I was just wondering, then this open thread popped up;
Is there not one reader here who dares demonstrate that eddies in the electromagnetic solosphere (I started with geosphere, enlarged it to biosphere, I have no word to include the geophysical realities of a live planet under our feet, and a live heaven above our heads) are by orders of magnitude more influential in the arrangement of thermodynamic distributions than anything puny Man can come up with?
A popularisation of the simplicity underlying electromagnetic theory would instantly expose the climastrologists for the stupid little queers they are.
P.S. I use the word ‘queer’ in the dictionary sense, as well as the playground sense, i.e. the little twerp who runs to teacher to report on every bug Billy picks up, and carefully catalogues every booger on his own back…
I was halfway through typing your cancellation demand when I read the ‘P.S.’
Then I ended up feeling a weird combination of emotion/logic, realizing I was wrong (and angry for the wrong reason) … how can I be wrong?
I can’t be wrong.
It’s your selfish lazy fault for even using that bad word. Context doesn’t matter. Even if you started with the ‘P.S’ it would still be inconsiderate to those of us that are so ingrained with our bigoted biases that one little word forces the bias the surface. You should think of others before you spew your hateful rants.
We, the world, but especially “western” society need to get back to the old adage:
Sticks and Stones may break my Bones
But WORDS will never heart me.
Quit being such a pantywaist.
There, I, a US Citizen, used two common culture English referenced items in one post.
New Republican US government needs to pass a “Sticks and Stones Act” making free speech really free again. Banning ANY Federal money to any organization or business that has rules or regulations limiting protected political speech due to “hurt feelings” or other BS.
That would end student loans to probably 90% of US universities, a really good thing.
Then begin a free speech branch of the reconstituted Dept. of Justice to prosecute every possible speech controlling entity inside and outside of the Federal government, using oaths of office that include a pledge to uphold The US Constitution as the LIE the official told when being sworn in. THEN terminating all those liberals, primarily in the US military, the FBI and the DOJ, while, whenever possible, getting any lawyers disbarred.
There in Australia. I know it’s winter in Oz but never having been there during any season I’ve always had the impression that the climate is rather mild, at least compared to North Dakota. But in watching snatches of the Women’s World Cup Football tournament I notice that anyone who’s not actually playing is wearing winter clothing. Is the weather there particularly chilly right now or is this the normal state of affairs?
my process, when I post something like that, is to stick my head up my ass so I can see things from the relative perspective of the typical progressive politick.
in that state, I usually forget to warn people of my limited perspective.
MB1978
August 20, 2023 2:23 am
8 hours ago Kip Hansen posted an article with the titel “Confusion about Confabulations”. I posted the following comment a couple of minuts ago:
I have an idea … you can call it a “little” story tip. Why not make an AI-bot based on the catalogue from all of the articles from WUWT. By feeding the “bot” with all of the comments to you will get a smart and specialized “bot”.
Would WUWT accept this … propably yes – is my best guess. Or WUWT can make a “bot” themself. In the end it´s a question about copyrigths.
Many questions comes to mind. Is Co2 the controlbuttom for raising temperatures … could natural disasters like the wildfires in Maui be avoided through human ingenuity and engeering … are weather-stations measurements valid … etc, etc, etc ….!!
By making a “bot” it´s like back to the “future” – AI versus AI.
What´s you thoughts about the Idea, by taking the battle to their own ground and fields it would be an open(close)treath…!!
Their “leftwing” concept of “power” is rather limited and childish, that´s why they have to use the word climatedenier. I haven´t used an AI myself and it´s not going to happen …!!
As I pointed out in a comment to the aforementioned Kip Hansen article, there are, to pick a number, about a dozen different frequently expressed hypothesis about the major dynamics of climate that more or less totally contradict each other. What could an AI, or any human, conclude if WUWT articles were the only source of information available?
AI is not the thing you are describing, nor the nonsense in the MSM. AI is a concept, not some malformed computer programme. AI requires that a device (not a computer, at least not at this time) that can form the inventive step, the difference between man and virtually everything else, except the beginnings of it is some great apes. It is most certainly not a computer program that pushes rubbish from the internet back at one. Why this is not understood just shows the uselessly low level of virtually every journo on the planet, not an inventive idea amongst the loyt except possibly to lie. That is not AI either!
MB1978
If such a bot were created from all comments or even just from all articles posted, the results would be a muddle. Remember that a great many posts are from Eurekalert! (YouReekAlot!) presumably posted here for us to shred to pieces. Then think of what would be contributed to the AI’s “knowledge” by Nitpick Nick, The Rusty Nail, Big Oily Boob, Simple Simon, and dearly departed griff!
What you might get of value would be accurate answers to questions like what are the arguments for and against (controversy). AI has no way to evaluate which arguments are better. It can only determine which arguments are more common.
If you fed it only “orthodox” skeptical views, say for example a set of articles endorsed by Anthony Watts, then you could possibly get a tool to answer frequently asked questions as a skeptic might answer. Maybe a labor-saving tool for troll swatting. But the authority, logic, or accuracy of its comments would not be enhanced beyond what Anthony brought to the discussion.
It is an eternal dichotomy – Without truth there can be no freedom – Without freedom there can be no truth. But your right to include the comments will create a mis-match. But as a new “toy”, a thing to play with, with a minimum of “reading”, I think the younger generations will use it, what if the set-up was based on the chapters in the IPCC-reports. Around 30-50 articles per chapter could perhaps do the job as an AI-light-form. Fx look at the Maui wildfires, that´s chapter 12.
That is well known … add up the chemical hazards in fire debris and the negligence of human ingenuity and engeering is much worse and “paints” out an even larger “picture”.
There has got to be Oxygen on Neptune.
How could there not be, it will be abundant inside El Sol and thus be part of the solar wind.
Way way out there at Neptune it will be moving slow enough and cold enough to be captured.
As every student of Ozone here on Earth (not *just* Stratospheric and ‘Ozone Holes’), all Earthbound Ozone is made by the action of solar UV acting upon diatomic (normal boring ordinary) Oxygen.
This is of course CliSci’s Big Secret – *everybody* knows that Earth’s atmosphere is perfectly transparent to all things solar – Oxygen can not be seen to be acting as green house gases do and warming the atmosphere whenever the sun comes out.
Big hugs, kisses and thank yous to Roy Spencer for keep reminding us that.
Anyway,
when Sol is active with lots of spots….
it’s making lots of UV…..
which makes Ozone whenever wherever it encounters Oxygen….
which will oxidise anything it can possibly oxidise…..
including Methane…..
of which there is loads of on Neptune
making CO₂ and water…..
which makes clouds when it is cold enough
and Neptune will cheerfully freeze the bollox off of a brass monkey.
Thus Neptune has clouds of water ice when Sol has lots of spots.
Standard Peta accuracy stated with standard Peta certainty.
Now some reality…
Almost no oxygen in Neptune’s atmosphere based on spectral analysis.
Only 1% methane, not “loads of”.
It’s false that “all Earthbound Ozone is made by the action of solar UV acting upon diatomic (normal boring ordinary) Oxygen.” It can be produced by an electric arc, both manmade and from lightning, neither involving solar UV.
But a great deal more is going to come from solar UV isn’t it? There is a lot of solar UV, some of it very “hard” UV (very high energy, short wavelength) quite possibly a W/m2 in the upper atmosphere. I haven’t been there to measure it and 0.1% or so of solar radiation is not unreasonable. The area is huge under irradiation, and we call this the ozone layer (strange name that). Lightning is a tiny source, so are manmade electric arcs.
Yes of course. But I was just highlighting all of the claims that Peta makes with an air of certain authority that are simply and obviously wrong. These wrong trivia points about Neptune are nothing compared to the nonsense about soil erosion causing deserts and sugar being a deadly poison and the natural greenhouse effect not existing because of the second law of thermodynamics.
Casual visitors might not immediately recognize that familiarity with complex scientific jargon does not equate to common sense.
Worked for a major copier /printer company, everyone of them produces ozone and there are/ were millions if not billions. If I had a hangover, a little blast gave relief.
Rich, you are hard on Peta, to the point where you try refute a maybe by pretending it was a truism.
But to my point: Spectral analysis has proven woefully useless at determining atmospheric compositions, but I will keep an open mind, because you will now produce for us bottles of gas collected on Neptune for us to confirm your shaky theory on planetary colours and this absorbing that and the other emitted…you also probably believe red-shift proof of the accelerating expansion of the Gnib Gnab.
Theories, brother, theories. Which means Peta is allowed some, too.
I think this tells us the real effect of good old H2O. Earth is the only water planet. As such, many potential changes are neutralized due to water’s buffering effect. This also includes the large effect due to Earth’s elliptical orbit.
Water controls Earth’s climate. Climate science keeps telling us CO2 is warming the oceans. Nope, the oceans are warmed by long term solar input minus evaporative cooling. The oceans then warm/cool the atmosphere to match.
The ‘oceans’ including the water vapour in the atmosphere. Someone said that given the ocean currents and air currents and the water in the atmosphere that the oceans extend from the deepest trenches to the edge of space, only the density changes.
I also intuit that the oceans covering 71% of earth’s surface, must play the largest role in the dynamics of our climate and are responsible for the observed homeostasis.
The physical properties of H2O are virtually miraculous. It has a very high latent heat of vaporization so that evaporation can carry away huge amounts of heat from the surface. Its vapor is less dense than air, so that it is buoyant and convects high into the atmosphere where it forms reflective clouds shielding the surface from further heating by the sun and returning cold liquid water back to the surface as rain.
Whether the cause of increased sea surface temperature is increased solar output heating the ocean more during the day or decreased cooling due to an enhanced greenhouse effect during the night is irrelevant to this homeostatic mechanism. In other words, the earth system will limit surface temperature caused by any forcing whether natural or manmade.
Furthermore the optimal temperature for flourishing of life is the top range of the earth’s “thermostatic range”. The low end is challenging to life. Any warming is net beneficial.
Richard M, you forget that the theory of CAGW is that increases in CO2 make 1000 times more water vapor to appear and THAT is how CO2 is the control knob of the climate.
I haven’t forgotten, that’s the big mistake as Dr. Spencer demonstrates in this graphic.
SteveG
August 20, 2023 2:30 am
–STORY TIP–
Italy’s bill to reject synthetic food passes Senate
The US might be salivating at the thought of licking Petri dishes, but Italy has put up a big ‘bugger-off’ barrier to synthetic meat this week after the Senate passed a bill to ban the production and marketing of synthetic meat and stock feed. It will now make its way through to the next stage.
93 voted in favour, with 28 against and 33 abstaining.
What’s more astonishing is the public demand to ban synthetic meat, with over 2 million Italians signing a petition in support of the bill. Across Italy, regions and municipalities were almost all voting the same way – all but shouting at Parliament to act.
Italy has a reputation for quality, natural, and traditional food. The last thing its people want, according to reports, is billion-dollar corporations moving in on the produce industry under the banner of ‘climate change’.
The bans, if carried all the way through to law, would include a € 60,000 fine for anyone making or selling these synthetic products.
We recognise the Italian people’s decision, we shall not hold it against them when the UNGR-25 virus hits their agricultural industry. Even Ethiopia was lent a helping hand after all their chickens mysteriously was no more. That’s why we gifted them 100 000 GMO chickens. The vaccines they need are very, very profitable, and my economy has grown magnificently. Signed p.p. Baal Gates
Yep, there mistake was not making it criminal with a MINIMUM lifetime sentence.
David Dibbell
August 20, 2023 3:47 am
I recently captured a 7-day series of hourly images from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16. NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR band. I have posted comments often about the implications of these visualizations over the last couple of years, with this link to the NOAA website for a short animated series of these images. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
But I finally decided to directly download a longer series of images and put it in time-lapse video form to more clearly show the dynamic nature of longwave emission to space in this part of the spectrum. It’s not a passive radiative “trap” as an end result. In my view, resolving this misconception can help counter the unsound claims of harmful warming attributed to emissions of CO2.
Here is the full explanation at the YouTube link.
“Are emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat “trap” explains the observed result.
This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated by NOAA from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16.
NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR (infrared) band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the “atmospheric window” part of the infrared spectrum. The “brightness temperature” color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed.
So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is a response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. These dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG “forcing”) experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space as longwave radiation.
The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance as an emitter and as a controller of longwave emission from the surface. What do we see and learn from watching it perform? The visualization helps us grasp that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been experienced and measured down here, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.
So as I see it, is there risk of harmful warming from GHGs? No. We can see from space that it doesn’t work that way.”
I can foresee in the not too distant future a group of anthropologists comparing our current scientists’ belief in CO2 powers to earlier witchdoctors’ belief in the prescience of chicken entrails.
The meditative halucinogenic effect of a quasi-random display of colours, textures and shapes have great power to guide the mind in contemplation, surely the basis of great art. Dot not confuse the artistry of the climaxing shaman with the artfulness of the climastrologist charlatan.
Calling witchdoctors deluded fools may lead you to believe in science…
Once you are looking at radiation spectra, you are already sucked into the false notion of the “greenhouse effect” altering the energy balance.
The dominant control on the global energy balance is convective instability. This process guarantees that the open ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C.
Understanding the temperature limit of 30C requires an in-depth understanding of convective instability and how clouds form to limit the surface temperature. But the process can be observed working across the globe every day of every year. There is currently no climate model with the vertical resolution of the atmosphere to simulate convective instability. Clouds are parameterised rather than being associated with the surface temperature.Climate models will never be useful until they can reasonably simulate the formation of convective potential and resulting instability.
In the present era, we are observing a steady upward trend in the area of the oceans of the northern hemisphere reaching the 30C limit. This is simply a result of increasing peak solar intensity over the NH as a result of the precession cycle.
“Once you are looking at radiation spectra, you are already sucked into the false notion of the “greenhouse effect” altering the energy balance.”
I agree. By reference to the Band 16 “CO2 Longwave IR” images, I hope to suck the oxygen out of the “forcing + feedback” and “energy imbalance” framing of the issue of GHG emissions even among reasonable skeptics. Can the climate system response to incremental concentrations ever be reliably diagnosed using that framing? NO. And you are right to emphasize the dominant role of convective instability in driving the dynamics.
David,
My focus is on the processes that matter in the atmosphere rather than those that don’t.
There is very little research going into convective instability and why it limits the ocean surface temperature. As far as I can tell, all those looking at it in the 1990s got involved in climate modelling because that is where the jobs were. No government will fund research that determines CO2 does nothing to the energy balance.
The convection working group are not involved in long range climate modelling. Their objective is better prediction of high energy events. https://cwg.eumetsat.int/about/
When climate models can truly simulate convective instability, they will be useful.
add it all up and the average greybody atmospheric emission temperature is about 273K. Add in the fraction of direct surface transmittance and the effective Earth system LW emission temperature is about 278K. Earth system emissivity 0.7 to produce 240 Wm-2 output, and by happenstance SW reflectivity 0.3.
This just confirms my conviction that using averages to predict anything related to climate is outrageous simplification done to assuage the inability of climate scientists to deal with the mathematics needed to describe the chaotic actions of the earth’s atmosphere. Show me a study that has attempted to address the uncertainty of temperatures measured in any screen caused by variations in wind speed. Has anyone seen a recommendation from NOAA about starting to use integration of minute data to obtain a total temperature index for each day (think degree•day)? Tradition rules to the detriment of science.
“This just confirms my conviction that using averages to predict anything related to climate is outrageous simplification…”
Agreed. The images and the video make this plain to me, and I hope to others also.
At many schools, the climate change courses are in the department of geography, history, ecology, and such. It seems to be the exception for them to be in the geology or physics department. Another common pattern in those classes is an emphasis on class participation and changing one personal behaviour which seems like a recipe for strengthening groupthink.
In one of the climate change courses of one of the universities I’ve been a student at, the textbook is written by Dessler, the supplemental readings consist of different alarmist material (e.g., AAAS), perspective is added from Marxist capital theory, the dangers of overpopulation, and that’s just in the first 6 weeks, if I remember correctly.
Ron Long
August 20, 2023 4:28 am
I am currently on vacation in Key West, the south end of the Florida Keys. Every visible geologic outcrop is a reef product. Most outcrops appear to be re-worked reef debris (due to Hurricanes?), but the shell content is high, signaling reef proximal environments. The Keys are surrounded by living reefs, locally known as snorkeling attractions. There are several locations in the Keys that are at 18 feet elevation, the maximum. The Keys are not caught up in the major faults further south, so what does this geology tell us? The Keys display large changes in sea level, for millions of years, all natural, no carbon pollution involved. If the outcrops at 18 feet elevation were formed at 10 feet below current sea level, at least another 28 feet of sea level increase would be normal, and without anthropogenic signal, and showing past temperatures (melting ice at poles) much higher..
Key West is a great place to observe that the natural tendency for carbon dioxide to be removed from the atmosphere. You’ll also find the remnants of a chicken eggs if you look about.
Tom Abbott
August 20, 2023 5:25 am
I think WUWT needs a minor software upgrade, that would greatly enhance the reading of comments to the articles, and would probably increase the comments.
Some WUWT articles recently have upwards of 1,000 comments. Pat Frank’s recent article comes to mind. And several hundred comments is not uncommon in other articles.
What we need is for the software to highlight new comments in a different color so they are easy to find on second and subsequent visits to that thread. Sorting through 1,000 posts looking for new comments, several times, is very tedious, and I doubt many people do it that way.
My method for finding new posts is to search on my name, and then I can see if anyone replied to me or not. But I can’t do that with every commenter, so undoubtedly I miss some comments that were probably important.
Yes, highlighting in a different color was implemented on WUWT at one time several years ago, but apparently the software package this feature came with caused some major problems for the website so they dropped it.
I was hoping maybe there had been some improvements since that time.
Paul Hurley
August 20, 2023 5:48 am
A thunderstorm with hail rolled through the area a few weeks ago. I was going to explain to a friend how hail forms, so I searched the net for a standard diagram showing the process. But I found this:
[The diagram] shows a raindrop turning into a hailstone after circulating numerous times inside a thunderstorm. Eventually, this theory says, the hail gets too big and falls out. The most accurate parts here are the comments about the updraft existing and the hail falling to Earth. This idea of hail formation is now considered to be false.
This newer theory of hail formation is similar to the old one but with differences in the details.
“The study finds that when two stars orbit around with each other with accelerations lower than about one nanometer per second squared start to deviate from the prediction by Newton’s universal law of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity.”
i am a drummer.
i am in a band with 4 other guys.
some have day jobs some are retired like me.
its a hobby. its fun.
we play for our fans about 12 to 15 times a year.
i am also a member of a forum for drummers.
its a good community for sharing information.
the moderators do a good job keeping things civil.
once in a while someone will make an off topic post.
below is a direct link to a recent o/t post.
it is climate themed.
if anyone here is bored, try reading all of the threads.
very entertaining.
i did not reply to any of the posts.
i did like a few thought.
So similar arguments and counter arguments occurring no matter what group of people are discussing it?
ScepticalSOB
August 20, 2023 6:18 am
I wonder if someone could recap the recent breakthroughs / clarifications in climate science that would destroy old / false memes that have been out there for some time.
The two most important :
(1) that most of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the industrial era is NOT anthropogenic and instead comes from natural sources.
(2) That the ‘climate forcing’ multiplier’, has been elusive to measure, but has gone from an estimated multiple up to five to less that two, and possibly a 1 (not forcing effect other than the known absorption found in the lab). (There was a Judith Curry article about that, but I can no longer find it.)
ScepticalSOB
You’ve got some misconceptions there and before I try to point them out, let me just say that we’re on the same team. “There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!” My only reason for arguing with you is that I want us to be effective in persuading the public of this bottom line fact.
It’s unnecessary to try to deny that fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture have slowly enhanced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above where it would be at current surface temperatures. The key to that is in your point #2. Namely that empirical evidence (Lewis & Curry) shows that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) is around 1.7 kelvin per doubling of CO2 concentration. (a kelvin is like a degree Celsius but in absolute temperature).
You have a misconception about ECS (that you call the ‘climate forcing multiplier’. It is not a multiplier. ECS of 1 does not mean ‘no effect’, that would be an ECS of 0. You’re correct that different studies have made the case for it being anywhere from a negative number to 6 or more. The reason for the wild disparity is a disagreement on how the change in CO2 will result in positive or negative feedback effects. The important point is that we have empirical data that is inconsistent with any of the potentially “dangerous” ECS values.
On your number 1, it’s a common desire among skeptics (sceptics too!) to try to shortcut the argument about anthropogenic CO2’s allegedly harmful effects by claiming that the increase must mostly be natural. Usually the argument is that because of the absolutely accurate observation that natural CO2 sources are an order of magnitude bigger than man-caused emissions, our emissions must be trivial. The problem with that argument is that natural CO2 sinks are even bigger than natural sources. There are no manmade sinks. All of the natural sources are offset and then some by natural sinks. About half of our emissions are soaked up by the natural sinks which are being amped up by our emissions. (See Global Greening)
I’m going to refuse to go down that rabbit hole once again because I’ve seen how much time can be wasted on it. I’m just going to state that a mass balance around the atmosphere proves that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (man-caused emissions). Somebody else can argue with you and the usual suspects on that topic. My bigger point is that you are trying to prove a point which is UNNECESSARY to prove and which detracts–right or wrong–from your ability to persuade others that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
I am confident that we are on the same page that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, right? Most mainstream skeptics (take for example Anthony Watts, and I think every regular author of skeptical articles on this blog) accept that human-caused emissions are responsible for most of the long-term rise in atmospheric CO2. In addition, obviously all climate alarmists believe that. You’re effectively trying to persuade the public to dismiss climate alarmism based on making a claim that only a minority of skeptics are willing to accept. That is a recipe for being dismissed as a kook. And your good argument about a harmless empirical ECS gets thrown out along with your mistaken claim. You could also be making the argument that a mild warming, mostly at night and in higher latitudes is net beneficial to human flourishing.
Even if you were right that rising CO2 is natural, and most skeptics and all alarmists are wrong about it, trying to convince people of something that they are already convinced goes the other way is a losing proposition. It’s akin to trying to convince atheists that murder is bad because God says so. If you could succeed in convincing them that God exists then admittedly you would win the argument, but let’s face reality, you will NOT convince them and in fact, as soon as you go down that path, they will reject everything else you might say. The same problem occurs if you attempt to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, which again, the majority of skeptics and all alarmists accept as true. Yes, if you could actually convince alarmists that there is no greenhouse effect then our CO2 emissions would be irrelevant, but you simply are NOT going to succeed in persuading more than a tiny minority of such a proposition.
For me, the most important question is how to convince a majority of the voting public that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Everything that is a stumbling block for a potentially persuadable voter is to be avoided.
Item one I was referring to Skrable Chabot French paper in Feb 22, where they proved, using spectrometer data of CO2 isotopes, that 80% of the current atmospheric CO2 is natural, whereas NOAA’s assumptions assumptions are that the increases are all Anthropogenic.
This argument is pointless because there is no danger from any CO2 concentration that we can feasibly drive given the remaining fossil fuel reserves that we could burn. However, since you think that S-C-F proved that elevated CO2 is not caused by fossil fuel burning and I think that making that case is wrong and counterproductive to persuading voters that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, I will offer you an explanation.
The error in S-C-F is the assumption that anthropogenically-sourced CO2 must remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time in order to be responsible for an increased concentration. As is often pointed out, the natural fluxes dwarf human-caused emissions. The natural turnover of CO2 is very fast, roughly a 4-year residence time. The amount of carbon in the natural reservoirs (bicarbonate, carbohydrates, as well as CO2) is hugely greater than the total carbon in the atmosphere (mostly CO2). As a result, the carbon that goes into the ocean as CO2 may have a much longer residence time in the ocean than it had in the atmosphere. It is far more likely that CO2 subsequently going into the atmosphere from natural sources will not be the same anthropogenic CO2 molecule that was recently absorbed.
In other words, if the world suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels and making cement, within the decade most of the CO2 molecules that were put there by our emissions would be sequestered. That does NOT mean that CO2 concentration would be reduced back to “pre-industrial” or a slightly higher level corresponding to a somewhat warmer ocean. At equilibrium, the natural sinks absorb the same amount as the natural sources. Currently in the out-of-equilibrium state, they absorb the equivalent of all the natural sources plus about half of our current emissions. That does not mean that half of the anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere indefinitely.
Without any new emissions, the natural sinks would initially continue to absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the year before. The sinks can’t distinguish between “natural” and “anthropogenic” CO2. Only slowly would the natural sink weaken as CO2 concentration drops. The driving force to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is the excess CO2 above what would be in the air at equilibrium based on the current temperature.
If we currently are about 130ppm above equilibrium and are adding 2ppm/yr but that is only half of what we are emitting, then we would initially start depleting CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate of about 2ppm/yr. It will take longer than 130/2 = 65 years to remove the excess, because the steadily reducing driving force will eventually slow down the rate of removal. In fact it may effectively take millennia to eliminate the excess completely because it’s an asymptotic curve. But at some point within one human lifetime, we’d be back to levels that even today’s alarmists recognize as “safe”, such as 350ppm.
Just to summarize, although I would disagree with the reason, we agree on the practical conclusion. NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. My argument given earlier is that whether you/S-C-F are correct or not, pressing this point is a weak tactic that is unnecessary.
All very well, but your “natural sinks 100% natural source” argument neglects the oscillations on CO2 content over time.
Not dissing you, just pointing out that your theory is not complete. But your heart is in the right place?
J Boles
August 20, 2023 6:42 am
I wish it were written A.I. and not AI, come on what happened to periods, remember the Man from U.N.C.L.E. ? I keep thinking you mean Albert “Big Al” Minette the crime boss.
And I’m glad it’s not A.I. but a simple predictive text program. Even ‘Simulated Intelligence’ is giving it far too much credit!
general custer
August 20, 2023 6:56 am
San Diego web cams indicate rainfall and some breeze. Boats in action, cars on the streets, birds flying around. Big disappointment so far for the climate fabulists’ fear of Hurricane Hilary. Gov. Newsom will claim personal victory over the weather. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFj4wnSTYtM
Richard, haven’t we been over this before? King Canute wanted to prove to his advisors that they were wrong about his ability to command the tides. He was the wise one who knew he could not triumph over the natural world.
Waiting for a delayed flight YVR to sandiego. Another i’m traveling with has a brother in san diego, light showers right now, 9 pm.
Does that mean they are all dead now?
Not too difficult to explain Mike. The extra CO2 contributed by human emissions over and above the order-of-magnitude larger natural sources has the effect of enhancing natural sinks. About half of our contribution consistently gets absorbed as the earth greens. The amount of our emissions as a fraction of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is a small number, around 1%. So half of that, around 0.5%. Annual variation in the natural sources is large. It’s lost in the noise. And apart from that, the Keeling curve is not quite linear, it is a slightly concave curve.
The apparent attempt to deny that human emissions are responsible for the rise in CO2 concentration is counterproductive to convincing persuadable voters that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. You will not get anywhere with that tactic. We need to focus on the fact that empirical evidence shows that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration is too low to be harmful and the slight warming we have seen is wholly beneficial.
You didn’t answer the question. If CO2 emissions cause a rise of the Keeling curve why hasn’t the SLOPE of the curve changed with rising annual emissions
Commonly, the alarmists point to the increase in atmospheric CO2 as being approximately one-half the anthropogenic emissions, and claim that half of the anthro’ CO2 is sequestered. However, the sinks, particularly the oceans, will withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere in proportion to the partial pressure of the percentage of the CO2 from the different sources. Thus, with the annual anthro’ CO2 flux being about 3-4% of the total flux, one can expect that only about 4% of the anthro’ emissions become sequestered in the oceans and photosynthetic organisms, with the other 96-97% coming from other sources.
Imagine that a plague, like the Andromeda Strain, were to wipe out humanity overnight. Since the oceans appear to have the capacity to absorb much more than what humans emit, in the absence of human emissions, we can expect the oceans to have the ability to withdraw more CO2 than what was formerly provided by humans. However, at the same time, with a lowered partial pressure of CO2 because of the absence of anthro’ CO2, increased out-gassing from the oceans, and enhanced respiration from vegetation, may easily make up that missing 4%.
I suspect that as the Earth warms, for whatever reason, it is attempting to establish a new equilibrium with higher concentrations of CO2 in both the atmosphere and oceans. Thus, we see annual increases in both sinks.
If half of the current level of emissions was sequestered the other half would have CO2 levels in the atmosphere at much higher level. I think 50/50 argument becomes nonsense. I’m a retired chemist so I have a grasp of this stuff
Rich Davis
August 20, 2023 6:08 pm
Anybody else experiencing the situation that Chrome and Safari on iPhone keeps popping up the GDPR cookie notice repeatedly? Had to switch over to my laptop to get around this. If you are, and you have a computer you could try, please test and reply. It started mid-morning Eastern time Sunday. I tried logging out, closing the browser, clearing cache, powering off and on, but no luck. Using iPhone 13, as soon as I log in, using either Safari or Chrome, it starts popping up the cookie notification and immediately repeats when I click OK. There’s no problem on Windows 11 laptop with Chrome.
Rich,
Yes. I have the same problem.
I can’t get rid of the Cookie notice on my I phone but don’t have the same difficulty on my l pad.
As soon as I hit the “Close and accept” button on the I phone, the cookie notice ignores it and re-appears.
It has only happened in recent days.
Had this problem for a while on my laptop using Firefox. Would eventually go after 3or4 clicks of the ‘Close and accept’ button but last couple of days sticks around for 6, 7 or more.
I’m wondering if proper climate modeling is something that AI would actually be useful for.
Of course one would need to make sure that GIGO was avoided, but shouldn’t 100 years of data points be enough to get started?
IF the data haven’t been corrupted to support the agenda. Many of us here have pointed out the changing historical records and the claims of higher precision than are warranted by mathematics.
Pat from Kerbob
August 20, 2023 8:44 pm
Problem with website when i use my iphone with Safari, lets me log in but then i keep getting the “cookies” message asking me to accept, which i do then it reloads, can’t get past there.
Laptop with Chrome seems to be working
Pat, are you talking about this happening when you log into WUWT?
I was using a desktop with Windows 8 yesterday and at one point the main WUWT page kept putting up a cookie notification, and when I would click on it, it would not go away. Opening an article in a new tab didn’t cause this problem, and it eventually went away on the mainpage, too. I was using the Firefox browser.
I’ve noticed some subtle differences in WUWT’s mainpage since yesterday, so I suspect they may have been doing some kind of software update, which might have thrown things off for a little while. Everything seems to be working normally now.
OK
Am sitting in vancouver airport waiting for a flight, been flying in here for 28 years, airport is basically built in the Pacific ocean, was built in 1931. With “catastrophic sea level rise”, why is it not now a submarine base?
because technology, fool! Everybody knows submarines got their wings waaaay back…
Cam_S
August 23, 2023 11:54 am
Story tip
San Francisco has a school for “climate psychology”.
– – – – – – – – –
Matthew Lau: How to make money out of climate anxiety
Just about all of us are motivated by money. Why not climate psychologists, too?
The great diversity of ways to make money in the climate change industry is illustrated by, among many other things, the existence of something called the Climate Psychology Certificate program, which I learned about from a letter the program’s leaders wrote the Wall Street Journal responding to a column by Alyssia Finley on how climate change obsession has become a mental disorder. In it they claim “climate anxiety” is “a real and shared belief that keeps many Americans awake in fear at night.”
Exactly how many Americans can’t actually sleep because they worry climate change will soon make the planet uninhabitable, they did not say. Doing their bit to pump up the numbers, they link economic losses from floods and fires to climate change and conclude that a rapid reduction of greenhouses gases is necessary to ensure a livable future.
I was just wondering, then this open thread popped up;
Is there not one reader here who dares demonstrate that eddies in the electromagnetic solosphere (I started with geosphere, enlarged it to biosphere, I have no word to include the geophysical realities of a live planet under our feet, and a live heaven above our heads) are by orders of magnitude more influential in the arrangement of thermodynamic distributions than anything puny Man can come up with?
A popularisation of the simplicity underlying electromagnetic theory would instantly expose the climastrologists for the stupid little queers they are.
P.S. I use the word ‘queer’ in the dictionary sense, as well as the playground sense, i.e. the little twerp who runs to teacher to report on every bug Billy picks up, and carefully catalogues every booger on his own back…
I was halfway through typing your cancellation demand when I read the ‘P.S.’
Then I ended up feeling a weird combination of emotion/logic, realizing I was wrong (and angry for the wrong reason) … how can I be wrong?
I can’t be wrong.
It’s your selfish lazy fault for even using that bad word. Context doesn’t matter. Even if you started with the ‘P.S’ it would still be inconsiderate to those of us that are so ingrained with our bigoted biases that one little word forces the bias the surface. You should think of others before you spew your hateful rants.
You are a bad person.
🙂
We, the world, but especially “western” society need to get back to the old adage:
Sticks and Stones may break my Bones
But WORDS will never heart me.
Quit being such a pantywaist.
There, I, a US Citizen, used two common culture English referenced items in one post.
New Republican US government needs to pass a “Sticks and Stones Act” making free speech really free again. Banning ANY Federal money to any organization or business that has rules or regulations limiting protected political speech due to “hurt feelings” or other BS.
That would end student loans to probably 90% of US universities, a really good thing.
Then begin a free speech branch of the reconstituted Dept. of Justice to prosecute every possible speech controlling entity inside and outside of the Federal government, using oaths of office that include a pledge to uphold The US Constitution as the LIE the official told when being sworn in. THEN terminating all those liberals, primarily in the US military, the FBI and the DOJ, while, whenever possible, getting any lawyers disbarred.
Here in Australia, for the WUWT blog, we might need a “Sticks and Stokes Act”.
Geoff S
There in Australia. I know it’s winter in Oz but never having been there during any season I’ve always had the impression that the climate is rather mild, at least compared to North Dakota. But in watching snatches of the Women’s World Cup Football tournament I notice that anyone who’s not actually playing is wearing winter clothing. Is the weather there particularly chilly right now or is this the normal state of affairs?
Even with the smilie, people miss the sarcasm. Problem is, people actually think that way.
my process, when I post something like that, is to stick my head up my ass so I can see things from the relative perspective of the typical progressive politick.
in that state, I usually forget to warn people of my limited perspective.
8 hours ago Kip Hansen posted an article with the titel “Confusion about Confabulations”. I posted the following comment a couple of minuts ago:
I have an idea … you can call it a “little” story tip. Why not make an AI-bot based on the catalogue from all of the articles from WUWT. By feeding the “bot” with all of the comments to you will get a smart and specialized “bot”.
Would WUWT accept this … propably yes – is my best guess. Or WUWT can make a “bot” themself. In the end it´s a question about copyrigths.
Many questions comes to mind. Is Co2 the controlbuttom for raising temperatures … could natural disasters like the wildfires in Maui be avoided through human ingenuity and engeering … are weather-stations measurements valid … etc, etc, etc ….!!
By making a “bot” it´s like back to the “future” – AI versus AI.
What´s you thoughts about the Idea, by taking the battle to their own ground and fields it would be an open(close)treath…!!
I think WUWT would have to write its own AI software.
Current AI’s seem to have a leftwing bias including a bias towards believing in human-caused climate change.
So an AI like that probably wouldn’t do the job you want done.
Their “leftwing” concept of “power” is rather limited and childish, that´s why they have to use the word climatedenier. I haven´t used an AI myself and it´s not going to happen …!!
As I pointed out in a comment to the aforementioned Kip Hansen article, there are, to pick a number, about a dozen different frequently expressed hypothesis about the major dynamics of climate that more or less totally contradict each other. What could an AI, or any human, conclude if WUWT articles were the only source of information available?
AI is not the thing you are describing, nor the nonsense in the MSM. AI is a concept, not some malformed computer programme. AI requires that a device (not a computer, at least not at this time) that can form the inventive step, the difference between man and virtually everything else, except the beginnings of it is some great apes. It is most certainly not a computer program that pushes rubbish from the internet back at one. Why this is not understood just shows the uselessly low level of virtually every journo on the planet, not an inventive idea amongst the loyt except possibly to lie. That is not AI either!
MB1978
If such a bot were created from all comments or even just from all articles posted, the results would be a muddle. Remember that a great many posts are from Eurekalert! (YouReekAlot!) presumably posted here for us to shred to pieces. Then think of what would be contributed to the AI’s “knowledge” by Nitpick Nick, The Rusty Nail, Big Oily Boob, Simple Simon, and dearly departed griff!
What you might get of value would be accurate answers to questions like what are the arguments for and against (controversy). AI has no way to evaluate which arguments are better. It can only determine which arguments are more common.
If you fed it only “orthodox” skeptical views, say for example a set of articles endorsed by Anthony Watts, then you could possibly get a tool to answer frequently asked questions as a skeptic might answer. Maybe a labor-saving tool for troll swatting. But the authority, logic, or accuracy of its comments would not be enhanced beyond what Anthony brought to the discussion.
It is an eternal dichotomy – Without truth there can be no freedom – Without freedom there can be no truth. But your right to include the comments will create a mis-match. But as a new “toy”, a thing to play with, with a minimum of “reading”, I think the younger generations will use it, what if the set-up was based on the chapters in the IPCC-reports. Around 30-50 articles per chapter could perhaps do the job as an AI-light-form. Fx look at the Maui wildfires, that´s chapter 12.
It seems like sparking electrical lines should be better maintained and engineered to reduce wild fire ignition.
That is well known … add up the chemical hazards in fire debris and the negligence of human ingenuity and engeering is much worse and “paints” out an even larger “picture”.
After Maui fires, human health risks linger in the air, water and even surviving buildings (theconversation.com)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/hubble-neptunes-disappearing-clouds-linked-to-the-solar-cycle so the solar cycle can affect Neptune 30 times as far away from the sun as the Earth, yet it is not deemed to affect our atmosphere to any great extent.
That’s what I’m taking about! Go geddim, Rover!
It’s a long time ago it was discussed that the planets started to warm up by solar radiation following activity cycles.
There has got to be Oxygen on Neptune.
How could there not be, it will be abundant inside El Sol and thus be part of the solar wind.
Way way out there at Neptune it will be moving slow enough and cold enough to be captured.
As every student of Ozone here on Earth (not *just* Stratospheric and ‘Ozone Holes’), all Earthbound Ozone is made by the action of solar UV acting upon diatomic (normal boring ordinary) Oxygen.
This is of course CliSci’s Big Secret – *everybody* knows that Earth’s atmosphere is perfectly transparent to all things solar – Oxygen can not be seen to be acting as green house gases do and warming the atmosphere whenever the sun comes out.
Big hugs, kisses and thank yous to Roy Spencer for keep reminding us that.
Anyway,
Sorted
Standard Peta accuracy stated with standard Peta certainty.
Now some reality…
Almost no oxygen in Neptune’s atmosphere based on spectral analysis.
Only 1% methane, not “loads of”.
It’s false that “all Earthbound Ozone is made by the action of solar UV acting upon diatomic (normal boring ordinary) Oxygen.” It can be produced by an electric arc, both manmade and from lightning, neither involving solar UV.
Re-sorted.
But a great deal more is going to come from solar UV isn’t it? There is a lot of solar UV, some of it very “hard” UV (very high energy, short wavelength) quite possibly a W/m2 in the upper atmosphere. I haven’t been there to measure it and 0.1% or so of solar radiation is not unreasonable. The area is huge under irradiation, and we call this the ozone layer (strange name that). Lightning is a tiny source, so are manmade electric arcs.
Yes of course. But I was just highlighting all of the claims that Peta makes with an air of certain authority that are simply and obviously wrong. These wrong trivia points about Neptune are nothing compared to the nonsense about soil erosion causing deserts and sugar being a deadly poison and the natural greenhouse effect not existing because of the second law of thermodynamics.
Casual visitors might not immediately recognize that familiarity with complex scientific jargon does not equate to common sense.
Worked for a major copier /printer company, everyone of them produces ozone and there are/ were millions if not billions. If I had a hangover, a little blast gave relief.
Rich, you are hard on Peta, to the point where you try refute a maybe by pretending it was a truism.
But to my point: Spectral analysis has proven woefully useless at determining atmospheric compositions, but I will keep an open mind, because you will now produce for us bottles of gas collected on Neptune for us to confirm your shaky theory on planetary colours and this absorbing that and the other emitted…you also probably believe red-shift proof of the accelerating expansion of the Gnib Gnab.
Theories, brother, theories. Which means Peta is allowed some, too.
The Sun, and orbital position, affects Pluto’s weather, too!
I think this tells us the real effect of good old H2O. Earth is the only water planet. As such, many potential changes are neutralized due to water’s buffering effect. This also includes the large effect due to Earth’s elliptical orbit.
Water controls Earth’s climate. Climate science keeps telling us CO2 is warming the oceans. Nope, the oceans are warmed by long term solar input minus evaporative cooling. The oceans then warm/cool the atmosphere to match.
The ‘oceans’ including the water vapour in the atmosphere. Someone said that given the ocean currents and air currents and the water in the atmosphere that the oceans extend from the deepest trenches to the edge of space, only the density changes.
I also intuit that the oceans covering 71% of earth’s surface, must play the largest role in the dynamics of our climate and are responsible for the observed homeostasis.
The physical properties of H2O are virtually miraculous. It has a very high latent heat of vaporization so that evaporation can carry away huge amounts of heat from the surface. Its vapor is less dense than air, so that it is buoyant and convects high into the atmosphere where it forms reflective clouds shielding the surface from further heating by the sun and returning cold liquid water back to the surface as rain.
Whether the cause of increased sea surface temperature is increased solar output heating the ocean more during the day or decreased cooling due to an enhanced greenhouse effect during the night is irrelevant to this homeostatic mechanism. In other words, the earth system will limit surface temperature caused by any forcing whether natural or manmade.
Furthermore the optimal temperature for flourishing of life is the top range of the earth’s “thermostatic range”. The low end is challenging to life. Any warming is net beneficial.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Richard M, you forget that the theory of CAGW is that increases in CO2 make 1000 times more water vapor to appear and THAT is how CO2 is the control knob of the climate.
Sarc, sort of, off
I haven’t forgotten, that’s the big mistake as Dr. Spencer demonstrates in this graphic.
–STORY TIP–
Italy’s bill to reject synthetic food passes Senate
The US might be salivating at the thought of licking Petri dishes, but Italy has put up a big ‘bugger-off’ barrier to synthetic meat this week after the Senate passed a bill to ban the production and marketing of synthetic meat and stock feed. It will now make its way through to the next stage.
93 voted in favour, with 28 against and 33 abstaining.
What’s more astonishing is the public demand to ban synthetic meat, with over 2 million Italians signing a petition in support of the bill. Across Italy, regions and municipalities were almost all voting the same way – all but shouting at Parliament to act.
Italy has a reputation for quality, natural, and traditional food. The last thing its people want, according to reports, is billion-dollar corporations moving in on the produce industry under the banner of ‘climate change’.
The bans, if carried all the way through to law, would include a € 60,000 fine for anyone making or selling these synthetic products.
Any comments Mr Gates?.
We recognise the Italian people’s decision, we shall not hold it against them when the UNGR-25 virus hits their agricultural industry. Even Ethiopia was lent a helping hand after all their chickens mysteriously was no more. That’s why we gifted them 100 000 GMO chickens. The vaccines they need are very, very profitable, and my economy has grown magnificently.
Signed
p.p. Baal Gates
€ 60,000? Gates can afford to match and raise by a couple orders of magnitude, if necessary, to buy enough politicians.
Yep, there mistake was not making it criminal with a MINIMUM lifetime sentence.
I recently captured a 7-day series of hourly images from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16. NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR band. I have posted comments often about the implications of these visualizations over the last couple of years, with this link to the NOAA website for a short animated series of these images.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
But I finally decided to directly download a longer series of images and put it in time-lapse video form to more clearly show the dynamic nature of longwave emission to space in this part of the spectrum. It’s not a passive radiative “trap” as an end result. In my view, resolving this misconception can help counter the unsound claims of harmful warming attributed to emissions of CO2.
The 168 mages are here. 7 days ending August 7, 2023.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12d9t0j-w1nqlbagBD2y44XbbpfBXfSTi?usp=sharing
A YouTube video is here, where you can also read an explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yarzo13_TSE
A downloadable video is here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1heM_Jpvz3TlUdDUYGYsIeTLXY09f8v2u/view?usp=sharing
Comments welcome.
Here is the full explanation at the YouTube link.
“Are emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat “trap” explains the observed result.
This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated by NOAA from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16.
NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR (infrared) band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the “atmospheric window” part of the infrared spectrum. The “brightness temperature” color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed.
So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is a response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. These dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG “forcing”) experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space as longwave radiation.
The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance as an emitter and as a controller of longwave emission from the surface. What do we see and learn from watching it perform? The visualization helps us grasp that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been experienced and measured down here, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.
So as I see it, is there risk of harmful warming from GHGs? No. We can see from space that it doesn’t work that way.”
Beautiful!
I can foresee in the not too distant future a group of anthropologists comparing our current scientists’ belief in CO2 powers to earlier witchdoctors’ belief in the prescience of chicken entrails.
The meditative halucinogenic effect of a quasi-random display of colours, textures and shapes have great power to guide the mind in contemplation, surely the basis of great art. Dot not confuse the artistry of the climaxing shaman with the artfulness of the climastrologist charlatan.
Calling witchdoctors deluded fools may lead you to believe in science…
Once you are looking at radiation spectra, you are already sucked into the false notion of the “greenhouse effect” altering the energy balance.
The dominant control on the global energy balance is convective instability. This process guarantees that the open ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C.
Right now you can see convective instability going into overdrive in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Cyclone Hilary has already pulled the temperature down off the west coast of Mexico and the depression spinning up in the Atlantic will pull the heat out of the Gulf of Mexico in a week or so.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-84.99,27.97,671/loc=-107.888,20.543
Understanding the temperature limit of 30C requires an in-depth understanding of convective instability and how clouds form to limit the surface temperature. But the process can be observed working across the globe every day of every year. There is currently no climate model with the vertical resolution of the atmosphere to simulate convective instability. Clouds are parameterised rather than being associated with the surface temperature.Climate models will never be useful until they can reasonably simulate the formation of convective potential and resulting instability.
The same convective overdrive was in evidence in the Arabian Sea and west Pacific 2 months back:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/06/10/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-271.30,8.30,671/loc=-107.888,20.543
And the Bay of Bengal 3 months back:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/11/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-271.30,8.30,671/loc=-107.888,20.543
In the present era, we are observing a steady upward trend in the area of the oceans of the northern hemisphere reaching the 30C limit. This is simply a result of increasing peak solar intensity over the NH as a result of the precession cycle.
“Once you are looking at radiation spectra, you are already sucked into the false notion of the “greenhouse effect” altering the energy balance.”
I agree. By reference to the Band 16 “CO2 Longwave IR” images, I hope to suck the oxygen out of the “forcing + feedback” and “energy imbalance” framing of the issue of GHG emissions even among reasonable skeptics. Can the climate system response to incremental concentrations ever be reliably diagnosed using that framing? NO. And you are right to emphasize the dominant role of convective instability in driving the dynamics.
Navier and Stokes would have your back.
…thinly sliced and subtly spiced, lightly roasted on a rack of your own ribs…
David,
My focus is on the processes that matter in the atmosphere rather than those that don’t.
There is very little research going into convective instability and why it limits the ocean surface temperature. As far as I can tell, all those looking at it in the 1990s got involved in climate modelling because that is where the jobs were. No government will fund research that determines CO2 does nothing to the energy balance.
The convection working group are not involved in long range climate modelling. Their objective is better prediction of high energy events.
https://cwg.eumetsat.int/about/
When climate models can truly simulate convective instability, they will be useful.
add it all up and the average greybody atmospheric emission temperature is about 273K. Add in the fraction of direct surface transmittance and the effective Earth system LW emission temperature is about 278K. Earth system emissivity 0.7 to produce 240 Wm-2 output, and by happenstance SW reflectivity 0.3.
This just confirms my conviction that using averages to predict anything related to climate is outrageous simplification done to assuage the inability of climate scientists to deal with the mathematics needed to describe the chaotic actions of the earth’s atmosphere. Show me a study that has attempted to address the uncertainty of temperatures measured in any screen caused by variations in wind speed. Has anyone seen a recommendation from NOAA about starting to use integration of minute data to obtain a total temperature index for each day (think degree•day)? Tradition rules to the detriment of science.
“This just confirms my conviction that using averages to predict anything related to climate is outrageous simplification…”
Agreed. The images and the video make this plain to me, and I hope to others also.
At many schools, the climate change courses are in the department of geography, history, ecology, and such. It seems to be the exception for them to be in the geology or physics department. Another common pattern in those classes is an emphasis on class participation and changing one personal behaviour which seems like a recipe for strengthening groupthink.
In one of the climate change courses of one of the universities I’ve been a student at, the textbook is written by Dessler, the supplemental readings consist of different alarmist material (e.g., AAAS), perspective is added from Marxist capital theory, the dangers of overpopulation, and that’s just in the first 6 weeks, if I remember correctly.
I am currently on vacation in Key West, the south end of the Florida Keys. Every visible geologic outcrop is a reef product. Most outcrops appear to be re-worked reef debris (due to Hurricanes?), but the shell content is high, signaling reef proximal environments. The Keys are surrounded by living reefs, locally known as snorkeling attractions. There are several locations in the Keys that are at 18 feet elevation, the maximum. The Keys are not caught up in the major faults further south, so what does this geology tell us? The Keys display large changes in sea level, for millions of years, all natural, no carbon pollution involved. If the outcrops at 18 feet elevation were formed at 10 feet below current sea level, at least another 28 feet of sea level increase would be normal, and without anthropogenic signal, and showing past temperatures (melting ice at poles) much higher..
Key West is a great place to observe that the natural tendency for carbon dioxide to be removed from the atmosphere. You’ll also find the remnants of a chicken eggs if you look about.
I think WUWT needs a minor software upgrade, that would greatly enhance the reading of comments to the articles, and would probably increase the comments.
Some WUWT articles recently have upwards of 1,000 comments. Pat Frank’s recent article comes to mind. And several hundred comments is not uncommon in other articles.
What we need is for the software to highlight new comments in a different color so they are easy to find on second and subsequent visits to that thread. Sorting through 1,000 posts looking for new comments, several times, is very tedious, and I doubt many people do it that way.
My method for finding new posts is to search on my name, and then I can see if anyone replied to me or not. But I can’t do that with every commenter, so undoubtedly I miss some comments that were probably important.
Good idea. Or use the function on the top bar that brings up the newest comments first?
Or, do a search for the current date you are searching? Or, sign up to be notified by email when new comments are added?
I think it’s the theme rather than the software. I recall a time when that feature existed.
Yes, highlighting in a different color was implemented on WUWT at one time several years ago, but apparently the software package this feature came with caused some major problems for the website so they dropped it.
I was hoping maybe there had been some improvements since that time.
A thunderstorm with hail rolled through the area a few weeks ago. I was going to explain to a friend how hail forms, so I searched the net for a standard diagram showing the process. But I found this:
Do You Know How Hail Forms? Well, You’re Probably Wrong.
This newer theory of hail formation is similar to the old one but with differences in the details.
Settled science, again? 😉
The dirty little secret is that science is never settled. Even gravity is going to have to be revised, according to astronomers!
Does that mean we’ll start falling upwards ? 🙂
Not quite settled:
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-smoking-gun-evidence-gravity-gaia-wide.html
“The study finds that when two stars orbit around with each other with accelerations lower than about one nanometer per second squared start to deviate from the prediction by Newton’s universal law of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity.”
No, as time goes on, you start falling apart.
i am a drummer.
i am in a band with 4 other guys.
some have day jobs some are retired like me.
its a hobby. its fun.
we play for our fans about 12 to 15 times a year.
i am also a member of a forum for drummers.
its a good community for sharing information.
the moderators do a good job keeping things civil.
once in a while someone will make an off topic post.
below is a direct link to a recent o/t post.
it is climate themed.
if anyone here is bored, try reading all of the threads.
very entertaining.
i did not reply to any of the posts.
i did like a few thought.
joe x
https://www.drumforum.org/threads/ot-nasa-july-2023-hottest-month-on-record.210709/unread
So similar arguments and counter arguments occurring no matter what group of people are discussing it?
I wonder if someone could recap the recent breakthroughs / clarifications in climate science that would destroy old / false memes that have been out there for some time.
The two most important :
(1) that most of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the industrial era is NOT anthropogenic and instead comes from natural sources.
(2) That the ‘climate forcing’ multiplier’, has been elusive to measure, but has gone from an estimated multiple up to five to less that two, and possibly a 1 (not forcing effect other than the known absorption found in the lab). (There was a Judith Curry article about that, but I can no longer find it.)
ScepticalSOB
You’ve got some misconceptions there and before I try to point them out, let me just say that we’re on the same team. “There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!” My only reason for arguing with you is that I want us to be effective in persuading the public of this bottom line fact.
It’s unnecessary to try to deny that fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture have slowly enhanced the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above where it would be at current surface temperatures. The key to that is in your point #2. Namely that empirical evidence (Lewis & Curry) shows that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) is around 1.7 kelvin per doubling of CO2 concentration. (a kelvin is like a degree Celsius but in absolute temperature).
You have a misconception about ECS (that you call the ‘climate forcing multiplier’. It is not a multiplier. ECS of 1 does not mean ‘no effect’, that would be an ECS of 0. You’re correct that different studies have made the case for it being anywhere from a negative number to 6 or more. The reason for the wild disparity is a disagreement on how the change in CO2 will result in positive or negative feedback effects. The important point is that we have empirical data that is inconsistent with any of the potentially “dangerous” ECS values.
On your number 1, it’s a common desire among skeptics (sceptics too!) to try to shortcut the argument about anthropogenic CO2’s allegedly harmful effects by claiming that the increase must mostly be natural. Usually the argument is that because of the absolutely accurate observation that natural CO2 sources are an order of magnitude bigger than man-caused emissions, our emissions must be trivial. The problem with that argument is that natural CO2 sinks are even bigger than natural sources. There are no manmade sinks. All of the natural sources are offset and then some by natural sinks. About half of our emissions are soaked up by the natural sinks which are being amped up by our emissions. (See Global Greening)
I’m going to refuse to go down that rabbit hole once again because I’ve seen how much time can be wasted on it. I’m just going to state that a mass balance around the atmosphere proves that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (man-caused emissions). Somebody else can argue with you and the usual suspects on that topic. My bigger point is that you are trying to prove a point which is UNNECESSARY to prove and which detracts–right or wrong–from your ability to persuade others that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
I am confident that we are on the same page that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, right? Most mainstream skeptics (take for example Anthony Watts, and I think every regular author of skeptical articles on this blog) accept that human-caused emissions are responsible for most of the long-term rise in atmospheric CO2. In addition, obviously all climate alarmists believe that. You’re effectively trying to persuade the public to dismiss climate alarmism based on making a claim that only a minority of skeptics are willing to accept. That is a recipe for being dismissed as a kook. And your good argument about a harmless empirical ECS gets thrown out along with your mistaken claim. You could also be making the argument that a mild warming, mostly at night and in higher latitudes is net beneficial to human flourishing.
Even if you were right that rising CO2 is natural, and most skeptics and all alarmists are wrong about it, trying to convince people of something that they are already convinced goes the other way is a losing proposition. It’s akin to trying to convince atheists that murder is bad because God says so. If you could succeed in convincing them that God exists then admittedly you would win the argument, but let’s face reality, you will NOT convince them and in fact, as soon as you go down that path, they will reject everything else you might say. The same problem occurs if you attempt to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, which again, the majority of skeptics and all alarmists accept as true. Yes, if you could actually convince alarmists that there is no greenhouse effect then our CO2 emissions would be irrelevant, but you simply are NOT going to succeed in persuading more than a tiny minority of such a proposition.
For me, the most important question is how to convince a majority of the voting public that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Everything that is a stumbling block for a potentially persuadable voter is to be avoided.
Item one I was referring to Skrable Chabot French paper in Feb 22, where they proved, using spectrometer data of CO2 isotopes, that 80% of the current atmospheric CO2 is natural, whereas NOAA’s assumptions assumptions are that the increases are all Anthropogenic.
This argument is pointless because there is no danger from any CO2 concentration that we can feasibly drive given the remaining fossil fuel reserves that we could burn. However, since you think that S-C-F proved that elevated CO2 is not caused by fossil fuel burning and I think that making that case is wrong and counterproductive to persuading voters that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, I will offer you an explanation.
This link presents the argument against S-C-F pretty clearly
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/skrablecomment.pdf
The error in S-C-F is the assumption that anthropogenically-sourced CO2 must remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time in order to be responsible for an increased concentration. As is often pointed out, the natural fluxes dwarf human-caused emissions. The natural turnover of CO2 is very fast, roughly a 4-year residence time. The amount of carbon in the natural reservoirs (bicarbonate, carbohydrates, as well as CO2) is hugely greater than the total carbon in the atmosphere (mostly CO2). As a result, the carbon that goes into the ocean as CO2 may have a much longer residence time in the ocean than it had in the atmosphere. It is far more likely that CO2 subsequently going into the atmosphere from natural sources will not be the same anthropogenic CO2 molecule that was recently absorbed.
In other words, if the world suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels and making cement, within the decade most of the CO2 molecules that were put there by our emissions would be sequestered. That does NOT mean that CO2 concentration would be reduced back to “pre-industrial” or a slightly higher level corresponding to a somewhat warmer ocean. At equilibrium, the natural sinks absorb the same amount as the natural sources. Currently in the out-of-equilibrium state, they absorb the equivalent of all the natural sources plus about half of our current emissions. That does not mean that half of the anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere indefinitely.
Without any new emissions, the natural sinks would initially continue to absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the year before. The sinks can’t distinguish between “natural” and “anthropogenic” CO2. Only slowly would the natural sink weaken as CO2 concentration drops. The driving force to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is the excess CO2 above what would be in the air at equilibrium based on the current temperature.
If we currently are about 130ppm above equilibrium and are adding 2ppm/yr but that is only half of what we are emitting, then we would initially start depleting CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate of about 2ppm/yr. It will take longer than 130/2 = 65 years to remove the excess, because the steadily reducing driving force will eventually slow down the rate of removal. In fact it may effectively take millennia to eliminate the excess completely because it’s an asymptotic curve. But at some point within one human lifetime, we’d be back to levels that even today’s alarmists recognize as “safe”, such as 350ppm.
Just to summarize, although I would disagree with the reason, we agree on the practical conclusion. NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. My argument given earlier is that whether you/S-C-F are correct or not, pressing this point is a weak tactic that is unnecessary.
All very well, but your “natural sinks 100% natural source” argument neglects the oscillations on CO2 content over time.
Not dissing you, just pointing out that your theory is not complete. But your heart is in the right place?
I wish it were written A.I. and not AI, come on what happened to periods, remember the Man from U.N.C.L.E. ? I keep thinking you mean Albert “Big Al” Minette the crime boss.
And I’m glad it’s not A.I. but a simple predictive text program. Even ‘Simulated Intelligence’ is giving it far too much credit!
San Diego web cams indicate rainfall and some breeze. Boats in action, cars on the streets, birds flying around. Big disappointment so far for the climate fabulists’ fear of Hurricane Hilary. Gov. Newsom will claim personal victory over the weather. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFj4wnSTYtM
No racing at DelMar Thoroughbred Club today, however.
Ah but will he change his name to ‘King Cnut’ in his triumph over the natural world?
Richard, haven’t we been over this before? King Canute wanted to prove to his advisors that they were wrong about his ability to command the tides. He was the wise one who knew he could not triumph over the natural world.
We have been over this before, and you are correct, King Canute was the wise one.
Waiting for a delayed flight YVR to sandiego. Another i’m traveling with has a brother in san diego, light showers right now, 9 pm.
Does that mean they are all dead now?
They are hanging on by their fingernails, according to the media.
Video of the scene just shows rain and an inch or two of water on some roads. It doesn’t look too serious.
“Big disappointment so far for the climate fabulists’ fear of Hurricane Hilary.”
The media is trying desperately to hype this storm. Even on Fox News, although they haven’t connected it to human-caused climate change directly. Yet.
Why China is Banning Teslas – YouTube
Here is a graph of the growth global CO2 emissions vs time . You can see that the last decades they have grown enormously https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region . Yet the Mauna Loa Keeling curve SLOPE has not changed https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/. That requires some explaining
I would venture to guess that the method of calculating the amount of global CO2 emissions is wrong.
Not too difficult to explain Mike. The extra CO2 contributed by human emissions over and above the order-of-magnitude larger natural sources has the effect of enhancing natural sinks. About half of our contribution consistently gets absorbed as the earth greens. The amount of our emissions as a fraction of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is a small number, around 1%. So half of that, around 0.5%. Annual variation in the natural sources is large. It’s lost in the noise. And apart from that, the Keeling curve is not quite linear, it is a slightly concave curve.
The apparent attempt to deny that human emissions are responsible for the rise in CO2 concentration is counterproductive to convincing persuadable voters that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. You will not get anywhere with that tactic. We need to focus on the fact that empirical evidence shows that the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration is too low to be harmful and the slight warming we have seen is wholly beneficial.
You didn’t answer the question. If CO2 emissions cause a rise of the Keeling curve why hasn’t the SLOPE of the curve changed with rising annual emissions
Put another way the burning of fossil fuel does not correlate with rising CO2 in the atmosphere
Commonly, the alarmists point to the increase in atmospheric CO2 as being approximately one-half the anthropogenic emissions, and claim that half of the anthro’ CO2 is sequestered. However, the sinks, particularly the oceans, will withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere in proportion to the partial pressure of the percentage of the CO2 from the different sources. Thus, with the annual anthro’ CO2 flux being about 3-4% of the total flux, one can expect that only about 4% of the anthro’ emissions become sequestered in the oceans and photosynthetic organisms, with the other 96-97% coming from other sources.
Imagine that a plague, like the Andromeda Strain, were to wipe out humanity overnight. Since the oceans appear to have the capacity to absorb much more than what humans emit, in the absence of human emissions, we can expect the oceans to have the ability to withdraw more CO2 than what was formerly provided by humans. However, at the same time, with a lowered partial pressure of CO2 because of the absence of anthro’ CO2, increased out-gassing from the oceans, and enhanced respiration from vegetation, may easily make up that missing 4%.
I suspect that as the Earth warms, for whatever reason, it is attempting to establish a new equilibrium with higher concentrations of CO2 in both the atmosphere and oceans. Thus, we see annual increases in both sinks.
[This is a work in progress.]
If half of the current level of emissions was sequestered the other half would have CO2 levels in the atmosphere at much higher level. I think 50/50 argument becomes nonsense. I’m a retired chemist so I have a grasp of this stuff
Anybody else experiencing the situation that Chrome and Safari on iPhone keeps popping up the GDPR cookie notice repeatedly? Had to switch over to my laptop to get around this. If you are, and you have a computer you could try, please test and reply. It started mid-morning Eastern time Sunday. I tried logging out, closing the browser, clearing cache, powering off and on, but no luck. Using iPhone 13, as soon as I log in, using either Safari or Chrome, it starts popping up the cookie notification and immediately repeats when I click OK. There’s no problem on Windows 11 laptop with Chrome.
Rich,
Yes. I have the same problem.
I can’t get rid of the Cookie notice on my I phone but don’t have the same difficulty on my l pad.
As soon as I hit the “Close and accept” button on the I phone, the cookie notice ignores it and re-appears.
It has only happened in recent days.
Same, just today, am on laptop now
Had this problem for a while on my laptop using Firefox. Would eventually go after 3or4 clicks of the ‘Close and accept’ button but last couple of days sticks around for 6, 7 or more.
It seems to have cleared up for me now
I’m wondering if proper climate modeling is something that AI would actually be useful for.
Of course one would need to make sure that GIGO was avoided, but shouldn’t 100 years of data points be enough to get started?
IF the data haven’t been corrupted to support the agenda. Many of us here have pointed out the changing historical records and the claims of higher precision than are warranted by mathematics.
Problem with website when i use my iphone with Safari, lets me log in but then i keep getting the “cookies” message asking me to accept, which i do then it reloads, can’t get past there.
Laptop with Chrome seems to be working
Pat, are you talking about this happening when you log into WUWT?
I was using a desktop with Windows 8 yesterday and at one point the main WUWT page kept putting up a cookie notification, and when I would click on it, it would not go away. Opening an article in a new tab didn’t cause this problem, and it eventually went away on the mainpage, too. I was using the Firefox browser.
I’ve noticed some subtle differences in WUWT’s mainpage since yesterday, so I suspect they may have been doing some kind of software update, which might have thrown things off for a little while. Everything seems to be working normally now.
I take that back: The cookie message is still on the mainpage of WUWT. I click it and it does nothing.
I had the same problem with the cookie notification yesterday. It is still there today.
Now the cookie notificaton is gone.
OK
Am sitting in vancouver airport waiting for a flight, been flying in here for 28 years, airport is basically built in the Pacific ocean, was built in 1931. With “catastrophic sea level rise”, why is it not now a submarine base?
because technology, fool! Everybody knows submarines got their wings waaaay back…
Story tip
San Francisco has a school for “climate psychology”.
– – – – – – – – –
Matthew Lau: How to make money out of climate anxiety
Just about all of us are motivated by money. Why not climate psychologists, too?
The great diversity of ways to make money in the climate change industry is illustrated by, among many other things, the existence of something called the Climate Psychology Certificate program, which I learned about from a letter the program’s leaders wrote the Wall Street Journal responding to a column by Alyssia Finley on how climate change obsession has become a mental disorder. In it they claim “climate anxiety” is “a real and shared belief that keeps many Americans awake in fear at night.”
Exactly how many Americans can’t actually sleep because they worry climate change will soon make the planet uninhabitable, they did not say. Doing their bit to pump up the numbers, they link economic losses from floods and fires to climate change and conclude that a rapid reduction of greenhouses gases is necessary to ensure a livable future.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/how-make-money-climate-anxiety