Tut tut Strat! You don’t need to be so self-deprecating! Or my bad, maybe you think Jive is good. Who am I to judge? Oftentimes you cousins are entirely comprehensible to me. Well, it helps to know a lot of foreign languages of course. 😝
I’ll bet you live in one of those cities named after one of our great American towns, am I right?
No, I don’t believe there is a Tooting anywhere in the US.
Commendable originality. One of the few British place names not stolen from us. Think of Boston, Worcester, Manchester, Plymouth, Weymouth, Newark, Coventry, Windsor, Bristol, Bolton, and so many others! Even Lincoln, named for our great president. Curiously you seem to have a York and a Jersey but have dropped the “New”. A bit inconsistent but you are an eccentric lot, aren’t you?
I first became aware of Great Britain’s Tooting via the estimable Benny Hill. The reference comes within the first few seconds of this skit. I saw it back in 1976, and never forgot it – only recently did I find it on YouTube.
They are very cagey about how they were charging it. There’s a few stills showing them plugged in at Nissan dealers once they got south of Fort McMurray. But loads of people own and operate electric vehicles that far south. Big woop.
The implied significance of their jolly was surely to demostrate EVs are practical in remote regions, like the Arctic.
I predict they will continue to use commercial charging points as long as they can, then revert to whatever mystery power source they were using in the North, and will finally declare victory. And so long as nobody pulls at the loose threads, so it will be.
From their own web site:
How will you charge your car in the Polar Regions?
We’ve got an innovative solution in the works! Our team has partnered with experts to design a portable wind and solar charging trailer that will generate and store renewable energy to power our Expedition Nissan Ariya in the harsh Polar Regions.
So, c’mon guys; spill. What’s the innovative solution? Because that’s the only important part of this crowd-sourced jolly.
Batteries don’t hold power in the cold, and won’t even charge properly. So I would suggest establishing heated charging stations at some point inside the Arctic/Antarctic circles, together with a heavy-lift helicopter which can ship pre-heated batteries to the car on its route.
No night-time driving, of course. Each day starts with a helicopter delivery, followed by a rapid drive for as long as the battery lasts. I suspect somewhere between 20-100 miles. Then camp and wait for the next drop….
For this proof of concept, the helicopters will still use fossil fuels,!but in the future they’ll be battery powered of course. Just as soon as the commercial fusion reactors are on line.
And all the support vehicles will be fossil-fueled as well, safety will demand this.
I also suspect that the electric vehicle will need to stay in a heated tent overnight. How they will stay warm in the cab is beyond me…
strativarius
May 12, 2023 3:17 am
Brenda and her forebears had a deal with Parliament; the monarch stays totally apolitical – above politics if you like – and Parliament leaves them alone to manage ‘the firm’.
Big Ears has now been officially installed as the new Parliamentary bauble – at an estimated cost to the tax payer of ~£100 million. Can he keep his end of the bargain? He’s had over 50 years to meddle in democratic affairs – he has become known as the black spider on account of the letters he sends to ministers etc seeking to influence and lobby.
“Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes”
The Chelsea barracks fiasco: The site owned by Qatar had plans and planning permission to start construction. But Charles didn’t like it and set out to overturn the democratic decision taken by the council.
“The Chelsea barracks case has offered a rare glimpse into the otherwise secret strategies used by the Prince of Wales when he wants to interfere in public affairs. … …the prince’s tactics may seem familiar. For almost three decades Charles has developed a reputation as, in his own words, “a meddling prince” who has waded into issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture.
Given the inherently political nature of such topics, the prince has established a network of 20 charities as a key tactic for circumventing the convention that the royal family, especially the heir to the throne, should stay neutral. Some people have complained that they push the prince’s beliefs much too aggressively. … One of Charles’s most active charities has been the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, which promotes his belief in more traditional forms of architecture and planning. In the Chelsea barracks case, the court heard how the prince, the charity’s president, encouraged the Qatari royal family to use his charity to make alternative plans.
Recent history shows the same charity also helped carry out the prince’s campaigns against other developments. It became involved in the redevelopment of Smithfield Market after Charles declared himself “confused and bewildered” by earlier plans and wrote about his worries to the then-chairman of English Heritage, a government body that advises on which historic buildings to protect.
Charles also offered the charity as an adviser to Francis Salway, the chief executive of Land Securities, one of the biggest developers in London, when he objected to the modernist design of its office scheme beside St Paul’s Cathedral.
In the controversial area of complementary medicine, the now defunct Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health became involved in trying to change government policy. The charity was paid £1.1m by the Department of Health to advise on the regulation of massage, aromatherapy, reflexology and other complementary therapies as Prince Charles personally lobbied health ministers to use the treatments across the NHS.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/25/chelsea-barracks-trial-prince-charles
You can bet your bottom dollar that there has been an awful lot of meddling by Big Ears that we don’t know about.
I’m betting he won’t be able to resist…
“This green doomerism was most likely passed down from his father, the Duke of Edinburgh. A sometime president of the World Wildlife Fund, Prince Philip had long been an ardent conservationist, and had frequently complained that there were too many people on the planet. In 2009, he even said that he would like to be reincarnated ‘as a deadly virus’ so as ‘to contribute something to solving overpopulation’.” https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/07/king-charles-a-reactionary-ruler-2/
To me, this helps demonstrate why the reported warming trend on land and in the oceans cannot be reliably attributed to slow increases of non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere. There is just way too much gain and loss going on naturally over the annual cycles to ever expect to isolate the GHG effect, as though its tiny residual can be identified within the much larger response to the annual cycles of absorbed energy from the sun.
“There is just way too much gain and loss going on naturally over the annual cycles to ever expect to isolate the GHG effect, as though its tiny residual can be identified within the much larger response to the annual cycles of absorbed energy from the sun.”
Climate Change Alarmists have not been able to isolate the GHG effect in all these years (decades) of trying, and I think it is because of just what you say.
Yet, the Climate Change Alarmists claim all or most of the temperature increase in the satellite era (1979 to present) is caused by CO2.
We have a disconnect here. Climate Change Alarmists are disconnected from reality. They are making claims they can’t back up with facts. This is Alarmist Climate Science for you.
Atmosphere is a turbulent condensing fluid always working at the maximum rate of dissipation. Minor variations to LW optical depth can only result in minor changes to instability (intensity of turbulent motions and phase change).
The formation of the Level of Free Convection is only related to the atmospheric mass apart from all the properties that water contributes to the formation of the LFC. The ocean surface temperature limit increases by 1C for every 5% increase in atmospheric mass. Doubling CO2 from 285ppm will increase the ocean maximum temperature by 0.006C. The sea ice formation temperature has no sensitivity to atmospheric CO2. So average surface temperature influence of CO2 around 0.003C – unmeasurable change.
The formation of the Level of Free Convection is only related to the atmospheric mass
the circulation also has to do with net radiation. Mass-density imposes a constraint on vertical instability.
At maximum intensity, the circulation is associated with the largest possible generation of available potential energy (pressure/temperature gradients), maximum conversion of mass to kinetic energy (air movement), and maximum dissipation of heat (entropy).
The thermo-dynamic process is a consequence of the instability (turbulence) created by differential solar heating (day-night gradients, equator-pole gradients), and vertical gradients (mass-density, and greenhouse enhanced instability).
It is the differential solar heating which create the non-equilibrium thermo-dynamics. The Earth is never heated evenly, and so it never dissipates heat evenly. Heat is dissipated in turbulent dynamic motions.
In the example of equator-to-pole differential solar input, both resulting extreme cases of: a) no heat transport produced, and b) infinite heat transport produced, would seem to be possible from a standpoint of equilibrium. While energetically feasible, any state between these extremes differs in the intensity of circulation, and therefore the non-equilibrium maximum state of heat dissipation.
These two extreme cases of atmospheric heat transport can be used to demonstrate the existence of a maximum in atmospheric circulation:
– with no dynamic heat transport, the equator–pole temperature gradient is at a maximum, but since no heat is transported, a minimum dissipation is produced (unphysical).
– at the other extreme, of very large heat transport, the temperature difference becomes very small between equator and pole, so that the conversion of heat occurs at roughly the same temperature, and again a minimum of dissipation is produced (unphysical).
Maximum dissipation requires the largest possible generation of available potential energy. Potential energy is only maximized with sufficiently large gradients.
In the case of no dynamic heat transport, no dissipation is produced. In the case of infinite heat transport, no gradients are produced. Both are unphysical.
Consequently, there is a maximum in dissipation for an ‘intermediate’ value of dynamic heat transport, resulting in an intermediate gradient between the tropics and the pole. This process results in a ‘maximum’ of dissipation and therefore the maximum state of circulation intensity.
Not infinite, merely m a x i m u m.
In reality, atmosphere operates across 3 spatial dimensions simultaneously: Equator-Pole gradients; Day-Night gradients, and Vertical gradients.
The atmospheric mass provides a constraining influence across all three domains.
I like this one, showing heat energy going into and out of storage on land and in the oceans.
November is the most telling month in my view. Notice how much heat is being released from over land. The land has very little heat storage capacity so that heat loss is primarily from ocean advection. The heat is about 50% latent heat of water being released so indicates precipitation and any land less than 0C will have snowfall.
The colouring indicates up to 50W/m^2 over NH land, which would correspond to an average of 1mm/day of water equivalent snowfall.
By December the heat loss from the land is nearer the oceans and by January only from regions close to water.
By January, almost all the land is giving off heat at 10W/m^2 even the SH. Northern Australia, the Congo and Amazon are into their wet season rain.
Steve Case
May 12, 2023 4:01 am
There’s been some discussion recently about making the skeptical argument simple enough for ordinary people to understand. Nomenclature for general consumption is an issue. w/m² or degrees Celsius? ppm or percent?
In the most recent article here at WUWT there’s this little exchange I’m thinking that most people understand percentages. Insisting on ppm and ppb just because it’s simple shorthand ignores the fact that it doesn’t paint a good picture.
NOAA says CO2 is currently 423.28 ppm which of course equals 0.0423% and NOAA also says Nitrous Oxide is currently 336.45 ppb and that’s 0.000033645%.
Displaying all the zeros isn’t a bad thing. It makes the point blindingly clear.
Knowing that nitrous oxide in on course to run-up a 0.064°C rise in global temperature in 100 years is much clearer than how many w/m² that is.
Nitrous oxide, like methane, has zero warming potential as their IR spectrum is entirely covered by that of water vapour which is variable but usually in the range of 20,000-40,000ppm (or 2-4% to put it in readily understood nomenclature).
There is no reason to fear climate change. The climate is always changing. It’s been warmer in the past and cooler in the past.There is no factual evidence that this time, it (climate change) is different.There are many reasons for climate change. Many are not well-understand and not all reasons are known.The amount of climate change from human activities is debatable. There is no evidence climate change is being driven by green house gas emissions.The best way to handle climate change is to adapt. Trying to prevent climate change is not only prohibitively costly and disruptive, it is a fool’s errand.There is no factual evidence of a climate crisis. It’s pure doomsday speculation.The supposed climate change crisis is based on faulty, unproven climate modelsWhile many computer models and simulations are useful, there is no evidence the computer climate models correctly replicate the behavior of the real-world global climate. There is an axiom — “All models are wrong, some models are useful.Computer models do not output data and facts. A computer model cannot prove anything. The alleged “97% consensus” is not just wrong, it’s a fabrication. It’s pure propaganda posing as science.Expert opinion is not science. Science is a means of understanding the world. Science is not a person or an institution. The scientific method is an essential process in how we learn about and understand the world.Science is based on facts and evidence. Science depends upon fact-based debate and exchange of ideas.When you listen to what the climate advocates says, it’s clear the movement is more about social engineering and political goals than it is about science. The activists don’t just want to stop using fossil fuels, the stated goals arelower consumption and reduce the standard of living for the average person,reduce populationprevent developing nations from improvingimplement social justice, racial justice, economic justice, environmental justice, etc.Create a Marxist-inspired global government that controls how we live, where we live, what we eat, what we own, etc. The rules of this new society will not apply to them or the elites, just the poor, the working class and the middle class.
“There is no reason to fear climate change. The climate is always changing. It’s been warmer in the past and cooler in the past.There is no factual evidence that this time, it (climate change) is different.”
Exactly right.
There is nothing unprecedented going on with Earth’s weather, despite all the scare stories from the climate alarmists. The numbers don’t lie, but the climate alarmists ignore the numbers/facts.
Of course, the climate alarmists must ignore the numbers/facts because they don’t support the climate alarmist CO2 climate crisis narrative.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing any changes in the Earth’s weather. None.
@Charles Ritter / Moderator — I replied to Steve Case and your site reformatted my numbered list. When I edited the list and updated/posted, my edit was flagged as spam.
Exactly why expressing the concentration of trace gas as a percentage with all of the zeros might just sink in for the ordinary guy who has better things to do than worry about the so called climate emergency.
Knowing that nitrous oxide in on course to run-up a 0.064°C rise in global temperature in 100 years is much clearer than how many w/m² that is.
It will not have any impact on surface temperature. Earth’s surface temperature is regulated at the extremes. Open ocean surface water CANNOT sustain a temperature over 30C. Ocean surface water does not exist below -1.7C. These are the two extremes.
Energy IN is regulated by the upper limit and energy OUT is regulated by the lower limit. The regulation precesses are very powerful so are the upper and lower bounds of ocean surface water temperature.
Ocean temperature limit of 30C is the most compelling argument that there can be no runaway global warming. ALL climate models fail this test.
Convection is by far the dominant process in Earth’s climate. Radiation is essential to powering the convective engine but has no bearing on the energy balance because convection regulates the upper temperature limit and sea ice formation the lower limit.
“Ocean temperature limit of 30C is the most compelling argument that there can be no runaway global warming. ALL climate models fail this test.”
That, and history, as there has been no runaway global warming in Earth’s history, even though CO2 was much higher in ancient times. And of course, your theory may explain why. 🙂
JohnC
May 12, 2023 4:05 am
This popped up on my Twitter feed, thoughts? Note that I am not against any vaccine including the covid ones.
I think that is just evidence that a broad range of people take an interest in those topic. Why shoudln’t everyone be interested even if they lack the expertise to frame their critiques expertly? And for sure many of them are either wrong, or right for the wrong reason—which is the same as wrong. That doesn’t in any way relieve the experts of mounting robust arguments that withstand all scrutiny.
A lot of engaged people having doubts doesn’t prove a thing.
And for the record I am pro-vax, pro-GMO, and skeptical to the bone on AGW.
I’m also not against the covid vaccine, but— a friend just emailed me saying he had covid recently despite having gotten 5 Covid vaccines— so I have some doubts- but as a septuagenarian, I thought it less risky to get the vaccines- have had no problem with them. Otherwise, that chart looks like a masterpiece of propaganda and I’m sure it’ll work with some simpletons.
I used other protocols than vaccines after heaving read a lot of negative papers about, got my cov, no problems, after 4 days it was completely over, no long cov, have a certificate of existing antibodies, for me it’s completely over.
That really not the newest news, more shots you got, more the chance to get Cov increases. The body is builiding the wrong antibodies, IgG4 – they don’t fight correctly the infection. That may even start with the second shot.
Published this morning: THE CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS 5 – ADDENDUM to 12May2023 Our Colleges of Physicians and government medical authorities could not be more wrong, or more corrupt. COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL SEND THIS SUMMARY AND LINK TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. This is the first Chapter of my free book about the Covid and Climate frauds. 15 million people have died worldwide to date from the toxic Covid-19 vaccines, excluding China, and that is continuing. Another ~one billion have been vaxx-injured and their fertility badly compromised. The toxic Covid-19 injections killed ~1.1 million Americans in 2021 and 2022, the same lost in all America’s wars back to 1776! Yes it’s real! I correctly called the Covid-19 scam in Feb2020, within the first month of its public existence and published on 21Mar2020: NO harmful Lockdowns! On 8Jan2021 I wrote government representatives and media and strongly advised: NO toxic “vaccines”! I estimate ~19 million Covid-19-vaxx-deaths by end 2023 – three Hitler-Holocausts, and it’s still won’t be over. Most people make predictions and hope to be correct, but are usually wrong. I make predictions and hope to be wrong, but to date have been correct. It’s a lot less than satisfying to say “Don’t do this, you’re going to kill millions of people!” and be correct, when nobody listens…
“I estimate ~19 million Covid-19-vaxx-deaths by end 2023 – three Hitler-Holocausts, and it’s still won’t be over.”
Well. We have pretty decent excess death statistics for many European countries. Perhaps you could say how many excess deaths you estimate to have occurred in (for instance) the UK, Scandinavia, Holland, France, Germany?
First, how many? And second, of the excess, how many you attribute to vaccination?
19 million and rising seems to me absurd given what I know of the numbers. It also seems absurd if you take a particular case. We have good stats on the UK. When you consider that just about all of the UK adult population has been vaccinated several times now, where are the excess deaths from it? If your numbers are anywhere close to being right the death rate should be so high it would be obvious. People would be dying all the time. They are not.
He’s pushes this obvious myth all the time. But you are right, even if the deaths from the vaccines was a fraction of what the “poor guy” is saying, it would be all over the news and impossible to hide. Sigh!!!!
In Feb2023 I calculated 13 million Covid-19-vaxx-caused deaths to end 2022 globally, excluding China. I used Alberta total deaths as my sample.
Weeks later, Denis Rancourt et al published a preprint based on Australian and Israeli total death data – they also calculated 13 million total deaths to end 2022.
I projected that total-vaxx-deaths would rise to 19 million by end 2023 at current rates, unless the vaxxed get treatment. That’s 500,000 per month.
For every vaxx-death, there are 10-100 vaxx-injuries. Covid-19 vaxx-injuries are NOT rare, and the total grows every day.
See my two books on the Covid and Climate scams at
CorrectPredictions.ca
Of course covid didn’t come from a virology lab in Wuhan. It wasn’t the result of gain-of-function research. Fauci didn’t skirt US law to fund it. The “vaccine” did stop you from getting covid. Masking schoolchildren did save millions of lives. It was the pandemic of the unvaccinated. The Hunter Biden laptop was not authentic. The Big Guy never took one cent from foreign governments.
A funny thing about a lot of these “conspiracy” theories—they keep turning out to be true.
Something I find interesting about that “chart” is that (in my experience) anti-vax (don’t consider covid vax skeptics) and anti-GMO tend to have notably different political leanings than “deniers”, and tend to be climate change believers. The opposite appears to hold as well.
I read that WUWT is difficult to find in search engines nowadays.
Years ago, I found WUWT by questioning the usual climate narrative. A search brought this site up easily….and I have learned much, enjoyed much. I love the comments and articles here. I find WUWT the most important and interesting part of my internet reading.
What is to be done? Is no one new ever to find WUWT?
Part of the problem may be the overall growth in climate crisis/change/warming/whatever in recent years. It’s not like Google prevents links from getting into their database. For example, https://www.google.com/search?q=oco-ii+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com brings up more about OCO-II, err, OCO-2, than I thought we have.
It’s worthwhile to post WUWT links in various conversations on social media.
Tom Abbott
May 12, 2023 5:26 am
CO2 has had no noticable effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
Tmax temperature charts from around the world show that temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as the temperatures today.
At the same time, CO2 concentrations have risen from about 280ppm to 420ppm today, yet the temperatures today are no warmer than the temperatures in the past. This means that CO2 is a minor player in the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate Change Alarmist claim that today we are experiencing the warmest temperatures in human history, but this is incorrect (actually a Big Lie) and Tmax temperature charts from all over the world demonstrate that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today and demonstrate that the Climate Change Alarmists are lying to you.
I’ll post a series of Tmax temperature charts from around the world to demonstrate the case.
Tmax temperature charts from around the world show that temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century
Why are you looking at Tmax. You need to look at minimums to find anomalies. Global warming is about anomalies. Greenland plateau in January has risen almost 10C over the past 70 years. That is serious “Global Warming”.
That’s what it is all about: Unprecedented High Temperatures.
The Climate Change Alarmists claim we are currently experiencing unprededented warmth today and they claim this unprecedented warmth is caused by CO2.
But, of course, the Tmax charts (actual temperature readings in these cases) show this claim by Climate Change Alarmists is untrue. It was, in fact, just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
There is no unprecedented warming today as the Climate Alarmists claim. Shatter this false reality they have created and the whole CAGW House of Cards comes down.
What I would love to see is an updating of these charts to bring them up to the present, and would like to see the charts start in 1850, instead of 1900, as they are here.
The reason for including 1850 is to highlight the warm temperatures that took place during the 1880’s, which Phil Jones shows to be just as warm as the 1930’s.
What such a chart would show is there are temperature highpoints spaced every few decades since the end of the Little Ice Age, the 1880’s, the 1930’s, 1998, and 2016, and all these highpoints are of a similar magnitude.
And CO2 has no noticeable effect on this cycle.
If I had the charting skills to do it myself, I would. But I don’t, so I would appeal to Bob Tisdale to help us out, if that’s possible. Or some other really good chartist like Bob could weigh in and replicate Bob’s work.
For as many countries as possible. 🙂
Joseph Zorzin
May 12, 2023 5:52 am
another image is needed- with that young lady (or trans) looking out over a vast area of wind turbines and get rid of the dam flowers- showing the wonderful future our saviors of the Climate Cult is bringing us
Let’s change the topic – let’s talk bugs. The wokesters and the government and the world economic forum want us off of meat. They instead are pushing eating bugs.How does the world produce enough bugs to feed the billions of people on the earth? And maybe they are just using bugs as a transition or whatever. Are they really thinking that they are going manufacture something and call it bugs? I find this topic weird.
All life on the planet is carbon based. There’s going to be little difference in the carbon content of a 8oz burger whether it’s made from beef or crickets, and both will be broken down into their constituents by digestive processes. Whether this occurs in a stomach or in the open air by bacteria is also irrelevant. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Pound for pound, insects already produce far more methane than cattle farming does. IPCC “scientists” are well aware of these facts, yet they continue to lie.
“Fritos with legs”. That sounds like the start of a Zombie/SciFi movie. “Fried Zombie bugs invade the Southern border of the US to take revenge on those who made them a Fast-Food takeout item!”
An EPA Death Sentence for Fossil-Fuel Power Plants
The Biden agency’s new rule means the end of natural gas-fueled electricity.
The proposed rule won’t make an iota of difference to the climate as China and India ramp up coal power. Even EPA’s CO2 emissions reduction estimate over the next two decades amounts to only a third of that between 2010 and 2019 as natural gas replaced coal.
If I was running a coal-fired or natural gas power plant, I would file a lawsuit against the EPA saying the EPA has no evidence CO2 is harmful or needs to be regulated and asking the Court to have EPA show their evidence for ruling CO2 as harmful.
There is no evidence CO2 is harmful. Electric generating companies are being punished for no good reason at all with regard to the climate.
Prove it, EPA! Governance by fiat is not proof.
Steve Oregon
May 12, 2023 7:40 am
You know about that lake is California reappearing in farm land.
It’s climate change.
Yep and the “United States now leads the world in climate catastrophes.”
NASA says the earth’s energy imbalance is a little less than 1 Wm-2, not nearly enough to warm things up much. But I got to wondering, what should the imbalance be? It shouldn’t be zero, because we need energy to keep the plants alive. Does anyone know what the imbalance should be?
I think there is some confusion here. An imbalance of 0 W/m2 means Earth is neither gaining nor losing energy. It is a steady-state with no long term cooling or warming; just the internal variation caused by ENSO and other cyclic processes. A imbalance of zero does not mean plants are not getting enough to stay alive.
An imbalance of 1 W/m2 is pretty large. It results in 1.0 W/m2 * 510e12 m2 * 365.24 day * 24 hr/day * 3600 s/hr = 16e18 kj of energy being retained each year. That is enough energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj * 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C. Fortunately most of that energy goes into the ocean which has a much higher thermal inertia. Only about 1% of the energy goes into the atmosphere which is equivalent to 3.1 C * 0.01 = 0.03 C of warming. Over 10 yr and 100 yr periods that would be 0.3 C and 3.0 C of warming respectively. An imbalance of 1 W/m2 is pretty significant.
Meanwhile, if the 30% cloud cover that Earth normally has (= water with emmissivity of unity) raised its temperature by that much (from 15°C to 18.1°C, it would radiate away an extra 8.1e19 kiloJoules per year ##
That’s a factor of 16 over what you ‘trapped’
(The remaining 70% of Earth would also radiate more but only has an emmissivity of about 0.02)
Now, does anyone see Any Significant Problem with Trapped Heat……
## That number is slightly familiar from somewhere:
I think it’s something like the power output from Starship Enterprise’s warp drive but also, the amount of energy inside your average hurricane.
Oh no, i see another problem with trapped heat.
If it causes any more than Just One Sixteenth of One Extra Hurricane per year, it will have a cooling effect on Earth
it would radiate away an extra 8.1e19 kiloJoules per year ##
That’s a factor of 16 over what you ‘trapped’
I’m not sure exactly how you arrived at that. But trapped energy is in units of joules. You’re 8.1e19 figure is in units of kj/yr. The units don’t match. Nevermind that whatever meaning you think you ascribing by comparing the amount of the total energy trapped over a period of time with the rate at which energy is shed via radiation would have to be carefully qualified. And if you are assuming the blackbody temperature of Earth is 15 C then you’re starting off with the wrong assumption since it is nowhere near that high. The assumption that the blackbody temperature would increase by 3.1 C is also wrong since the warming would not be vertically homogenous.
Now, does anyone see Any Significant Problem with Trapped Heat
No. There is nothing wrong with the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Perfectly matching TOA balance is a myth dreamed up by computationlists to rationalize their ideas.
The Earth will always oscillate around some thermodynamic steady state. All-the-while, it is conserving mass and energy.
Maybe it averages out to emission of “heat” and absorption of “heat” over a couple centuries, who really knows. There is no rule, and internal variations certainly cause it to sway. Only in our minds is that TOA radiation flux balance is supposed to be fixed.
It should be understood that in strict-equilibrium concepts there would be no turbulent flux, no latent flux, no rain, no cloud, no wind, no life.
It is a non-equilibrium steady state system.
It is a system of gradients driving mass transport and dissipation.
bdgwx still has not understood the implications non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is about local conservation of mass and energy, but about global-steady state mass and energy flux. He mis-applies the label 1LOT to describe energy balance. It is about the ins, the outs, the work, the dissipation, the consumption, and the transformations. In his mind I do not believe he is honoring his beloved 1LOT, as I do not believe he is truly conserving that energy in fluid dynamic dissipation.
Perfectly matching TOA balance is a myth dreamed up by computationlists to rationalize their ideas.
No one thinks it is actually perfectly matched. People often refer to it being perfectly matched to anchor discussions on idealized scenarios first. And if I’ve said this repeatedly. If you can’t understand an idealized scenario you will never understand the vastly more complicated real world.
The Earth will always oscillate around some thermodynamic steady state. All-the-while, it is conserving mass and energy.
Yep.
It should be understood that in strict-equilibrium concepts there would be no turbulent flux, no latent flux, no rain, no cloud, no wind, no life. It is a non-equilibrium steady state system.
I know. That is why I was careful to use the term steady-state so as not to be confused with the 0LOT.
bdgwx still has not understood the implications non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
I don’t know what this is in reference to. But we aren’t talking about the climate system being in thermodynamic equilibrium or otherwise so as best I can tell your statement in this regard has nothing to do with what Brock said above.
He mis-applies the label 1LOT to describe energy balance.
No, I didn’t. The 1LOT says in no uncertain terms that ΔU = Q – W or using a more familiar and applicable form here it is ΔE = Ein – Eout.
In his mind I do not believe he is honoring his beloved 1LOT, as I do not believe he is truly conserving that energy in fluid dynamic dissipation.
You know my position on the 1LOT. And if you’ve tracked my posts you know how beloved it is by me and scientists in general. So if you disagree that a 1 W/m2 imbalance necessarily means that the climate system accumulates 16e21 joules each year then it is you who is rejecting the 1LOT.
Water cycle overwhelms your annual joules before breakfast on any given tuesday. Total mass flux in mere seconds. It’s a wobbly system that plays by nobody’s idealized rules. Throw in human desiccation of 5 billion hectares and see what happens, oh wait…
My understanding is that the change in internal energy of a system is given by the energy exiting the system subtracted from the energy entering the system.
And that would be correct. How it partitions between sensible and latent heat determines whether and how much temperature changes.
Some heat may be sequestered for example if ice melts and charges an aquifer or flows into a lake there may be no temperature change but a lot of latent heat.
How certain can we be that the toa imbalance has been accurately measured over the entire atmosphere at all times of day and season? Can we prove that when integrated over the whole atmosphere over long periods of time, that there is truly an imbalance? Or could we be missing areas where there is a negative balance offsetting the apparent positive imbalance?
I don’t know the methodology for this measurement. Can we use satellites to directly measure insolation and upwelling IR at the same time?
Correct. The energy that accumulates due to a positive planetary energy imbalance can be dispatched to the air, ocean, land, and cryosphere. And it doesn’t dispatch homogenously or even in the same proportions with every moment of time.
The imbalance can be measured a few different of ways. The 2 most obvious are 1) via the 1LOT accounting of the energy change in the various heat reservoirs and 2) via direct radiation measurements from satellites. Here is an example of method #1. Here is an example of method #2. Here is where you can download the CERES measured imbalance in near real-time.
The energy that accumulates due to a positive planetary energy imbalance can be dispatched to the air, ocean, land, and cryosphere.
Written with great confidence and so little understanding.
It ASSUMES that the imbalance at ToA is causing the changes in heat retention. The ONLY way deep ocean heat can increase in decades is by the water cycle slowing down. It simple means it is not cooling as fast.
Steadily increasing ocean thermal expansion has been measured for more than 200years with reliable tide gauges and that rate is not accelerating. So the increasing heat retention has been occurring for a long time. And summer heat retention will continue in the northern oceans for a long time yet as the peak solar intensity moves northward.
That doesn’t fully address my question. I’m not trying to debate you here, but am asking a question about something that I don’t yet have a firm opinion on. What is the uncertainty on the “less than a watt per square meter”? Can you really reject the null hypothesis? (That there is no actual sustained imbalance, and the <1W/m^2 turns out to be measurement error or systematic error in the measurement methodology)
It seems to me that <1W/m^2 is a very small number in comparison to the total insolation. Furthermore (and I remain open to correction here) it seems like there is not a practical method to directly measure radiation in and out of the top of atmosphere across the whole spherical “surface” simultaneously over months and years, or even to sample it adequately to account for diurnal, seasonal, cloud-cover/weather effects with good confidence in the results.
As soon as we try to test the quality of our TOA energy balance estimate by attempting to estimate heat changes in various reservoirs are we not diving headlong into a quagmire of complexity requiring myriad assumptions and estimates and introducing even more uncertainty?
Schuckmann et al. 2020 say the insitu observation is +0.87 ± 0.12 W/m2 from 2010-2018. Loeb et al. 2021 say the satellite observation is 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m2 in 2019.
Ok so if we can replicate those studies and confirm those estimates, it would say that more energy is going in than out. So we can expect some warming. And for the most part we see some minor beneficial warming around an 1/8 degree per decade.
Remind me again how this is earth-shattering news? You don’t need to convince me that GHGs delay cooling and result in some warming.
It seems to me that <1W/m^2 is a very small number in comparison to the total insolation.
You are correct, and the total uncertainty of irradiance measured with thermopile instruments is ±3-4% at best. This translates to about ±6W/m2. The people who claim they know the magnitude of atmospheric energy imbalance averages are fooling themselves.
How certain can we be that the toa imbalance has been accurately measured
It is calibrated against the ocean heat uptake on the basis that all the ocean heat retention or uptake is instantaneously, in geological terms, the same as the ToA radiation imbalance. So essentially a meaningless number in absolute terms. Probably useful temporally and maybe spatially for comparison purposes.
Radiance is reliably measured but the broadband power flux is not. The angular distribution models used to determine the power flux are probably within 10W/m^2 0f actual power flux.
you then jump to conclusions about cause and effect. Such as attributing a temperature of 3.1 C, or that internal energy content can only be influenced by mechanisms involving radiation. This viewpoint requires ignoring the implications of 1st law.
Second…I’m not the one who brought the 1 W/m2 figure into the discussion in the first place. But I am the one trying to provide context about what such an imbalance is capable.
Third…the energy content of the planet can only be influenced by radiation because there is no interface between TOA and space for which conduction and convection can occur in any significant way.
JCM: This viewpoint requires ignoring the implications of 1st law.
Patently False. This viewpoint requires the acceptance of the 1LOT. When you have a 1 W/m2 imbalance it is necessarily the case that the planet accumulates 16e21 joules each year. That is not debatable. It is a direct application of the 1LOT.
I’m not saying that 1600e21 joules would necessarily result in the whole atmosphere warming 3.1 C. It won’t. What I’m saying is that 1% is all that is needed.
I’m not the one who brought the 1 W/m2 figure into the discussion in the first place. But I am the one trying to provide context about what such an imbalance is capable.
I see no distinction. If 1% is all that is needed to raise temperature you can have no excess to cause climate emergency conditions, such as excess wind or rain. If the conversion is perfectly efficient there is really no concern.
the energy content of the planet can only be influenced by radiation
It is like saying all that matters in the rate of digestion is the rate of ingestion and the rate of excretion. It is not what 1st law is about whatsoever.
This viewpoint requires the acceptance of the 1LOT
That is not in doubt. The trouble is you have not yet appreciated the full range of constraints. And so, it is very difficult to engage meaningfully with you.
16E21 is trivial compared to 24 hours with a SINGLE tropical storm in a SINGLE day.
The highest 24 hour rainfall recorded in the Indian Ocean is 1870mm. Put that over just 10km by 10km patch and the 24 hour energy release from the ocean surface is 38E21. More than twice what your assumed imbalance does in a WHOLE year. ONE storm, in ONE day over a tiny fraction of the area it will actually influence liberates more ocean heat than what is accumulated over a whole year.
RickWill: 16E21 is trivial compared to 24 hours with a SINGLE tropical storm in a SINGLE day.
That seems high. I counted 376 tropical-cyclone-days in 2022 globally. If each released 16e21 j in a single day that would be 376 * 16e21 j = 6e24 j. That’s more energy than the Earth absorbed in 2022. How much energy do you think is released by a tropical cyclone in a single day?
RickWill: Put that over just 10km by 10km patch and the 24 hour energy release from the ocean surface is 38E21.
That seems high. The latent energy is 1.9 m * 10000 m * 10000 m * 1000 kg/m3 * 2257000 j/kg = 4.3e17 j. And the gravitational energy is 1.9 m * 10000 m * 10000 m * 1000 kg/m3 * 9.8 m/s2 * 15000 m = 0.3e17 j. What other factors are you considering?
Your 4.3E17 is correct for a single day over 10kmX10km.
So take your 376 cyclone days and a more realistic cyclone area of 100km x100km and the annual cyclone energy is 15.78E21. Same as the annual ocean heat retention.
The power fluxes in storms like this are immense. The ocean will cool by 3C in its path. The total radiative imbalance over a day will be up to MINUS 100W/m^2 where average daily sunlight is up around 560W/m^2..
Reunion Island sets the record for daily rainfall of 1870mm. Do the sums on energy fluxes to liberate this water from an ocean surface and deposit it as high as 3300m in just 24 hours. This demonstrates the power of convection.
This is what convection can do when cyclic convection is not able to hold the 30C ocean surface temperature limit. Convection goes into overdrive.
No open ocean surface can sustain a temperature over 30C and immensely powerful forces can be called on to maintain that limit.
This is is your fundamental error. No one knows what the radiation imbalance is.
The 1W/m^2 is based on the wild assumption that the only imbalance causes ocean heating.
The whole idea is circular. The radiation imbalance is derived from ocean heat content. That is how the radiation instruments are ultimately calibrated. They have huge errors in deriving radiation flux from radiance measurements.
Maybe it averages out to emission of “heat” and absorption of “heat” over a couple centuries, who really knows.
I KNOW that there are long cycles of energy storage and dissipation.
There have been four cycles over the past 400,000 years where oceans dropped up to 120m and the average land elevation north of 40N gained 360m. So 4.3E16 tonne of water lifted over 1000m and stored as ice on land. That is a big gain in potential energy that was released in less than 20,000 years in each cycle.
Then there are the white cliffs of Dover that came from marine life that is still locking away energy. All the coal that is currently doing work for humans was stored in about 300M years.
No one knows what the radiative imbalance is. It relies entirely on the absolutely WILD assumptions that all the heat increase in the oceans over the past decades is due to radiation imbalance; all dissipative processes degrade to heat; there is no energy storage process and there is no geothermal heat input to the oceans..
RickWill: It relies entirely on the absolutely WILD assumptions that all the heat increase in the oceans over the past decades is due to radiation imbalance;
No it doesn’t.
RichWill: there is no energy storage process
Yes there is. And you can determine how much energy is stored in a reservoir via the simple equation ΔE = ΔT * m * c.
RichWill: there is no geothermal heat input to the oceans..
Yes there is. The global average heat input via geothermal is about 0.1 W/m2.
Yes there is. And you can determine how much energy is stored in a reservoir via the simple equation ΔE = ΔT * m * c.
This shows your myopic focus on only thermal energy. There are numerous other energy storage processes and dissipation of convective energy that does not degrade to heat. Like the 2000m high ice blocks at either end of the globe. That water was elevated from the oceans.
How much energy is coral locking up every year? The only aspect of coral mentioned is bleaching and yet coral is terra forming at a detectable rate.
Recent study found another 10,000 underwater volcanoes. How is your 0.1W/m^2 measured?
How much wind energy goes into physical changes. We see rock erosion along every coastline. And millions of tonnes of land shifted every year through wind and water.
The Schuckmann paper arrives at 0.47W/m^2 and it is 90% based on thermal heating of the ocean. It is truly trivial. The 358E21 Joules corresponds to less than 10 cyclone days over a period of almost 50 years.
RichWill: This shows your myopic focus on only thermal energy.
There is no myopic focus on my part. I haven’t even touched on the latent, gravitational, kinetic, etc. storage yet. Remember, I’m responding to the statement “there is no energy storage process”. Storage via a temperature increase is one such process.
RichWill: That water was elevated from the oceans.
Yep. Clearly another example of an energy storage process.
RichWill: How is your 0.1W/m^2 measured?
It’s not my figure. It comes from radiothermal and lunar dissipation. See Pollack et al. 1993 as but one example on how it is estimated.
RickWill: The 358E21 Joules corresponds to less than 10 cyclone days over a period of almost 50 years.
That would be 36e21 joules per cyclone-day. How many cyclone days do you think are in a typical year? How much total energy does Earth absorb in a year?
Energy goes as T to the fourth. This isn’t enough to do much of anything. And 25 years ago, give or take, the imbalance was zero. This meant that the energy the plants were using to grow was not available to warm the earth.
Fortunately most of that energy goes into the ocean which has a much higher thermal inertia.
Another wrong assumption used in climate models.
The water that entered the ocean abyssal circulation when JC was wearing short pants will see the light of day again this century. It takes centuries to millennia for heat to get to the deep ocean from the surface. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24648-x#Fig5
The only way that ocean heat can increase at depth in decades is through increasing evaporation. And that is occurring in the NH. As absorbed by increasing snowfall.
It is an assumption. So automatic that you do not even realise you are making an assumption. You are assuming the measured energy increase in the ocean is due to the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere – (that is simple how the radiative imbalance is arrived at so it is circular thinking). With heat entering from the surface and somehow getting down to 2000m in decades – physically impossible.
The oceans are retaining more heat primarily due to the NH summer water cycle slowing down. The thermocline is deepening as the summer evaporation slows down resulting in more heat being retained in the oceans. It is not energy coming in from the surface, which is what is assumed. The reduced rate of ocean cooling has resulted in higher ocean heat content.
RickWill: You are assuming the measured energy increase in the ocean is due to the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere
No. I am not. The energy increase in the ocean is measured from the temperature increase; not the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. In fact, you have it backwards. It is the measured energy increase in the ocean that helps us estimate the imbalance at the top of atmosphere.
the first 500 words of the Shuckmann 2020 conclusion is a pure political statement about “UN 2030 Agenda”, “Article 14 Paris Agreement”, and “UNFCC”. If you are unable to recognize that this is a political document then further discussion will be impossible.
First it is that OHC is not used to assess to EEI. Then it is political. If you don’t like Schuckmann et al. 2020 then refer to another source. But where is the goalpost going to move to next? Fraud and conspiracy?
funny how the downvotes show up just as you arrive, considering you don’t downvote. CONSPIRACY & FRAUD LOL policy based evidence making is neither fraud nor conspiracy. it is on full display for all to see and embedded right in the documents.
Along with many others here, joining the ranks of the skinny skins I see.. Even in this fawning fora you whine about the thumbs. I follow quite a few related sites and Its no wonder that, unlike both Nick Stokes and bdgwx, I have yet to see you post outside of subterranean WUWT.
“That is enough energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj * 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C.”
You appear to have 1 dimension of kg too many there, bdgwx. If the result is to come out in units of C, the kg dimensions should cancel; but they don’t and instead your calculation results in units of kg²C.
Nice catch. It should read 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj / 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C. I proof read that 3 times and still failed to spot the mix up of * and /. The calculation should be correct at least in so far as the assumption of 1000 j/kg.C for the specific heat capacity of air which is probably close enough for a first estimation.
The figure of 1W/m^2 is arrived at by measuring ocean temperature. There is a basic assumption that all energy input eventually degrades to heat.
The instruments used to infer radiative imbalance have errors upwards of 10W/m^2. Whereas ocean temperature can be measured to high accuracy and there are enough fixed and moving buoys to get some idea of the temperature trend.
Of course the basic failing in the assumption is that the heat input to the oceans is all due to CO2. That relies on the assumption that climate change did not exist before humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top of the at-mosphere which is driving global warming
The whole reason for its being is the assumption all the measured thermal energy uptake is caused by CO2.
This is the reason the work got funding. If they came out and said it was due to slowing down of the water cycle, unrelated to CO2, it would not have got funding.
RickWill: The whole reason for its being is the assumption all the measured thermal energy uptake is caused by CO2.
Now read the rest of the paper. At no time did the authors use CO2 or knowledge of CO2’s influence on the climate system to assess the EEI.
RickWill: This is the reason the work got funding. If they came out and said it was due to slowing down of the water cycle, unrelated to CO2, it would not have got funding.
Goalpost move. First, it wasn’t right because “the assumption is that the heat input to the oceans is all due to CO2.” Now it is because of the funding. Except funding is not one of the inputs into how EEI was determined either. Is your next goalpost move going to be fraud and conspiracy?
n.n
May 12, 2023 1:21 pm
Environmentalism is a first-order forcing of labor and environmental arbitrage, and in first-world nations the performance of human rites for fair weather progress.
Gunga Din
May 12, 2023 1:58 pm
Open Thread so …
In American football, when a team gets a first down, the announcers then say things like 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 13 depending on the results of the 1st down play. But if they get a 1st down within 10yards of the goal the announcers then starts saying 2nd and goal, 3rd and goal etc.
Sacks and/or penalties might back them up 20 or more yards but they’ll still say “2nd and goal”.
Why don’t they say 3rd and 25 to goal?
When inside the 10-yard line, with a first down, the only way you can go is to get a touchdown or a field goal within the four plays allowed. So any play they run is 2nd and goal, or third and goal, or fourth and goal and it doesn’t matter if in a previous down you lost 50 yards on a busted play, you still have to reach the goalline or kick a field goal within four downs, or you lose the ball.
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political action committee has passed thousands of dollars to an environmental organization funding disruptive climate protest groups, records reviewed by Fox News Digital show.
Courage to Change, the New York Democrat’s PAC, directed a $9,000 donation to the Los Angeles-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) in the fall of 2021, according to federal filings. The CEF finances far-left groups worldwide that undertake radical tactics to draw attention to what they say is a rapidly warming planet on the brink of destruction if aggressive policies are not pursued.”
*****************
CEF is, according to the Fox News story, funneling money to the Just Stop Oil group in the UK so they can block traffic on British roadways and throw soup on priceless Van Gogh works of art.
It looks like AOC and her PAC are setting themselves up for some legal action from people who might be harmed by the strong-arm tactics AOC is advocating and financing.
Let’s say someone has a relative that is very sick and needs to be transported to a hospital immediately, but the ambulance is held up for too long in backed-up traffic caused by AOC-financed radicals blocking the streets.
If my relative suffered adverse effects from the delay in arriving at the hospital, I would sue AOC for being the cause and ask for damages.
An interesting argument Tom. It would be nice to see it actually happen. It is difficult to say though if any such legal action would actually get anywhere.
bdgwx
May 13, 2023 7:53 pm
My mid-May expectation for UAH TLT for 2023/05 is 0.20 ± 0.24 C. Using the typical 4 month lag for ENSO the month of May is still being influenced by a La Nina with an ONI of -0.7 from January.
I’m (still) watching the progress of these two with great interest.
Money might be a bit tight though: £4,135 raised of £150,000 goal.
Electric cars have a niche, but road trips to Yellow Stone or Pole to Pole isn’t it.
Their perfect niche is…. the humble milk float. They did work as intended.
Must be a funny joke. Paint me dense, I don’t get it.
Well, if you insist…. you are really dense, mate…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float
“They are very quiet, suiting operations in residential areas during the early hours of the morning or during the night.”
Just another example of how the UK and the USA are divided by a common language, strativarius.
The term milk float is unknown in the US. It’s a milk truck.
Adding to our Yank confusion is the concept of the milkshake and the (usually rootbeer) float, two milk & ice cream beverages
“ divided by a common language”
One speaks English and the other speaks Jive.
Tut tut Strat! You don’t need to be so self-deprecating! Or my bad, maybe you think Jive is good. Who am I to judge? Oftentimes you cousins are entirely comprehensible to me. Well, it helps to know a lot of foreign languages of course. 😝
I’ll bet you live in one of those cities named after one of our great American towns, am I right?
Is there a Tooting in the US?
There’s a crater on Mars by that name
NB Ye olde English… Totinge
No, I don’t believe there is a Tooting anywhere in the US.
Commendable originality. One of the few British place names not stolen from us. Think of Boston, Worcester, Manchester, Plymouth, Weymouth, Newark, Coventry, Windsor, Bristol, Bolton, and so many others! Even Lincoln, named for our great president. Curiously you seem to have a York and a Jersey but have dropped the “New”. A bit inconsistent but you are an eccentric lot, aren’t you?
The only thing you took was the Puritans
Thanks!
it’s the Puritan mindset that gives us climate lunatics
If so, it seems we didn’t get the bulk of them, since the UK has far more than its fair share of climate lunatics.
One might even use the same definition (paraphrasing); what’s old is new again!
“Climate Activist” – One who lives in the paralyzing fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.
I first became aware of Great Britain’s Tooting via the estimable Benny Hill. The reference comes within the first few seconds of this skit. I saw it back in 1976, and never forgot it – only recently did I find it on YouTube.
Okay, let’s try this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9k_eq2I0Ng&list=PLD2A7FasiyZp9ywFomdics09x6plBvA8p&index=1&pp=gAQBiAQB
which is why I watch a great YouTube channel “Lost in the Pond”
https://www.youtube.com/@LostinthePond/videos
a Brit who likes to discuss our cultural differences
good light entertainment
his motto is “I’m on a quest to uncover all of the memos that Britain and America Lost in the Pond.”
A lot of it is biblical stuff like ‘slain’ etc
I trow not.
My favourite Jive words are perambulator, paracetamol, and codswallop.
They are very cagey about how they were charging it. There’s a few stills showing them plugged in at Nissan dealers once they got south of Fort McMurray. But loads of people own and operate electric vehicles that far south. Big woop.
The implied significance of their jolly was surely to demostrate EVs are practical in remote regions, like the Arctic.
I predict they will continue to use commercial charging points as long as they can, then revert to whatever mystery power source they were using in the North, and will finally declare victory. And so long as nobody pulls at the loose threads, so it will be.
From their own web site:
So, c’mon guys; spill. What’s the innovative solution? Because that’s the only important part of this crowd-sourced jolly.
Oh silly me. There will be a solar panel and a pinwheel attached to the diesel generator that will “augment” the power generated by the diesel.
Kind of like hanging a St Christopher medal off the rearview mirror.
It’s this new thing called a generator. Powered by gasoline, diesel fuel, or propane.
A niche, a notch, in fact, diverse notches, in asphalt roadways.
Strange, they don’t show the diesel generator and the fuel tank trailer.
It can be done.
Batteries don’t hold power in the cold, and won’t even charge properly. So I would suggest establishing heated charging stations at some point inside the Arctic/Antarctic circles, together with a heavy-lift helicopter which can ship pre-heated batteries to the car on its route.
No night-time driving, of course. Each day starts with a helicopter delivery, followed by a rapid drive for as long as the battery lasts. I suspect somewhere between 20-100 miles. Then camp and wait for the next drop….
AFAIK, in Northern Scandinavia they have heating systems in the streets, certainly it’s not difficult to add chargers.
For this proof of concept, the helicopters will still use fossil fuels,!but in the future they’ll be battery powered of course. Just as soon as the commercial fusion reactors are on line.
And all the support vehicles will be fossil-fueled as well, safety will demand this.
I also suspect that the electric vehicle will need to stay in a heated tent overnight. How they will stay warm in the cab is beyond me…
Brenda and her forebears had a deal with Parliament; the monarch stays totally apolitical – above politics if you like – and Parliament leaves them alone to manage ‘the firm’.
Big Ears has now been officially installed as the new Parliamentary bauble – at an estimated cost to the tax payer of ~£100 million. Can he keep his end of the bargain? He’s had over 50 years to meddle in democratic affairs – he has become known as the black spider on account of the letters he sends to ministers etc seeking to influence and lobby.
“Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes”
…used a secretive procedure to vet three parliamentary acts that have prevented residents on Prince Charles’ estate from buying their own homes for decades
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes
The Chelsea barracks fiasco: The site owned by Qatar had plans and planning permission to start construction. But Charles didn’t like it and set out to overturn the democratic decision taken by the council.
“The Chelsea barracks case has offered a rare glimpse into the otherwise secret strategies used by the Prince of Wales when he wants to interfere in public affairs.
…
…the prince’s tactics may seem familiar. For almost three decades Charles has developed a reputation as, in his own words, “a meddling prince” who has waded into issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture.
Given the inherently political nature of such topics, the prince has established a network of 20 charities as a key tactic for circumventing the convention that the royal family, especially the heir to the throne, should stay neutral. Some people have complained that they push the prince’s beliefs much too aggressively.
…
One of Charles’s most active charities has been the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, which promotes his belief in more traditional forms of architecture and planning. In the Chelsea barracks case, the court heard how the prince, the charity’s president, encouraged the Qatari royal family to use his charity to make alternative plans.
Recent history shows the same charity also helped carry out the prince’s campaigns against other developments. It became involved in the redevelopment of Smithfield Market after Charles declared himself “confused and bewildered” by earlier plans and wrote about his worries to the then-chairman of English Heritage, a government body that advises on which historic buildings to protect.
Charles also offered the charity as an adviser to Francis Salway, the chief executive of Land Securities, one of the biggest developers in London, when he objected to the modernist design of its office scheme beside St Paul’s Cathedral.
In the controversial area of complementary medicine, the now defunct Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health became involved in trying to change government policy. The charity was paid £1.1m by the Department of Health to advise on the regulation of massage, aromatherapy, reflexology and other complementary therapies as Prince Charles personally lobbied health ministers to use the treatments across the NHS.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/25/chelsea-barracks-trial-prince-charles
You can bet your bottom dollar that there has been an awful lot of meddling by Big Ears that we don’t know about.
I’m betting he won’t be able to resist…
“This green doomerism was most likely passed down from his father, the Duke of Edinburgh. A sometime president of the World Wildlife Fund, Prince Philip had long been an ardent conservationist, and had frequently complained that there were too many people on the planet. In 2009, he even said that he would like to be reincarnated ‘as a deadly virus’ so as ‘to contribute something to solving overpopulation’.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/07/king-charles-a-reactionary-ruler-2/
I managed to avoid watching a single second of Coronation video. Will continue ignoring Old Jug Ears going forward.
I avoided the installation of the bauble, entirely.
You know, Strat, I have been a monarchist all my life and have defended the monarchy against those who would have them abolished.
Lillebeth was an incredible queen who served her subjects well.
In comparison, Charlie really is the tampon he longs to be.
The Queen is dead, long live the Republic
I found an interesting web page with animated month-by-month climatology visualizations based on the ERA5 reanalysis, for the period 1991-2020.
https://pjbartlein.github.io/UOCWC/globalclimate.html
I like this one, showing heat energy going into and out of storage on land and in the oceans.
https://pages.uoregon.edu/bartlein/maps/globe/sghf_globe_1991-2020_ltm/sghf_globe_1991-2020_ltm.html
(Blue is gaining heat; brown is losing heat.)
To me, this helps demonstrate why the reported warming trend on land and in the oceans cannot be reliably attributed to slow increases of non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere. There is just way too much gain and loss going on naturally over the annual cycles to ever expect to isolate the GHG effect, as though its tiny residual can be identified within the much larger response to the annual cycles of absorbed energy from the sun.
“There is just way too much gain and loss going on naturally over the annual cycles to ever expect to isolate the GHG effect, as though its tiny residual can be identified within the much larger response to the annual cycles of absorbed energy from the sun.”
Climate Change Alarmists have not been able to isolate the GHG effect in all these years (decades) of trying, and I think it is because of just what you say.
Yet, the Climate Change Alarmists claim all or most of the temperature increase in the satellite era (1979 to present) is caused by CO2.
We have a disconnect here. Climate Change Alarmists are disconnected from reality. They are making claims they can’t back up with facts. This is Alarmist Climate Science for you.
Atmosphere is a turbulent condensing fluid always working at the maximum rate of dissipation. Minor variations to LW optical depth can only result in minor changes to instability (intensity of turbulent motions and phase change).
The formation of the Level of Free Convection is only related to the atmospheric mass apart from all the properties that water contributes to the formation of the LFC. The ocean surface temperature limit increases by 1C for every 5% increase in atmospheric mass. Doubling CO2 from 285ppm will increase the ocean maximum temperature by 0.006C. The sea ice formation temperature has no sensitivity to atmospheric CO2. So average surface temperature influence of CO2 around 0.003C – unmeasurable change.
Hi RickWill
the circulation also has to do with net radiation. Mass-density imposes a constraint on vertical instability.
At maximum intensity, the circulation is associated with the largest possible generation of available potential energy (pressure/temperature gradients), maximum conversion of mass to kinetic energy (air movement), and maximum dissipation of heat (entropy).
The thermo-dynamic process is a consequence of the instability (turbulence) created by differential solar heating (day-night gradients, equator-pole gradients), and vertical gradients (mass-density, and greenhouse enhanced instability).
It is the differential solar heating which create the non-equilibrium thermo-dynamics. The Earth is never heated evenly, and so it never dissipates heat evenly. Heat is dissipated in turbulent dynamic motions.
In the example of equator-to-pole differential solar input, both resulting extreme cases of: a) no heat transport produced, and b) infinite heat transport produced, would seem to be possible from a standpoint of equilibrium. While energetically feasible, any state between these extremes differs in the intensity of circulation, and therefore the non-equilibrium maximum state of heat dissipation.
These two extreme cases of atmospheric heat transport can be used to demonstrate the existence of a maximum in atmospheric circulation:
– with no dynamic heat transport, the equator–pole temperature gradient is at a maximum, but since no heat is transported, a minimum dissipation is produced (unphysical).
– at the other extreme, of very large heat transport, the temperature difference becomes very small between equator and pole, so that the conversion of heat occurs at roughly the same temperature, and again a minimum of dissipation is produced (unphysical).
Maximum dissipation requires the largest possible generation of available potential energy. Potential energy is only maximized with sufficiently large gradients.
In the case of no dynamic heat transport, no dissipation is produced. In the case of infinite heat transport, no gradients are produced. Both are unphysical.
Consequently, there is a maximum in dissipation for an ‘intermediate’ value of dynamic heat transport, resulting in an intermediate gradient between the tropics and the pole. This process results in a ‘maximum’ of dissipation and therefore the maximum state of circulation intensity.
Not infinite, merely m a x i m u m.
In reality, atmosphere operates across 3 spatial dimensions simultaneously: Equator-Pole gradients; Day-Night gradients, and Vertical gradients.
The atmospheric mass provides a constraining influence across all three domains.
The altitude of the LFC is all that matters to limiting ocean temperature to 30C. If there is a temperature limit then no more energy can be taken up.
A good example of the Indian Ocean convection hitting overdrive as the temperature overshoots the 30C sustainable limit;
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-275.52,10.02,1047/loc=89.840,14.684
If the maximum temperature is limited then the energy uptake is limited. The rest is fiddling at the fringes in how the heat gets distributed.
November is the most telling month in my view. Notice how much heat is being released from over land. The land has very little heat storage capacity so that heat loss is primarily from ocean advection. The heat is about 50% latent heat of water being released so indicates precipitation and any land less than 0C will have snowfall.
The colouring indicates up to 50W/m^2 over NH land, which would correspond to an average of 1mm/day of water equivalent snowfall.
By December the heat loss from the land is nearer the oceans and by January only from regions close to water.
By January, almost all the land is giving off heat at 10W/m^2 even the SH. Northern Australia, the Congo and Amazon are into their wet season rain.
There’s been some discussion recently about making the skeptical argument simple enough for ordinary people to understand. Nomenclature for general consumption is an issue. w/m² or degrees Celsius? ppm or percent?
In the most recent article here at WUWT there’s this little exchange I’m thinking that most people understand percentages. Insisting on ppm and ppb just because it’s simple shorthand ignores the fact that it doesn’t paint a good picture.
NOAA says CO2 is currently 423.28 ppm which of course equals 0.0423% and NOAA also says Nitrous Oxide is currently 336.45 ppb and that’s 0.000033645%.
Displaying all the zeros isn’t a bad thing. It makes the point blindingly clear.
Knowing that nitrous oxide in on course to run-up a 0.064°C rise in global temperature in 100 years is much clearer than how many w/m² that is.
NOAA treats significant figures incorrectly like a high school student with a calculator might.
Excellent suggestion. I wonder why the Climastrogists don’t talk about those tiny numbers? The question answers itself.
“0.064°C rise in global temperature in 100 years”
wow, now that I know that I’m in panic mode!
Nitrous oxide, like methane, has zero warming potential as their IR spectrum is entirely covered by that of water vapour which is variable but usually in the range of 20,000-40,000ppm (or 2-4% to put it in readily understood nomenclature).
Simple arguments
There is no reason to fear climate change. The climate is always changing. It’s been warmer in the past and cooler in the past.There is no factual evidence that this time, it (climate change) is different.There are many reasons for climate change. Many are not well-understand and not all reasons are known.The amount of climate change from human activities is debatable. There is no evidence climate change is being driven by green house gas emissions.The best way to handle climate change is to adapt. Trying to prevent climate change is not only prohibitively costly and disruptive, it is a fool’s errand.There is no factual evidence of a climate crisis. It’s pure doomsday speculation.The supposed climate change crisis is based on faulty, unproven climate modelsWhile many computer models and simulations are useful, there is no evidence the computer climate models correctly replicate the behavior of the real-world global climate. There is an axiom — “All models are wrong, some models are useful.Computer models do not output data and facts. A computer model cannot prove anything. The alleged “97% consensus” is not just wrong, it’s a fabrication. It’s pure propaganda posing as science.Expert opinion is not science. Science is a means of understanding the world. Science is not a person or an institution. The scientific method is an essential process in how we learn about and understand the world.Science is based on facts and evidence. Science depends upon fact-based debate and exchange of ideas.When you listen to what the climate advocates says, it’s clear the movement is more about social engineering and political goals than it is about science. The activists don’t just want to stop using fossil fuels, the stated goals arelower consumption and reduce the standard of living for the average person,reduce populationprevent developing nations from improvingimplement social justice, racial justice, economic justice, environmental justice, etc.Create a Marxist-inspired global government that controls how we live, where we live, what we eat, what we own, etc. The rules of this new society will not apply to them or the elites, just the poor, the working class and the middle class.
This is a numbered list. The formatting got mangled, badly. Lesson learned — do your own numbering.
“There is no reason to fear climate change. The climate is always changing. It’s been warmer in the past and cooler in the past.There is no factual evidence that this time, it (climate change) is different.”
Exactly right.
There is nothing unprecedented going on with Earth’s weather, despite all the scare stories from the climate alarmists. The numbers don’t lie, but the climate alarmists ignore the numbers/facts.
Of course, the climate alarmists must ignore the numbers/facts because they don’t support the climate alarmist CO2 climate crisis narrative.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing any changes in the Earth’s weather. None.
To the extent it does (no evidence of that) it’s an *improvement* to the weather.
Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the weather has improved somewhat, in the case of tornadoes, significantly.
@Charles Ritter / Moderator — I replied to Steve Case and your site reformatted my numbered list. When I edited the list and updated/posted, my edit was flagged as spam.
Would you look at both issues, please?
How many of the general public see “parts per billion” and think it’s MORE than “parts per million”?
Don’t forget, A&W’s “third pound burger” failed because people thought it was SMALLER than McDonald’s Quarter Pounder.
Exactly why expressing the concentration of trace gas as a percentage with all of the zeros might just sink in for the ordinary guy who has better things to do than worry about the so called climate emergency.
It will not have any impact on surface temperature. Earth’s surface temperature is regulated at the extremes. Open ocean surface water CANNOT sustain a temperature over 30C. Ocean surface water does not exist below -1.7C. These are the two extremes.
Energy IN is regulated by the upper limit and energy OUT is regulated by the lower limit. The regulation precesses are very powerful so are the upper and lower bounds of ocean surface water temperature.
Ocean temperature limit of 30C is the most compelling argument that there can be no runaway global warming. ALL climate models fail this test.
This is the month that the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal go into temperature regulating mode as the surface temperature overshoots the 30C limit.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-275.52,10.02,365/loc=89.225,16.268
When cyclic convective instability is not enough to pull back to 30C, The more intense convective storms do the job:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-275.52,10.02,1047/loc=89.840,14.684
Convection is by far the dominant process in Earth’s climate. Radiation is essential to powering the convective engine but has no bearing on the energy balance because convection regulates the upper temperature limit and sea ice formation the lower limit.
“Ocean temperature limit of 30C is the most compelling argument that there can be no runaway global warming. ALL climate models fail this test.”
That, and history, as there has been no runaway global warming in Earth’s history, even though CO2 was much higher in ancient times. And of course, your theory may explain why. 🙂
This popped up on my Twitter feed, thoughts? Note that I am not against any vaccine including the covid ones.
I think that is just evidence that a broad range of people take an interest in those topic. Why shoudln’t everyone be interested even if they lack the expertise to frame their critiques expertly? And for sure many of them are either wrong, or right for the wrong reason—which is the same as wrong. That doesn’t in any way relieve the experts of mounting robust arguments that withstand all scrutiny.
A lot of engaged people having doubts doesn’t prove a thing.
And for the record I am pro-vax, pro-GMO, and skeptical to the bone on AGW.
How can one even be pro vax?
Are you pro drugs?
It isn’t a thing!
I might need to reconsider my position on GMO’s.
there’s probably 4 chances in a billion that they’ll hurt you 🙂
I’m also not against the covid vaccine, but— a friend just emailed me saying he had covid recently despite having gotten 5 Covid vaccines— so I have some doubts- but as a septuagenarian, I thought it less risky to get the vaccines- have had no problem with them. Otherwise, that chart looks like a masterpiece of propaganda and I’m sure it’ll work with some simpletons.
I used other protocols than vaccines after heaving read a lot of negative papers about, got my cov, no problems, after 4 days it was completely over, no long cov, have a certificate of existing antibodies, for me it’s completely over.
That really not the newest news, more shots you got, more the chance to get Cov increases. The body is builiding the wrong antibodies, IgG4 – they don’t fight correctly the infection. That may even start with the second shot.
Published this morning:
THE CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS 5 – ADDENDUM to 12May2023
Our Colleges of Physicians and government medical authorities could not be more wrong, or more corrupt.
COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL
SEND THIS SUMMARY AND LINK TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
This is the first Chapter of my free book about the Covid and Climate frauds.
15 million people have died worldwide to date from the toxic Covid-19 vaccines, excluding China, and that is continuing.
Another ~one billion have been vaxx-injured and their fertility badly compromised.
The toxic Covid-19 injections killed ~1.1 million Americans in 2021 and 2022, the same lost in all America’s wars back to 1776! Yes it’s real!
I correctly called the Covid-19 scam in Feb2020, within the first month of its public existence and published on 21Mar2020: NO harmful Lockdowns!
On 8Jan2021 I wrote government representatives and media and strongly advised: NO toxic “vaccines”!
I estimate ~19 million Covid-19-vaxx-deaths by end 2023 – three Hitler-Holocausts, and it’s still won’t be over.
Most people make predictions and hope to be correct, but are usually wrong.
I make predictions and hope to be wrong, but to date have been correct.
It’s a lot less than satisfying to say “Don’t do this, you’re going to kill millions of people!” and be correct, when nobody listens…
“I estimate ~19 million Covid-19-vaxx-deaths by end 2023 – three Hitler-Holocausts, and it’s still won’t be over.”
Well. We have pretty decent excess death statistics for many European countries. Perhaps you could say how many excess deaths you estimate to have occurred in (for instance) the UK, Scandinavia, Holland, France, Germany?
First, how many? And second, of the excess, how many you attribute to vaccination?
19 million and rising seems to me absurd given what I know of the numbers. It also seems absurd if you take a particular case. We have good stats on the UK. When you consider that just about all of the UK adult population has been vaccinated several times now, where are the excess deaths from it? If your numbers are anywhere close to being right the death rate should be so high it would be obvious. People would be dying all the time. They are not.
He’s pushes this obvious myth all the time. But you are right, even if the deaths from the vaccines was a fraction of what the “poor guy” is saying, it would be all over the news and impossible to hide. Sigh!!!!
Michel and Simon:
In Feb2023 I calculated 13 million Covid-19-vaxx-caused deaths to end 2022 globally, excluding China. I used Alberta total deaths as my sample.
Weeks later, Denis Rancourt et al published a preprint based on Australian and Israeli total death data – they also calculated 13 million total deaths to end 2022.
I projected that total-vaxx-deaths would rise to 19 million by end 2023 at current rates, unless the vaxxed get treatment. That’s 500,000 per month.
For every vaxx-death, there are 10-100 vaxx-injuries. Covid-19 vaxx-injuries are NOT rare, and the total grows every day.
See my two books on the Covid and Climate scams at
CorrectPredictions.ca
Bhakdi/Burkhardt pathology results show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine (substack.com)
So, where are all these excess deaths? I can see the peak caused by unvaccinated Covid. Where are the vaccination ones?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131428/excess-deaths-in-england-and-wales/
Michel and Simon, I think I may have found the source of your cognitive problems.
How many times were you vaxxed?
Table 5 of LANCET publication by Rosenblum et al. indicates that up to one-third of persons taking mRNA technology (Moderna/Pfizer) based COVID vaccines cannot work or perform normal activities
they are incapacitated at levels far greater, appreciably so, than for other vaccines and so why has the media and medical establishment, physicians, not told people taking the shots of this problem?
Dr. Paul Alexander
May 13 2023
Read a paper yesterday at Nature about increased macular degeneration from the MRNA vax.
Risk assessment of retinal vascular occlusion after COVID-19 vaccination | npj Vaccines (nature.com)
Yes, seems like a properly done study. The risk appears to have been very low in the population, but was doubled in the vaccinated group.
Of course covid didn’t come from a virology lab in Wuhan. It wasn’t the result of gain-of-function research. Fauci didn’t skirt US law to fund it. The “vaccine” did stop you from getting covid. Masking schoolchildren did save millions of lives. It was the pandemic of the unvaccinated. The Hunter Biden laptop was not authentic. The Big Guy never took one cent from foreign governments.
A funny thing about a lot of these “conspiracy” theories—they keep turning out to be true.
Not one conspiracy theory about covid turned out to be wrong.
Something I find interesting about that “chart” is that (in my experience) anti-vax (don’t consider covid vax skeptics) and anti-GMO tend to have notably different political leanings than “deniers”, and tend to be climate change believers. The opposite appears to hold as well.
I’m only a climate denier so I guess I need to up the anti 🤣🤣🤣
Video evidence is good for proving that measles was a joking matter before Big Medical took over Hollywood.
Powder in the Colorado high country.
https://www.cotrip.org/camera/597/@-105.79405,39.79284,13?show=normalCameras,roadWork,winterDriving,roadReports,weatherWarnings#camera/597/4179955895
I read that WUWT is difficult to find in search engines nowadays.
Years ago, I found WUWT by questioning the usual climate narrative. A search brought this site up easily….and I have learned much, enjoyed much. I love the comments and articles here. I find WUWT the most important and interesting part of my internet reading.
What is to be done? Is no one new ever to find WUWT?
Part of the problem may be the overall growth in climate crisis/change/warming/whatever in recent years. It’s not like Google prevents links from getting into their database. For example, https://www.google.com/search?q=oco-ii+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com brings up more about OCO-II, err, OCO-2, than I thought we have.
Despite hearing very little about OCO-2 lately, there seems to be a lot of competing pages, see https://www.google.com/search?q=oco-2+climate+co2+mapping
It’s worthwhile to post WUWT links in various conversations on social media.
CO2 has had no noticable effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
Tmax temperature charts from around the world show that temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as the temperatures today.
At the same time, CO2 concentrations have risen from about 280ppm to 420ppm today, yet the temperatures today are no warmer than the temperatures in the past. This means that CO2 is a minor player in the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate Change Alarmist claim that today we are experiencing the warmest temperatures in human history, but this is incorrect (actually a Big Lie) and Tmax temperature charts from all over the world demonstrate that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today and demonstrate that the Climate Change Alarmists are lying to you.
I’ll post a series of Tmax temperature charts from around the world to demonstrate the case.
Here is the U.S. Tmax chart for starters:
China
resize=640%2C542
India
resize=640%2C542
Pakistan
resize=640%2C542
Bangladesh
Australia
resize=640%2C542
Norway
resize=640%2C542
Why are you looking at Tmax. You need to look at minimums to find anomalies. Global warming is about anomalies. Greenland plateau in January has risen almost 10C over the past 70 years. That is serious “Global Warming”.
“Why are you looking at Tmax.”
That’s what it is all about: Unprecedented High Temperatures.
The Climate Change Alarmists claim we are currently experiencing unprededented warmth today and they claim this unprecedented warmth is caused by CO2.
But, of course, the Tmax charts (actual temperature readings in these cases) show this claim by Climate Change Alarmists is untrue. It was, in fact, just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
There is no unprecedented warming today as the Climate Alarmists claim. Shatter this false reality they have created and the whole CAGW House of Cards comes down.
What I would love to see is an updating of these charts to bring them up to the present, and would like to see the charts start in 1850, instead of 1900, as they are here.
The reason for including 1850 is to highlight the warm temperatures that took place during the 1880’s, which Phil Jones shows to be just as warm as the 1930’s.
What such a chart would show is there are temperature highpoints spaced every few decades since the end of the Little Ice Age, the 1880’s, the 1930’s, 1998, and 2016, and all these highpoints are of a similar magnitude.
And CO2 has no noticeable effect on this cycle.
If I had the charting skills to do it myself, I would. But I don’t, so I would appeal to Bob Tisdale to help us out, if that’s possible. Or some other really good chartist like Bob could weigh in and replicate Bob’s work.
For as many countries as possible. 🙂
another image is needed- with that young lady (or trans) looking out over a vast area of wind turbines and get rid of the dam flowers- showing the wonderful future our saviors of the Climate Cult is bringing us
Something like that ?
or that ?
Madness!
Let’s change the topic – let’s talk bugs. The wokesters and the government and the world economic forum want us off of meat. They instead are pushing eating bugs.How does the world produce enough bugs to feed the billions of people on the earth? And maybe they are just using bugs as a transition or whatever. Are they really thinking that they are going manufacture something and call it bugs? I find this topic weird.
Lobsters look like bugs. I’ll eat ’em instead of steak if it helps the planet. (You’re welcome Greta.)
All life on the planet is carbon based. There’s going to be little difference in the carbon content of a 8oz burger whether it’s made from beef or crickets, and both will be broken down into their constituents by digestive processes. Whether this occurs in a stomach or in the open air by bacteria is also irrelevant. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Pound for pound, insects already produce far more methane than cattle farming does. IPCC “scientists” are well aware of these facts, yet they continue to lie.
Well, somebody tell the IPCC honchos that we’ll eat some bugs- but they can go first. Of course I still won’t.
Joseph – I found some dried crickettes in a Concord NH candy store, so I bought a box. ($2.99 for 1 gram – you can figure out the price per pound!)
The clerk said they tasted like “Fritos with legs” – I can’t come up with a better description.
https://www.offthewagonshop.com/products/crick-ettes-real-crickets
“Fritos with legs”.
That sounds like the start of a Zombie/SciFi movie.
“Fried Zombie bugs invade the Southern border of the US to take revenge on those who made them a Fast-Food takeout item!”
awesome, I think I’ll send that link to the many climate whack jobs I know here in Woke-achusetts!
I dare Al Gore or Barack Obama to wolf down a handful of bugs.
Preferably live ones.
An EPA Death Sentence for Fossil-Fuel Power Plants
The Biden agency’s new rule means the end of natural gas-fueled electricity.
By The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board —
https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-plants-environmental-protection-agency-rule-epa-biden-administration-fossil-fuels-60f06bd0
My apologies for the paywall.
I like the WSJ- all things considered- and I see I can get a year digital subscription for only 50 cents/week.
If I was running a coal-fired or natural gas power plant, I would file a lawsuit against the EPA saying the EPA has no evidence CO2 is harmful or needs to be regulated and asking the Court to have EPA show their evidence for ruling CO2 as harmful.
There is no evidence CO2 is harmful. Electric generating companies are being punished for no good reason at all with regard to the climate.
Prove it, EPA! Governance by fiat is not proof.
You know about that lake is California reappearing in farm land.
It’s climate change.
Yep and the “United States now leads the world in climate catastrophes.”
https://www.oregonlive.com/reckon/2023/05/flooding-hurricanes-and-wildfires-americas-increasing-climate-catastrophes-mean-few-places-are-safe.html
Buckle Up: These US regions are projected to face the worst of climate change
We have more cellphone videos.
NASA says the earth’s energy imbalance is a little less than 1 Wm-2, not nearly enough to warm things up much. But I got to wondering, what should the imbalance be? It shouldn’t be zero, because we need energy to keep the plants alive. Does anyone know what the imbalance should be?
I think there is some confusion here. An imbalance of 0 W/m2 means Earth is neither gaining nor losing energy. It is a steady-state with no long term cooling or warming; just the internal variation caused by ENSO and other cyclic processes. A imbalance of zero does not mean plants are not getting enough to stay alive.
An imbalance of 1 W/m2 is pretty large. It results in 1.0 W/m2 * 510e12 m2 * 365.24 day * 24 hr/day * 3600 s/hr = 16e18 kj of energy being retained each year. That is enough energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj * 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C. Fortunately most of that energy goes into the ocean which has a much higher thermal inertia. Only about 1% of the energy goes into the atmosphere which is equivalent to 3.1 C * 0.01 = 0.03 C of warming. Over 10 yr and 100 yr periods that would be 0.3 C and 3.0 C of warming respectively. An imbalance of 1 W/m2 is pretty significant.
Meanwhile, if the 30% cloud cover that Earth normally has (= water with emmissivity of unity) raised its temperature by that much (from 15°C to 18.1°C, it would radiate away an extra 8.1e19 kiloJoules per year ##
That’s a factor of 16 over what you ‘trapped’
(The remaining 70% of Earth would also radiate more but only has an emmissivity of about 0.02)
Now, does anyone see Any Significant Problem with Trapped Heat……
## That number is slightly familiar from somewhere:
I think it’s something like the power output from Starship Enterprise’s warp drive but also, the amount of energy inside your average hurricane.
Oh no, i see another problem with trapped heat.
If it causes any more than Just One Sixteenth of One Extra Hurricane per year, it will have a cooling effect on Earth
I’m not sure exactly how you arrived at that. But trapped energy is in units of joules. You’re 8.1e19 figure is in units of kj/yr. The units don’t match. Nevermind that whatever meaning you think you ascribing by comparing the amount of the total energy trapped over a period of time with the rate at which energy is shed via radiation would have to be carefully qualified. And if you are assuming the blackbody temperature of Earth is 15 C then you’re starting off with the wrong assumption since it is nowhere near that high. The assumption that the blackbody temperature would increase by 3.1 C is also wrong since the warming would not be vertically homogenous.
No. There is nothing wrong with the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Perfectly matching TOA balance is a myth dreamed up by computationlists to rationalize their ideas.
The Earth will always oscillate around some thermodynamic steady state. All-the-while, it is conserving mass and energy.
Maybe it averages out to emission of “heat” and absorption of “heat” over a couple centuries, who really knows. There is no rule, and internal variations certainly cause it to sway. Only in our minds is that TOA radiation flux balance is supposed to be fixed.
It should be understood that in strict-equilibrium concepts there would be no turbulent flux, no latent flux, no rain, no cloud, no wind, no life.
It is a non-equilibrium steady state system.
It is a system of gradients driving mass transport and dissipation.
bdgwx still has not understood the implications non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is about local conservation of mass and energy, but about global-steady state mass and energy flux. He mis-applies the label 1LOT to describe energy balance. It is about the ins, the outs, the work, the dissipation, the consumption, and the transformations. In his mind I do not believe he is honoring his beloved 1LOT, as I do not believe he is truly conserving that energy in fluid dynamic dissipation.
No one thinks it is actually perfectly matched. People often refer to it being perfectly matched to anchor discussions on idealized scenarios first. And if I’ve said this repeatedly. If you can’t understand an idealized scenario you will never understand the vastly more complicated real world.
Yep.
I know. That is why I was careful to use the term steady-state so as not to be confused with the 0LOT.
I don’t know what this is in reference to. But we aren’t talking about the climate system being in thermodynamic equilibrium or otherwise so as best I can tell your statement in this regard has nothing to do with what Brock said above.
No, I didn’t. The 1LOT says in no uncertain terms that ΔU = Q – W or using a more familiar and applicable form here it is ΔE = Ein – Eout.
You know my position on the 1LOT. And if you’ve tracked my posts you know how beloved it is by me and scientists in general. So if you disagree that a 1 W/m2 imbalance necessarily means that the climate system accumulates 16e21 joules each year then it is you who is rejecting the 1LOT.
Water cycle overwhelms your annual joules before breakfast on any given tuesday. Total mass flux in mere seconds. It’s a wobbly system that plays by nobody’s idealized rules. Throw in human desiccation of 5 billion hectares and see what happens, oh wait…
That is completely irrelevant. Water cycle or not a 1 W/m2 imbalance on a planet with 510e12 m2 of area is 16e21 joules each year.
you are a 1LOT misunderstander.
My understanding is that the change in internal energy of a system is given by the energy exiting the system subtracted from the energy entering the system.
And that would be correct. How it partitions between sensible and latent heat determines whether and how much temperature changes.
Some heat may be sequestered for example if ice melts and charges an aquifer or flows into a lake there may be no temperature change but a lot of latent heat.
How certain can we be that the toa imbalance has been accurately measured over the entire atmosphere at all times of day and season? Can we prove that when integrated over the whole atmosphere over long periods of time, that there is truly an imbalance? Or could we be missing areas where there is a negative balance offsetting the apparent positive imbalance?
I don’t know the methodology for this measurement. Can we use satellites to directly measure insolation and upwelling IR at the same time?
the atmosphere is a fluid first and foremost. It acts like one.
Correct. The energy that accumulates due to a positive planetary energy imbalance can be dispatched to the air, ocean, land, and cryosphere. And it doesn’t dispatch homogenously or even in the same proportions with every moment of time.
The imbalance can be measured a few different of ways. The 2 most obvious are 1) via the 1LOT accounting of the energy change in the various heat reservoirs and 2) via direct radiation measurements from satellites. Here is an example of method #1. Here is an example of method #2. Here is where you can download the CERES measured imbalance in near real-time.
Written with great confidence and so little understanding.
It ASSUMES that the imbalance at ToA is causing the changes in heat retention. The ONLY way deep ocean heat can increase in decades is by the water cycle slowing down. It simple means it is not cooling as fast.
Steadily increasing ocean thermal expansion has been measured for more than 200years with reliable tide gauges and that rate is not accelerating. So the increasing heat retention has been occurring for a long time. And summer heat retention will continue in the northern oceans for a long time yet as the peak solar intensity moves northward.
That doesn’t fully address my question. I’m not trying to debate you here, but am asking a question about something that I don’t yet have a firm opinion on. What is the uncertainty on the “less than a watt per square meter”? Can you really reject the null hypothesis? (That there is no actual sustained imbalance, and the <1W/m^2 turns out to be measurement error or systematic error in the measurement methodology)
It seems to me that <1W/m^2 is a very small number in comparison to the total insolation. Furthermore (and I remain open to correction here) it seems like there is not a practical method to directly measure radiation in and out of the top of atmosphere across the whole spherical “surface” simultaneously over months and years, or even to sample it adequately to account for diurnal, seasonal, cloud-cover/weather effects with good confidence in the results.
As soon as we try to test the quality of our TOA energy balance estimate by attempting to estimate heat changes in various reservoirs are we not diving headlong into a quagmire of complexity requiring myriad assumptions and estimates and introducing even more uncertainty?
Schuckmann et al. 2020 say the insitu observation is +0.87 ± 0.12 W/m2 from 2010-2018. Loeb et al. 2021 say the satellite observation is 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m2 in 2019.
Ok so if we can replicate those studies and confirm those estimates, it would say that more energy is going in than out. So we can expect some warming. And for the most part we see some minor beneficial warming around an 1/8 degree per decade.
Remind me again how this is earth-shattering news? You don’t need to convince me that GHGs delay cooling and result in some warming.
Yes. More energy is going in than out. That isn’t earth shattering news though.
You are correct, and the total uncertainty of irradiance measured with thermopile instruments is ±3-4% at best. This translates to about ±6W/m2. The people who claim they know the magnitude of atmospheric energy imbalance averages are fooling themselves.
There’s (pardon the pun) a pandemic of that in the “climate” field.
It is calibrated against the ocean heat uptake on the basis that all the ocean heat retention or uptake is instantaneously, in geological terms, the same as the ToA radiation imbalance. So essentially a meaningless number in absolute terms. Probably useful temporally and maybe spatially for comparison purposes.
Radiance is reliably measured but the broadband power flux is not. The angular distribution models used to determine the power flux are probably within 10W/m^2 0f actual power flux.
you then jump to conclusions about cause and effect. Such as attributing a temperature of 3.1 C, or that internal energy content can only be influenced by mechanisms involving radiation. This viewpoint requires ignoring the implications of 1st law.
Irrelevant.
I did no such thing.
First…I’m not saying that 1600e21 joules would necessarily result in the whole atmosphere warming 3.1 C. It won’t. What I’m saying is that 1% is all that is needed. Remember, I’m responding to the statement “NASA says the earth’s energy imbalance is a little less than 1 Wm-2, not nearly enough to warm things up much.”
Second…I’m not the one who brought the 1 W/m2 figure into the discussion in the first place. But I am the one trying to provide context about what such an imbalance is capable.
Third…the energy content of the planet can only be influenced by radiation because there is no interface between TOA and space for which conduction and convection can occur in any significant way.
Patently False. This viewpoint requires the acceptance of the 1LOT. When you have a 1 W/m2 imbalance it is necessarily the case that the planet accumulates 16e21 joules each year. That is not debatable. It is a direct application of the 1LOT.
I see no distinction. If 1% is all that is needed to raise temperature you can have no excess to cause climate emergency conditions, such as excess wind or rain. If the conversion is perfectly efficient there is really no concern.
It is like saying all that matters in the rate of digestion is the rate of ingestion and the rate of excretion. It is not what 1st law is about whatsoever.
That is not in doubt. The trouble is you have not yet appreciated the full range of constraints. And so, it is very difficult to engage meaningfully with you.
16E21 is trivial compared to 24 hours with a SINGLE tropical storm in a SINGLE day.
The highest 24 hour rainfall recorded in the Indian Ocean is 1870mm. Put that over just 10km by 10km patch and the 24 hour energy release from the ocean surface is 38E21. More than twice what your assumed imbalance does in a WHOLE year. ONE storm, in ONE day over a tiny fraction of the area it will actually influence liberates more ocean heat than what is accumulated over a whole year.
That seems high. I counted 376 tropical-cyclone-days in 2022 globally. If each released 16e21 j in a single day that would be 376 * 16e21 j = 6e24 j. That’s more energy than the Earth absorbed in 2022. How much energy do you think is released by a tropical cyclone in a single day?
That seems high. The latent energy is 1.9 m * 10000 m * 10000 m * 1000 kg/m3 * 2257000 j/kg = 4.3e17 j. And the gravitational energy is 1.9 m * 10000 m * 10000 m * 1000 kg/m3 * 9.8 m/s2 * 15000 m = 0.3e17 j. What other factors are you considering?
Your 4.3E17 is correct for a single day over 10kmX10km.
So take your 376 cyclone days and a more realistic cyclone area of 100km x100km and the annual cyclone energy is 15.78E21. Same as the annual ocean heat retention.
An entire years worth tropical cyclone activity added to the climate system each year seems like a lot to me.
More like 1am Monday morning. Bay of Bengal has hit 31C and convection has hit high gear:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-275.52,10.02,1047/loc=89.840,14.684
The power fluxes in storms like this are immense. The ocean will cool by 3C in its path. The total radiative imbalance over a day will be up to MINUS 100W/m^2 where average daily sunlight is up around 560W/m^2..
Reunion Island sets the record for daily rainfall of 1870mm. Do the sums on energy fluxes to liberate this water from an ocean surface and deposit it as high as 3300m in just 24 hours. This demonstrates the power of convection.
This is what convection can do when cyclic convection is not able to hold the 30C ocean surface temperature limit. Convection goes into overdrive.
No open ocean surface can sustain a temperature over 30C and immensely powerful forces can be called on to maintain that limit.
This is is your fundamental error. No one knows what the radiation imbalance is.
The 1W/m^2 is based on the wild assumption that the only imbalance causes ocean heating.
The whole idea is circular. The radiation imbalance is derived from ocean heat content. That is how the radiation instruments are ultimately calibrated. They have huge errors in deriving radiation flux from radiance measurements.
I KNOW that there are long cycles of energy storage and dissipation.
There have been four cycles over the past 400,000 years where oceans dropped up to 120m and the average land elevation north of 40N gained 360m. So 4.3E16 tonne of water lifted over 1000m and stored as ice on land. That is a big gain in potential energy that was released in less than 20,000 years in each cycle.
Then there are the white cliffs of Dover that came from marine life that is still locking away energy. All the coal that is currently doing work for humans was stored in about 300M years.
No one knows what the radiative imbalance is. It relies entirely on the absolutely WILD assumptions that all the heat increase in the oceans over the past decades is due to radiation imbalance; all dissipative processes degrade to heat; there is no energy storage process and there is no geothermal heat input to the oceans..
This is a very good observation. A net storage of energy for some period.
Schuckmann et al. 2020 know. That’s at least 38 people that know.
No it doesn’t.
Yes there is. And you can determine how much energy is stored in a reservoir via the simple equation ΔE = ΔT * m * c.
Yes there is. The global average heat input via geothermal is about 0.1 W/m2.
This shows your myopic focus on only thermal energy. There are numerous other energy storage processes and dissipation of convective energy that does not degrade to heat. Like the 2000m high ice blocks at either end of the globe. That water was elevated from the oceans.
How much energy is coral locking up every year? The only aspect of coral mentioned is bleaching and yet coral is terra forming at a detectable rate.
Recent study found another 10,000 underwater volcanoes. How is your 0.1W/m^2 measured?
How much wind energy goes into physical changes. We see rock erosion along every coastline. And millions of tonnes of land shifted every year through wind and water.
The Schuckmann paper arrives at 0.47W/m^2 and it is 90% based on thermal heating of the ocean. It is truly trivial. The 358E21 Joules corresponds to less than 10 cyclone days over a period of almost 50 years.
There is no myopic focus on my part. I haven’t even touched on the latent, gravitational, kinetic, etc. storage yet. Remember, I’m responding to the statement “there is no energy storage process”. Storage via a temperature increase is one such process.
Yep. Clearly another example of an energy storage process.
It’s not my figure. It comes from radiothermal and lunar dissipation. See Pollack et al. 1993 as but one example on how it is estimated.
That would be 36e21 joules per cyclone-day. How many cyclone days do you think are in a typical year? How much total energy does Earth absorb in a year?
Energy goes as T to the fourth. This isn’t enough to do much of anything. And 25 years ago, give or take, the imbalance was zero. This meant that the energy the plants were using to grow was not available to warm the earth.
And T goes ΔT = ΔE / (m*c).
Like I said. 1% of it over a 100 yr period is enough to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 3.1 C. That seems like something to me.
Then where did the 250 ZJ that accumulated in the climate system over that period come from?
Oh, I’m sorry. I did not realize that you are not a scientist. My mistake.
Another wrong assumption used in climate models.
The water that entered the ocean abyssal circulation when JC was wearing short pants will see the light of day again this century. It takes centuries to millennia for heat to get to the deep ocean from the surface.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24648-x#Fig5
The only way that ocean heat can increase at depth in decades is through increasing evaporation. And that is occurring in the NH. As absorbed by increasing snowfall.
It’s not an assumption. It’s measured. And it has nothing to do with climate models.
I know.
It is an assumption. So automatic that you do not even realise you are making an assumption. You are assuming the measured energy increase in the ocean is due to the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere – (that is simple how the radiative imbalance is arrived at so it is circular thinking). With heat entering from the surface and somehow getting down to 2000m in decades – physically impossible.
The oceans are retaining more heat primarily due to the NH summer water cycle slowing down. The thermocline is deepening as the summer evaporation slows down resulting in more heat being retained in the oceans. It is not energy coming in from the surface, which is what is assumed. The reduced rate of ocean cooling has resulted in higher ocean heat content.
No. I am not. The energy increase in the ocean is measured from the temperature increase; not the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. In fact, you have it backwards. It is the measured energy increase in the ocean that helps us estimate the imbalance at the top of atmosphere.
no. this is stupid and it helps nobody, not “us” nor you..
Yes. That is one way it is done. See Schuckmann et al. 2020 for details.
the first 500 words of the Shuckmann 2020 conclusion is a pure political statement about “UN 2030 Agenda”, “Article 14 Paris Agreement”, and “UNFCC”. If you are unable to recognize that this is a political document then further discussion will be impossible.
First it is that OHC is not used to assess to EEI. Then it is political. If you don’t like Schuckmann et al. 2020 then refer to another source. But where is the goalpost going to move to next? Fraud and conspiracy?
funny how the downvotes show up just as you arrive, considering you don’t downvote. CONSPIRACY & FRAUD LOL policy based evidence making is neither fraud nor conspiracy. it is on full display for all to see and embedded right in the documents.
Along with many others here, joining the ranks of the skinny skins I see.. Even in this fawning fora you whine about the thumbs. I follow quite a few related sites and Its no wonder that, unlike both Nick Stokes and bdgwx, I have yet to see you post outside of subterranean WUWT.
Oh, BTW of the d.t.s is mine.
?
Is this English?
A typical fine blob word salad for which he is famous.
“That is enough energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj * 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C.”
You appear to have 1 dimension of kg too many there, bdgwx. If the result is to come out in units of C, the kg dimensions should cancel; but they don’t and instead your calculation results in units of kg²C.
Is it a typo, or a miscalculation?
Nice catch. It should read 16e18 kj * 1 kg.C/kj / 5.15e18 kg = 3.1 C. I proof read that 3 times and still failed to spot the mix up of * and /. The calculation should be correct at least in so far as the assumption of 1000 j/kg.C for the specific heat capacity of air which is probably close enough for a first estimation.
The figure of 1W/m^2 is arrived at by measuring ocean temperature. There is a basic assumption that all energy input eventually degrades to heat.
The instruments used to infer radiative imbalance have errors upwards of 10W/m^2. Whereas ocean temperature can be measured to high accuracy and there are enough fixed and moving buoys to get some idea of the temperature trend.
Of course the basic failing in the assumption is that the heat input to the oceans is all due to CO2. That relies on the assumption that climate change did not exist before humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
To add details here Schuckmann et al. 2020 say it is +0.87 ± 0.12 W/m2 from 2010-2018. That includes the uptake by ocean, air, land, and cryosphere.
Neither the knowledge of CO2 nor CO2 itself is used to measure the EEI.
There is no assumption of the existence of climate change or otherwise required to measure EEI.
The paper you reference starts out:
The whole reason for its being is the assumption all the measured thermal energy uptake is caused by CO2.
This is the reason the work got funding. If they came out and said it was due to slowing down of the water cycle, unrelated to CO2, it would not have got funding.
Now read the rest of the paper. At no time did the authors use CO2 or knowledge of CO2’s influence on the climate system to assess the EEI.
Goalpost move. First, it wasn’t right because “the assumption is that the heat input to the oceans is all due to CO2.” Now it is because of the funding. Except funding is not one of the inputs into how EEI was determined either. Is your next goalpost move going to be fraud and conspiracy?
Environmentalism is a first-order forcing of labor and environmental arbitrage, and in first-world nations the performance of human rites for fair weather progress.
Open Thread so …
In American football, when a team gets a first down, the announcers then say things like 2nd and 4 or 2nd and 13 depending on the results of the 1st down play. But if they get a 1st down within 10yards of the goal the announcers then starts saying 2nd and goal, 3rd and goal etc.
Sacks and/or penalties might back them up 20 or more yards but they’ll still say “2nd and goal”.
Why don’t they say 3rd and 25 to goal?
When inside the 10-yard line, with a first down, the only way you can go is to get a touchdown or a field goal within the four plays allowed. So any play they run is 2nd and goal, or third and goal, or fourth and goal and it doesn’t matter if in a previous down you lost 50 yards on a busted play, you still have to reach the goalline or kick a field goal within four downs, or you lose the ball.
AOC’s PAC funneled thousands to org financing disruptive climate protest groups | Fox News
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political action committee has passed thousands of dollars to an environmental organization funding disruptive climate protest groups, records reviewed by Fox News Digital show.
Courage to Change, the New York Democrat’s PAC, directed a $9,000 donation to the Los Angeles-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) in the fall of 2021, according to federal filings. The CEF finances far-left groups worldwide that undertake radical tactics to draw attention to what they say is a rapidly warming planet on the brink of destruction if aggressive policies are not pursued.”
*****************
CEF is, according to the Fox News story, funneling money to the Just Stop Oil group in the UK so they can block traffic on British roadways and throw soup on priceless Van Gogh works of art.
Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
It looks like AOC and her PAC are setting themselves up for some legal action from people who might be harmed by the strong-arm tactics AOC is advocating and financing.
Let’s say someone has a relative that is very sick and needs to be transported to a hospital immediately, but the ambulance is held up for too long in backed-up traffic caused by AOC-financed radicals blocking the streets.
If my relative suffered adverse effects from the delay in arriving at the hospital, I would sue AOC for being the cause and ask for damages.
An interesting argument Tom. It would be nice to see it actually happen. It is difficult to say though if any such legal action would actually get anywhere.
My mid-May expectation for UAH TLT for 2023/05 is 0.20 ± 0.24 C. Using the typical 4 month lag for ENSO the month of May is still being influenced by a La Nina with an ONI of -0.7 from January.