In this climate alarmism war we find ourselves in, keep to the truth, honesty, integrity and a sense of humour – together, we are fighting the climate wrongs and helping humanity thrive
I think a mini ice age would make the West die out sooner due to freezing. The alarmists would blame CO2 as the cause of climate changing for the colder with their last frigid, frosty breath.
That is what I noticed – lefties will do ANYTHING but admit they were wrong, tie their logic in contorted knots but they must maintain the illusion of moral and intellectual supremacy above all else.
The only way to fight them is with cold hard equations and data, you can’t beat touchy-feely types with discussion. Well, ridicule works if they really are coloring outside the lines.
Equations and data without reasoning. Dr. Strangelove comes to mind…
Brock
September 4, 2023 10:48 am
I have noticed that the earth’s energy imbalance, as reported by NASA, seems to be rather insensitive to a change in downwelling radiation. The EEI is a measure of how far we are from equilibrium temperature (after subtracting out what the plants use to grow), and you would think that increasing or decreasing downwelling radiation would have some effect. The luminosity variation is about 30% of the current energy imbalance, so it should be easy to see. But, even after applying an FFT to the data, the effect of the radiation variation is below random noise. The perturbation to the system is completely suppressed. This is what a stable system does. Anyone claiming the climate sensitivity is above 1 needs to explain why effectively dumping about 15 years of CO2 (in terms of energy; roughly 0.3 W/m2) has no apparent effect on the EEI.
NASA is reporting the EEI at +1.5 W/m2 and +1.9 W/m2 over the last 36m and 12m respectively via CERES. The trend is +0.5 W m-2 decade-1. So over the last 15 years it has increased by 0.7 W/m2 despite the planet taking up 140 ZJ of energy over that same period. FWIW I get an additional 0.5 W/m2 of RF from CO2 over the last 15 years.
I’m not sure what downwelling radiation has to do with it. EEI is measured at the top of the atmosphere. It is basically incoming solar radiation minus reflected solar radiation minus outgoing terrestrial radiation. Can you clarify or add more details so that I can better understand your point?
Downwelling radiation is short wave, if it’s from the sun, and longwave, if it’s due to carbon dioxide. The energy imbalance is a measure of how far away from equilibrium temperature that we are. What we see in the data is that changing the downwelling radiation has no effect on the EEI. That means changing downwelling radiation does not change the equilibrium temperature. The sun can’t do it, and carbon dioxide can’t do it.
EEI is the Earth Energy Imbalance. It is how far away the planet is from energy balance at TOA or top-of-atmosphere. The only input at TOA is solar radiation. There is no downwelling radiation crossing the TOA boundary coming from CO2 since space is devoid of CO2.
You can see in the CERES data that the incoming solar radiation has a significant effect on the EEI. In fact, nearly all of the monthly variation in EEI is driven by the variation in solar radiation. Of course, most of the variation is orbital, but the point is that solar radiation were to experience a secular change then it clearly would cause a secular change in EEI as well.
Folks, now waiting for the expected rejoinder “Bbbbbuttt, wudabout the “uncertainty” of each of the data points?”
It’s too small to matter
The term “uncertainty” has become short hand for a parameter that defies the actual laws of statistical evaluation. In the over 1100 comments to Pat Franks (so far only self cited) recent paper, the usual silly attempts to convince us of that were only dwarfed by a Bizarro World rationale for why standard deviations can be negative.
‘As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘
These guys inform the reader why they’re full of it early in their paper. The rest of it is just special pleading. As for reference to Pat Frank, all I can suggest is that you seek help.
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2.
And? It’s that “residual”, with man made forcings as the only coherent cause for mot of it, that is accumulating energy over the the decades As expected, no actual rebut of my link.
As for Dr. Frank, I’m cool that the system is working. I’m actually glad that he gets to publish. Since his personal embarrassments are mercifully ignored by his “peers” who would benefit if he had anything useful to say, his lack of cites speaks for itself.
Here is my expanded post, more completely responding to Franks boo boo.
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘”
And? It’s that “residual”, with man made forcings as the only coherent cause for most of it, that is accumulating energy over the the decades. The “levels of accuracy” are imbedded in the link and are indeed sufficient to discern the trends demonstrated. You ignored them. The fact that they are listed is the point of my earlier post.
As for Dr. Frank, I’m cool that the system is working. I’m actually glad that he gets to publish. Since his personal embarrassments are mercifully ignored by his “peers” who would benefit if he had anything useful to say, his lack of cites speaks for itself.
Frank from NoVA: These guys inform the reader why they’re full of it early in their paper.
Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.
The boldening is mine. And I noticed that you conveniently left out the next sentence which states:
However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable.
Yes, thanks bd. My last post indeed demo’d that I had only a partial understanding of the situation. I would have been better off merely relying on the 2021 paper instead of trying to incorrectly interpret it. Your last post dope slapped me into actually reading the entirety of the link I posted. I’ll work on that…..
‘Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘
I’m glad that satellite EEI is highly precise, but as you note, it’s not accurate enough to resolve small differences to the extent needed to know whether the imbalance is positive or negative. Shame on them for trying to make their results meaningful by ‘adjusting’ other data. Shades of what’s his name trying to justify his mid-tropospheric ‘hot-spot’ by adjusting radiosonde data for wind shear.
I’m glad that satellite EEI is highly precise, but as you note, it’s not accurate enough to resolve small differences to the extent needed to know whether the imbalance is positive or negative.
The same cherry pick as before. Per bdg a few comments back, you conveniently avoid the rest of the para…
“However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable. We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an offset to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value. Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does not affect the trends of either time series nor the correlation between them. Year-to-year variations and long-term trends in EEI from the satellite data are completely independent of those from the in situ data.”
‘We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an offset to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value.‘
So, they ‘adjust’ the satellite data that previously couldn’t accurately resolve whether the sign of EEI is positive or negative to somehow make it meaningful? And that’s ok with you? Really, bob!
Any attempt to resolve systemic error is ok with me. Especially when the random error left over results in an acceptable level of statistical durability. Read the conclusions….
John Aqua
September 4, 2023 11:28 am
This letter was in rebuttal to a letter to the editor, in my local paper, asking about why there needs to be action to fight climate change. Here is his letter:
Extended heat domes; rapidly intensifying hurricanes with massive storm surges; extreme fire behavior becoming routine, with whole towns and timber stands completely erased; sea levels inching inexorably up; tropical storms in unprecedented areas; unhealthy and hazardous smoke levels gobbling up our summers; tornadoes in New England; Gulf waters in the 90s; extended drought conditions coupled with torrential rains and devastating floods; wildfire season extending from May through October; weather extremes and new records somewhere, virtually every day, worldwide. Whatever you have considered normal, we’re not going back there. Jared Black wrote an interesting but flawed letter Aug. 5 about climate, citing the physicist/climate change denier William Happer extensively. Happer is not a climate scientist, however (neither am I), and his funding comes from fossil fuel companies which depend on us to continue burning fuel to produce energy. Heat is a manifestation of energy, and it doesn’t just go away. The greenhouse gases we are releasing are trapping it in our biosphere and slowing the rate of heat dispersal to space, acting like a giant blanket. Happer, Black and the fossil fuel industry conveniently ignore this and the impact of accumulated human activity on the climatic system.
The planet and its atmosphere are vast, so climate changes over the past few billion years have taken many thousands of years to occur, with the occasional punctuating volcano or asteroid strike. This vastness has given the biological systems the time and resilience to adapt to the inevitable changes. For many millennia, humans were few enough that the impact of burning fuel for heat and energy was easily absorbed by the atmosphere and the oceans. But now that we number 8 billion, with our insatiable need for more fuel to burn, more energy, more resources, more stuff, our collective impact has begun to overwhelm the resilience of the ecosystem and to upend the ability of the atmosphere to balance the heat budget. Over billions of years, Earth has built a delicate balance of heat gain and loss, which has allowed life to thrive within a very narrow range, but our greenhouse gas blanket has rudely disrupted this fragile thermodynamic balance. One has to view this over the vast course of time, not in a few human generations. Since we cannot open a hole in the atmosphere and let the heat out, and we can’t stop solar radiation, our best way out of the heat is to reduce the amount of fuel we burn. “Climate Action” sounds like a high level policy activity, far above our pay grade. But we can all participate in climate action on a personal level, and although each effort may seem insignificant, the collective and concerted movement will make a difference. Climate action on a household level includes recycling, composting, planting trees and a garden; switching over to renewable energy sources, using the car more efficiently and driving less; reusing materials that would otherwise be considered waste (thus reducing the demand to produce ever more stuff), adopting good fire prevention measures (burning less material), supporting public transportation, alternate ways of moving around and the use of renewable resources; living a simpler life and encouraging others to do the same. All these things have the added benefit of saving money and building community. And since we all occupy space, breathe oxygen and use resources, and we’ve all been warned about this for decades, we all have a responsibility and a part to play in sustaining our planet for the next generations. It’s not a big sacrifice, it just takes a brain and a heart.
What offends me most is that he states Dr. Happer as some paid off oil shill and has no expertise and yet his credentials are he is a retired fireman. He also fails to mention Dr. Lindzen as the co-author of the cited document. It is obvious that he is just repeating the blatant claptrap talking points throughout his letter? He repeats the climate hysteria word for word which are all weather events and not “climate change” effects. How many of these letters to the editor are published each day? It’s maddening.
“Extended heat domes; rapidly intensifying hurricanes with massive storm surges; extreme fire behavior becoming routine, with whole towns and timber stands completely erased; sea levels inching inexorably up; tropical storms in unprecedented areas; unhealthy and hazardous smoke levels gobbling up our summers; tornadoes in New England; Gulf waters in the 90s; extended drought conditions coupled with torrential rains and devastating floods; wildfire season extending from May through October; weather extremes and new records somewhere, virtually every day, worldwide.”
These kinds of weather events happen every year. Decade after decade.
This is normal Earth weather. In fact, this weather described above is not as severe as the weather that has happened in the past, going by actual data. Severe weather is less today than it was in the recent past.
Human-caused Climate Change Alarmists don’t have any evidence showing CO2 is harmful or will cause the Earth to overheat, so they are reduced to making hyperbolic claims about each and every major weather event that occurs claiming CO2 is causing problems, but they can’t show a connection between CO2 and any of these weather events.
Climate alarmists are seeing what they want to see, not what is there. And they want you to enter into their delusion.
From the letter:”…climate changes over the past few billion years have taken many thousands of years to occur,…”. They appear not to know of the Younger Dryas which caused climate to change in decades not millennia.
A quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica:”In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”
I find it notable that sea level rise averaged three times today’s rate in the run-up to the Holocene, and it kept it up for about 8,000 years. Now that’s what real warming does!
It’s hard to blame people for parroting the stories that they are fed by the media. It’s a constant stream of exaggerations, factoids, half truths, cherry-picked data and lies-by-omission, all packaged in a story line designed to appeal to feelings of guilt about living in times of unprecedented wealth and material comfort. And most folk don’t have the intellectual depth or deep-seated curiosity, or baked-in scepticism to look behind the curtain. And some who do, face severe consequences if they tell what they saw behind the curtain.
There was a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, that you could believe most of the news that you read in the paper, heard on the radio or saw on TV. It might have been a bit slanted by the political or ideological leanings of a particular source, but finding alternative takes in other news outlets could get you to a moderately balanced viewpoint.
That time is gone. The climate alarmism juggernaut has been building momentum for 40 years, but more recent entrants into the propaganda circus aren’t that far behind (racial politics, Ukraine war, gender ideology, covid-19, snowflakeism, immigration policy, “diversity”, you name it). It’s a bizarre paradox of the 21st century that, now that almost everyone has access to almost unlimited information, almost all the time, it’s getting harder to find objective reporting on any subject. So much information and opinion-making is now in the hands of progressively aligned global corporations and “elites” who run the education system, civil services at all levels from municipal to national to the EU and UN, justice systems, even armed forces, police forces, and christian churches. How did it come to this?
In online and face-to-face conversations I provide facts to counter the alarmist nonsense. It is remarkable how some of the people I converse with get angry that I am using facts provided by scientists instead of accepting what “scientists” say. They absolutely do not want there to be any possibility of a decent future for any of us. However, what they do not understand is that I don’t really give a toss what those particular individuals think. On the contrary, they are quite helpful for showing others in the conversation how weak the other side of the argument is. Conceptually, when I argue the case with a rusted-on alarmist, I am addressing all the others who are listening in.
There was a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, that you could believe most of the news that you read in the paper, heard on the radio or saw on TV.
There was a time when I believed that. However, Mark Twain’s famous quote, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do, you are misinformed,” suggests that the problem has persisted for a long time.
at least Walter Cronkite seemed to be believable- he was one of the first in the American media to question the Vietnam war- whether or not his perspective was correct- he had the courage to offer it
Greens have a tendancy to shrink the definition of climate into a few years. It must be static or it’s an aberation. Weather in a “normal” system should not change. Your letter-writer:
climate changes over the past few billion years have taken many thousands of years to occur, with the occasional punctuating volcano or asteroid strike. This vastness has given the biological systems the time and resilience to adapt to the inevitable changes.
I doubt that humans live long enough to be able to identify distinct climate regimes, certainly not the weather changes we feel today. My mother grew up in, shall we say, some unusual decades. There was a “dustbowl” catastrophe in America’s agricultural sector at that time. Was that a manifestation of climate – or just a result of short term oscillations of ocean, wind, solar and forces. If with graphs and history books we can see gradual warming trends since the 1880’s, maybe that’s climate change.
Asked about the record temps of the ’30’s, she just shrugged. She would have been 10, and from the pictures of her playing with her brother and sisters in the dusty yard – riding a pony, playing with their dog – she didn’t notice it much. She became a third grade teacher, which meant earth sciences among the other subjects in the curriculum, and though she lived to nearly 100 and had to endure many hot summers and cold winters in Colorado, I don’t think she ever became hip to the catch phrase “unprecedented”. The dust she remembered. The grasshopper plagues, too, the rough pranks plains folks played on each other. The temps not so much.
My view is that climate change is an unknowable entity in human terms. Even people with a gloomy outlook with posters saying The End is Nigh – even those praying for an apocalypse so that they could say, “See? It’s here!” – even the investors and gamblers banking on profits from institutional “plays” on weather – even they have to go about their lives. When they stop long enough to smell the roses, they smell pretty much like the roses from the 1920’s and ’30’s and 40’s…
Tom.1
September 4, 2023 11:39 am
I ran across something interesting recently. It’s a podcast called “Sold a Story”. It’s about how our American primary education establishment became enamored with a particular style of teaching young children how to read. Turns out they were on the wrong track. I think there are many similarities to the climate change phenomenon.
Take aways are:
Don’t believe experts.
Groupthink can trump science.
Politics can cause people to unthinkingly reject good policy.
What about that “heat dome” over the U.S. in August? It was a good time to capture images from the NOAA GOES East satellite for the “CO2 Longwave IR” Band 16. Here is a 15-day time lapse video of images, at one-hour intervals, ending on August 27. If there was impressive heat, there was also impressive longwave emission to space. And obviously, the atmosphere is not a static “trap” as an end result.
Here is the full text I posted on Youtube with this video.
“This is a time lapse video of NOAA GOES East Band 16 images for the CONUS region (contiguous U.S.), on one-hour intervals for 15 days ending August 27th, 2023. This includes a period of so-called “heat dome” high temperatures over much of the U.S. west and southeast. GOES East is a geostationary satellite capturing high resolution radiance data at visible and infrared wavelengths.
Background: NOAA calls this the “CO2 Longwave IR” band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. It is within this same band of wavelengths at the edge of the “atmospheric window” that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of incremental concentrations of CO2 is computed. The “brightness temperature” color scale used for these visualizations (at this URL below – copy and paste in a browser) is such that the infrared energy being emitted to space is 10 times stronger at 30C (bright yellow) than at -90C (white.)
The atmosphere is not a passive radiative “trap”. The end result of its powerful heat engine operation in response to absorbed energy is seen from space as a huge array of highly active and highly variable emitter elements. The formation and dissipation of clouds obviously has a lot to do with this, and the related overturning circulations are readily seen at local to regional scale. Can the effect of incremental CO2 ever be isolated for reliable attribution of reported long-term warming? No. Can the long-term rise in CO2 concentration end up forcing heat energy to accumulate to harmful effect on land and in the oceans by what happens in the atmosphere? Also no.”
‘The atmosphere is not a passive radiative “trap”. ‘
As Will Happer notes, ‘…radiation to space from Earth’s real atmosphere originates from both the surface and all altitudes in the troposphere. A small amount of radiation originates in the stratosphere’.
The oceans are warmer than the atmosphere so the CO2 in the atmosphere can’t be warming the oceans.
There are about 5 million H2O molecules in the ocean for each molecule of CO2 in the air so the CO2 can’t be warming the oceans, they just aren’t hot enough and there aren’t enough of them.
They pick up radiated IR energy from the ground and atmosphere which averages 57 degrees F. The oceans are around 62 F.
The major heat flow is from the Sun to the oceans to the air. The oceans also hold a large amount of heat, much more than the air or the land.
Based on the heat that the earth receives from the sun and the distance between the two, what is the total amount of heat produced by the sun? That should be easy for a true scientist to determine. If the relatively tiny surface of the earth at such a great distance from the sun absorbs X amount of heat then the heat produced by the sun in total must be huge beyond belief. No doubt many of you have the answer to the this question on the tip of your scientific tongues but I’ve never heard or read of it. Maybe I should have googled it before entering this.
Former President Trump’s approval rating has increase by about 10 points, to 59 percent approval, after the last indictment and after the first Republican debate. Trump is running away with it.
Trump is going to be the Repubican nominee. Desantis has gone from 24 percent approval to about 13 percent, and some of his donors are switching to Trump now. So it’s pretty much all over but the shouting and crying.
In a national poll, Trump and Biden are tied at 46 percent.
I wouldn’t put too much confidence in national polls at this time. I think Trump’s numbers will improve as it becomes obvious he is going to be the nominee, and his numbers are improving even now with blacks and hispanics and independents and now the black rappers are coming out and endorsing Trump, so the radical Democrats may have shot themselves in the foot with their persecution of Trump because the black rappers are feeling like Trump is one of them now, and are encouraging their fellow blacks to vote for Trump.
The reason Trump has such strong support is because those who support him see his legal troubles are purely political attacks by the radical Democrats. If they thought Trump was a criminal, he wouldn’t have that support. So, despite the radical Democrats best efforts, Trumps supporters do not think he is a criminal, and they are very happey with how he ran the nation when he was in charge, and very unhappy with how Biden is running the country, and they are going to vote for Trump.
If Trump was actually guilty of a crime, then that would change everything, but I don’t see where he is guilty of anything, and I have looked at everything the radical Democrats are throwing out there, and they are on very shaky legal grounds, to the point of prosecutorial misconduct, and I think that will eventually become obvious.
So here we are. Time will tell. I think Donald Trump is the most innocent man who ever ran for president. He is certainly the most investigated, and the investigators haven’t laid a glove on him yet, and not for lack of trying. They have the whole federal government going after him and still haven’t proven one thing.
And Americans see this garbage going on. If they have any sense, they will realize that if the radical Democrats can do this to Trump, then they can do it to them, if they get in the radical Democrat’s way.
That’s not democracy, that’s tyranny, and that’s what we are currently facing with the corrupt, criminal Biden administration. They are trying to impose a radical Democrat tyranny on this nation and Trump is their first target.
Time for these old farts to retire. I’d like to see a couple of straight white men in their 40s battle for the presidency. DeSantis vs– I dunno- the Dems must have somebody to carry their torch.
I think Hannity is trying to get Desantis and Newsom together.
Newsom says he is eager to debate Desantis. I bet he is. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room (a common affliction) and definitely wants to get on the national political stage. He thinks he can talk his way into the White House.
Here’s Gavin Newsom:
“Overview. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others.”
It describes Joe Biden, too. It’s all about Joe. He meets with military parents and Maui residents and tells them all about how *he* has suffered with his son dying of cancer, and his kitchen catching on fire.
““Overview. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others.” I don’t think I have ever seen a more detailed, accurate, description of one Donald J Trump.
Newsom has “the gift of gab” but I don’t know if that will be enough.
All you have to do is point to the disaster which is California. It’s Gavin Newsom who has presided over the destruction of this once beautiful State.
Of course, Gavin is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.
The last thing we want to do is turn the United States into California.
For example: San Francisco has lost 30 percent of its businesses so far. They are pulling out of the State because of the lawlessness that Gavin Newsom and the other radical Democrats permit.
Yeah, if ole Biden will drop out, there will probably be a dozen Democrats who would just in the race. Kamala will not be the Democrat nominee under those circumstances. She has to be one of the most clueless politicians I have ever seen. She’s toast if she is not Biden’s running mate.
“Of course, Gavin is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.” Oh the irony. Let’s insert the Name Trump.. Of course, Trump is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.
Age has nothing to do with it. There are lots of people much older than Biden who carry on with their lives just fine. Like Trump.
Biden, appears to be deteriorating rather quickly and I will be surprised if he is the nominee in 2024. He was at a ceremony yesterday honoring a Vietnam veteran with the Medal of Honor for his bravery in the war (this man has more medals than 10 people!) and Biden walked out of the room right in the middle of the ceremony completely oblivious to what was going on.
Biden is certainly not fit to be president. He wasn’t menatlly fit before he got ill, and he hasn’t improved with age.
There is no comparison between Trump and Biden when it comes to age. Trump has so much energy he wears his younger associates out. Biden doesn’t know where he’s at half the time.
“Trump has so much energy he wears his younger associates out.”
Amazing what snorting sudafed and funnelling diet cokes can do. But apparently not for balance and co-ordination. If he could ride a bike we would have seen him do so.
Ronnie Jackson should be delicensed for malpractice. When 45 dies, he should be investigated like Conrad Murray.
Trump won’t take office until January 2025. Then, I assume, the Paris Agreement will be toast, along with a lot of other things.
Biden came into office and promptly reversed everything Trump did with Executive Orders, and if Trump gets back in, he will reverse Biden’s EOs, which are destroying the nation.
DeSantis pummels critics for pinning Hurricane Idalia on climate change
By Ryan King September 4, 2023
“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday scoffed at the notion that wild weather such as Hurricane Idalia has anything to do with climate change, while blasting President Biden and others for claiming it does.”
end excerpt
It looks like Desantis is on the right track when it comes to human-caused climate change: He’s skeptical.
Desantis ought to hit hard on being skeptical about human-caused climate change.
Trying to fix this CO2 non-problem is one of the greatest threats the Western Democracies face. We all see the destruction it is causing. Desantis could be our Knight in Shining Armor defending the Gates of Scientific and Economic Sanity for the rest of us. If he so chose.
It would certainly make Desantis stand out from the crowd, other than Vivek, and would draw LOTS of Media attention and efforts to destroy his credibility on the issue. If he does something like this, he better have his ducks in a row because he will be asked hard questions. There are answers to those hard questions, but he better know them, or have advisors that do. Or he can just forget even setting foot on that territory.
Take on the Climate Change Alarmists, Ron! You can make them look stupid if you know how to do it. You can show that they are on the wrong track when it comes to CO2 and our economies.
If you could reverse this CO2 insanity, it would be one of the biggest beneficial things in history.
Climate Alarmism is driving the Western Democracies into the ground. Stop it for us, Ron.
Desantis is excellent on just about everything as far as issues go. Substantially better than Trump on climate I would say.
Trump never challenges the claim that warming is bad or that CO2 is a problem. He just turns it into a dispute with other countries like CHINA!! and India, which implies it’s a real problem and he doesn’t have a plan to deal with it.
Sadly Ron is sorely lacking in the charisma department. And a certain segment of the MAGA team won’t forgive him for challenging Trump. Plus even folks like me who never liked Trump much know we can’t let the Demonrats and the RINOs get away with this bullshit they’re trying to pull.
“Desantis is excellent on just about everything as far as issues go. Substantially better than Trump on climate I would say.”
I don’t know about that. Trump said yesterday that people should have a choice of what kind of automobile to buy and shouldn’t be forced to buy an electric car.
Yes, he did, but he left it an open question as to whether it was just the Chicom’s scamming us he was talking about, or whether the science claiming CO2 is dangerous is wrong.
Trump has never addressed the science of CO2 directly.
I don’t know what he thinks CO2 does or doesn’t do.
Trump understands no science except maybe at a rudimentary level- enough for his purposes. I liked very much when he said, during the big CA forest fires, that he thinks better forestry would help greatly. No other president that I’m aware of has ever said anything like that about forestry. He actually said, “I strongly support forest management”. Then I think how Bill Clinton drastically cut back forestry on federal land to save the owls or whatever- it later turning out that logging wasn’t really the problem with the owls. The tree huggers always seek new excuses to stop forestry- now it’s “proforestation” (end all tree cutting) which they say will save the planet.
We have to find the balance that gets a conservative elected and if that means holding back on saying things we dearly would like to say then I am fine with that.
The only question is just how wishy washy do we really need to be to win? And if we compromise on the message too much will we get kicked to the curb after the election?
There’s no point in winning if we’re the party of going to hell in a handbasket with a five year delay. (Netzero ‘55)
I have to agree that that is a brilliant remark politically speaking. People respond emotionally to having a choice as well as to having a car. There’s not much surface area for the Dems to attack. What do they say? You shouldn’t be allowed to choose? If we let you drive a car it will have to be one that we approve?
That’s the thing about politics, it rewards shallow emotional appeals and punishes thoughtful discussion.
Abstract The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is one of Earth’s main modes of climate variability, having huge impacts on weather, agriculture, and people worldwide. Although these impacts and teleconnections have been studied for decades, the role of atmospheric transport is not completely understood. We analyze the atmospheric transport outgoing from the Equatorial Pacific with the Lagrangian particle dispersion model FLEXPART driven by reanalysis data. Our results demonstrate the interocean-basin exchange via the atmosphere: anomalously energetic air from the ENSO region mainly remains within the Tropics and Subtropics, while more air is transported toward the east during El Niño. Transport of anomalous moist air can directly be linked to several observed teleconnections, for example, droughts in the Amazon Basin and precipitation in Southeastern U.S. during El Niño. These results show that atmospheric transport plays a role in several ENSO teleconnections.
Rud Istvan
September 4, 2023 1:28 pm
There is a lot of climate stuff under Biden that isn’t working, and it is becoming obvious and should impact 2024:
Two of three GOM offshore wind leases received no bids.
Sonar offshore wind site prep off New Jersey is killing whales.
Thanks to his federal land O&G lease prohibitions, crude production is down about 2 million bpd since he took office.
The green spending in the IRA has increased inflation.
Touted/subsidized Proterra eBus went belly up.
Rejoining the Paris Accords has made NO difference.
Having his military leaders declare ‘climate change the biggest threat’ when they cannot even meet recruiting goals was a joke.
“Having his military leaders declare ‘climate change the biggest threat’”
We need a list of all the generals that signed off on this statement. They are not fit to serve, and Trump should remove them immediately after he takes office.
Thinking CO2 is the biggest threat to the United States is seriously delusional thinking, and the U.S. cannot have deluded generals directing our military operations.
They have disqualified themselves by going along with Biden’s climate change delusions.
i would like for these military leaders to point to the evidence that convinced them that CO2 was a danger.
We all know, there is no evidence for this. There is a lot of speculation, assumptions and assertions about CO2, but no definitive evidence that CO2 does anything the alarmist claim it does. So I want to know how these generals reached the conclusions they reached.
I don’t think they can have a reasonable explanation for taking this position, and as far as I’m concerned, taking a position not backed by facts, is the last thing I want my military generals doing.
But I would be interested in their thought processes. I want to know how they became so delusional on this subject. And if they can believe something that hasn’t been shown to be true, and haven’t taken the time to find out one way or the other, then they have no business directing the defense of this nation.
Even if the climate does warm up a bit- how the hell is that a military threat- compared to so many other real military threats? I think they’re just obeying their masters- I bet few if any military leaders believe it. Like academics, they like their careers. But, they also respect bravery, so they should show some and stand up against this supposed military threat from warming.
For the Australians who come to WUWT: The Liberal Party opposition has an on-line petition against the draconian “misinformation” law at BIN THE BILL
LABOR’S MISINFORMATION LAW WILL SUPPRESS YOUR FREE SPEECH
Please sign it and make sure that others know about it too.
For non-Australians – apologies for wasting your time here, but please just leave it to the Aussies!
Note for USAers: The Liberal Party is centre-right, it’s not what you call “liberal”.
‘Somehow, I don’t think the Biden movie is going to end well.’
Unfortunately for us, the media, the Federal bureaucracy and about half of the electorate has no interest in watching. Too busy watching re-runs of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, starring Barack Obama.
What explains the similar warmings in prior decades like the one from 1910 to 1940, where temperatures increased by the same magnitude as they have done today? No Clean Air Act back then.
Robert A. Taylor
September 4, 2023 2:22 pm
Due to multiple computer loses, I’m looking for some information. Long ago this site, and others, had information about a rich Marxist who financed the early propaganda about “global warming.” Some even discredited him with starting the whole scam. He took refuge in China fleeing criminal prosecution. Can anyone supply his name and CV?
Maurice Strong? Canadian businessman, director of the WEF, advisor to the World Bank and Khofi Anan, founder of the IPCC, self confessed Marxist and believer in a world government. Is that the guy? I don’t think the enquiry into any criminal activities really got anywhere before his death and no-one’s been talking about it since.
Strong dropped out of high school, became a junior stock broker, got hired by Jack Gallagher of Dome Petroleum, found himself promoted to CFO in a time of fast growth of the oil industry, made a study of how he could fleece investors and government, while making himself seem to be the go-to guy in control of mysterious background forces and individuals that he was pleased to inform you about. Probably, but unprovably, one of the greatest con-artists of the 20th century. So good at it, there won’t be a movie….
Maurice Strong had a long fascination with China and Chinese communism, having visited there often over 40 years; a relative of his was a close friend of Mao (possibly more) which gave him a protected status in the country. Strong helped create several shady deals through the UN which benefitted China so, when questions were being asked about the ‘Food for Oil’ scandal, a Korean cheque and various other secretive UN deals involving Strong, he opted to go to live in China.
Edward Katz
September 4, 2023 2:25 pm
Despite all the alarmist rhetoric, all indicators point to the fact that nowhere nearly enough is being done to arrest the alleged “climate crisis’, and a very small number of people really care, at least not enough to make make major costly and inconvenient lifestyle changes. When I hear that the major international oil producers have announced record profits, and the US is on track to set a record for oil extraction and refining, it starts becoming obvious that renewables can’t fill any energy shortfalls. Then when I hear that for the past two years global coal consumption has reached new heights, it becomes even more obvious. Finally the clinchers are that air travel has increased to its former level and EVs are sitting unsold on car lots in ever greater numbers and their producers like Volkswagen are laying off workers because sales are 30% lower than predicted. So maybe this climate change problem is merely one that the majority is prepared to live with rather than being stampeded into questionable over-reaction.
When governments make Air Travel points illegal, we’ll know they are getting serious about cutting emissions by a couple of percent. Till then we know it’s just vote smuckering, tax revenue and hunger for power.
In February 2014, well before the US-instigated, Kiev Coup d’Etat in the fall of 2014, there were about 2.6 million Ukrainian citizens in Russia, of whom about 70% were guest workers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia
After the Kiev Coup d’Etat, not supported in eastern Ukraine, Russia annexed Crimea
The Crimean people (70% ethnic Russians, 22% ethnic Ukrainians and 8% Tartars) had voted by over 95% to re-unite with Russia.
Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783, except for a brief period, when it was a part of Ukraine.
Russia made huge investments and successfully turned it into a vacation destination, mainly for Russians.
In 2014, the Ukraine Armed Forces, mainly the extremist-nationalist AZOV battalions, started an 8-year ethnic cleansing/genocide and civil war in Donbas, from behind the “line of separation”, that killed about 16,000 men, women and children from 2014 to 2022, as documented in monthly reports by the UN-OSCE.
Kiev’s government, taken over by extremist nationalists, officially vowed to erase “Everything Russian”
As a result, about 1.9 million Ukrainians fled to Russia, in 2014, increasing their total to about 4.5 million.
Another 1.36 million Ukrainians fled to Russia in 2015, increasing their total to 5.86 million
Apparently the invincible invaders were not welcomed as liberators.
There are significant number of ethnic Russians living in NATO countries. Maybe Russia does not want them back or maybe they do not want to live in Russia.
As far as I know, many or all Ukrainians moved from Russia to other countries after the invasion. What is telling is that only a handful of those chose to return to Ukraine. It’s a similar story with the other nationalities in Russia – there were more US citizens living in Russia prior to the invasion than any other nationality and most of them have now left.
I tried to find info about Ukrainians in Russia moving to other countries.
It turns out, a very small percentage is moving out, which is anecdotally reported by the lapdog Media.
Almost all are not doing that, because they have ties to Russia, they can speak Russian, instead of having to speak Ukrainian, so feel right at home, also they can freely worship in the Russian Orthodox Church, and Russia has a shortage of workers, because its economy is growing, while the EU economy is stagnant, due to blowback of sanctions, so it is easy for a skilled Ukrainian to get a well-paying job in Russia
People often do not know, about 40% of all Ukrainians living in Ukraine have relatives in Russia.
The US government, not the US people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government, not the UK people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,
The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y. These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden “Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are about 50% higher than in the UK
NOTE: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the “Inflation-Reduction-Act”, has increased by 57% since 2021,” Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF, “Inflation of materials, energy, components, and labor costs explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”
A big problem with nuclear plant design, construction and operation is that it produces a mountain of paperwork that means the death of millions of trees.
Once upon a time I had to train sailors who needed to wear a dosimeter for passing through radiation areas. Q How do you protect against radiation. A Time, distance, and shielding.
I gave full credit my senior petty officer for answering a mountain pf paper work.
Joseph,
I post all my articles there
It has an edit function and no “ pesky administrator”, so I can update my articles as often as needed.
I also repost articles by others
Solar electricity increases with the rising sun, is maximal around midday, and decreases with the setting sun.
Electric grids with many solar systems have major midday solar output bulges, that are counteracted/balanced by traditional power plants reducing their outputs. Combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, perform almost all of the counteracting/balancing of the variable wind and solar outputs.
Those plants have to increase their outputs during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, when solar and wind usually are minimal; solar will have gone to sleep until about 9 AM the next morning.
Owners of counteracting/balancing plants, to avoid grid overload, are required by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, to counteract the midday solar bulge, i.e., reduce their outputs, which decreases their annual production, kWh/y, increases their costs, c/kWh, plus increases wear and tear of their plants.
ISO-NE compensates the Owners of these plants, and charges utilities as part of “grid charges”, plus mark-up.
The utilities charge ratepayers, plus mark-up. Nothing is “for free”
If Solar ‘will have gone to sleep until about 9AM the next morning’ then ‘Solar electricity increases with the rising sun’ is complete rubbish. Solar is far more limited in its electricity-generating hours than most proponents will ever admit.
I-hope this will suffice better; nothing is ever perfect
Solar slowly increases from about 6 am to about 9 am, on a sunny day in summer; by 10 am, it starts to become significant enough to disturb the grid, until about 2 pm; it rapidly goes downhill thereafter, until it is minimal during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening,
Very often, wind is minimal as well, meaning BOTH ARE USELESS DURING PEAK HOURS
You may want to read the article, which has over 1600 views
Not only that, but with a very high throughput of 40% of MWh rating EVERY DAY, each kWh delivered by the battery costs a minimum of about 23 c/kWh ON TOP OF THE COST (c/kWh) OF THE CHARGED ELECTRICITY, AS EXPLAINED IN THE ARTICLE
Smart Rock
September 4, 2023 3:43 pm
I should be working today, but what the heck. Open thread time.
Here are my very pessimistic (but not totally implausible) predictions for 2024:
The war goes very badly for Ukraine. The Biden administration sends US ground troops and air force to help, and sends a naval force into the Black Sea. UK follows suit. The war continues to go badly for Ukraine, and somebody uses a tactical nuke in a desperate moment. Things go downhill from there.
The legal onslaught against former President Trump intensifies, and he ends up behind bars, even for a short time. His hard core supporters, who certainly number in the tens of millions, are outraged and start to coalesce into some sort of armed resistance groups. The Biden administration activates the National Guard to try and suppress them, with little success. The Biden administration orders the military to help the National Guard (probably unconstitutional, but why should they care). Things get really messy in the US of A.
China, correctly noting that the US is fully occupied at home and in Ukraine, invades Taiwan. It’s all over in 24 hours. The Biden administration authorises the use of a single thermonuclear-armed ICBM on Beijing to indicate their displeasure. Things go downhill from there.
A Russian cruise missile hits one of the bioweapons labs that the US doesn’t have in Ukraine, and a chimeric virus gets out. It is highly infectious and lethal in 50 percent of those who get infected. Alternatively, a similar virus “escapes” from one of the labs that China doesn’t have in California. Civil society starts to unravel at an exponential rate and eventually it all falls apart.
Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.
PS If you think my virus scenario is a fantasy, take a look at this: Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron Two quotes from the abstract (you can download the full PDF): “We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate…” “Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with amortality rate of 80%“. The authors acknowledge funding from the NIH, and the research was apparently done at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York. Read it and tell me it wasn’t the gain-of-function research that doesn’t happen in the US, and isn’t funded by the US at home or abroad. These are strange times we are living in.
They have also changed the definition of climate so climate is now only 30 years compared to the thousands or million of years that it was previously was defined as. Now by the new definition Climate Change is happening all of the time.
I posted a comment in this open thread about a PBS video about the greening of the Sahara- which it claims has happened 130 times in the last million years.
Boy are you out of date. I was looking at a pro-alarmist website that had some definitions on it and they defined weather as happening each day but climate as a trend in weather that happened over a few months. Either everyone has their ‘pet’ definitions or they are changing as we speak.
The geologic climate of the earth is a 2.6 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. It will end when there is no natural ice on the earth.
scvblwxq
September 4, 2023 5:26 pm
The environmentalists are the ones that got everybody to scrap nuclear and use fossil fuels instead.
Geoff Sherrington
September 4, 2023 6:52 pm
Those who follow Australian events can see that the last 2 hot months over Australia have shortened the Viscounct Monckton type of “pause” by three months, to eleven years and 1 month, by dropping of some cold months at the start.
Geoff S
We’ve all heard how the Sahara has turned from desert to green- and many times. But this PBS video says it’s happened 130 times in the last 8 million years!
bdgwx
September 5, 2023 6:42 am
Neo
September 5, 2023 7:47 am
An alarming report from the US Department of Agriculture predicts that by 2070, the nation’s forests will release substantially more carbon than they store.
Forests in the US – bar those in Alaska – will no longer absorb 150 million metric tons of carbon a year within five decades, experts say.
That carbon is equivalent to the emissions of roughly 40 coal power plants.
To understand how a carbon sink can become a carbon tap, we have to consider the lifecycle of a healthy forest, where new growth matures into old growth and old growth dies and makes room for new growth.
But today, in North America, not enough young trees are being planted and allowed to grow up.
This means that mature forests are outpacing young forests, which are also more likely to be harvested or killed due to climate effects like wildfires, drought, or storms.
The overall shift to an older age cohort of trees means that in the future, forests in the US could be dying more than they are growing.
Practically, this turns forests from carbon absorbers to carbon emitters.
Old growth trees hold the most carbon in total, but after reaching a certain size, their growth seems
michel
September 5, 2023 8:01 am
Story Tip — Another wonderful piece of insanity from the Guardian
Here we have a lady who seems seriously to think that we can all make an impact on the global water shortage by taking shorter showers, putting bricks in our toilet cisterns, and washing our clothes less.
Right, must get on that.
Imagine, here I am a few miles from Seathwaite, Cumbria, with the rain pouring down as it has for some weeks now. The beck down Styhead is foaming and rushing down into Derwentwater. The wettest place in England, maybe the UK, and that is pretty wet. Not monsoon, just continous steady wetness year round, and a huge lake a few miles away full of the stuff. Same if I were up in the highlands of Scotland where the autumn rain is sometimes dense enough to wash away the midges.
But I see now that its imperative for me to wash only using a flannel in a handbasin after my sodden trip up Scafell in the mist and the downpour, and not wash my muddy socks and pants, just dry them and shake them out. Because the thirsty children in the Sahel. Yes, of course, that will help them no end. We all have to do our bit.
Will they let me into the dining room like this, though? That’s what I am really wondering about.
Cam_S
September 5, 2023 8:49 am
Story tip
Canada and Hawaii wildfires, climate change hysteria, and the main stream media.
– – – – – – – – –
Climate scientist whistleblower Patrick Brown reveals how the media’s obsession with global warming manipulates the truth about wildfires – 80% are ignited by humans
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, claimed the world’s leading academic journals reject papers which don’t ‘support certain narratives’
He also took aim at the media for focusing ‘intently on climate change as the root cause’ of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii
The approach ‘distorts a great deal of climate science research’, Brown claimed
Ever notice that the main GHG, water vapor, is never mentioned in the media
CampsieFellow
September 5, 2023 10:51 am
In Jan 2023 I wrote to my (SNP) Member of the Scottish Parliament, asking her if the SNP had any plans to introduce 20-minute zones in Scotland. She referred my question to the Minister for Transport. The Minister duly replied on 20 March. A copy of the reply was passed on to me. In her reply, the Minister for Transport stated:
“We have commissioned research on equitable options for car demand management, including pricing. Using the findings of the research, we will work with local and regional partners to develop options and proposals to support the 20% car km reduction target and will set these out in a Demand Management Framework, by 2025.”
In August 2023, an outfit calling itself The Climate Emergency Response Group published a report “Committing to delivery: Certainty and leadership for a just transition to a net zero, climate resilient future for Scotland”.
Section 3 of the Report is: 3. Introduce fiscal levers as part of a coherent strategy to reduce car reliance and improve places for people.
It states:
Given the tight timeframes and the extensive engagement required to co-design, test and roll out locally appropriate road user charging schemes and parking levies, it is imperative that the Scottish Government rapidly takes the first step by setting out the clear policy imperative to use fiscal levers to rebalance the costs of travel in favour of public, shared and active travel. It must then open the door for constructive dialogue with businesses, local authorities and other stakeholder groups to co-design principles and standards for the fair and effective transition away from car-dominated travel. The Programme for Government should set out the Scottish Government’s high level policy intention to engage closely with business, local authorities and equalities groups over the next year to agree an equitable framework to guide the use of fiscal levers to reduce car reliance and improve places for people, culminating in the publication of the Car Demand Management Framework in 2024 (brought forward from 2025). The updated ‘Route map to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030’ should be published as soon as possible, and commit to:
1. Introducing road user charging as part of its policy toolkit and provide certainty on whether a national road pricing scheme will be pursued, or whether delivery will rely wholly on local / regional charging schemes.
2. Delivering on the commitments made in the New Deal for Business and the Verity House Agreement to consult and collaborate with business, local government as well as poverty and disability groups in the design of a national approach to road user charging to ensure equality and just transition are built in from the start.
3. Resourcing local authorities to enter sustained local level stakeholder engagement processes and undertake the detailed design work required for place-based schemes which include demand management measures such as Work-Place Parking Licensing, other parking charges and local road charging schemes.
4. Kicking-off a multi-agency led national information campaign on sustainable travel by end of 2023 bringing together transport, public health, environment, poverty, planning and tourism agencies. To be mirrored by local campaigns and engagement.
5. Taking action to close all regulatory gaps to enable the introduction of local road user charging schemes from 2025. 6. Building alliances with UK city regions and other devolved administrations to advocate for a UK-wide approach to road pricing that more equitably shares the costs of travel and generates revenue for public transport. https://cerg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CERG-Report-August-2023.pdf
In a way, the introduction of road tolls in Scotland would be somewhat ironic as one of the populist measures the SNP included in its 2007 Manifesto was to remove tolls from all road bridges in Scotland.
Given the amount of money raised by ULEZ in London, road charging in Scotland should be a nice little earner for the Scottish Government.
Story tip
Happy Labour Day to all our US friends
In this climate alarmism war we find ourselves in, keep to the truth, honesty, integrity and a sense of humour – together, we are fighting the climate wrongs and helping humanity thrive
Thanks! But given what the Biden administration is up to, we’re not going to have any friends before too long.
Who’s “we” then? The US and mystery countrymen agains the world, eh?
For those interested in solar physics
https://electroverse.info/has-solar-cycle-25-already-peaked/
Another mini ice age would herald in a new fleet of coal fired power stations in the West
I think a mini ice age would make the West die out sooner due to freezing. The alarmists would blame CO2 as the cause of climate changing for the colder with their last frigid, frosty breath.
That is what I noticed – lefties will do ANYTHING but admit they were wrong, tie their logic in contorted knots but they must maintain the illusion of moral and intellectual supremacy above all else.
The earth is greening. Must be bad.
Rose coloured lenses and sarcasm – a toxic mix.
The only way to fight them is with cold hard equations and data, you can’t beat touchy-feely types with discussion. Well, ridicule works if they really are coloring outside the lines.
Equations and data without reasoning. Dr. Strangelove comes to mind…
I have noticed that the earth’s energy imbalance, as reported by NASA, seems to be rather insensitive to a change in downwelling radiation. The EEI is a measure of how far we are from equilibrium temperature (after subtracting out what the plants use to grow), and you would think that increasing or decreasing downwelling radiation would have some effect. The luminosity variation is about 30% of the current energy imbalance, so it should be easy to see. But, even after applying an FFT to the data, the effect of the radiation variation is below random noise. The perturbation to the system is completely suppressed. This is what a stable system does. Anyone claiming the climate sensitivity is above 1 needs to explain why effectively dumping about 15 years of CO2 (in terms of energy; roughly 0.3 W/m2) has no apparent effect on the EEI.
NASA is reporting the EEI at +1.5 W/m2 and +1.9 W/m2 over the last 36m and 12m respectively via CERES. The trend is +0.5 W m-2 decade-1. So over the last 15 years it has increased by 0.7 W/m2 despite the planet taking up 140 ZJ of energy over that same period. FWIW I get an additional 0.5 W/m2 of RF from CO2 over the last 15 years.
What’s that in Hiroshimas?
2.3 billion
I know you’re tweaking bdgwx but here’s the handy converter link:
https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=zettajoules&k2=hiroshima-bomb-explosion
Story tip: maybe give us an update on why the Edit function is still broken and whether it might get fixed soon – thanks!
A slight tweak – I hope he enjoyed the day, like everyone else.
I believe you missed my point. The EEI does not respond to a varying downwelling radiation. I assume you know the implications of this.
I’m not sure what downwelling radiation has to do with it. EEI is measured at the top of the atmosphere. It is basically incoming solar radiation minus reflected solar radiation minus outgoing terrestrial radiation. Can you clarify or add more details so that I can better understand your point?
Downwelling radiation is short wave, if it’s from the sun, and longwave, if it’s due to carbon dioxide. The energy imbalance is a measure of how far away from equilibrium temperature that we are. What we see in the data is that changing the downwelling radiation has no effect on the EEI. That means changing downwelling radiation does not change the equilibrium temperature. The sun can’t do it, and carbon dioxide can’t do it.
EEI is the Earth Energy Imbalance. It is how far away the planet is from energy balance at TOA or top-of-atmosphere. The only input at TOA is solar radiation. There is no downwelling radiation crossing the TOA boundary coming from CO2 since space is devoid of CO2.
You can see in the CERES data that the incoming solar radiation has a significant effect on the EEI. In fact, nearly all of the monthly variation in EEI is driven by the variation in solar radiation. Of course, most of the variation is orbital, but the point is that solar radiation were to experience a secular change then it clearly would cause a secular change in EEI as well.
The sun’s luminosity varies with an 11 year cycle. There is no 11 year cycle in the EEI.
What is the uncertainty on those EEI numbers? Why is it alarmists don’t understand that uncertainty envelopes are important?
“Why is it alarmists don’t understand that uncertainty envelopes are important?”
The “alarmists” here certainly do.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Folks, now waiting for the expected rejoinder “Bbbbbuttt, wudabout the “uncertainty” of each of the data points?”
And we thought the Joker was badly wired….
‘As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘
These guys inform the reader why they’re full of it early in their paper. The rest of it is just special pleading. As for reference to Pat Frank, all I can suggest is that you seek help.
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2.
And? It’s that “residual”, with man made forcings as the only coherent cause for mot of it, that is accumulating energy over the the decades As expected, no actual rebut of my link.
As for Dr. Frank, I’m cool that the system is working. I’m actually glad that he gets to publish. Since his personal embarrassments are mercifully ignored by his “peers” who would benefit if he had anything useful to say, his lack of cites speaks for itself.
Here is my expanded post, more completely responding to Franks boo boo.
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘”
And? It’s that “residual”, with man made forcings as the only coherent cause for most of it, that is accumulating energy over the the decades. The “levels of accuracy” are imbedded in the link and are indeed sufficient to discern the trends demonstrated. You ignored them. The fact that they are listed is the point of my earlier post.
As for Dr. Frank, I’m cool that the system is working. I’m actually glad that he gets to publish. Since his personal embarrassments are mercifully ignored by his “peers” who would benefit if he had anything useful to say, his lack of cites speaks for itself.
The FFT on the data suppresses the noise level to the level necessary to see such a small signal. It’s simply is not there.
What signal are you looking for?
Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.
The boldening is mine. And I noticed that you conveniently left out the next sentence which states:
However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable.
Yes, thanks bd. My last post indeed demo’d that I had only a partial understanding of the situation. I would have been better off merely relying on the 2021 paper instead of trying to incorrectly interpret it. Your last post dope slapped me into actually reading the entirety of the link I posted. I’ll work on that…..
‘Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘
I’m glad that satellite EEI is highly precise, but as you note, it’s not accurate enough to resolve small differences to the extent needed to know whether the imbalance is positive or negative. Shame on them for trying to make their results meaningful by ‘adjusting’ other data. Shades of what’s his name trying to justify his mid-tropospheric ‘hot-spot’ by adjusting radiosonde data for wind shear.
I didn’t say that and neither did Loeb et al.
Sure they did.
‘…not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an absolute sense.‘
The same cherry pick as before. Per bdg a few comments back, you conveniently avoid the rest of the para…
“However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable. We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an offset to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value. Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does not affect the trends of either time series nor the correlation between them. Year-to-year variations and long-term trends in EEI from the satellite data are completely independent of those from the in situ data.”
‘We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an offset to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value.‘
So, they ‘adjust’ the satellite data that previously couldn’t accurately resolve whether the sign of EEI is positive or negative to somehow make it meaningful? And that’s ok with you? Really, bob!
“And that’s ok with you?”
Any attempt to resolve systemic error is ok with me. Especially when the random error left over results in an acceptable level of statistical durability. Read the conclusions….
This letter was in rebuttal to a letter to the editor, in my local paper, asking about why there needs to be action to fight climate change. Here is his letter:
Extended heat domes; rapidly intensifying hurricanes with massive storm surges; extreme fire behavior becoming routine, with whole towns and timber stands completely erased; sea levels inching inexorably up; tropical storms in unprecedented areas; unhealthy and hazardous smoke levels gobbling up our summers; tornadoes in New England; Gulf waters in the 90s; extended drought conditions coupled with torrential rains and devastating floods; wildfire season extending from May through October; weather extremes and new records somewhere, virtually every day, worldwide. Whatever you have considered normal, we’re not going back there. Jared Black wrote an interesting but flawed letter Aug. 5 about climate, citing the physicist/climate change denier William Happer extensively. Happer is not a climate scientist, however (neither am I), and his funding comes from fossil fuel companies which depend on us to continue burning fuel to produce energy. Heat is a manifestation of energy, and it doesn’t just go away. The greenhouse gases we are releasing are trapping it in our biosphere and slowing the rate of heat dispersal to space, acting like a giant blanket. Happer, Black and the fossil fuel industry conveniently ignore this and the impact of accumulated human activity on the climatic system.
The planet and its atmosphere are vast, so climate changes over the past few billion years have taken many thousands of years to occur, with the occasional punctuating volcano or asteroid strike. This vastness has given the biological systems the time and resilience to adapt to the inevitable changes. For many millennia, humans were few enough that the impact of burning fuel for heat and energy was easily absorbed by the atmosphere and the oceans. But now that we number 8 billion, with our insatiable need for more fuel to burn, more energy, more resources, more stuff, our collective impact has begun to overwhelm the resilience of the ecosystem and to upend the ability of the atmosphere to balance the heat budget. Over billions of years, Earth has built a delicate balance of heat gain and loss, which has allowed life to thrive within a very narrow range, but our greenhouse gas blanket has rudely disrupted this fragile thermodynamic balance. One has to view this over the vast course of time, not in a few human generations. Since we cannot open a hole in the atmosphere and let the heat out, and we can’t stop solar radiation, our best way out of the heat is to reduce the amount of fuel we burn. “Climate Action” sounds like a high level policy activity, far above our pay grade. But we can all participate in climate action on a personal level, and although each effort may seem insignificant, the collective and concerted movement will make a difference. Climate action on a household level includes recycling, composting, planting trees and a garden; switching over to renewable energy sources, using the car more efficiently and driving less; reusing materials that would otherwise be considered waste (thus reducing the demand to produce ever more stuff), adopting good fire prevention measures (burning less material), supporting public transportation, alternate ways of moving around and the use of renewable resources; living a simpler life and encouraging others to do the same. All these things have the added benefit of saving money and building community. And since we all occupy space, breathe oxygen and use resources, and we’ve all been warned about this for decades, we all have a responsibility and a part to play in sustaining our planet for the next generations. It’s not a big sacrifice, it just takes a brain and a heart.
What offends me most is that he states Dr. Happer as some paid off oil shill and has no expertise and yet his credentials are he is a retired fireman. He also fails to mention Dr. Lindzen as the co-author of the cited document. It is obvious that he is just repeating the blatant claptrap talking points throughout his letter? He repeats the climate hysteria word for word which are all weather events and not “climate change” effects. How many of these letters to the editor are published each day? It’s maddening.
“Extended heat domes; rapidly intensifying hurricanes with massive storm surges; extreme fire behavior becoming routine, with whole towns and timber stands completely erased; sea levels inching inexorably up; tropical storms in unprecedented areas; unhealthy and hazardous smoke levels gobbling up our summers; tornadoes in New England; Gulf waters in the 90s; extended drought conditions coupled with torrential rains and devastating floods; wildfire season extending from May through October; weather extremes and new records somewhere, virtually every day, worldwide.”
These kinds of weather events happen every year. Decade after decade.
This is normal Earth weather. In fact, this weather described above is not as severe as the weather that has happened in the past, going by actual data. Severe weather is less today than it was in the recent past.
Human-caused Climate Change Alarmists don’t have any evidence showing CO2 is harmful or will cause the Earth to overheat, so they are reduced to making hyperbolic claims about each and every major weather event that occurs claiming CO2 is causing problems, but they can’t show a connection between CO2 and any of these weather events.
Climate alarmists are seeing what they want to see, not what is there. And they want you to enter into their delusion.
Nope, na-ga-da!
They don’t know what they are talking about.
From the letter:”…climate changes over the past few billion years have taken many thousands of years to occur,…”. They appear not to know of the Younger Dryas which caused climate to change
in decades not millennia.
A quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica:”In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”
I find it notable that sea level rise averaged three times today’s rate in the run-up to the Holocene, and it kept it up for about 8,000 years. Now that’s what real warming does!
It’s hard to blame people for parroting the stories that they are fed by the media. It’s a constant stream of exaggerations, factoids, half truths, cherry-picked data and lies-by-omission, all packaged in a story line designed to appeal to feelings of guilt about living in times of unprecedented wealth and material comfort. And most folk don’t have the intellectual depth or deep-seated curiosity, or baked-in scepticism to look behind the curtain. And some who do, face severe consequences if they tell what they saw behind the curtain.
There was a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, that you could believe most of the news that you read in the paper, heard on the radio or saw on TV. It might have been a bit slanted by the political or ideological leanings of a particular source, but finding alternative takes in other news outlets could get you to a moderately balanced viewpoint.
That time is gone. The climate alarmism juggernaut has been building momentum for 40 years, but more recent entrants into the propaganda circus aren’t that far behind (racial politics, Ukraine war, gender ideology, covid-19, snowflakeism, immigration policy, “diversity”, you name it). It’s a bizarre paradox of the 21st century that, now that almost everyone has access to almost unlimited information, almost all the time, it’s getting harder to find objective reporting on any subject. So much information and opinion-making is now in the hands of progressively aligned global corporations and “elites” who run the education system, civil services at all levels from municipal to national to the EU and UN, justice systems, even armed forces, police forces, and christian churches. How did it come to this?
In online and face-to-face conversations I provide facts to counter the alarmist nonsense. It is remarkable how some of the people I converse with get angry that I am using facts provided by scientists instead of accepting what “scientists” say. They absolutely do not want there to be any possibility of a decent future for any of us. However, what they do not understand is that I don’t really give a toss what those particular individuals think. On the contrary, they are quite helpful for showing others in the conversation how weak the other side of the argument is. Conceptually, when I argue the case with a rusted-on alarmist, I am addressing all the others who are listening in.
There was a time when I believed that. However, Mark Twain’s famous quote, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do, you are misinformed,” suggests that the problem has persisted for a long time.
at least Walter Cronkite seemed to be believable- he was one of the first in the American media to question the Vietnam war- whether or not his perspective was correct- he had the courage to offer it
I’ve had the following up on a noticeboard for many years (probably 12 or more)
‘The world is drowning in data. Unrefined information conceals essential facts, clouds important issues and obscures any sense of their significance’
Unfortunately did not record the source 🙁
Greens have a tendancy to shrink the definition of climate into a few years. It must be static or it’s an aberation. Weather in a “normal” system should not change. Your letter-writer:
I doubt that humans live long enough to be able to identify distinct climate regimes, certainly not the weather changes we feel today. My mother grew up in, shall we say, some unusual decades. There was a “dustbowl” catastrophe in America’s agricultural sector at that time. Was that a manifestation of climate – or just a result of short term oscillations of ocean, wind, solar and forces. If with graphs and history books we can see gradual warming trends since the 1880’s, maybe that’s climate change.
Asked about the record temps of the ’30’s, she just shrugged. She would have been 10, and from the pictures of her playing with her brother and sisters in the dusty yard – riding a pony, playing with their dog – she didn’t notice it much. She became a third grade teacher, which meant earth sciences among the other subjects in the curriculum, and though she lived to nearly 100 and had to endure many hot summers and cold winters in Colorado, I don’t think she ever became hip to the catch phrase “unprecedented”. The dust she remembered. The grasshopper plagues, too, the rough pranks plains folks played on each other. The temps not so much.
My view is that climate change is an unknowable entity in human terms. Even people with a gloomy outlook with posters saying The End is Nigh – even those praying for an apocalypse so that they could say, “See? It’s here!” – even the investors and gamblers banking on profits from institutional “plays” on weather – even they have to go about their lives. When they stop long enough to smell the roses, they smell pretty much like the roses from the 1920’s and ’30’s and 40’s…
I ran across something interesting recently. It’s a podcast called “Sold a Story”. It’s about how our American primary education establishment became enamored with a particular style of teaching young children how to read. Turns out they were on the wrong track. I think there are many similarities to the climate change phenomenon.
Take aways are:
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong | Podcast (apmreports.org)
What about that “heat dome” over the U.S. in August? It was a good time to capture images from the NOAA GOES East satellite for the “CO2 Longwave IR” Band 16. Here is a 15-day time lapse video of images, at one-hour intervals, ending on August 27. If there was impressive heat, there was also impressive longwave emission to space. And obviously, the atmosphere is not a static “trap” as an end result.
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ
Here is the full text I posted on Youtube with this video.
“This is a time lapse video of NOAA GOES East Band 16 images for the CONUS region (contiguous U.S.), on one-hour intervals for 15 days ending August 27th, 2023. This includes a period of so-called “heat dome” high temperatures over much of the U.S. west and southeast. GOES East is a geostationary satellite capturing high resolution radiance data at visible and infrared wavelengths.
Background: NOAA calls this the “CO2 Longwave IR” band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. It is within this same band of wavelengths at the edge of the “atmospheric window” that a significant portion of the claimed static warming effect of incremental concentrations of CO2 is computed. The “brightness temperature” color scale used for these visualizations (at this URL below – copy and paste in a browser) is such that the infrared energy being emitted to space is 10 times stronger at 30C (bright yellow) than at -90C (white.)
The atmosphere is not a passive radiative “trap”. The end result of its powerful heat engine operation in response to absorbed energy is seen from space as a huge array of highly active and highly variable emitter elements. The formation and dissipation of clouds obviously has a lot to do with this, and the related overturning circulations are readily seen at local to regional scale. Can the effect of incremental CO2 ever be isolated for reliable attribution of reported long-term warming? No. Can the long-term rise in CO2 concentration end up forcing heat energy to accumulate to harmful effect on land and in the oceans by what happens in the atmosphere? Also no.”
Thanks, David!
‘The atmosphere is not a passive radiative “trap”. ‘
As Will Happer notes, ‘…radiation to space from Earth’s real atmosphere originates from both the surface and all altitudes in the troposphere. A small amount of radiation originates in the stratosphere’.
The oceans are warmer than the atmosphere so the CO2 in the atmosphere can’t be warming the oceans.
There are about 5 million H2O molecules in the ocean for each molecule of CO2 in the air so the CO2 can’t be warming the oceans, they just aren’t hot enough and there aren’t enough of them.
They pick up radiated IR energy from the ground and atmosphere which averages 57 degrees F. The oceans are around 62 F.
The major heat flow is from the Sun to the oceans to the air. The oceans also hold a large amount of heat, much more than the air or the land.
Based on the heat that the earth receives from the sun and the distance between the two, what is the total amount of heat produced by the sun? That should be easy for a true scientist to determine. If the relatively tiny surface of the earth at such a great distance from the sun absorbs X amount of heat then the heat produced by the sun in total must be huge beyond belief. No doubt many of you have the answer to the this question on the tip of your scientific tongues but I’ve never heard or read of it. Maybe I should have googled it before entering this.
The luminosity of the Sun is about 3.86 x 1026 watts. This is the total power radiated out into space by the Sun. https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/1/12
Former President Trump’s approval rating has increase by about 10 points, to 59 percent approval, after the last indictment and after the first Republican debate. Trump is running away with it.
Trump is going to be the Repubican nominee. Desantis has gone from 24 percent approval to about 13 percent, and some of his donors are switching to Trump now. So it’s pretty much all over but the shouting and crying.
Tom
Trump is doing well, but he’s pretty steady. The illusion that every time he is indicted his approval goes up is not entirely correct, certainly not according to this graph.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/
Hi Tom, let’s be careful with our terms. Trump’s polling in the Republican primaries is up with the challengers dropping back.
His approval rating in the general public is a different thing altogether. RCP average favorability is 38.4%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
Bribem is at 40.2%
Correct.
Ouch! To be affirmed by Simon. 😅
Nobody can question my dedication to the truth.
Exactly….. when both sides agree it must be true.
Still trying to convince me I must be wrong? 🤣
In a national poll, Trump and Biden are tied at 46 percent.
I wouldn’t put too much confidence in national polls at this time. I think Trump’s numbers will improve as it becomes obvious he is going to be the nominee, and his numbers are improving even now with blacks and hispanics and independents and now the black rappers are coming out and endorsing Trump, so the radical Democrats may have shot themselves in the foot with their persecution of Trump because the black rappers are feeling like Trump is one of them now, and are encouraging their fellow blacks to vote for Trump.
The reason Trump has such strong support is because those who support him see his legal troubles are purely political attacks by the radical Democrats. If they thought Trump was a criminal, he wouldn’t have that support. So, despite the radical Democrats best efforts, Trumps supporters do not think he is a criminal, and they are very happey with how he ran the nation when he was in charge, and very unhappy with how Biden is running the country, and they are going to vote for Trump.
If Trump was actually guilty of a crime, then that would change everything, but I don’t see where he is guilty of anything, and I have looked at everything the radical Democrats are throwing out there, and they are on very shaky legal grounds, to the point of prosecutorial misconduct, and I think that will eventually become obvious.
So here we are. Time will tell. I think Donald Trump is the most innocent man who ever ran for president. He is certainly the most investigated, and the investigators haven’t laid a glove on him yet, and not for lack of trying. They have the whole federal government going after him and still haven’t proven one thing.
And Americans see this garbage going on. If they have any sense, they will realize that if the radical Democrats can do this to Trump, then they can do it to them, if they get in the radical Democrat’s way.
That’s not democracy, that’s tyranny, and that’s what we are currently facing with the corrupt, criminal Biden administration. They are trying to impose a radical Democrat tyranny on this nation and Trump is their first target.
Time for these old farts to retire. I’d like to see a couple of straight white men in their 40s battle for the presidency. DeSantis vs– I dunno- the Dems must have somebody to carry their torch.
Gavin Newsom is my pick to do that.
oh, that’s funny! yes, I can’t wait for the debates- DeSantis vs Newsom
I think Hannity is trying to get Desantis and Newsom together.
Newsom says he is eager to debate Desantis. I bet he is. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room (a common affliction) and definitely wants to get on the national political stage. He thinks he can talk his way into the White House.
Here’s Gavin Newsom:
“Overview. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others.”
It describes Joe Biden, too. It’s all about Joe. He meets with military parents and Maui residents and tells them all about how *he* has suffered with his son dying of cancer, and his kitchen catching on fire.
““Overview. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others.”
I don’t think I have ever seen a more detailed, accurate, description of one Donald J Trump.
I’m not surprised. Hannity is mostly just a bully. That doesn’t say much for Newsom.
Well he slaughtered Hannity…
Newsom has “the gift of gab” but I don’t know if that will be enough.
All you have to do is point to the disaster which is California. It’s Gavin Newsom who has presided over the destruction of this once beautiful State.
Of course, Gavin is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.
The last thing we want to do is turn the United States into California.
For example: San Francisco has lost 30 percent of its businesses so far. They are pulling out of the State because of the lawlessness that Gavin Newsom and the other radical Democrats permit.
Yeah, if ole Biden will drop out, there will probably be a dozen Democrats who would just in the race. Kamala will not be the Democrat nominee under those circumstances. She has to be one of the most clueless politicians I have ever seen. She’s toast if she is not Biden’s running mate.
“Of course, Gavin is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.”
Oh the irony. Let’s insert the Name Trump..
Of course, Trump is very good at blaiming others for the problems he causes. He is the kind of guy who never accepts personal criticism. It’s always someone else’s fault.
Age has nothing to do with it. There are lots of people much older than Biden who carry on with their lives just fine. Like Trump.
Biden, appears to be deteriorating rather quickly and I will be surprised if he is the nominee in 2024. He was at a ceremony yesterday honoring a Vietnam veteran with the Medal of Honor for his bravery in the war (this man has more medals than 10 people!) and Biden walked out of the room right in the middle of the ceremony completely oblivious to what was going on.
Biden is certainly not fit to be president. He wasn’t menatlly fit before he got ill, and he hasn’t improved with age.
There is no comparison between Trump and Biden when it comes to age. Trump has so much energy he wears his younger associates out. Biden doesn’t know where he’s at half the time.
“Trump has so much energy he wears his younger associates out.”
Amazing what snorting sudafed and funnelling diet cokes can do. But apparently not for balance and co-ordination. If he could ride a bike we would have seen him do so.
Ronnie Jackson should be delicensed for malpractice. When 45 dies, he should be investigated like Conrad Murray.
Trump won’t take office until January 2025. Then, I assume, the Paris Agreement will be toast, along with a lot of other things.
Biden came into office and promptly reversed everything Trump did with Executive Orders, and if Trump gets back in, he will reverse Biden’s EOs, which are destroying the nation.
“Trump won’t take office until January 2025. “
I might just a mend that for you.
“Trump won’t take office. “
https://nypost.com/2023/09/04/desantis-pummels-critics-for-pinning-hurricane-idalia-on-climate-change/
DeSantis pummels critics for pinning Hurricane Idalia on climate change
By Ryan King September 4, 2023
“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday scoffed at the notion that wild weather such as Hurricane Idalia has anything to do with climate change, while blasting President Biden and others for claiming it does.”
end excerpt
It looks like Desantis is on the right track when it comes to human-caused climate change: He’s skeptical.
Desantis ought to hit hard on being skeptical about human-caused climate change.
Trying to fix this CO2 non-problem is one of the greatest threats the Western Democracies face. We all see the destruction it is causing. Desantis could be our Knight in Shining Armor defending the Gates of Scientific and Economic Sanity for the rest of us. If he so chose.
It would certainly make Desantis stand out from the crowd, other than Vivek, and would draw LOTS of Media attention and efforts to destroy his credibility on the issue. If he does something like this, he better have his ducks in a row because he will be asked hard questions. There are answers to those hard questions, but he better know them, or have advisors that do. Or he can just forget even setting foot on that territory.
Take on the Climate Change Alarmists, Ron! You can make them look stupid if you know how to do it. You can show that they are on the wrong track when it comes to CO2 and our economies.
If you could reverse this CO2 insanity, it would be one of the biggest beneficial things in history.
Climate Alarmism is driving the Western Democracies into the ground. Stop it for us, Ron.
Desantis is excellent on just about everything as far as issues go. Substantially better than Trump on climate I would say.
Trump never challenges the claim that warming is bad or that CO2 is a problem. He just turns it into a dispute with other countries like CHINA!! and India, which implies it’s a real problem and he doesn’t have a plan to deal with it.
Sadly Ron is sorely lacking in the charisma department. And a certain segment of the MAGA team won’t forgive him for challenging Trump. Plus even folks like me who never liked Trump much know we can’t let the Demonrats and the RINOs get away with this bullshit they’re trying to pull.
“Desantis is excellent on just about everything as far as issues go. Substantially better than Trump on climate I would say.”
I don’t know about that. Trump said yesterday that people should have a choice of what kind of automobile to buy and shouldn’t be forced to buy an electric car.
I agree that’s not challenging the claim that CO2 is bad, but it’s relevant.
And, unless they can prove that Trump committed a crime, I don’t think Desantis has a chance of being the nominee, or any of the others, either.
Didn’t Trump once say that the climate emergency thing is a hoax?
Yes, he did, but he left it an open question as to whether it was just the Chicom’s scamming us he was talking about, or whether the science claiming CO2 is dangerous is wrong.
Trump has never addressed the science of CO2 directly.
I don’t know what he thinks CO2 does or doesn’t do.
Trump understands no science except maybe at a rudimentary level- enough for his purposes. I liked very much when he said, during the big CA forest fires, that he thinks better forestry would help greatly. No other president that I’m aware of has ever said anything like that about forestry. He actually said, “I strongly support forest management”. Then I think how Bill Clinton drastically cut back forestry on federal land to save the owls or whatever- it later turning out that logging wasn’t really the problem with the owls. The tree huggers always seek new excuses to stop forestry- now it’s “proforestation” (end all tree cutting) which they say will save the planet.
Yes that’s right.
We have to find the balance that gets a conservative elected and if that means holding back on saying things we dearly would like to say then I am fine with that.
The only question is just how wishy washy do we really need to be to win? And if we compromise on the message too much will we get kicked to the curb after the election?
There’s no point in winning if we’re the party of going to hell in a handbasket with a five year delay. (Netzero ‘55)
I have to agree that that is a brilliant remark politically speaking. People respond emotionally to having a choice as well as to having a car. There’s not much surface area for the Dems to attack. What do they say? You shouldn’t be allowed to choose? If we let you drive a car it will have to be one that we approve?
That’s the thing about politics, it rewards shallow emotional appeals and punishes thoughtful discussion.
charisma is over rated
The Role of Atmospheric Transport for El Niño-Southern Oscillation Teleconnections
Abstract
The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is one of Earth’s main modes of climate variability, having huge impacts on weather, agriculture, and people worldwide. Although these impacts and teleconnections have been studied for decades, the role of atmospheric transport is not completely understood. We analyze the atmospheric transport outgoing from the Equatorial Pacific with the Lagrangian particle dispersion model FLEXPART driven by reanalysis data. Our results demonstrate the interocean-basin exchange via the atmosphere: anomalously energetic air from the ENSO region mainly remains within the Tropics and Subtropics, while more air is transported toward the east during El Niño. Transport of anomalous moist air can directly be linked to several observed teleconnections, for example, droughts in the Amazon Basin and precipitation in Southeastern U.S. during El Niño. These results show that atmospheric transport plays a role in several ENSO teleconnections.
There is a lot of climate stuff under Biden that isn’t working, and it is becoming obvious and should impact 2024:
“Having his military leaders declare ‘climate change the biggest threat’”
We need a list of all the generals that signed off on this statement. They are not fit to serve, and Trump should remove them immediately after he takes office.
Thinking CO2 is the biggest threat to the United States is seriously delusional thinking, and the U.S. cannot have deluded generals directing our military operations.
They have disqualified themselves by going along with Biden’s climate change delusions.
But Tom… Trumps guy said CC was a threat too… Should we fire Trump before he even gets the job? Oh wait….
https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge
Trump should fire his defense chief when he says stupid things like that.
Trump did fire several of them if you recall.
It may or not be a threat but to say it’s the biggest threat- any military leader saying that should retire.
i would like for these military leaders to point to the evidence that convinced them that CO2 was a danger.
We all know, there is no evidence for this. There is a lot of speculation, assumptions and assertions about CO2, but no definitive evidence that CO2 does anything the alarmist claim it does. So I want to know how these generals reached the conclusions they reached.
I don’t think they can have a reasonable explanation for taking this position, and as far as I’m concerned, taking a position not backed by facts, is the last thing I want my military generals doing.
But I would be interested in their thought processes. I want to know how they became so delusional on this subject. And if they can believe something that hasn’t been shown to be true, and haven’t taken the time to find out one way or the other, then they have no business directing the defense of this nation.
Even if the climate does warm up a bit- how the hell is that a military threat- compared to so many other real military threats? I think they’re just obeying their masters- I bet few if any military leaders believe it. Like academics, they like their careers. But, they also respect bravery, so they should show some and stand up against this supposed military threat from warming.
“Having his military leaders declare ‘climate change the biggest threat’ when they cannot even meet recruiting goals was a joke.
But Trumps military men said a similar thing. And so did Obama’s, so Biden is hardly on his own on this one….
https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-threatens-national-security-says-pentagon
goes to show how powerful a new religion can be!
My guest post at Marc Morano’s ClimateDepot site earlier this morning:
“Thought Hunter Biden Had No Connection to the Climate issue? Think Again – Hunter corresponded with CEO of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project”
If Hunter didn’t know jack about the energy business when he was offered the job at the Burisma oil and gas company, what could he possibly know about the climate issue?
Where he can get some of the money.
For the Australians who come to WUWT: The Liberal Party opposition has an on-line petition against the draconian “misinformation” law at BIN THE BILL
LABOR’S MISINFORMATION LAW WILL SUPPRESS YOUR FREE SPEECH
Please sign it and make sure that others know about it too.
For non-Australians – apologies for wasting your time here, but please just leave it to the Aussies!
Note for USAers: The Liberal Party is centre-right, it’s not what you call “liberal”.
The radical Left is on the march everywhere.
And they are well financed.
Come to think of it, there is a lot of other stuff under Biden that isn’t working either:
Somehow, I don’t think the Biden movie is going to end well.
‘Somehow, I don’t think the Biden movie is going to end well.’
Unfortunately for us, the media, the Federal bureaucracy and about half of the electorate has no interest in watching. Too busy watching re-runs of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, starring Barack Obama.
This is an older article that I found rather interesting; the impact of pollution on temperature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/
This would explain the dip in temperatures following WW2 and the rise since the late 1970s (clean air act)
What explains the similar warmings in prior decades like the one from 1910 to 1940, where temperatures increased by the same magnitude as they have done today? No Clean Air Act back then.
Due to multiple computer loses, I’m looking for some information. Long ago this site, and others, had information about a rich Marxist who financed the early propaganda about “global warming.” Some even discredited him with starting the whole scam. He took refuge in China fleeing criminal prosecution. Can anyone supply his name and CV?
Maurice Strong? Canadian businessman, director of the WEF, advisor to the World Bank and Khofi Anan, founder of the IPCC, self confessed Marxist and believer in a world government. Is that the guy? I don’t think the enquiry into any criminal activities really got anywhere before his death and no-one’s been talking about it since.
Thanks! Sounds right. I’ve lost the data. Any more details? Especially about “global warming?”
Strong dropped out of high school, became a junior stock broker, got hired by Jack Gallagher of Dome Petroleum, found himself promoted to CFO in a time of fast growth of the oil industry, made a study of how he could fleece investors and government, while making himself seem to be the go-to guy in control of mysterious background forces and individuals that he was pleased to inform you about. Probably, but unprovably, one of the greatest con-artists of the 20th century. So good at it, there won’t be a movie….
Thanks! As usual Wikipedia missed the good stuff.
Read “Cloak of Green” by Elaine Dewar.
So what’s this about China?
Maurice Strong had a long fascination with China and Chinese communism, having visited there often over 40 years; a relative of his was a close friend of Mao (possibly more) which gave him a protected status in the country. Strong helped create several shady deals through the UN which benefitted China so, when questions were being asked about the ‘Food for Oil’ scandal, a Korean cheque and various other secretive UN deals involving Strong, he opted to go to live in China.
Despite all the alarmist rhetoric, all indicators point to the fact that nowhere nearly enough is being done to arrest the alleged “climate crisis’, and a very small number of people really care, at least not enough to make make major costly and inconvenient lifestyle changes. When I hear that the major international oil producers have announced record profits, and the US is on track to set a record for oil extraction and refining, it starts becoming obvious that renewables can’t fill any energy shortfalls. Then when I hear that for the past two years global coal consumption has reached new heights, it becomes even more obvious. Finally the clinchers are that air travel has increased to its former level and EVs are sitting unsold on car lots in ever greater numbers and their producers like Volkswagen are laying off workers because sales are 30% lower than predicted. So maybe this climate change problem is merely one that the majority is prepared to live with rather than being stampeded into questionable over-reaction.
When governments make Air Travel points illegal, we’ll know they are getting serious about cutting emissions by a couple of percent. Till then we know it’s just vote smuckering, tax revenue and hunger for power.
About 40% of Ukraine Population Left Their Country
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/about-half-of-ukraine-population-left-their-country
EXCERPT
In February 2014, well before the US-instigated, Kiev Coup d’Etat in the fall of 2014, there were about 2.6 million Ukrainian citizens in Russia, of whom about 70% were guest workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia
After the Kiev Coup d’Etat, not supported in eastern Ukraine, Russia annexed Crimea
The Crimean people (70% ethnic Russians, 22% ethnic Ukrainians and 8% Tartars) had voted by over 95% to re-unite with Russia.
Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783, except for a brief period, when it was a part of Ukraine.
Russia made huge investments and successfully turned it into a vacation destination, mainly for Russians.
In 2014, the Ukraine Armed Forces, mainly the extremist-nationalist AZOV battalions, started an 8-year ethnic cleansing/genocide and civil war in Donbas, from behind the “line of separation”, that killed about 16,000 men, women and children from 2014 to 2022, as documented in monthly reports by the UN-OSCE.
Kiev’s government, taken over by extremist nationalists, officially vowed to erase “Everything Russian”
As a result, about 1.9 million Ukrainians fled to Russia, in 2014, increasing their total to about 4.5 million.
Another 1.36 million Ukrainians fled to Russia in 2015, increasing their total to 5.86 million
The Russian census confirmed, there were at least 5,864,000 Ukrainians citizens living in Russia in 2015. See table in URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia
John Kerry has a question for them!
“.After the invasion, …..”
Interesting place to stop the above article.
Apparently the invincible invaders were not welcomed as liberators.
There are significant number of ethnic Russians living in NATO countries. Maybe Russia does not want them back or maybe they do not want to live in Russia.
As far as I know, many or all Ukrainians moved from Russia to other countries after the invasion. What is telling is that only a handful of those chose to return to Ukraine. It’s a similar story with the other nationalities in Russia – there were more US citizens living in Russia prior to the invasion than any other nationality and most of them have now left.
I tried to find info about Ukrainians in Russia moving to other countries.
It turns out, a very small percentage is moving out, which is anecdotally reported by the lapdog Media.
Almost all are not doing that, because they have ties to Russia, they can speak Russian, instead of having to speak Ukrainian, so feel right at home, also they can freely worship in the Russian Orthodox Church, and Russia has a shortage of workers, because its economy is growing, while the EU economy is stagnant, due to blowback of sanctions, so it is easy for a skilled Ukrainian to get a well-paying job in Russia
People often do not know, about 40% of all Ukrainians living in Ukraine have relatives in Russia.
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
EXCERPT
The US government, not the US people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government, not the UK people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,
The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y. These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden “Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are about 50% higher than in the UK
1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put 1,400 MW on hold in 2023 (will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone), because Vattenfall spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/20/breaking-vattenfall-stops-developing-major-wind-farm-offshore-uk-will-review-entire-4-2-gw-zone/#:~:text=Vattenfall%20has%20stopped%20the%20development,revealed%20in%20its%20interim%20report.
BTW, about 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were rewarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
2) OERSTED, Denmark, is looking forward to a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain disruptions, and not being awarded additional federal and state tax credits
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmarks-orsted-anticipates-730-mln-impact-us-portfolio-2023-08-29/
3)
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm
IRENA, a European Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost
NOTE: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the “Inflation-Reduction-Act”, has increased by 57% since 2021,” Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF, “Inflation of materials, energy, components, and labor costs explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”
“The US government, not the US people, …..”
Of course that is not true. In the US making electricity is a public service which includes public input to the process
Working at nuke plants I know many people are against them and other think they are an asset to the community.
I was at a nuke plant in Califonia that closed. We excelled at shooting ourselves in the foot and loosing the confidence of many.
I have been watching California’s plan for offshore wind. It is never going to happen. It will never make it there the public process.
Sanford University has a great wind resource and many wind activist but do not even think about siting one where they can see it.
A big problem with nuclear plant design, construction and operation is that it produces a mountain of paperwork that means the death of millions of trees.
A huge problem.
Once upon a time I had to train sailors who needed to wear a dosimeter for passing through radiation areas. Q How do you protect against radiation. A Time, distance, and shielding.
I gave full credit my senior petty officer for answering a mountain pf paper work.
Interesting web page- https://www.windtaskforce.org/
Nice to see such opposition. We could use some of that here in Wokeachusetts.
Joseph,
I post all my articles there
It has an edit function and no “ pesky administrator”, so I can update my articles as often as needed.
I also repost articles by others
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
EXCERPT
Solar electricity increases with the rising sun, is maximal around midday, and decreases with the setting sun.
Electric grids with many solar systems have major midday solar output bulges, that are counteracted/balanced by traditional power plants reducing their outputs. Combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, perform almost all of the counteracting/balancing of the variable wind and solar outputs.
Those plants have to increase their outputs during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, when solar and wind usually are minimal; solar will have gone to sleep until about 9 AM the next morning.
Owners of counteracting/balancing plants, to avoid grid overload, are required by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, to counteract the midday solar bulge, i.e., reduce their outputs, which decreases their annual production, kWh/y, increases their costs, c/kWh, plus increases wear and tear of their plants.
ISO-NE compensates the Owners of these plants, and charges utilities as part of “grid charges”, plus mark-up.
The utilities charge ratepayers, plus mark-up. Nothing is “for free”
If Solar ‘will have gone to sleep until about 9AM the next morning’ then ‘Solar electricity increases with the rising sun’ is complete rubbish. Solar is far more limited in its electricity-generating hours than most proponents will ever admit.
I-hope this will suffice better; nothing is ever perfect
Solar slowly increases from about 6 am to about 9 am, on a sunny day in summer; by 10 am, it starts to become significant enough to disturb the grid, until about 2 pm; it rapidly goes downhill thereafter, until it is minimal during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening,
Very often, wind is minimal as well, meaning BOTH ARE USELESS DURING PEAK HOURS
You may want to read the article, which has over 1600 views
In other words, wind and solar increase the cost of electricity to customers.
Not only that, but with a very high throughput of 40% of MWh rating EVERY DAY, each kWh delivered by the battery costs a minimum of about 23 c/kWh ON TOP OF THE COST (c/kWh) OF THE CHARGED ELECTRICITY, AS EXPLAINED IN THE ARTICLE
I should be working today, but what the heck. Open thread time.
Here are my very pessimistic (but not totally implausible) predictions for 2024:
Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.
PS If you think my virus scenario is a fantasy, take a look at this: Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron Two quotes from the abstract (you can download the full PDF):
“We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate…”
“Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%“.
The authors acknowledge funding from the NIH, and the research was apparently done at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York. Read it and tell me it wasn’t the gain-of-function research that doesn’t happen in the US, and isn’t funded by the US at home or abroad. These are strange times we are living in.
I see you got a down vote. I guess they are telling you that you are wrong. 🙂
This is what will happen.
“…and then the Zombie Apocalypse got started.”
“Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.”
You’re wrong.
On all counts.
They have also changed the definition of climate so climate is now only 30 years compared to the thousands or million of years that it was previously was defined as. Now by the new definition Climate Change is happening all of the time.
Climate change IS happening all the time. It has never been static long enough to be defined over a million years.
I posted a comment in this open thread about a PBS video about the greening of the Sahara- which it claims has happened 130 times in the last million years.
Boy are you out of date. I was looking at a pro-alarmist website that had some definitions on it and they defined weather as happening each day but climate as a trend in weather that happened over a few months. Either everyone has their ‘pet’ definitions or they are changing as we speak.
climate as a trend in weather that happened over a few months.
You mean from January to June in the NH ?
It is common for progressives to redefine words — such as ocean acidification — to advance their agenda.
The geologic climate of the earth is a 2.6 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. It will end when there is no natural ice on the earth.
The environmentalists are the ones that got everybody to scrap nuclear and use fossil fuels instead.
Those who follow Australian events can see that the last 2 hot months over Australia have shortened the Viscounct Monckton type of “pause” by three months, to eleven years and 1 month, by dropping of some cold months at the start.
Geoff S
Been an absolutely GLORIOUS winter though, hasn’t it 🙂
Still pretty cool overnight around here, days just starting to warm up a bit.
When the Sahara Was Green
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQP-7BPvvq0
We’ve all heard how the Sahara has turned from desert to green- and many times. But this PBS video says it’s happened 130 times in the last 8 million years!
An alarming report from the US Department of Agriculture predicts that by 2070, the nation’s forests will release substantially more carbon than they store.
Forests in the US – bar those in Alaska – will no longer absorb 150 million metric tons of carbon a year within five decades, experts say.
That carbon is equivalent to the emissions of roughly 40 coal power plants.
To understand how a carbon sink can become a carbon tap, we have to consider the lifecycle of a healthy forest, where new growth matures into old growth and old growth dies and makes room for new growth.
But today, in North America, not enough young trees are being planted and allowed to grow up.
This means that mature forests are outpacing young forests, which are also more likely to be harvested or killed due to climate effects like wildfires, drought, or storms.
The overall shift to an older age cohort of trees means that in the future, forests in the US could be dying more than they are growing.
Practically, this turns forests from carbon absorbers to carbon emitters.
Old growth trees hold the most carbon in total, but after reaching a certain size, their growth seems
Story Tip — Another wonderful piece of insanity from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/05/how-to-use-less-water-15-tips-beef-burgers-megabutts-clothes
Here we have a lady who seems seriously to think that we can all make an impact on the global water shortage by taking shorter showers, putting bricks in our toilet cisterns, and washing our clothes less.
Right, must get on that.
Imagine, here I am a few miles from Seathwaite, Cumbria, with the rain pouring down as it has for some weeks now. The beck down Styhead is foaming and rushing down into Derwentwater. The wettest place in England, maybe the UK, and that is pretty wet. Not monsoon, just continous steady wetness year round, and a huge lake a few miles away full of the stuff. Same if I were up in the highlands of Scotland where the autumn rain is sometimes dense enough to wash away the midges.
But I see now that its imperative for me to wash only using a flannel in a handbasin after my sodden trip up Scafell in the mist and the downpour, and not wash my muddy socks and pants, just dry them and shake them out. Because the thirsty children in the Sahel. Yes, of course, that will help them no end. We all have to do our bit.
Will they let me into the dining room like this, though? That’s what I am really wondering about.
Story tip
Canada and Hawaii wildfires, climate change hysteria, and the main stream media.
– – – – – – – – –
Climate scientist whistleblower Patrick Brown reveals how the media’s obsession with global warming manipulates the truth about wildfires – 80% are ignited by humans
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, claimed the world’s leading academic journals reject papers which don’t ‘support certain narratives’
He also took aim at the media for focusing ‘intently on climate change as the root cause’ of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii
The approach ‘distorts a great deal of climate science research’, Brown claimed
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12482921/climate-scientist-patrick-brown-wildfires-started-people.html
Ever notice that the main GHG, water vapor, is never mentioned in the media
In Jan 2023 I wrote to my (SNP) Member of the Scottish Parliament, asking her if the SNP had any plans to introduce 20-minute zones in Scotland. She referred my question to the Minister for Transport. The Minister duly replied on 20 March. A copy of the reply was passed on to me. In her reply, the Minister for Transport stated:
“We have commissioned research on equitable options for car demand management, including pricing. Using the findings of the research, we will work with local and regional partners to develop options and proposals to support the 20% car km reduction target and will set these out in a Demand Management Framework, by 2025.”
In August 2023, an outfit calling itself The Climate Emergency Response Group published a report “Committing to delivery: Certainty and leadership for a just transition to a net zero, climate resilient future for Scotland”.
Section 3 of the Report is: 3. Introduce fiscal levers as part of a coherent strategy to reduce car reliance and improve places for people.
It states:
Given the tight timeframes and the extensive engagement required to co-design, test and roll out locally appropriate road user charging schemes and parking levies, it is imperative that the Scottish Government rapidly takes the first step by setting out the clear policy imperative to use fiscal levers to rebalance the costs of travel in favour of public, shared and active travel. It must then open the door for constructive dialogue with businesses, local authorities and other stakeholder groups to co-design principles and standards for the fair and effective transition away from car-dominated travel. The Programme for Government should set out the Scottish Government’s high level policy intention to engage closely with business, local authorities and equalities groups over the next year to agree an equitable framework to guide the use of fiscal levers to reduce car reliance and improve places for people, culminating in the publication of the Car Demand Management Framework in 2024 (brought forward from 2025). The updated ‘Route map to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030’ should be published as soon as possible, and commit to:
1. Introducing road user charging as part of its policy toolkit and provide certainty on whether a national road pricing scheme will be pursued, or whether delivery will rely wholly on local / regional charging schemes.
2. Delivering on the commitments made in the New Deal for Business and the Verity House Agreement to consult and collaborate with business, local government as well as poverty and disability groups in the design of a national approach to road user charging to ensure equality and just transition are built in from the start.
3. Resourcing local authorities to enter sustained local level stakeholder engagement processes and undertake the detailed design work required for place-based schemes which include demand management measures such as Work-Place Parking Licensing, other parking charges and local road charging schemes.
4. Kicking-off a multi-agency led national information campaign on sustainable travel by end of 2023 bringing together transport, public health, environment, poverty, planning and tourism agencies. To be mirrored by local campaigns and engagement.
5. Taking action to close all regulatory gaps to enable the introduction of local road user charging schemes from 2025. 6. Building alliances with UK city regions and other devolved administrations to advocate for a UK-wide approach to road pricing that more equitably shares the costs of travel and generates revenue for public transport.
https://cerg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CERG-Report-August-2023.pdf
In a way, the introduction of road tolls in Scotland would be somewhat ironic as one of the populist measures the SNP included in its 2007 Manifesto was to remove tolls from all road bridges in Scotland.
Given the amount of money raised by ULEZ in London, road charging in Scotland should be a nice little earner for the Scottish Government.
Story tip
Here is an editorial from Science mag that should get everyone going its about the Maui fires https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adk4197