GHE theory.
By definition a thermodynamic black body requires that all the energy entering (absorbed) and leaving(emitted) do so by radiation.
For the terrestrial system’s 1,368 W/m^2 ISR 30% is reflected and 70% absorbed. Emissivity is 0.7 & not a BB.
For the terrestrial system’s net albedo, net atmosphere surface 160 W/m^2 upwelling 17 W/m^2 is sensible, 80 W/m^2 is latent, 63 W/m^2 by remainder to balance. Emissivity 63/160=0.4 & not a BB.
1.0 Earth is cooler w atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
2.0 Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t plus violate LoT.
3.0 Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a BB system impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam
Bizarre! When talking units, SIZE of units, C=K Any more nits to pick today?
The earth is a glowing blue white jewel as in all photos from space (not Photoshopped video from Al Gore)
Not a black body.
There is no such a thing as a Greenhouse Effect theory, there are real greenhouses and they work just the way they are built to work.
The truth prevails, an atmosphere around a planet contributes to the steady state of the surface of that planet.
Earth has an atmosphere which contains significant water vapour and trace carbon dioxide and other gases.
They set the baseline conditions around which the variable surface conditions vary as the input of total energy varies up and down by various other mechanisms.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C
33 K would be 33 C above abs 0.
Not what you mean.
Let’s revisit this graduate-level course material from the University of Washington about the kinetic energy cycle within the general circulation of the atmosphere. Please take the time to read the whole first page.
https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/545_Ch_1.pdf
Key quotes:
“Motions driven either directly or indirectly by horizontal heating gradients in a stably stratified atmosphere account for more than 98% of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
“Motions driven by convective instability account for the remainder of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
Notice that it is “horizontal heating gradients,” not “temperature” gradients. This means that the minor improvement in the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere from rising concentrations of CO2 helps the atmosphere generate kinetic energy more responsively as the pulses of sunshine pass across the surface from east to west (as viewed from the fixed surface.)
And the slightly improved IR coupling of the surface to the lower atmosphere should also promote the onset of convection involved in the formation of cumulus clouds and other responses.
So what? These concepts demonstrate that the computation of a static radiative “warming” tendency for rising concentrations of CO2 does not mean that sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans must be expected as a result. The motion changes everything about where that energy ends up.
NO ONE KNOWS that emissions of CO2 operate as a “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise. The static framing of the question of climate system response has been a misdirection all along. The stepped-static radiative transfer components of the models don’t resolve that limitation either.
Thank you for your patience in these matters.
Your LINK doesn’t work
Thank you! Corrected nearby.
Corrected link.
https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/545_Ch_1.pdf
Dear Dr D Dibbell,
Thanks for the challenging reading assignment.
I skimmed the whole thing, and then read carefully (3X) that first page, with mark-up tools.
(Wondering all-the-while who was the author (lecturer) that compiled this, and how to access the illustrations cited within.)
A question for you, from the world of observational meteorology, its eventful record-of-change over the recent (4+) decades. There’s the vexing question of better ‘metrics’ (maths: ‘measure theory’). Changes in ‘zonal potential energy gradients’, latitudinal & altitudinal, attendant effects on the so-called General Circulation, or air currents (windspeeds, KE) in all 3D.
He’s a bit hard to read, because of the Socratic Method (dialogue) unclear demarcation, but JB* seems to be drawing similar conclusions to yours from the same observational pool, using temporal (annual) averages at each grid-point (in 3D),rather than the minute-by-minute illustrations you prefer.
Or how do you see it?
Same track (by different methods); parallel tracks; or orthogonal (cross purposes)?
https://www.cfact.org/2026/08/27/temperature-is-a-deceptive-metric/
Thank you for your reply. See here for the source of that link to the pdf, and the list of related material which includes the illustrations. The instructor is Professor (Emeritus) John. M. (Mike) Wallace.
https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/
About the link to Joe Bastardi’s CFact post, thank you for that. I follow him on X with great respect for his insights and commentary. I see no conflict with what I’ve been posting about using hourly values from ERA5 and hourly images from GOES. Parallel tracks against the unwarranted alarm.
P.S. I’m not a Dr. ! 🙂
Thanks, Honorary-Dr DD, perhaps I’ve confused you with a ~ Chemical Engineer PhD ~ from the upstate-NY (Albany – Troy – Schenectady) region,* who writes as tho’ he’d suffered / survived a PhD program somewhere.
— RLW
P.S. Besides your own, I’ve long found inspiration at WUWT by posts authored by (2) personages I’d refer to collectively as Will-Will (or Will^2) and more recently the commentary of (2) others, Phil-Phil (Phil^2). They { Will^2 & Phil^2 } & you will know who they are.
The clue provided in January ( 2025 ) by Will(#1)-Eschenbach’s empirical constant (invariant) ~ 1.6524, or rather its 4th root (~ 17/15, 1.133…), seems to serve as a better foundation than just about any other recent discovery.
I’ve previously pointed out, in these pages, that this ‘magic ratio’ is compatible with (303 K / 267 K), i.e. the ‘steam-point’ critical temperature for sustained organized convection in the tropical equatorial zones (+30 Celsius serving as the fixed upper bound for the SST in the freely circulating ocean), to the ‘frost-point’ (-6 Celsius) at 5-km (16,000′), as the ceiling of those active zones.
This would point toward two (2) other underlying constants ( unique ‘adiabatic invariants‘) namely the Entropies (per H2O molecule)— respectively of the convective (H2O,air) updraft and its surrounding downdraft — within each unit cell.
As characteristic values of the primary heat (steam-frost) engine, located within the tropical lower troposphere, they specify the (distant) work-output, of the myriad cells, driving the broader (global) circulation.
In this frame, the recent rapid ‘climate change’ (aka ‘warming’ / re-humidification) of the skies is largely a matter of increasing the number (areal coverage) of these unitary primary-engine cells.
Or, in one word, Expanding-the-Tropics, mostly latitudinally (poleward). Not an original notion, in any sense. But a necessary one, given the perpetual penchant of the Cli-Sci-Cognoscenti for ‘runaway ‘ / infrared-catastrophic warming.
Quite Enough Done (for one pre-dawn hour)
*My own youth (mostly wasted) included (4) long winters in the nearby Finger-Lakes (Ithaca) region, 1980-84 A.D.
Thanks for the link and the authorship attribution…always better to know the pedigree of what has been written. I was somewhat bemused that the author could say lots about horizontal winds without mentioning the word “Coriolis” at least once…or maybe my skim-through missed it…
Interesting. There are 21 mentions of “Coriolis” in this complete pdf of an older version of the course material.
https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/545_Old_Complete_Notes_L3.pdf
Do you, or others, share my impression that the physics of circular motion is spooky?
Immensely counter-intuitive in more academic language.
I’m just glad that I can sit here drinking my morning coffee without sliding off my chair, while ripping at high speed through space in some sort of epicyclic path around the sun. 🙂
You quoted “Motions driven either directly or indirectly by horizontal heating gradients in a stably stratified atmosphere account for more than 98% of the atmospheric kinetic energy.”
That’s fine and is confirmed by a Web search . . . but the related question is “So what?” For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?
Thank you for your reply.
“For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?”
First, please understand that kinetic energy is not a vector quantity. For the purposes of this post and the material referenced, it just means that the scalar values of KE under discussion are computed using only the horizontal components of velocity.
Please clarify what you mean by GLAT.
I fully understand that local horizontally-oriented kinetic energy allows for a full 360 degrees of local azumithual variation, and thus IS NOT a physical vector parameter. As you stated, kinetic energy itself is not a vector parameter.
GLAT = Global Lower Atmospheric Temperature, an acronym commonly found in satellite temperature measurement data published by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
Thank you for your clarification.
Now back to your question,
“For instance, can you state how such horizontally-oriented kinetic energy affects GLAT?”
No. This is because neither value conveys a complete characterization of the total energy state of the atmosphere, whether evaluated locally or globally.
For the “so what” of my post, I am pasting it here again for your convenience. It’s conceptual.
“So what? These concepts demonstrate that the computation of a static radiative “warming” tendency for rising concentrations of CO2 does not mean that sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans must be expected as a result. The motion changes everything about where that energy ends up.
NO ONE KNOWS that emissions of CO2 operate as a “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise. The static framing of the question of climate system response has been a misdirection all along. The stepped-static radiative transfer components of the models don’t resolve that limitation either.”
Thank you for your interest in my post.
pains were taken to avoid using temperature, a subjective static imaginary object better represented by dealing with amounts of energy
Hmmm, in response I’m just wondering:
1) How many scientists, physicists and engineers consider temperature to be an “object”, real or imagined?
2) Why astronomers and cosmologists (and, of course, others) refer to a cosmic background temperature of about 2.7 K, instead of referring to the amount of energy associated with that?
3) Why scientists (and, of course, others) discuss temperatures as being meaningful—you know, things like the freezing point of water being 32 deg-F (0 deg-C) and the boiling point of water at STP being 212 deg-F (100 deg-C)—instead of discussing the associated “amounts of energy”?
4) Why thermometers we ever invented, and why are they are even used today by peoples of all walks of life? Energy meters would be much more suitable and meaningful, right?
5) Why the heck do weather forecasters dare to mention temperatures? Let’s hear it in ergs!
I could go on and on, but need I?
Unfortunately, your link didn’t work “on this server”. I’ve wondered about the KE in the air at the equator as it transits to the poles. There’s roughly the same amount of KE in a mass at the equator as there is as useable thermal energy. The KE is all gone when it reaches the pole.
Thank you for your reply.
Hopefully this link will work for you.
https://a.atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2010Q2/545/545_Ch_1.pdf
“There’s roughly the same amount of KE in a mass at the equator as there is as useable thermal energy. The KE is all gone when it reaches the pole.”
That would be accurate in an inertial reference frame (i.e. stationary in respect to the earth’s axis of rotation). But for meteorological purposes, a rotating reference frame is used which is fixed to the spherical surface. We are familiar with this in the use of latitude, longitude, and altitude for position. So the velocities from which KE is computed are relative to the rotating reference frame; i.e., relative to the surface. Coriolis terms are used in the computations of motion to properly handle the difference in the reference frames. So in the course material and universally in the modeling of the general circulation, that is how it is handled.
If you had a wind turbine at the North or South Pole at the surface, and the wind was blowing at 20 mph, you would get approximately the same performance as anywhere else on Earth in converting KE to shaft work to generate electrical energy.
I hope that helps.
Given that polar sea level air is generally denser than equatorial air, “approximately” covers a wide range. Maybe your statement implies something you didn’t mean.
A 10 – 15 % variation in power output at the same wind speed might be considered relevant by some.
Thank you for your reply.
Sheesh. That is exactly why I said “approximately” – knowing that temperature and air density would make somewhat of a difference, but in any case would be irrelevant to the point being made about how kinetic energy is figured for meteorological purposes.
Be well.
Yes, very good.
Bernoulli’s equation states that dP/rho =(V^2)/2, which translates to a characteristic aerodynamic force (F = dP*A = A*rho *(Cv,a)*(V^2)/2, where:
dP = pressure differential developed in fluid flow,
rho = density of the fluid (gas),
V = characteristic velocity across a surface,
F = force developed on a given surface in the flow having characteristic area A,
A = area in the flow that experiences force F, and
Cv,a = an overall coefficient that adjusts for shape and developed force varying as a function Reynolds number, flow turbulence, “lift coefficient”, etc. as they vary with various geometric and flow parameters, such as relative local velocity and turbulence.
So, to first order, the force developed by a wind turbine will vary directly proportional to atmospheric density, all other things being equal.
The density (rho) for air at 80 deg-F and 10,000 ft altitude (not unusual over earth’s surface) is about 56% of the air density at -20 deg-F at sea-level (not unusual for either of Earth’s poles during respective winters).
Therefore, up to a 50% or so variability in delivered power output for a given wind velocity might be seen depending on where a given wind turbine design is located and the associated ambient air pressure and temperature.
Thanks.
When David said “If you had a wind turbine at the North or South Pole at the surface, and the wind was blowing at 20 mph, you would get approximately the same performance as anywhere else on Earth in converting KE to shaft work to generate electrical energy.”, somebody might draw the conclusion that “approximately” meant “pretty close” or something equally misleading.
Terms such as “kinetic energy” and “potential energy” can be misleading without expansion of what the author is trying to say.
In any case, neither has any real value in relation to the atmosphere – about as pointless as temperature or pressure or wind direction.
They are what they are, but people love measuring them and thinking that enough measurements will allow the future to be seen clearly.
Others love wasting time doing calculations which don’t lead to advances in anything. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, never repeating a previous state. No one knows why, really. That’s just the way it is – and this fact is even grudgingly acknowledged by the collctively delusional IPCC.
End of rant.<g>
The air at the equator doesn’t transit to the poles. Actually, the atmosphere is denser at the poles, and consequently the atmospheric thickness is less.
Air heats during the day by absorbing energy from the Sun, and cools at night in the absence of sunlight. Just like all matter.
The atmosphere is held in place around the roughly spherical Earth by gravity, believe it or not. Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line, unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
An atom or molecule acted on by the force of gravity stays where it is, unless forced to do otherwise. Heating at the equator for 12 hours or so does not cause a mad rush of air to flee polewards to escape the heat!
That’s a mad delusion fostered by pretend “climate scientists” and their gullible followers.
Oh well, my opinion has a value of precisely nil – the same as anybody else’s.
Actually, in this case your challenge of the statement “air at the equator as it transits to the poles” is quite valid. Thank you.
Here is what Google’s AI bot states:
“No, air from the equator does not directly travel to or deposit dust at the Earth’s poles.” (With link to source https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/global-atmospheric-circulations
that discusses the three major circulation cells preventing surface air movement directly from equator to pole: the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the Polar cell)
“The Earth’s rotation and uneven solar heating divide each hemisphere into three separate atmospheric circulation cells rather than one continuous loop from equator to pole.
“—The Hadley Cell: Warm air rises at the equator, moves toward the poles, but cools and sinks back down to the surface around 30 degrees latitude (the subtropics). It never reaches higher latitudes.
— Mid-latitude and Polar cells: The Ferrel cell and Polar cell handle air movement further north and south, meaning air masses cycle in regional loops rather than moving globally from pole to equator.”
Seems pretty clear and factual to me.
Thanks. I’ll disagree with the AI Hadley cell speculation, though. AI says –
Unfortunately, this is physically nonsensical. Why would rising air cause a low pressure zone? The height of the atmospheric column might change, but the total weight of air within the column will stay the same. About as silly as saying that pressure on the sea bed will change because the seas surface warms in sunlight.
None of this stuff is as simple as the people who sprout it. People who think –
Now why would it do that? The air is held in place on the roughly spherical globe by gravity, and won’t move unless subjected to a force.
And so it goes. On and on.
Nobody really understands Nature, down to the point where it turns out to be impossible to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a photon. As Feynman said, “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
Anybody who claims to be able to usefully predict (better than 12 years old child) future states of the atmosphere is either pulling your leg, or delusional.
Have fun.
Oil and Gas Sunday!
In Appalachia, fracking is not the job creator the industry claims
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/08/19/in-appalachia-fracking-is-not-the-job-creator-the-industry-claims/
Cost to clean up orphan wells in Alberta reaches all-time high
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-owa-seqouia-alberta-orphan-wells-1.7620267
Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-nine-false-or-misleading-myths-about-north-sea-oil-and-gas
“fracking is not the job creator the industry claims”
_________________________________________________________
Hmmm. That means the industry has figured out a way to lower the cost, and I should enjoy lower prices for their product, and the labor force will be freed up to produce other goods and services.
All the coal miners and powerplant workers that will be freed up when you put solar panels on your roof and enjoy cheap energy.
But I guess you don’t like that…
You keep banging on that solar drum but the grid still needs base energy so still paying for two systems when one does the better job. Put down the drum, back away, chuck the sticks, and find a different instrument.
You have not run through the numbers. The long-term, full, cost of electricity from coal is cheaper than a renewables-based system. Yet employment in coal power plants is higher than on solar farms.
So, more slave labor required in China to supply those extra cheap solar panels?
(have you figured out why they’re so cheap yet?)
And more massive lakes of toxic pollution created in China from the processing of silicon and other required minerals..
yes, he probably thinks the silicon comes from sand as has been claimed by a number of politicians.
“All the coal miners and powerplant workers that will be freed up when you put solar panels on your roof and enjoy cheap energy.”
Yeah, that’ll work great in Washington State. Might power a phone charger. My generator works better when I need it.
Solar panels on roofs in the UK… LOL !!!
News story ….
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/08/major-win-trump-obama-appointed-alaska-judge-tosses/
“environMENTAL groups” lose again …
😉
How is his war against wind energy going?
Or on a different matter the war in iran?
Enjoying your cheap energy and grocery prices?
I forgot, affordability is a hoax anyways
We are winning both.
You are suffering from TDS ?
And my energy and grocery costs are lower than during Bidens term ….
So you stopped eating meat? Good idea.
You really have no idea of our local prices .
And we have a local meat processor with plenty of good local supply of beef .
Flint hills have a lot of cattle ….
Ditto, and as for cattle, SW MO has a bunch also-in fact, I’m looking across the neighbor’s pasture and herd now.
I generally shoot my own meat-care to come down and watch? Be sure to either gobble, or wear antlers, and trespass freely. You can fish my pond-the snapper and cats will take care of any humanoid meat that falls in. Look forward to seeing you…for awhile, anyways.
He went to TDS University.
Speaking of TDS: while we have a national debt that has recently exceeded $40 trillion USD and major wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and a whacko political environment in the US with the President’s approval rating being less than 40%, please consider the following “winning”, mostly by ridiculous Executive Orders:
— renaming the “Gulf of Mexico”, which the rest of the world has largely ignored,
— renaming “Lake Ontario”, which the rest of the world will ignore,
— stating that Canada wants to become the 51st State in the US, with no evidence whatsoever to support such an absurd claim,
— stating that the US should just takeover Greenland and ignore what Denmark has to say about the matter (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_bRVOiKCfk ).
Coming next according to the pundits:
— Renaming Canadian geese to American geese,
— Renaming Canada Dry soda to American Dry soda,
— Renaming the area surrounding the nation’s Capitol to Washington, District of Greatness,
— Renaming the San Andreas fault to Joe Biden’s fault.
Personally, I choose to rename MAGA as “Making America Goofy Alright”.
And finally, I understand that there is a world-wide shortage on gold leaf due to all of Trump’s gilding of furniture, light fixtures, picture frames, fireplaces, and inside and outside ornamentation on Federal buildings throughout Washington, D.G. I further understand that the precious metals market has already “priced in” the several tons of gold leaf that Trump has directed by used inside in his new, “safety critical” custom ballroom building adjacent to the White House. /sarc
Do you have the sads?
I read a story about how angry a wealthy yacht club is that their low wage help got deported. You lefties complain about the rich but do everything possible to help them 😉
Oh, no . . . not at all! I take particular delight in seeing fools being so obviously, well, foolish . . . such as in imagining they know what other people think/believe.
We agree though that illegals need to go home.
As I said, ” . . . as in imagining they know what other people think/believe.”
Yep we agree there are people that believe illegals should be allowed to stay, but not us. We don’t want the rich to get away with it.
Please define what you mean by “the rich”.
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” ― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Yep, Dems love the rich too. Cheap labor is their friend.
With the country being as polarized as it is, I would be surprised if it ever reached 50%. Taking into account the Independents and Libertarians, 40% is probably about right.
The USA was highly polarized when the November 2024 Presidential elections were held, yet Donald Trump won the national popular vote with 49.8% to Kamala Harris’s 48.3%.
Most people would say 49.8% fairly rounds off to 50%.
Yes, I paid $3.61 per gallon of gasoline at my last fill-up. The one before that cost $3.67 per gallon. Prices are coming down and are much lower than the $5.00+ per gallon under Biden.
Easy to say. What’s your definition of “winning”? Is it the same as winning in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?
I see that the US president posted a graphic recently stating “Mission Accomplished”. What was the Mission, and what was Acvomplished?
Maybe you can tell me. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a sensible response, of course.
Don’t you know: To fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.
How is Iran’s economy doing? 2 million to $1?
How’s America’s economy doing? Owes 40 trillion dollars, and has a clever strategy – borrow its way out of debt!
Good luck with that – borrowing money to pay interest on what you owe is not a particularly brilliant example of good financial management.
Bears a striking similarity to a Ponzi scheme. What could possibly go wrong?
That wasn’t the question. Nice deflection.
You haven’t answered – nice deflection.
Trumps action in Iran have caused a massive surge of oil and gas around the world.
That list has been posted several times and you have ignored it.
USA has far cheaper petrol than anywhere in the EU.. again a fact you ignore.
I don’t ignore it, I can remember in the UK when the gallons spun round and the money ticked over 😀
Brilliant comment . . . NOT.
Would that fact be due, perhaps, to the fact that the US is a net exporter of petroleum and its refined byproducts, mainly gasoline, diesel and jet fuel?
“fracking is not the job creator the industry claims”
Maybe not on site, but it will be a job creator in the nation by lowering energy costs which helps the economy.
Poverty rates are declining and household incomes are rising across Appalachia. In places where “Net Zero” policies have been adopted, poverty has increased and GDP growth has slowed or declined.
The Carbon Brief is, at best, unreliable when it comes to evaluating British energy supplies. It was they who, in 2022, claimed that offshore wind was nine times cheaper than electricity from gas.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-expensive-gas-not-net-zero-is-keeping-uk-electricity-prices-so-high
Carbon Brief compared short-term very high electricity prices with a very low long-term auction price for offshore. So low that there were no takers.
Another myth they perpetuate is that there is a global gas price. I stated Aug 26 (using figures from tradingeconomics)
CBC? Aren’t they the ones who instructed their employees not to refer to 9/11 as a terrorist attack? Solid source of “information”.
Yeah, well…they’re Canadians; they’ve got something in their water maybe.
They’ve got Egyptian Islamists in their public broadcaster management.
Oh, how so very nice…the West is doomed.
Their used water must be ending up in California.
Carbonbrief;)
Propaganda on roids.. only the most gullible klimate kool aide addicts are fooled.
If Carbonbrief “fact checks” you just KNOW the opposite is probably true.
Remember that they are the chief AGW propaganda unit.. and they get you every time.
For an Alice Springs temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/alice-springs/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 1879 to 2026 from two weather stations is displayed in a table. Here is a summary of the temperature data:
Alice Springs Int. Air Port: 1942-2026
Year——-Thi——-Tlo Temperatures are ° C
2026——30.3——13.4
1942——29.5——13.9
Change–+0.8——-0.5
CO2 Concentration Data:
2026: 429 ppmv (0.84 g CO2 per cu. m. of air)
1942: 312 ppmv (0.61 g CO2 per cu . m. of air)
Old Post Office at Alice Springs: 1879-1941
Year——Thi——-Tlo
1941 —–27.5—–12.7
1879 —–28.8—–11.9
Change- -0.7—+0.8
CO2 Concentration Data:
1941: 310 ppmv (0.61 g CO2 per cubic meter of air)
1879: 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2 per cubic meter of air)
Although the increase of CO2 concentration at the airport was 34%, this had little effect on air temperature. In particular, Tlo showed a slight decrease.
The reason CO2 had little effect on air temperature in desert city is because there is very little of it in the air.
The above empirical data and calculations falsifies the claim by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 in the air causes global warming.
Thanks Harold
I grew up in the fifties and into the sixties in a semi-desert town far from Alice Springs. I cannot remember anyone dying because of the heat but I remember one year going to look at the official temperature records at our weather station. During the previous year for three months in the summer there was not a single day when the maximum temperature was below 30° C and many of these days it was above 40° C. If my memory serves me right, every summer was bloody hot. We had plentiful water so people were able to grow fruit and vegetables which flourished and had few problems with pests because of the dry heat. The money squandered today on net zero would be far better spent on providing water for hot, dry areas.
How about comparing June Max/Mins …..
Alice:
1942 Jan max 34.3 min 21.1
2025 40.8 23.9
In 1887 a Glaisher stand was used and not a Stevenson screen:
In a 60yr comparison from 1887 to 1947 between a Stevenson and a Glaisher screen using daily data at Adelaide, South Australia the delta between the two was nearly 1C – the Glaisher screen recording the highest.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.7385
It is part and parcel of what climate science ignores – measurement uncertainty. Different devices may have different readings on exactly the same measurand. Each device may be 100% accurate when calibrated in a lab. Field measurements are a whole different story. Microenvironment must not mean much to you, so I expect you have never been responsible for making field measurements.
To compare reading from two different devices, both of which probably have different microenvironments illustrates how little thought you have put into determining if the readings are actually comparable in a scientific sense. You are extremely naive if you haven’t checked to see if the instruments were in the exact same location, if the shelters cause different readings, if trees and shrubs have changed the wind patterns. Why don’t you show us your compilation of uncertainty budgets for each and see if the overlap.
well, I’ve been to the Alice Springs telegraph station, where I believe the old temperature thermometer was located.
Was not what you’d call an ideally situated site
At the above URL for Alice Springs, you have the option of displaying temperature data for each month of the year.
You should check out the home page at:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. There are links in light blue to weather and climate data to many weather stations located around the world. There are also essays on weather and climate.
“At the above URL for Alice Springs, you have the option of displaying temperature data for each month of the year.“
Yes Harold, that’s where I got the numbers from.
In case you hadn’t realised – if you even out the yearly maxes to an average then you will necessarily lose most of the summer warming signal as that is when a heat-dome will be able to trap dry convection initiated by insolation under its inversion.
Alice Springs is a prime target for BoM/GHCN climate-scam-driven “adjustments”, because it covers such a large area of Australia.
Yep.
And most of the present-day inhabitants of Alice Springs are also “raw and unadjusted”.
🙂
EWW uses data from the NOAA and CRU databases. Does NOAA do a reanalysis of the BoM temperature data before placing it in their database? I wonder. I’m giving the BoM a new nickname:
The Massage Salon.
Here in the UK, there are two new oil fields awaiting final government sign-off for years. The latest scare story (to be published in Nature) uses grossly exaggerated carbon damage costs. It is no surprise to regular readers that The Guardian did an article on it. They stated
These are quite minor fields, containing enough oil to supply global demand for 3-4 days. Venezuela, by comparison, could meet global demand for ~9 years. The cost equates to climate damage costs of $770 to $2176 a tonne. Using those same costs, 2024 global GHG emissions of 57.7 GtCO2e produced damage costs of $44,429 to $125,555 billion. That is around 40-110% of global GDP. Clearly, the author does not understand costs.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2026/08/27/idiotic-climate-cost-claims-for-rosebank-jackdaw/
Do they ever explain exactly how that “economic damage caused by the carbon pollution from the oil and gas produced” comes about?
How much damage is done by the 70 million kgs of CO2 exhaled everyday by the humans in the UK? Why does soda pop, beer, sparkling wines and French champagne get a free pass on CO2 emissions?
Can you imagine what would happen if the UK placed CO2 emission on beer?
At the MLO Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of CO2. This miniscule amount of CO2 does not have enough “molecular muscle” to harm a fly.
We should mention that oil companies produce fuels for emergency vehicles such as firetrucks and ambulances.
BTW: How is “climate damage” measured? About 71% of the earth’s climates are oceans and these gobble up most all the CO2 emitted from all sources. This is why there is very little CO2 in the air.
And interestingly, it is the part of the Earth that is probably the most uncertain because of the difficulty of sampling properly. I’ve been suspicious for some time that the Bean Counters working on the problem of the Carbon Cycle have assumed that the system was in equilibrium and after adding up the sinks and sources that are more easily measured, they assign values to the oceans that balance the masses.
Has anyone seen any indication that the climate hysterics conglomerate has acknowledged IPCC’s demotion of SSP5-8.5 to completely implausible nonsense? I see nearly daily new alarmist articles claiming that climate change is meeting IPCC projections from decades ago that were derived from RCP-8.5 and subsequent extreme scenarios. You’d think that at least some of the “other sides” more rational members would be trying to dial down the stupid in their propaganda screeds. Maybe I’ve just missed it.
Any scenario based on warming by CO2 is implausible nonsense. !
Earlier this week the NY Times (I know, but I have a student subscription, $2 a month, I keep it for the book review) ran a story about the El Niño we got going on, and as I am want to do, I scrolled through the comments. I’ll be honest and say I’m a young person, and through my upbringing in a first-world education system I have had a bit of ‘climate anxiety’ pushed into me by teachers and a bunch of places (you know how scientists and activists love telling children they have no future), and I like to read the comments to try and desensitize myself and also think logically about what these commenters are saying.
This time I saw something interesting. In response to a sentence in the article stating a division among scientists to explain the recent run of strong El Niños we have had, the commenter said
“How divided? I’m not a scientist, but I mean, of course its due to climate change. How can there possibly be a division about this at this point?”
Another commenter replied to the above with “Worse is how prominent [the sentence of division among scientists is] in the article. Like 200 climate scientists say ‘Yup, climate change,”‘and ten climate scientists say, ‘Nope, not climate change.’ Divided? Yes. Equally credible? No.”
There were a number of other comments that were equally dismissive over the possibility that something aside from AGW could be affecting the Nino/Nina cycle and strength, and the idea that the scientists don’t fully understand what is happening.
Guys, what happened? I thought we were the science deniers?
But seriously, i find it very interesting that the climate alarm that the alarmist NY Times is pushing isn’t alarming enough for the alarmists anymore…alarm alarm alarm.
There were comments about how there was no possible alternative, how the idea of division and uncertainty just provides another straw for conservative deniers to hold on to (i like how they all get lumped together, i mean I’m a fairly liberal person and I’m skeptical). A lot of these comments were essentially the big Greta “how dare you.”
For as often as skeptics get accused of denying the science, or cherry picking the data they want, its nice to see the five-alarm alarmists without a scientific background denying science, or at least the possibility that the science actually does not say what they want or is more uncertain than they care to accept, and cherry picking to support their own narrative. I mean I know this wouldn’t be the first time for the alarmists community to be denying and cherry picking, but its still very odd to see in the NY Times comments.
If the “illustrious” Dr. Mann came out tomorrow with a study that said all the increase of GMST over the past blah blah blah was due to an increase in blah blah, a decrease in blah, and was not related to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, would the alarmists even accept it?
I know, certain beyond all certainty, that the day will never come where Michael Mann gets called a climate change denier, but goodness gracious wouldn’t you love to see it? Wouldn’t it be nice for the alarmist community to transform into an oroborous of greater deniers than they accuse us of being?
I like how the Times wrote a Fauci story referring to some of his colleagues believed in a lab leak theory. That “some” was 8 out of 11. Ahhh liars indeed.
Many advances in understanding are accomplished by one person proving hunderds wrong. Maybe 10 versus 200 is a reflection of this.
If you search with this: “examples of one scientist proving others wrong”
.. examples are forthcoming.
My favorite is Harlen Bretz/JT Pardee and the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington State.
“My favorite is Harlen Bretz/JT Pardee and the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington State. “
Traditional geologist critics of the Bretz/Pardee thesis were challenging the occurrence of the catastrophic Glacial Lake Missoula floods well into the 1960’s, long after evidence gathered in the field had become conclusive that these floods had actually happened.
Why were those critics so determined to reject the Bretz/Pardee interpretation?
Since the turn of the 19th century into the 20th, modern geologists had been locked into an ongoing battle with those holding biblical interpretations of geology, particularly with those who believed in the Noah’s Ark biblical story.
For modern geologists of the first half of the 20th Century to acknowledge that a single catastrophic geologic event could affect such a huge area in such a short time would have had the collateral impact of giving biblical interpretations of geology credence among some portion of the population.
And so those modern geologists of the time could not take the risk of accepting the Bretz/Pardee thesis for what it was, clear evidence that the Missoula floods had in fact happened.
Einstein’s theory of relativity was not well received initially. 100 physicists wrote a paper criticizing it. Einstein’s response was, “Why 100 when it would only take one to prove me wrong?”
The elephant in the room we aren’t seeing: No Himalayas, no Nepal disaster. Tectonics caused the Himalayas, not climate change. The formation of the Himalayas began roughly 50 million years ago during the early Eocene epoch. When the Indian tectonic plate and the Eurasian plate finally slammed into each other, neither continental plate could easily subduct below the other due to their similar low densities. Instead, the crust buckled, crumpled, and thrust upward, uplifting sea-floor sediments and granite basements into massive mountain chains. This Collision Phase will continue for the next 20–50 Million Years.
Once tectonic uplift stops, mechanical and chemical weathering will take over completely. Without uplift to counteract erosion, massive mountain ranges generally take roughly 100 million to 200 million years to wear down into low-lying hills or flat cratons, as seen with the ancient Appalachian Mountains, which were once as tall as the Himalayas during the Alleghanian orogeny ~300 million years ago.
The physical existence of the Himalayas is both Nepal’s defining feature and its single greatest source of vulnerability: The Himalayas are young, actively rising mountains created by the ongoing collision of tectonic plates. Without this collision, Nepal would not experience catastrophic earthquakes, ice/rock slides and all the rest.
The tall mountain walls force moisture-laden monsoon winds upward, triggering torrential rains in steep valleys. Ultra-steep terrain combined with young, fragile sedimentary soil makes landslides, Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs), and flash floods geographically inevitable…in a word…Tectonics. Climate change, while real and normal, pales in comparison. No amount of money can change that.
Yes, I asked one of the people blaming the Nepal flood on climate change –
how do you think those watercourses & rivers at the bottoms of the deep Nepal canyons got formed over the eons? Did such erosion from glacier break-ups only start in ~2000 when “global warming” disaster movies started hitting our screens?
Reality is, this latest event is not a first-time occurrence. It’s been happening since millions of years ago, even during those periods when atmospheric CO2 was off the scale compared to what it is today. And will continue happening, without any held from human activities.
Blame the Little Ice Age for creating so much glacial ice. !
If it were to suddenly turn cold, there would be less meltwater and therefore a water shortage. The irony is that if the glaciers started to grow, and move, such events such as what recently happened would probably happen more frequently.
So the construction of the Himalayas could take upto 100 million years to complete, yet wear down in 100 – 200 million. That’s not long, the power of nature is amazing.
Yet the climate alarmists claim mankind is more powerful than mother nature.
95% PR or _______ (fill in your own words :-):
Scientists calculate humanity’s end date with 95% certainty
OTOH, esoteric but perhaps more valuable though…
Scientists say we may have been wrong about the origin of life
Looks like “mathematicians”. “Scientists” sounds much more impressive, particularly in the US.
A few articles and books that may be of interest, I have not studied them:
The Sovereign Signal: Nuclear Energy as Strategic Infrastructure – American Affairs Journal
If Grid Utilization is Good, Wind and Solar Are Bad
American college football got started this week.
So, this is the first week of college football, yet the talking heads in the media say it is “week zero” of college football.
What is the logic in calling week one of college football, week zero? Are all these announcers/talking heads former computer programmers?
I think it is time for the Decapitation to take place in Iran.
Why do the Mad Mullahs of Iran still have missiles and drones to shoot at us?
Isn’t it about time we finish the job and eliminate the religious fanatics from rule in Iran?
Well I’ve just had two tons of logs delivered, that’s my forecast for this Winter in the communist State of the UK. Paid in cash, no tax on my heating, and no record of a payment.
Windpower can be useful:
(20+) Facebook
Eastern Iowa is littered with defunct ones formerly used to pump water – some have been refurbished. Some generate electricity to power pump.
Yes, add solar panels to cover when wind not blowing.
Make both strong enough to resist tornado.
(I spent a few years as a youngster on a farm that had its own windmill and bank of glass-case batteries. Windy country. Had to make sure started windmill before charge depleted (it required electricity to start, ‘alternator’ I recall).
32vdc ran lights and refrigerator in house (ample firewood for heating in that area).
Owner paid for it by working in the oil patch in Alberta. 😉