Anyone have an any ideas of why US Democrats have bought into the climate change crap? It’s obvious that 70+% of the worlds CO2 emission sources eg China, India etc are going to do nothing. So the US, Europe, etc curbing emissions accomplishes nothing. It’s so illogical.
A fact that Trump failed to realize and never figured out how to play it to his benefit. In fact, he likely alienated enough pro-climate change republicans to lose the election.
Pew states the 47% of registered voters in 2020 felt climate change was an important issue in the election. Of that 47%, 11% supported Trump. A little little less Trump harangue in twitter and he would have been elected and we would have been spared Brandon.
Being a little less frontal combative on climate change would have not alienated his strong anti-climate change support.
If liberal politicians play both sides to their benefit… like Trudeau…(i.e. exporting oil sand at top prices and characterizing it as green oil. Canadians bought it without a whimper), then if Republicans are to be elected they need to learn to play it as well especially now after massive climate propaganda campaign since 2019.
Bush Jr who had a strong libertarian approach to abortion, solidified his pro-life support with a few pro-life statements and no action in two terms. He learned the lesson from his Libertarian Father’s failure to be re-elected.
The Climate change movement can’t be beaten head on,…. got to pick your battles.
America is tired of the fringe fight eliminating the middle…..the middle has the best chance of winning. Everyone is tired of the fringe harangue on both sides.
The middle is the best chance of restoring representative power and so weaken the WEF avalanche of the past 5 years.
He was a candidate, but a nearly President (I don’t know the proper word for what Trump was in the WH) for four years. He couldn’t just utter generalities.
Several attractive aspects make this a popular theme for left-leaning Democrats.
It is one of many issues that allow the adherent to preen in glorious self-righteousness. Since they have no true values based on objective truth, anything that allows them to scoff at the Neanderthals in the other party is a win-win.
No need to actually understand the science or know anything about it really. It is enough that the other side doubts something that reeks of “The Science”.
The other attractive aspect of climate change that sends a thrill up the legs of the rabid far leftist is that it is essentially unsolvable without completely shutting down western civilization. A long list of insoluble issues like poverty, race inequality and so on becomes the ever-renewable fuel of vitriol that fuels the far-left. Anything that could actually be solved is exaggerated into insolubility just to keep the game going.
No need for race hustlers if the races reconcile. No need for Green goblins if the temperature goes down. Though I suspect the issue will just reverse in that case, like Stalin after the collapse of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Our evil CO2 is making a blanket in the sky, shutting out the sun! Actually makes more sense than the pseudo-science they use to support warming.
The rank-and-file Democrats know nothing of this, but at the strategy level climate change is perfect. Any issue that the other side cannot accept, that requires them to go on defense, is a good issue for a partisan. Like swinging your sword at the other combatant’s neck – the other has to defend or die.
If they really got their way billions would die. But they don’t really want to abandon fossil fuels. They just want to screech about it so loudly that nobody pays attention to their other crimes. Meanwhile the money pours into their cronies in the renewable industry and back to them.
“No need for race hustlers if the races reconcile.”
Good point. Let’s put Al Sharpton out of a job by promoting the thoughts of Martin Luther King Jr, who says we should judge a person by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
There are far too many double standards in place with more being added in the name of equity. Why would white Democrats stop pandering to blacks? It earns them many votes. Why should black Americans give up any of those levers of power? It earns them many government and corporate handouts.
In other words, race hustling is too good for business for both.
Do you have to draw the lines so tightly? Trump was a classic NY Democrat. I am a democrat of the pro-life paleoconservative variety. There remains a remnant of Democrats who are not koo koo for coco puffs. If you remember, Trump had to demolish the Libertarian scaffolding of the Republican Party in order to be nominated, which he did adroitly. And this is the reason I voted Republican and will continue to vote for any paleoconservative …… if any still exist.
Prior to the Trump presidency, the Republican Libertarians did nothing but lip service on abortion. They were lining up with the dems to legalize drugs and decriminalize drug offenses. The lined up with the dems to support massive gambling projects on line, on the phone in sports, everywhere. The Libertarian Republicans shaked and baked a war based on lies in Iraq that did nothing to stabilize the world. Libertarian Republicans, that is 51% of the Republican party supported the Paris Agreement and many attend WEF at Davo’s annually.
The Libertarian Republican’s did not stand at the vanguard of a fight that had to happen 20 years ago to protect the privacy of American’s from the tech giants. Now it’s too late. They are a steam rolling juggernaut. I don’t hear Republicans building a storm of trust busting for the Tech monopoly! Nothing but fear and trembling because their libertarian philosophy is morally bankrupt. It’s anarchy for the rich.
The only reason to switch party now is that the dems went fringe to the max but I won’t until I see a strong thread of Paleo conservativism in the Republican party…. it just isn’t worth my time. Plus in PA, it is better for me to be able to vote in the Dem primaries for saner candidates.
It’s a drive for a one word government, a US one world government, Democrat style.
The US is the only country large enough to carry this off so the Biden socialist regime jumped on the global governance bandwagon working with the socialist UN (with its communist Fat Controller in place) and numerous other global agencies including the WHO, IMF etc.
‘Climate change’ provides them with the opportunity to instruct the world’s population on how they should live, what they should eat, how they should travel, where and when they should travel and numerous other ‘initiatives’ designed to save the planet, because none of us want no planet, do we?
And here, I’ll paraphrase an unattributed quote: “I have been dead for billions of years and it has not caused me the least inconvenience”.
So these western governments (It’s not just the US) hijack the concept of death as something to be feared and terrorise the western population with the concept in order to run their ever shortening lives for them.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is having a good old giggle at the madness of the west and, by their intransigence, scupper the ambitions of the foolish west by just getting on with their lives.
There are, of course, some unseen hands at work here, not that George Soros is unseen, but some of his co-conspirators are, like the members of the Club of Rome, which makes them not so unseen however they disguise themselves with a cloak of respectability – like King Charles, respectable but a complete idiot.
It turns out that saving the planet is a really, REALLY expensive business which includes killing off 90% of the world’s population. And China, Russia and India have tried that before and it didn’t work so they are a bit wary of going down that route.
It’s also beginning to dawn on the ‘elite’ members of society, at least the ones with two brain cells to rub together, that culling humanity means they might have to grub for food themselves. Paying others to grub for their food is a much better proposition.
Additionally, some are now beginning to realise that whilst technology might save the planet, first we have to have the technology. Even they know the 14th Century technology of wind and sun just doesn’t cut it and investment in them is no good when governments have to predate on an increasingly hostile population to pay for it.
Shocker – the wind and solar boom will collapse just like the Dot Com boom they all lost their shirts on did. In fact, it’s happening right now. Follow the money.
Governments always grab more power and control by creating fear. Fear requires a boogeyman or two. They don’t have to be real boogeymen — they just have to be believed by most people.
Some boogeymen currently, and in the past:
Climate change / CO2
Pollution
Communism
Covid 19
Muslim extremists
Aliens from the planet Uranus
I made up the last one — that was my entry
in the 2022 Name the New Boogeyman Contest
that Dumbocrats have every year.
Back in the day, democrats prided themselves on being “for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers. This led to the dems convincing the working class that only they could protect them from the big corporations. To maintain and grow that constituency the dems catered to every demand the union’s put forward..
The final result of the catering caused high manufacturing costs for labor intensive industries, setting off the forever import boom, China gets the jobs, taxbase and profits, we get under employment, loss of taxbase, crippling national debt, and Detroit and the rest of the rust belt in dire straits.
Continuing their protecting the little guy theme the dems moved to Big Oil. to keep consumer costs for energy down in 1952 the dems caped natural gas at $0.25MCFand with Middle East oil at <$4.00 barrel US big oil was crippled for 20 years until the 1973 and 1978 “price shocks”. Dems have continued the consumer advocacy vote buying with a continuous war on domestic oil and gas.
It’s amazing we’re “only” $32 trillion in debt with the democrat wrecking ball destroying our economy. How much more damage will the Inflation Inflaming Act cause?
democrats prided themselves on being “for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers.
Pure BS marketing, no substance.
Gunga Din
April 2, 2023 2:18 pm
Open Thread.
I’ve been looking for a parts diagram on a Lionel 282R Gantry Crane, 6-22998, 72-2998-250, 02/99.
Can’t find one anywhere.
Hope I didn’t just derail the “Open Thread”. 😎
(I really am looking for one to fix a problem. I’ve tried the usual searches. Last resort.)
Thank you (very much), but I don’t think that’s what I need.
Apparently, aside from the original 282, there were more than one 282Rs made.(On the Lionel support site they had two versions of the 282R parts listed. Each had different part numbers for what I wanted to check out. Both unavailable.)
But I will check out the link. Maybe it will show me enough so I can fix the thing without breaking it beyond repair.
Thank you again.
PS I saw something on eBay less than a year ago that wanted to bid on.
They said I needed to set up an account so I did. Never had a bid accepted. A few hours later I got an email saying my account suspended for my “history” of buying and selling!
I am always happy to help a rail fan, especially if it involves steam, that nasty greenhouse gas. And I must admit, I love the smell of burning coal, seriously.
My father was a steam locomotive engineer (‘hoghead’) Canadian National Railways. He smuggled my brother and I on board a for a few trips when we were 9 and 11 in the 1940s. We took turns blowing the whistle at all the crossing! Yeah, I’m a steam buff, too.
Now with sociological/political climate change in force, they’ve even shut down popular summer steam train trips put on by the Museum of Science and Technology.
My Dad grew up in a railroad town. All of his uncles retired from various lines.
When we were kids in the ’60’s, Dad took my two brothers and I to an uphill grade near where he grew up and taught us how to hop a moving freight train.
If I remember correctly, afterward he cautioned by saying, “Now don’t tell your Mother!”. (He said that a lot.) 😎
Back when I was a mere prat, the mid-to-late-1960s, I had two great-aunts who loved a couple of houses away from my grandmother, their sister. Their house was old, and the small backyard was so overgrown that it was like a jungle to an 8-year-old.
They always had milk and cookies on hand for when I stopped by, and the coolest thing about the old house was the big fireplace where they kept a coal fire burning in the chilly part of the year. It was fascinating to sit there and watch the bituminous coal burning, jetting gas from pockets and occasionally popping.
You might give the California State Railroad Museum a call. They have an amazing collection of model railroad stuff. https://www.californiarailroad.museum/
Thanks.
The diagram there is for an earlier version (1956). Mine is from around 1999 and has two can motors and gear box assemblies. But I did explore the forum and found some useful info. https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/6-22998-282r-gantry-crane-problems
Sounds like either the grease has hardened and the belts are slipping or the belts have broken. But no diagram.
Guess I’ll need to pull out the tools and see what I find!
MIke McHenry
April 2, 2023 2:25 pm
What assumption is made about water vapor from the combustion of fossil fuels that allows it a GHG to be ignored? It doesn’t seem possible that it all condenses.
The water vapor from fossil fuel combustion is miniscule compared to that from ocean evaporation. On ‘average’, the specific humidity of air is about 2%. On average, the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is now about 0.0004% (400 ppm). Since that includes coal, the FF derived water vapor would be less than that.
Yes I know that, but when you burn oil or methane you get more water than CO2. In the case of methane 4X as much. I’m talking comparatively. As I understand it water is a stronger absorber that CO2.
True. But the relative proportions also matter a great deal. And there is a lot more water in the oceans than chemically locked in oil and gas fossil fuel deposits. Proof: most oil and gas is ‘cooked’ underground (technical terms oil and gas windows) from long ago shallow marine deposits of kerogen, derived from marine photosynthetic organisms falling into an anoxic environment (like the Black Sea today).
Water in all its forms killed thousands of people in 2022. At least a thousand drowned in it. A lot of people got washed away in torrents. At least one child was killed by falling ice. Millions of animals drowned in flood waters in 2022.
As far as I am aware, CO2 did not kill anyone in 2022. And yet CO2 is now widely classified as a pollutant.
The religious zealots have decreed CO2 evil and labelled it a deadly pollutant.
“As far as I am aware, CO2 did not kill anyone in 2022”.
CO2 KILLED MY DOG
I have that bumper sticker on my car. The leftists in my neighborhood love it and now thet wave to me as I drive by. They used to hate me because I park a rusted out old pickup truck on blocks in my yard to scare off potential burglars. Who would break into my house when my next door neighbor parks a full size Jaguar sedan outside her house and my other next door neighbor parks a Mercedes SUV outside his house? The answer is no one has stolen anything from our house since 1987. We were very unpopular with neighbors until I placed that CO2 KILLED MY DOG bumper sticker on my car.
The best quote I’ve seen on “carbon pollution” (don’t have attribution but think I saw it on WUWT) is : “What kind of pollution is it, that if it ever gets to zero, everything dies?”
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the average temperature of the atmosphere.
When burning hydrocarbon fuels results in a warmer atmosphere, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor, which amplifies the warming effect of CO2.
Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere and that always increases he water vapor content, which causes additional warming.
That is basic climate science known for over a century, that many readers here reject for no logical reason. As a result of their AGW science denial, they can not effectively refute CAGW (CAGW is not science — it is just a wrong prediction used to scare people into submission to their governments — wrong since 1979)
The important points, listed below, are not that CO2 always inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself, or that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, which is a water vapor positive feedback to a warmer troposphere.
These are the important points about CO2 and warming:
More CO2 in the atmosphere benefits C3 plants
Global warming benefits people living in colder nations, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night (TMIN)
CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a net benefit for the ecology.
The water vapor positive feedback is limited to prevent runaway global warming
My best guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere causes more clouds to form, and more clouds are a negative feedback to the water vapor positive feedback
Due Diligence:
Since 1997 I have advocated for MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, if placed there by burning hydrocarbon fuels using modern pollution controls. The optimum CO2 level for C3 plants is at least double the current 420ppm level, With a higher CO2 level, our planet would support more human and animal life, with C3 plants used for foods.
“Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere and that always increases he water vapor content, which causes additional warming.
That is basic climate science known for over a century, that many readers here reject for no logical reason. As a result of their AGW science denial, they can not effectively refute CAGW..”
Few people are saying more CO2 will not cause SOME increase in temperature- only that it’s not the only thing influencing climate.
There are too many conservatives who deny 100% of leftist “consensus” climate science. They deny the greenhouse effect. They deny AGW. They deny that CO2 impedes cooling. They claim manmade CO2 accounts for only 3% to 5% of the 420ppm of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
i did not realize how many climate science deniers there were until this year when I decided to “correct” them.
Leftist climate science may be 90% baloney (my opinion) but is not 100% baloney. iT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO CLAIM ALL CONSENSUS CLIMATE SCIENCE IS WRONG.
AGW is real, and harmless.
But CAGW is just a fantasy prediction.
CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm that adding it to the atmosphere is good news for C3 plants. I advocate for doubling the current CO2 level. And for another +1 degree C. of global warming too — to reach a new climate optimum. I don’t care what causes that warming– warming is good news.
The LAST CLIMATE OPTIMUM, FROM 5000 TO 9000 YEARS AGO, WAS AT LEAST +1 DEGREE C. WARMER THAN TODAY. So let’s hope for +1 degree warmer in the future. Because another climate optimum has to be good news. (while those fake scientists at the IPCC claim another +1 degree of global warming would be a climate emergency, not another climate emergency)
In the past, +1 degree warmer than today was good news But in the future, +1 degree C. warmer than today is bad news? Give me a break, IPCC.
maybe there are “too many” people who deny 100% of the “climate science consensus”- but it’s not worth getting worked up over as they’ll probably never change their minds by your efforts- so I suggest just ignore them and continue with the idea that there is SOME warming due to carbon emissions
of course they’ll call you a “warmunista” or whatever- but rather than fighting with them, fight with the lunatics like Al Gore who thinks the oceans are boiling- think of them as allies in a common struggle against the real enemy, the fossil fuel haters
Dick says:”Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere…”
Why would I accept as true something that is demonstrably false. As someone pointed out here years ago a high humidity day in Minnesota at 87 F has more energy in the surrounding air than a low humidity day at 100 F in Phoenix.
100 F is warmer than the 87 F but due to the mass and specific heat of water it is cooler.
Richard, Here is a fact you might find interesting : All of the radiation from the surface that enters the atmosphere leaves the atmosphere either returning to the surface or exiting to space. The atmosphere is not warmed directly by surface radiation.
The atmosphere is heated by three important processes that are carried out Conduction, Convection, and Advection. Radiation is also an important step in the process of heating the atmosphere.
Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.
If The radiation from the surface directly heated the atmosphere then that would cool the surface as then more radiation would leave the planet cooling it not heating it. That is not to say that the back radiation does not heat the surface which allows the other processes to heat the atmosphere.
To physicists the atmosphere in a state called local temperature equilibrium (LTE) While in that state, adding a GHG absorbs surface radiation and passes the energy to the atmosphere which immediately radiates it away according to Planck. That is a molecule in an energy state greater than the local temperature will quickly return to the local temperature..
The temperature of the oceans is the main driver of atmospheric water vapor, El-Nino increase water vapor which in turns increases globally averaged temperatures. LA-Nina’s have the inverse affect. Ocean temperatures (and lakes) cooler than 28C scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, temperatures above emit CO2 to the atmosphere.
The oceans that absorb CO2 mineralize almost all of it through the very dynamic electrically charged oceanic environment full of many types of mineral ions attacking CO2 within a fraction of a second. When it rains or snows, CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere and brought to the surface for biological and chemical processes to bond with it.
If the oceans warmed substantially, it would be impossible to stop a 1000 ppm breach.
If CO2 is a pollutant, declare war on the oceans.
Atmospheric CO2 at the top of a mountain is merely a proxy for average ocean temperature.
The other interesting thing to note is that atmospheric water vapor trends have not been increasing, which also cast doubt on the theory of CO2 as a driver of climate.
Water vapor can only increase in the troposphere if the troposphere gets warmer. That does not cast any doubt on the fact that CO2 is one of many climate change variables. But there is no proof that CO2 is more important than all other climate variables.
Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry.
Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space.
One way that the world’s ocean affects weather and climate is by playing an important role in keeping our planet warm. The majority of radiation from the Sun is absorbed by the ocean, particularly in tropical waters around the equator, where the ocean acts like a massive, heat-retaining solar panel. Land areas also absorb some sunlight, and the atmosphere helps to retain heat that would otherwise quickly radiate into space after sunset.
The ocean doesn’t just store solar radiation — it also helps to distribute heat around the globe. When water molecules are heated, they exchange freely with the air in a process called evaporation. Ocean water is constantly evaporating, increasing the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air to form rain and storms that are then carried by trade winds. In fact, almost all rain that falls on land starts off in the ocean. The tropics are particularly rainy because heat absorption, and thus ocean evaporation, is highest in this area.
Water vapor produced by your lawn mower engine today becomes part of a cloud over the ocean in a couple of weeks, reducing incoming sunlight, reducing evaporation from the sea surface….etc, etc…..Total water column integrated over total planet is remarkably constant…..Water cycle’s evaporation over oceans and sunlight reflection by clouds control the planet’s temperature….so you needn’t account for it in any global warming calcs……/s
Henry Pool
April 2, 2023 2:38 pm
I have a question about methane. When methane reaches TOA, does it not react with ozone? Reaction?
Your technical answer can be found at NASA Earth Observatory. Stratospheric methane (google key takes you there) produces about half of all stratospheric water vapor. Little to do with ozone chemistry.
Rud Istvan
April 2, 2023 2:52 pm
Today was Palm Sunday, a day for quiet reflection. I got to wondering why easily debunked climate stuff—threatened polar bears, GBR dying, SLR acceleration, tipping points—keep arising after repeatedly debunked. The previous post offering an answer. Global warming is akin to a religion, and these things are part of its catechism. Memorized, recited over and over. Impervious to facts and logic.
because the legacy media doesn’t report the debunking?
unfortunately, most still get their “news and information” from the biased (IMO corrupt) legacy media.
Sunday is the right day to contemplate such questions.
I see so much faith on LinkedIn, people trying to convert me and once they see I have answers to all their points I become a denier not worthy of debate.
Haven’t lost yet, all due to info primarily gleaned here, so thanks for that.
I used to be a member of that church or was at least permanently in purgatory
I’m not intending to offend you, but you have your religion, and leftists have their religion of climate change. Both have many beliefs BASED ON FAITH THAT CAN NOT BE falsified.
I find it amusing that people with tradditional religious beliefs criticize people with secular climate religion beliefs.
I see that as “My beliefs are better than your beliefs”
Not logical.
Plimer wrote a great book in 2009 called Heaven and Earth
I have a copy
Late last year I heard him on a video claiming that manmade CO2 only accounted for 3% to 5% of total 420ppm atmospheric CO2, when the correct answer is about 33%. Which means he has regressed into being a science denier, and that is sad.
E. Schaffer
April 2, 2023 3:00 pm
A couple of years ago there was a paper suggesting the GHE was exaggerated, and more like 27K instead of 33K. It specifically referred to the low emissivity of water in the far-IR range. In hindsight I fully agree with it. However, despite my best effort I can not find it anymore. Does anyone have a clue?
We are moving into Easter week. Here are three pieces written for that occasion that merit listening to and reflecting on.
— Schutz – Seven Last Words
— Couperin’s setting of the Lamentations, perhaps more accessible than the next suggestion
— One of the Charpentier settings of the Lamentations.
There are quite a lot of choices on YouTube.
Rene Jacobs’ Vendredi is particularly fine, though a counter tenor isn’t historical. There is also a performance of Charpentier’s Jeudi Lamentations by the Ensemble Gradiva which is superb.
For the last two, in late 17c France, there are pauses in the singing of the recitation of the prophet’s words. At each of these some candles would be extinguished, so that the church was in darkness by the end. Then there would be a bang on a wooden table, to symbolize the opening of the tomb.
Its probably best to try and get French performances of the last two. German of Schutz of course.
Avoid any which are the usual lower male voices in their natural register, they don’t give a feel for the music, which was written specifically for womens voices. Also avoid any which are overly operatic. There is a Finnish performance which makes you shake your head in amazement at how misunderstood this music can be, avoid it.
You will usually have three movements of Lamentations, one singer solo, then the other solo, then a duet. Two female voices are authentic, but sometimes you have to settle for a counter tenor to hear the music at all, and Jacobs is excellent, despite the slight sense of strain in reaching that high register. A counter tenor, at least in this music, never has the same easy natural flow as a soprano or contralto.
bdgwx
April 2, 2023 3:42 pm
I’m expecting UAH 2023/03 to come in at 0.24 ± 0.2 C. The odds of the Monckton Pause extending to 105 months is slightly over 50%.
I’m expecting a small increase above February. The 3-4 month lag time from the La Nina effects is still there and should keep it low enough to continue the pause extensions. In addition, there wasn’t any major change at the poles which have a quicker effect.
March cooled over February in 2021 but warmed in 2022. Both were La Nina years. The big difference last year appeared to be the lower levels of Antarctic sea ice. Since that ice is still at low levels this year, it does favor another rise. That’s why I’m in general agreement with you.
Scrupulously fair. I’m getting a trend of -0.036 deg C/century, but with a standard error almost 17 times more magnitudinous (a Bill Buckley style invented word, I think). So, a 52% chance of it being negative.
I can also me too your 0.26 degC break point. But that’s just you doing the work, and anyone can replicate it.
This 2023/03 value reported by UAH is associated with a 4 month lagged La Nina of -0.9. Anyway, yeah, I agree, the uncertainty on that Monckton Pause trend is very high and statistically insignificant so we can’t eliminate the possibility that the trend was actually positive.
David Dibbell
April 2, 2023 4:31 pm
I refer to Guy Callendar’s 1938 work published by the Royal Meteorological Society. His calculation of a surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is mentioned occasionally here at WUWT. At this link there is a pdf of the original printed article, including a record of the comments. I encourage climate fans here to take a few minutes to read these contemporary points about Callendar’s analysis in the last few pages of the pdf.
An excerpt from Prof. D. Brunt’s comment:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
This is equivalent to the view I have offered here at WUWT, that the dynamic operation of the atmosphere makes it impossible by any means we have available to us, to isolate the climate response of non-condensing GHGs for reliable attribution. It is also equivalent to saying that ECS cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by present means; and that heat energy cannot be accumulated on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere.
My point? The static vs. dynamic views of the GHG question persist. The expectation that the static effect will dominate the end result still seems persuasive to many, perhaps most. I think Brunt and Simpson were very perceptive about what was computed for attribution in 1938.
So here we are, with much work remaining to persuade policy makers to snap out of the illusion of “climate action.”
A side note: Callendar thought warming would be beneficial.
Another trivia about that article, calculated in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. His implied ECS is 1.67C, almost exactly what modern EBM estimates. But his curve was published in 1938.
True. I hope the evidence from space – the hourly CERES observations, and the near-real-time GOES visualizations – eventually helps more folks see the problem with too much emphasis on the static warming effect. The dynamic end result is not a radiative “trap” as one can now readily “see” from the satellites.
the only degrees of freedom for the long-term earth system climates are the factors of cloud condensation. This includes cloud fraction, cloud height, evapo-transpiration / surface moisture availability / vapor pressure deficits, and cloud condensation nuclei. it boils down to albedo. Secondary factors are the trade winds and global circulation which are coupled to the spatial pattern of effects mentioned above. There is no freedom of external “forcing” in the LW radiation field. The only freedom is a perturbation to the water cycle and associated energy regime (sun & wind).
“it boils down to albedo” Yes, which means it boils down to absorbed energy from the sun, from which everything else happening dynamically in the atmosphere follows.
yes – there cannot be any “imbalance” of atmospheric absorbed LW radiation and atmospheric emitted LW radiation.
That portion of LW which is not absorbed is transmitted directly to space, so it too cannot create an imbalance.
The so-called TOA imbalance, i.e. the difference between solar absorbed into the system and the OLR can only result from anomalous shortwave entering the ocean.
The oceanic absorption of the solar beam can indeed result in a heat trapping effect, and an apparent TOA imbalance.
The TOA balance cannot be restored until excess oceanic heat content becomes available at the ocean-atmosphere interface, and when the albedo begins to stabilize.
The 20th century represents a massive perturbation to the Earth system, and it is not unreasonable that humanity has had a role in influencing the cloud condensation mechanisms directly.
JCM said: “The so-called TOA imbalance, i.e. the difference between solar absorbed into the system and the OLR can only result from anomalous shortwave entering the ocean.”
Well the 1LOT says ΔE = Ein – Eout. So you can get a positive imbalance (ΔE > 0) by 1) increasing the input (ΔEin > 0) or 2) by decreasing the output (ΔEout < 0) or 3) by increasing input more than output (ΔEin > 0, ΔEout > 0, and ΔEin > ΔEout) or 4) by decreasing output more than input (ΔEin < 0, ΔEout < 0, and ΔEout < ΔEin).
So it can happen in more ways than just anomalous shortwave entering the ocean. Anomalous DWIR would do the trick as well.
IR radiative trapping of photons by preferential DWIR is a more complicated conceptualization.
Simple explanations can be helpful, such as allowing for the idea of greater proportion of sunlight to be entering the ocean than in past times. This does not require any stretch of the imagination.
I’m looking at GOES-16 right now. The surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico relatively homogenous, but the WV mixing ratios are not. There is a ribbon of > 10 g/kg surrounded by zones to the north and south of < 10 g/kg. The ABI radiometer is seeing less UWIR in the WV channel (~7 um) in the high WV zone. If the energy isn’t making it to space and it isn’t getting “trapped” then where is it going?
Consider Band 16. NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave Band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. Highly variable over time and location. The longwave emission to space is de-coupled from surface temperature by the formation and dissipation of clouds, driven by the motion. My explanation would be that the energy not emitted maintains the circulations at local to global scale. The implication is that longwave emission of energy back to space is self-limiting, self-regulating, self-compensating. That’s what I mean by saying the end result is not a radiative “trap.” It is the totalized output of a huge array of variable emitters.
(The brightness temperature color scale is such that the radiance at 30C (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C(white.))
Channel 16 is highly variable because it is affected primarily by clouds (like all of the LW channels) and secondarily by the mean temperature of the troposphere. When you see a colder inferred temperature in this channel (or any of the channels) it means less energy in the corresponding spectral band is making it to the radiometer. Energy that does not escape to space is said to be “trapped”. Anything that blocks radiate energy (clouds, water vapor, CO2, etc.) from making it to the radiometer is said to “trap” the energy because the energy that would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere (and made its way to the radiometer) is now held within the atmosphere. That energy obviously moves around the planet. It just doesn’t move toward space. That is what is meant by “trap”.
BTW…channel 16 (CO2) isn’t that good of a demonstration of the trapping caused by CO2 because CO2 is well mixed. There aren’t areas where there is a significant difference in CO2 concentration so we don’t expect significant differences in the clear-sky response over areas with homogenous temperatures. It is however I good demonstration of the trapping caused by clouds because clouds block a significant part of the 12.7-13.9 um band.
Just please note that the absorption and emission of longwave energy by GHGs in the atmosphere is not in dispute as far as I am concerned. Yes, from the surface looking toward space through the atmosphere, there is a static warming effect. But the atmosphere is not static, and the emission to space is mostly from the atmosphere itself, including from clouds. The fundamental concept of the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation is important to apply. It addresses the question of what happens to the energy involved in the incremental static warming effect experienced at the surface as GHG concentrations rise.
I’m just saying a radiative “trap” is not an unreasonable way to describe the concept of impeding the transmission of energy via IR radiation to space.
I understand your point. But the “trap” concept only deals with the IR emitted directly from the surface. The working fluid of the heat engine, including clouds, emits most of the IR reaching space.
Yes, hadn’t thought about why GOES chose that band on the edge of the atmospheric window before….13.3 microns has partial CO2 and H2O absorption that would be good baselines for cloud cover analysis.
There is no warming. No one really understood boundary layer effects years ago. Few realize what is actually happening even today. These effects, you could call them feedback, turn the energy absorbed by CO2 into evaporative cooling which, after all is said and done, increases precipitation by 1-2%.
When you think about it, this is exactly what the biosphere wants. A little more rain in concert with the increased CO2 will maximize plant fertilization.
Yes, more CO2 incrementally improves the radiative coupling between the lower atmosphere and the surface. It makes it a bit easier for latent energy to be transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine without raising the temperature, especially wherever it is wet or green. Not sure, however, that an increase in overall precipitation can ever be reliably confirmed by measurement. But it would not be a bad thing, as you say.
The US has seen an increase in precipitation over the past century. Since the last 25 years have been spent in the warm phase of the AMO, it’s possible that trend could just be a side effect. So, I agree, confirming a 1% rise is pretty much impossible at this time.
It’s also true that any warming for any reason will also lead to more evaporation and precipitation. The reduction in clouds measured by CERES around 2014 led to increased solar energy absorption and that no doubt would have a similar effect.
“This is equivalent to the view I have offered here at WUWT, that the dynamic operation of the atmosphere makes it impossible by any means we have available to us, to isolate the climate response of non-condensing GHGs for reliable attribution.”
That’s correct. At least, no climate response has been isolated to date. Not for lack of trying by climate change alarmists.
Yet, every day we have climate change alarmists attributing every extreme weather event to CO2-caused climate change. They obviously don’t know what they are talking about, and the ones who do know, are lying to all of us because there is no way they can connect CO2 to a certain weather event and they know it. But they continue lying.
Tell a lie often enough and some people are going to believe it. That’s what climate change alarmists are doing, telling the same climate change lies over and over and over , again.
Frank from NoVA
April 2, 2023 4:38 pm
Story tip:
Briggs recently had an entry for a paper by Ellis and Palmer that looks into ‘a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice-ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene.’ Seems to fill in some gaps in where peaks in the Milankovitch cycles don’t necessarily terminate glacial cycles. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/46277/
The big question is what actually is the climate sensitivity of CO2. The IPCC keeps publishing just a wide range of guesses so they do not really know. I believe that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. I would like to understand the opinion of others.
My opinion is that CO2 has not raised the temperature of the United States.
It was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States, than it is today, even though much more CO2 is in the air today than was in the air in the 1930’s.
This tells me that CO2 has had very little effect on the temperatures in the United States, as the U.S. is actually cooler than the 1930’s now, even with all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
And, going by the written, historic temperature records from around the world, this circumstance in the United States applies to the whole world, where, according to the written record, it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, despite their being more CO2 in the air today.
CO2 appears to be a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. So minor we don’t need to worry about it or regulate it.
Something else is the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
“Something else is in control of the Earth’s temperature”
Tom, I keep telling you that it is the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, but you are a tough nut to crack!.
Regarding the 1930’s it was hotter then because of fewer SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere due to decreased industrial activity.during the depression years.
Between 1929 and 1932, global industrial SO2 aerosol emissions fell from 43 Million tons in 1929 to 30 Million tons in 1932, a decrease of 13 Million tons, and temperatures rose because of the less polluted air.
There was a gradual recovery after that, but emissions did not reach the 1929 level again until 1937. The hottest year in the U.S.was in actually in 1935, when there was a stalled high pressure weather system over the mid-West, which causes SO2 aerosol levels within the stalled area to decrease..
See my article “Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”
https:doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264
You have to ignore temporary increases in global temperatures that are due to human activity when speaking of Climate Change..
I also had another article published on March 1 of this year which proves that decreased SO2 aerosol levels in the atmosphere are solely responsible for our warming climate
TA said: “It was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States, than it is today”
Was it though? Remember, the time-of-observation was changing from PM to AM especially after WWII and lower reading instrument packages were being deployed especially after 1980. Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I know many people here including you are. Do you think the people who changing the time-of-observation and instrument packages were engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the United States wasn’t warming? Were they committing fraud? What was their motive?
Be as that may be low biasing time-of-observation changes and low biasing instrument changes were occurring. The question still stands. Did a conspiracy and/or fraud occur to make it appear as if the United States did not warm as much on average (as based on daily Tmin and Tmax) due to the implementation of these changes?
If you think it is baloney that these changes were motivated by conspiracy and fraud then I agree. And if that is baloney then it should be baloney to cite conspiracy and fraud as a motivation for addressing those changes. Yet that is the insinuation for many posters here including Tom Abbott.
No he didn’t. And his antics in this regard to the US temperature trend actually set the stage for getting himself banned from WUWT.
Either way the question still stands. Do you think the people who changing the time-of-observation and instrument packages were engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the United States wasn’t warming? Were they committing fraud?
It warmed up in the 1930’s because there was a decrease in industrial activity during the depression years,, and industrial SO2 aerosol emissions fell from 43 million tons in 1929 to 30 million tons in 1932, a decrease of 13 million tons, and temperatures warmed up because of the less polluted air.
Hansen said it was. And one of Hansen’s colleagues wrote Hansen and said his temperature data also showed that 1934, for example, was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which makes it warmer than any temperature in the satellite record. So two sources say it is cooler today in the United States than it was in the 1930’s.
This is Hansen’s U.S. chart:
I know climate change alarmists want to ignore this chart because it repudiates their claims that CO2 has a large effect on atmospheric temperatures.
Even Hansen wanted (and did) change the record after there was serious cooling after 1998, which did not follow the alarmist climate change meme of constantly rising temperatures because of constant rising CO2, so Hansen and the other data mannipulators decided to dethrone 1998, and use their computers to turn 1998 into an insignificant year.
It’s all a BIG LIE, and if you don’t know it, you haven’t been paying attention. I’ll be kind.
Hansen also says this graph is contaminated with the time-of-observation change bias and instrument package change bias both of which are cooling biases.
I crunched the USHCN numbers a while back and generated anomalies using every station in the data set, and the trend was slightly negative: -0.004 going back to at least 1990. The US is 5.42% of the Earth’s land surface and has the best weather monitoring network going.
If the US has top-notch equipment and shows practically a zero trend for the past 32 years over 1/20th of the Earth’s land surface, shouldn’t that be considered rather significant?
Look at that chart of the USCRN anomaly at the top of the page. I just put it into an html page where I can get the coordinates with mouse clicks, and it’s got a negative trend. Very small, but negative from 2005 to Feb. 2023.
the fact that they don’t know- and make a wide range of guesses- is the definitive proof that “the science” is NOT settled
compare to a relatively settled science like physics- ask a physicist the mass of a proton, and the answer will be 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms and it’s not plus/minus 50%
hmmmmm- I wonder why climate sensitivity is always speculated to be a single number within a range – isn’t it more likely to be a variable in a complex function? (wild speculation- I’m no scientist)
No matter how much money is poured into allegedly finding this out, the central best estimate doesn’t change much and there are wide bounds. Callendar in 1938 (1.67C as stated above) Charney in 1979 (3.0C) IPCC has 3.0 or so for a central value, Happer and Wijngaarten think its under 2.0C … Using MODTRAN with constant relative humidity and assuming no effect other than radiation at the surface I get about 1.7C in mid latitudes. All estimates are which never shrinking — endless effort with no effect is the very definition of an effort that lacks consistency.
Some modeling efforts produce outliers like RCP8.5 high baseline, but generally no amount of money spent gets one away from the 2-3C range. Supposedly the computer modeling efforts would take into account the effect that CO2 has on atmospheric dynamics, but I am not convinced. The modeling results are much above what is observed.
The whole effort appears to me a depressing waste of resources to simply spin wheels, argue, and ramp fear. Will we be better off or worse off with a 2.0C rise in a couple of centuries hence? I say better. Let’s adapt as needed and use the research money for better purposes.
“Supposedly the computer modeling efforts would take into account the effect that CO2 has on atmospheric dynamics, but I am not convinced.” I agree. The models are inherently incapable of producing the motion readily observed at high resolution (the GOES band 16 visualizations) that drives the variable emission of longwave radiation to space.
Also, you are right on the money with your conclusion, “Let’s adapt as needed and use the research money for better purposes.”
All humans have been forced to adapt to climate change for every year of their lives since the first humans existed. We must have figured it out by now.
There is no 33K GHE
the flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2. and all of the surface having the same temperature depicts a false static and nonexistent condition scenario, which is limited to 255 K / -18C .
This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, That’s why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.
The real earth is easily heated to 30C on vast area and well over the average +15C on the lit hemisphere, The final average of +15C is determined and arrived at by the cooling rate and time as it passes through the night side,
there is no such -18C limit and there is no missing 33 degrees,
There is only a screwed up flat earth model.
You are assuming complexity that isn’t there into a very simplistic model. Incoming sunlight averages 340 W/m^2, Albedo averages 0.3, leaving 240 Watts of Short Wave incoming sunlight. Outgoing must thus be 240 W of Long Wave IR for an energy balance. Using Stephan Boltzmann equation this works out to 255 degrees C average planet temperature as viewed from outer space. But the average temperature at surface is 288, hence the oft stated 33C of greenhouse warming.
It can’t possibly be exactly right because there are many complicating factors. See a Trenberth-type diagram. What’s amazing is that it is even close….considering its basis in a couple of “spherical cow” assumptions.
“Dairy cows are set to be given ‘methane suppressants’ by farmers to reduce their carbon footprint – by making them burp less.
Ministers are looking to force farmers to give herds additives to reduce gas from digestion in ‘compound feeds’, which contain seaweed and essential oils.”
“The plan said the bovine supplements could be introduced ‘at pace’ from 2025 – or as ‘soon as practically possible’ – in efforts to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2030, as Britain’s commitment to the Global Methane Pledge requires.”
Those people are insane. Fear does that to people.
CO2isLife
April 4, 2023 6:43 pm
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts. Link
Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water. Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend
This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link
I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data. Malcolm Roberts of Queensland https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g
1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures. 2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s. 3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not.
Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures.
Anyone have an any ideas of why US Democrats have bought into the climate change crap? It’s obvious that 70+% of the worlds CO2 emission sources eg China, India etc are going to do nothing. So the US, Europe, etc curbing emissions accomplishes nothing. It’s so illogical.
It’s a lever to power. An excuse to surrender authority to them “For the Greater Good”.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tHuvYjMzCi5o/
A fact that Trump failed to realize and never figured out how to play it to his benefit. In fact, he likely alienated enough pro-climate change republicans to lose the election.
Pew states the 47% of registered voters in 2020 felt climate change was an important issue in the election. Of that 47%, 11% supported Trump. A little little less Trump harangue in twitter and he would have been elected and we would have been spared Brandon.
Being a little less frontal combative on climate change would have not alienated his strong anti-climate change support.
If liberal politicians play both sides to their benefit… like Trudeau…(i.e. exporting oil sand at top prices and characterizing it as green oil. Canadians bought it without a whimper), then if Republicans are to be elected they need to learn to play it as well especially now after massive climate propaganda campaign since 2019.
Bush Jr who had a strong libertarian approach to abortion, solidified his pro-life support with a few pro-life statements and no action in two terms. He learned the lesson from his Libertarian Father’s failure to be re-elected.
The Climate change movement can’t be beaten head on,…. got to pick your battles.
America is tired of the fringe fight eliminating the middle…..the middle has the best chance of winning. Everyone is tired of the fringe harangue on both sides.
The middle is the best chance of restoring representative power and so weaken the WEF avalanche of the past 5 years.
He was a candidate, but a nearly President (I don’t know the proper word for what Trump was in the WH) for four years. He couldn’t just utter generalities.
Mike McHenry asked, “Anyone have an any ideas of why US Democrats have bought into the climate change crap?”
They’re gullible and naive, which is why they’re Democrats.
Regards,
Bob
I have got to believe there is a motive here even if it’s just pandering to their constituency.
Several attractive aspects make this a popular theme for left-leaning Democrats.
It is one of many issues that allow the adherent to preen in glorious self-righteousness. Since they have no true values based on objective truth, anything that allows them to scoff at the Neanderthals in the other party is a win-win.
No need to actually understand the science or know anything about it really. It is enough that the other side doubts something that reeks of “The Science”.
The other attractive aspect of climate change that sends a thrill up the legs of the rabid far leftist is that it is essentially unsolvable without completely shutting down western civilization. A long list of insoluble issues like poverty, race inequality and so on becomes the ever-renewable fuel of vitriol that fuels the far-left. Anything that could actually be solved is exaggerated into insolubility just to keep the game going.
No need for race hustlers if the races reconcile. No need for Green goblins if the temperature goes down. Though I suspect the issue will just reverse in that case, like Stalin after the collapse of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Our evil CO2 is making a blanket in the sky, shutting out the sun! Actually makes more sense than the pseudo-science they use to support warming.
The rank-and-file Democrats know nothing of this, but at the strategy level climate change is perfect. Any issue that the other side cannot accept, that requires them to go on defense, is a good issue for a partisan. Like swinging your sword at the other combatant’s neck – the other has to defend or die.
If they really got their way billions would die. But they don’t really want to abandon fossil fuels. They just want to screech about it so loudly that nobody pays attention to their other crimes. Meanwhile the money pours into their cronies in the renewable industry and back to them.
“No need for race hustlers if the races reconcile.”
Good point. Let’s put Al Sharpton out of a job by promoting the thoughts of Martin Luther King Jr, who says we should judge a person by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
There are far too many double standards in place with more being added in the name of equity. Why would white Democrats stop pandering to blacks? It earns them many votes. Why should black Americans give up any of those levers of power? It earns them many government and corporate handouts.
In other words, race hustling is too good for business for both.
“Hear, Hear”… if only.
Hey Bob,
Do you have to draw the lines so tightly? Trump was a classic NY Democrat. I am a democrat of the pro-life paleoconservative variety. There remains a remnant of Democrats who are not koo koo for coco puffs. If you remember, Trump had to demolish the Libertarian scaffolding of the Republican Party in order to be nominated, which he did adroitly. And this is the reason I voted Republican and will continue to vote for any paleoconservative …… if any still exist.
Prior to the Trump presidency, the Republican Libertarians did nothing but lip service on abortion. They were lining up with the dems to legalize drugs and decriminalize drug offenses. The lined up with the dems to support massive gambling projects on line, on the phone in sports, everywhere. The Libertarian Republicans shaked and baked a war based on lies in Iraq that did nothing to stabilize the world. Libertarian Republicans, that is 51% of the Republican party supported the Paris Agreement and many attend WEF at Davo’s annually.
The Libertarian Republican’s did not stand at the vanguard of a fight that had to happen 20 years ago to protect the privacy of American’s from the tech giants. Now it’s too late. They are a steam rolling juggernaut. I don’t hear Republicans building a storm of trust busting for the Tech monopoly! Nothing but fear and trembling because their libertarian philosophy is morally bankrupt. It’s anarchy for the rich.
The only reason to switch party now is that the dems went fringe to the max but I won’t until I see a strong thread of Paleo conservativism in the Republican party…. it just isn’t worth my time. Plus in PA, it is better for me to be able to vote in the Dem primaries for saner candidates.
It’s a drive for a one word government, a US one world government, Democrat style.
The US is the only country large enough to carry this off so the Biden socialist regime jumped on the global governance bandwagon working with the socialist UN (with its communist Fat Controller in place) and numerous other global agencies including the WHO, IMF etc.
‘Climate change’ provides them with the opportunity to instruct the world’s population on how they should live, what they should eat, how they should travel, where and when they should travel and numerous other ‘initiatives’ designed to save the planet, because none of us want no planet, do we?
And here, I’ll paraphrase an unattributed quote: “I have been dead for billions of years and it has not caused me the least inconvenience”.
So these western governments (It’s not just the US) hijack the concept of death as something to be feared and terrorise the western population with the concept in order to run their ever shortening lives for them.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is having a good old giggle at the madness of the west and, by their intransigence, scupper the ambitions of the foolish west by just getting on with their lives.
There are, of course, some unseen hands at work here, not that George Soros is unseen, but some of his co-conspirators are, like the members of the Club of Rome, which makes them not so unseen however they disguise themselves with a cloak of respectability – like King Charles, respectable but a complete idiot.
It turns out that saving the planet is a really, REALLY expensive business which includes killing off 90% of the world’s population. And China, Russia and India have tried that before and it didn’t work so they are a bit wary of going down that route.
It’s also beginning to dawn on the ‘elite’ members of society, at least the ones with two brain cells to rub together, that culling humanity means they might have to grub for food themselves. Paying others to grub for their food is a much better proposition.
Additionally, some are now beginning to realise that whilst technology might save the planet, first we have to have the technology. Even they know the 14th Century technology of wind and sun just doesn’t cut it and investment in them is no good when governments have to predate on an increasingly hostile population to pay for it.
Shocker – the wind and solar boom will collapse just like the Dot Com boom they all lost their shirts on did. In fact, it’s happening right now. Follow the money.
“one word government”… Was that intentional?
Governments always grab more power and control by creating fear. Fear requires a boogeyman or two. They don’t have to be real boogeymen — they just have to be believed by most people.
Some boogeymen currently, and in the past:
Climate change / CO2
Pollution
Communism
Covid 19
Muslim extremists
Aliens from the planet Uranus
I made up the last one — that was my entry
in the 2022 Name the New Boogeyman Contest
that Dumbocrats have every year.
You left off white supremacy. According to the leftists, white supremacy is the largest threat to the US.
Back in the day, democrats prided themselves on being “for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers. This led to the dems convincing the working class that only they could protect them from the big corporations. To maintain and grow that constituency the dems catered to every demand the union’s put forward..
The final result of the catering caused high manufacturing costs for labor intensive industries, setting off the forever import boom, China gets the jobs, taxbase and profits, we get under employment, loss of taxbase, crippling national debt, and Detroit and the rest of the rust belt in dire straits.
Continuing their protecting the little guy theme the dems moved to Big Oil. to keep consumer costs for energy down in 1952 the dems caped natural gas at $0.25MCFand with Middle East oil at <$4.00 barrel US big oil was crippled for 20 years until the 1973 and 1978 “price shocks”. Dems have continued the consumer advocacy vote buying with a continuous war on domestic oil and gas.
It’s amazing we’re “only” $32 trillion in debt with the democrat wrecking ball destroying our economy. How much more damage will the Inflation Inflaming Act cause?
“How much more damage will the Inflation Inflaming Act cause?”
Quite a bit, it looks like. McDonalds is getting ready to lay off a bunch of people, and they are not going to be the only ones.
Biden’s inflation is slowing the U.S. economy.
democrats prided themselves on being “for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers.
Pure BS marketing, no substance.
Open Thread.
I’ve been looking for a parts diagram on a Lionel 282R Gantry Crane, 6-22998, 72-2998-250, 02/99.
Can’t find one anywhere.
Hope I didn’t just derail the “Open Thread”. 😎
(I really am looking for one to fix a problem. I’ve tried the usual searches. Last resort.)
eBay – j4le1943
https://www.ebay.com/itm/352634048821?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28&srsltid=AfAwrE5B6c76HrPS8zwh07YPwdiBobcEEChYcU-MCG4vcGV9fTH2NSmWzb8
Thank you (very much), but I don’t think that’s what I need.
Apparently, aside from the original 282, there were more than one 282Rs made.(On the Lionel support site they had two versions of the 282R parts listed. Each had different part numbers for what I wanted to check out. Both unavailable.)
But I will check out the link. Maybe it will show me enough so I can fix the thing without breaking it beyond repair.
Thank you again.
PS I saw something on eBay less than a year ago that wanted to bid on.
They said I needed to set up an account so I did. Never had a bid accepted. A few hours later I got an email saying my account suspended for my “history” of buying and selling!
I am always happy to help a rail fan, especially if it involves steam, that nasty greenhouse gas. And I must admit, I love the smell of burning coal, seriously.
My father was a steam locomotive engineer (‘hoghead’) Canadian National Railways. He smuggled my brother and I on board a for a few trips when we were 9 and 11 in the 1940s. We took turns blowing the whistle at all the crossing! Yeah, I’m a steam buff, too.
Now with sociological/political climate change in force, they’ve even shut down popular summer steam train trips put on by the Museum of Science and Technology.
My Dad grew up in a railroad town. All of his uncles retired from various lines.
When we were kids in the ’60’s, Dad took my two brothers and I to an uphill grade near where he grew up and taught us how to hop a moving freight train.
If I remember correctly, afterward he cautioned by saying, “Now don’t tell your Mother!”. (He said that a lot.) 😎
In the morning because it smells like victory?
Back when I was a mere prat, the mid-to-late-1960s, I had two great-aunts who loved a couple of houses away from my grandmother, their sister. Their house was old, and the small backyard was so overgrown that it was like a jungle to an 8-year-old.
They always had milk and cookies on hand for when I stopped by, and the coolest thing about the old house was the big fireplace where they kept a coal fire burning in the chilly part of the year. It was fascinating to sit there and watch the bituminous coal burning, jetting gas from pockets and occasionally popping.
Coal has fascinated me ever since.
You might give the California State Railroad Museum a call. They have an amazing collection of model railroad stuff. https://www.californiarailroad.museum/
Knowing nothing about model trains… have you tried here: https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/lionel-282r-gantry-crane-repair-help
They also mention a book: Greenbergs Lionel Repair manual, which might be useful to you.
Best of luck.
Thanks.
The diagram there is for an earlier version (1956). Mine is from around 1999 and has two can motors and gear box assemblies. But I did explore the forum and found some useful info.
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/6-22998-282r-gantry-crane-problems
Sounds like either the grease has hardened and the belts are slipping or the belts have broken. But no diagram.
Guess I’ll need to pull out the tools and see what I find!
What assumption is made about water vapor from the combustion of fossil fuels that allows it a GHG to be ignored? It doesn’t seem possible that it all condenses.
The water vapor from fossil fuel combustion is miniscule compared to that from ocean evaporation. On ‘average’, the specific humidity of air is about 2%. On average, the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is now about 0.0004% (400 ppm). Since that includes coal, the FF derived water vapor would be less than that.
Yes I know that, but when you burn oil or methane you get more water than CO2. In the case of methane 4X as much. I’m talking comparatively. As I understand it water is a stronger absorber that CO2.
True. But the relative proportions also matter a great deal. And there is a lot more water in the oceans than chemically locked in oil and gas fossil fuel deposits. Proof: most oil and gas is ‘cooked’ underground (technical terms oil and gas windows) from long ago shallow marine deposits of kerogen, derived from marine photosynthetic organisms falling into an anoxic environment (like the Black Sea today).
When I say comparatively I mean that a climate modeler ignores the water generated and only models the CO2.
The climate confuser games are programmed to scare people
They ignore a lot of things and overemphasize manmade causes of global warming
The water released from burning hydrocarbon fuels is not a cause of climate change.
Neither is CO2.
wrong — you are a science denier
0.04%
Yup. My bad. Point remains.
Yes, no doubt is does. Almost didn’t mention it, because we all have mental typos, and all know what you meant.
That number should be 0.04%. 400/1000000 = 0.0004, or 0.04%
It is not evil like CO2.
Water in all its forms killed thousands of people in 2022. At least a thousand drowned in it. A lot of people got washed away in torrents. At least one child was killed by falling ice. Millions of animals drowned in flood waters in 2022.
As far as I am aware, CO2 did not kill anyone in 2022. And yet CO2 is now widely classified as a pollutant.
The religious zealots have decreed CO2 evil and labelled it a deadly pollutant.
“As far as I am aware, CO2 did not kill anyone in 2022”.
CO2 KILLED MY DOG
I have that bumper sticker on my car. The leftists in my neighborhood love it and now thet wave to me as I drive by. They used to hate me because I park a rusted out old pickup truck on blocks in my yard to scare off potential burglars. Who would break into my house when my next door neighbor parks a full size Jaguar sedan outside her house and my other next door neighbor parks a Mercedes SUV outside his house? The answer is no one has stolen anything from our house since 1987. We were very unpopular with neighbors until I placed that CO2 KILLED MY DOG bumper sticker on my car.
I often hear the zealots talk about “carbon pollution”- too stupid to say “carbon dioxide”.
The best quote I’ve seen on “carbon pollution” (don’t have attribution but think I saw it on WUWT) is : “What kind of pollution is it, that if it ever gets to zero, everything dies?”
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the average temperature of the atmosphere.
When burning hydrocarbon fuels results in a warmer atmosphere, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor, which amplifies the warming effect of CO2.
Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere and that always increases he water vapor content, which causes additional warming.
That is basic climate science known for over a century, that many readers here reject for no logical reason. As a result of their AGW science denial, they can not effectively refute CAGW (CAGW is not science — it is just a wrong prediction used to scare people into submission to their governments — wrong since 1979)
The important points, listed below, are not that CO2 always inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself, or that a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, which is a water vapor positive feedback to a warmer troposphere.
These are the important points about CO2 and warming:
More CO2 in the atmosphere benefits C3 plants
Global warming benefits people living in colder nations, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night (TMIN)
CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a net benefit for the ecology.
The water vapor positive feedback is limited to prevent runaway global warming
My best guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere causes more clouds to form, and more clouds are a negative feedback to the water vapor positive feedback
Due Diligence:
Since 1997 I have advocated for MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, if placed there by burning hydrocarbon fuels using modern pollution controls. The optimum CO2 level for C3 plants is at least double the current 420ppm level, With a higher CO2 level, our planet would support more human and animal life, with C3 plants used for foods.
People who demonize CO2 are anti-life.
“Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere and that always increases he water vapor content, which causes additional warming.
That is basic climate science known for over a century, that many readers here reject for no logical reason. As a result of their AGW science denial, they can not effectively refute CAGW..”
Few people are saying more CO2 will not cause SOME increase in temperature- only that it’s not the only thing influencing climate.
There are too many conservatives who deny 100% of leftist “consensus” climate science. They deny the greenhouse effect. They deny AGW. They deny that CO2 impedes cooling. They claim manmade CO2 accounts for only 3% to 5% of the 420ppm of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
i did not realize how many climate science deniers there were until this year when I decided to “correct” them.
Leftist climate science may be 90% baloney (my opinion) but is not 100% baloney. iT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO CLAIM ALL CONSENSUS CLIMATE SCIENCE IS WRONG.
AGW is real, and harmless.
But CAGW is just a fantasy prediction.
CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm that adding it to the atmosphere is good news for C3 plants. I advocate for doubling the current CO2 level. And for another +1 degree C. of global warming too — to reach a new climate optimum. I don’t care what causes that warming– warming is good news.
The LAST CLIMATE OPTIMUM, FROM 5000 TO 9000 YEARS AGO, WAS AT LEAST +1 DEGREE C. WARMER THAN TODAY. So let’s hope for +1 degree warmer in the future. Because another climate optimum has to be good news. (while those fake scientists at the IPCC claim another +1 degree of global warming would be a climate emergency, not another climate emergency)
In the past, +1 degree warmer than today was good news
But in the future, +1 degree C. warmer than today is bad news?
Give me a break, IPCC.
maybe there are “too many” people who deny 100% of the “climate science consensus”- but it’s not worth getting worked up over as they’ll probably never change their minds by your efforts- so I suggest just ignore them and continue with the idea that there is SOME warming due to carbon emissions
of course they’ll call you a “warmunista” or whatever- but rather than fighting with them, fight with the lunatics like Al Gore who thinks the oceans are boiling- think of them as allies in a common struggle against the real enemy, the fossil fuel haters
Dick says:”Adding greenhouse gases always creates a warmer atmosphere…”
Why would I accept as true something that is demonstrably false. As someone pointed out here years ago a high humidity day in Minnesota at 87 F has more energy in the surrounding air than a low humidity day at 100 F in Phoenix.
100 F is warmer than the 87 F but due to the mass and specific heat of water it is cooler.
Enthalpy!
You are talking about one day’s weather in Minnesota versus one days weather in Arizona.
I am talking about the climate of our planet, which is averaged weather over at least a 30 year period
Two different subjects.
Richard, Here is a fact you might find interesting : All of the radiation from the surface that enters the atmosphere leaves the atmosphere either returning to the surface or exiting to space. The atmosphere is not warmed directly by surface radiation.
WRONG
The atmosphere is heated by three important processes that are carried out Conduction, Convection, and Advection. Radiation is also an important step in the process of heating the atmosphere.
Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.
If The radiation from the surface directly heated the atmosphere then that would cool the surface as then more radiation would leave the planet cooling it not heating it. That is not to say that the back radiation does not heat the surface which allows the other processes to heat the atmosphere.
To physicists the atmosphere in a state called local temperature equilibrium (LTE) While in that state, adding a GHG absorbs surface radiation and passes the energy to the atmosphere which immediately radiates it away according to Planck. That is a molecule in an energy state greater than the local temperature will quickly return to the local temperature..
The temperature of the oceans is the main driver of atmospheric water vapor, El-Nino increase water vapor which in turns increases globally averaged temperatures. LA-Nina’s have the inverse affect. Ocean temperatures (and lakes) cooler than 28C scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, temperatures above emit CO2 to the atmosphere.
The oceans that absorb CO2 mineralize almost all of it through the very dynamic electrically charged oceanic environment full of many types of mineral ions attacking CO2 within a fraction of a second. When it rains or snows, CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere and brought to the surface for biological and chemical processes to bond with it.
If the oceans warmed substantially, it would be impossible to stop a 1000 ppm breach.
If CO2 is a pollutant, declare war on the oceans.
Atmospheric CO2 at the top of a mountain is merely a proxy for average ocean temperature.
The other interesting thing to note is that atmospheric water vapor trends have not been increasing, which also cast doubt on the theory of CO2 as a driver of climate.
Water vapor can only increase in the troposphere if the troposphere gets warmer. That does not cast any doubt on the fact that CO2 is one of many climate change variables. But there is no proof that CO2 is more important than all other climate variables.
What is the explanation for the troposphere getting warmer over the last four decades, but water vapor is decreasing?
Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry.
WRONG
Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space.
One way that the world’s ocean affects weather and climate is by playing an important role in keeping our planet warm. The majority of radiation from the Sun is absorbed by the ocean, particularly in tropical waters around the equator, where the ocean acts like a massive, heat-retaining solar panel. Land areas also absorb some sunlight, and the atmosphere helps to retain heat that would otherwise quickly radiate into space after sunset.
The ocean doesn’t just store solar radiation — it also helps to distribute heat around the globe. When water molecules are heated, they exchange freely with the air in a process called evaporation. Ocean water is constantly evaporating, increasing the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air to form rain and storms that are then carried by trade winds. In fact, almost all rain that falls on land starts off in the ocean. The tropics are particularly rainy because heat absorption, and thus ocean evaporation, is highest in this area.
You really should study the ITZ and how the Hadley cells work.
“The Hadley circulation is also a key mechanism for the meridional transport of heat, angular momentum, and moisture, contributing to the subtropical jet stream, the moist tropics, and maintaining a global thermal equilibrium.”
During El-Nino years there is more moisture added to the atmosphere.
So, sorry not WRONG at all, there are no general rules of thumb in global climate.
Water vapor produced by your lawn mower engine today becomes part of a cloud over the ocean in a couple of weeks, reducing incoming sunlight, reducing evaporation from the sea surface….etc, etc…..Total water column integrated over total planet is remarkably constant…..Water cycle’s evaporation over oceans and sunlight reflection by clouds control the planet’s temperature….so you needn’t account for it in any global warming calcs……/s
I have a question about methane. When methane reaches TOA, does it not react with ozone? Reaction?
Your technical answer can be found at NASA Earth Observatory. Stratospheric methane (google key takes you there) produces about half of all stratospheric water vapor. Little to do with ozone chemistry.
Today was Palm Sunday, a day for quiet reflection. I got to wondering why easily debunked climate stuff—threatened polar bears, GBR dying, SLR acceleration, tipping points—keep arising after repeatedly debunked. The previous post offering an answer. Global warming is akin to a religion, and these things are part of its catechism. Memorized, recited over and over. Impervious to facts and logic.
because the legacy media doesn’t report the debunking?
unfortunately, most still get their “news and information” from the biased (IMO corrupt) legacy media.
Sunday is the right day to contemplate such questions.
I see so much faith on LinkedIn, people trying to convert me and once they see I have answers to all their points I become a denier not worthy of debate.
Haven’t lost yet, all due to info primarily gleaned here, so thanks for that.
I used to be a member of that church or was at least permanently in purgatory
I’m not intending to offend you, but you have your religion, and leftists have their religion of climate change. Both have many beliefs BASED ON FAITH THAT CAN NOT BE falsified.
I find it amusing that people with tradditional religious beliefs criticize people with secular climate religion beliefs.
I see that as “My beliefs are better than your beliefs”
Not logical.
About an article from Australia on real scientist Ian Plimer.
Ian Plimer, a Geologist’s View of Climate Change at Heartland Institute Climate Conference, 2023
Plimer wrote a great book in 2009 called Heaven and Earth
I have a copy
Late last year I heard him on a video claiming that manmade CO2 only accounted for 3% to 5% of total 420ppm atmospheric CO2, when the correct answer is about 33%. Which means he has regressed into being a science denier, and that is sad.
A couple of years ago there was a paper suggesting the GHE was exaggerated, and more like 27K instead of 33K. It specifically referred to the low emissivity of water in the far-IR range. In hindsight I fully agree with it. However, despite my best effort I can not find it anymore. Does anyone have a clue?
I have no clue
Or at least, many tell me so
🤪
Look in your clues closet
RG, King of Lame Comedy
As somewhat of a newcomer here it would help if you guys would spell out what your abbreviations mean once in a while. Not a clue what GHE means.
GHE – greenhouse effet
c
Water or water vapour?
water
We are moving into Easter week. Here are three pieces written for that occasion that merit listening to and reflecting on.
— Schutz – Seven Last Words
— Couperin’s setting of the Lamentations, perhaps more accessible than the next suggestion
— One of the Charpentier settings of the Lamentations.
There are quite a lot of choices on YouTube.
Rene Jacobs’ Vendredi is particularly fine, though a counter tenor isn’t historical. There is also a performance of Charpentier’s Jeudi Lamentations by the Ensemble Gradiva which is superb.
For the last two, in late 17c France, there are pauses in the singing of the recitation of the prophet’s words. At each of these some candles would be extinguished, so that the church was in darkness by the end. Then there would be a bang on a wooden table, to symbolize the opening of the tomb.
Its probably best to try and get French performances of the last two. German of Schutz of course.
Avoid any which are the usual lower male voices in their natural register, they don’t give a feel for the music, which was written specifically for womens voices. Also avoid any which are overly operatic. There is a Finnish performance which makes you shake your head in amazement at how misunderstood this music can be, avoid it.
You will usually have three movements of Lamentations, one singer solo, then the other solo, then a duet. Two female voices are authentic, but sometimes you have to settle for a counter tenor to hear the music at all, and Jacobs is excellent, despite the slight sense of strain in reaching that high register. A counter tenor, at least in this music, never has the same easy natural flow as a soprano or contralto.
I’m expecting UAH 2023/03 to come in at 0.24 ± 0.2 C. The odds of the Monckton Pause extending to 105 months is slightly over 50%.
I’m expecting a small increase above February. The 3-4 month lag time from the La Nina effects is still there and should keep it low enough to continue the pause extensions. In addition, there wasn’t any major change at the poles which have a quicker effect.
If it comes in at >= 0.26 the Monckton Pause will not extend. I estimated there is a 42% chance of that happening.
Please remind us of your predictions after the UAH numbers are reported.
Will do. Hopefully Dr. Spencer posts it tomorrow morning.
March cooled over February in 2021 but warmed in 2022. Both were La Nina years. The big difference last year appeared to be the lower levels of Antarctic sea ice. Since that ice is still at low levels this year, it does favor another rise. That’s why I’m in general agreement with you.
The 2023/03 value is reported as +0.20 C. This extends to the Monckton Pause to 105 months.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/
Scrupulously fair. I’m getting a trend of -0.036 deg C/century, but with a standard error almost 17 times more magnitudinous (a Bill Buckley style invented word, I think). So, a 52% chance of it being negative.
I can also me too your 0.26 degC break point. But that’s just you doing the work, and anyone can replicate it.
This 2023/03 value reported by UAH is associated with a 4 month lagged La Nina of -0.9. Anyway, yeah, I agree, the uncertainty on that Monckton Pause trend is very high and statistically insignificant so we can’t eliminate the possibility that the trend was actually positive.
I refer to Guy Callendar’s 1938 work published by the Royal Meteorological Society. His calculation of a surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is mentioned occasionally here at WUWT. At this link there is a pdf of the original printed article, including a record of the comments. I encourage climate fans here to take a few minutes to read these contemporary points about Callendar’s analysis in the last few pages of the pdf.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
An excerpt from Prof. D. Brunt’s comment:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
This is equivalent to the view I have offered here at WUWT, that the dynamic operation of the atmosphere makes it impossible by any means we have available to us, to isolate the climate response of non-condensing GHGs for reliable attribution. It is also equivalent to saying that ECS cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by present means; and that heat energy cannot be accumulated on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere.
My point? The static vs. dynamic views of the GHG question persist. The expectation that the static effect will dominate the end result still seems persuasive to many, perhaps most. I think Brunt and Simpson were very perceptive about what was computed for attribution in 1938.
So here we are, with much work remaining to persuade policy makers to snap out of the illusion of “climate action.”
A side note: Callendar thought warming would be beneficial.
Another trivia about that article, calculated in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. His implied ECS is 1.67C, almost exactly what modern EBM estimates. But his curve was published in 1938.
True. I hope the evidence from space – the hourly CERES observations, and the near-real-time GOES visualizations – eventually helps more folks see the problem with too much emphasis on the static warming effect. The dynamic end result is not a radiative “trap” as one can now readily “see” from the satellites.
the only degrees of freedom for the long-term earth system climates are the factors of cloud condensation. This includes cloud fraction, cloud height, evapo-transpiration / surface moisture availability / vapor pressure deficits, and cloud condensation nuclei. it boils down to albedo. Secondary factors are the trade winds and global circulation which are coupled to the spatial pattern of effects mentioned above. There is no freedom of external “forcing” in the LW radiation field. The only freedom is a perturbation to the water cycle and associated energy regime (sun & wind).
“it boils down to albedo”
Yes, which means it boils down to absorbed energy from the sun, from which everything else happening dynamically in the atmosphere follows.
yes – there cannot be any “imbalance” of atmospheric absorbed LW radiation and atmospheric emitted LW radiation.
That portion of LW which is not absorbed is transmitted directly to space, so it too cannot create an imbalance.
The so-called TOA imbalance, i.e. the difference between solar absorbed into the system and the OLR can only result from anomalous shortwave entering the ocean.
The oceanic absorption of the solar beam can indeed result in a heat trapping effect, and an apparent TOA imbalance.
The TOA balance cannot be restored until excess oceanic heat content becomes available at the ocean-atmosphere interface, and when the albedo begins to stabilize.
The 20th century represents a massive perturbation to the Earth system, and it is not unreasonable that humanity has had a role in influencing the cloud condensation mechanisms directly.
JCM said: “The so-called TOA imbalance, i.e. the difference between solar absorbed into the system and the OLR can only result from anomalous shortwave entering the ocean.”
Well the 1LOT says ΔE = Ein – Eout. So you can get a positive imbalance (ΔE > 0) by 1) increasing the input (ΔEin > 0) or 2) by decreasing the output (ΔEout < 0) or 3) by increasing input more than output (ΔEin > 0, ΔEout > 0, and ΔEin > ΔEout) or 4) by decreasing output more than input (ΔEin < 0, ΔEout < 0, and ΔEout < ΔEin).
So it can happen in more ways than just anomalous shortwave entering the ocean. Anomalous DWIR would do the trick as well.
IR radiative trapping of photons by preferential DWIR is a more complicated conceptualization.
Simple explanations can be helpful, such as allowing for the idea of greater proportion of sunlight to be entering the ocean than in past times. This does not require any stretch of the imagination.
I’m looking at GOES-16 right now. The surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico relatively homogenous, but the WV mixing ratios are not. There is a ribbon of > 10 g/kg surrounded by zones to the north and south of < 10 g/kg. The ABI radiometer is seeing less UWIR in the WV channel (~7 um) in the high WV zone. If the energy isn’t making it to space and it isn’t getting “trapped” then where is it going?
Consider Band 16. NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave Band, centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns. Highly variable over time and location. The longwave emission to space is de-coupled from surface temperature by the formation and dissipation of clouds, driven by the motion. My explanation would be that the energy not emitted maintains the circulations at local to global scale. The implication is that longwave emission of energy back to space is self-limiting, self-regulating, self-compensating. That’s what I mean by saying the end result is not a radiative “trap.” It is the totalized output of a huge array of variable emitters.
(The brightness temperature color scale is such that the radiance at 30C (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C(white.))
Channel 16 is highly variable because it is affected primarily by clouds (like all of the LW channels) and secondarily by the mean temperature of the troposphere. When you see a colder inferred temperature in this channel (or any of the channels) it means less energy in the corresponding spectral band is making it to the radiometer. Energy that does not escape to space is said to be “trapped”. Anything that blocks radiate energy (clouds, water vapor, CO2, etc.) from making it to the radiometer is said to “trap” the energy because the energy that would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere (and made its way to the radiometer) is now held within the atmosphere. That energy obviously moves around the planet. It just doesn’t move toward space. That is what is meant by “trap”.
BTW…channel 16 (CO2) isn’t that good of a demonstration of the trapping caused by CO2 because CO2 is well mixed. There aren’t areas where there is a significant difference in CO2 concentration so we don’t expect significant differences in the clear-sky response over areas with homogenous temperatures. It is however I good demonstration of the trapping caused by clouds because clouds block a significant part of the 12.7-13.9 um band.
Just please note that the absorption and emission of longwave energy by GHGs in the atmosphere is not in dispute as far as I am concerned. Yes, from the surface looking toward space through the atmosphere, there is a static warming effect. But the atmosphere is not static, and the emission to space is mostly from the atmosphere itself, including from clouds. The fundamental concept of the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation is important to apply. It addresses the question of what happens to the energy involved in the incremental static warming effect experienced at the surface as GHG concentrations rise.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
I’m just saying a radiative “trap” is not an unreasonable way to describe the concept of impeding the transmission of energy via IR radiation to space.
I understand your point. But the “trap” concept only deals with the IR emitted directly from the surface. The working fluid of the heat engine, including clouds, emits most of the IR reaching space.
Yes, hadn’t thought about why GOES chose that band on the edge of the atmospheric window before….13.3 microns has partial CO2 and H2O absorption that would be good baselines for cloud cover analysis.
Agreed. I have been impressed with the contrast band 16 provides for cloud formation, movement, and dissipation.
There is no warming. No one really understood boundary layer effects years ago. Few realize what is actually happening even today. These effects, you could call them feedback, turn the energy absorbed by CO2 into evaporative cooling which, after all is said and done, increases precipitation by 1-2%.
When you think about it, this is exactly what the biosphere wants. A little more rain in concert with the increased CO2 will maximize plant fertilization.
Yes, more CO2 incrementally improves the radiative coupling between the lower atmosphere and the surface. It makes it a bit easier for latent energy to be transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine without raising the temperature, especially wherever it is wet or green. Not sure, however, that an increase in overall precipitation can ever be reliably confirmed by measurement. But it would not be a bad thing, as you say.
The US has seen an increase in precipitation over the past century. Since the last 25 years have been spent in the warm phase of the AMO, it’s possible that trend could just be a side effect. So, I agree, confirming a 1% rise is pretty much impossible at this time.
It’s also true that any warming for any reason will also lead to more evaporation and precipitation. The reduction in clouds measured by CERES around 2014 led to increased solar energy absorption and that no doubt would have a similar effect.
“This is equivalent to the view I have offered here at WUWT, that the dynamic operation of the atmosphere makes it impossible by any means we have available to us, to isolate the climate response of non-condensing GHGs for reliable attribution.”
That’s correct. At least, no climate response has been isolated to date. Not for lack of trying by climate change alarmists.
Yet, every day we have climate change alarmists attributing every extreme weather event to CO2-caused climate change. They obviously don’t know what they are talking about, and the ones who do know, are lying to all of us because there is no way they can connect CO2 to a certain weather event and they know it. But they continue lying.
Tell a lie often enough and some people are going to believe it. That’s what climate change alarmists are doing, telling the same climate change lies over and over and over , again.
Story tip:
Briggs recently had an entry for a paper by Ellis and Palmer that looks into ‘a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice-ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene.’ Seems to fill in some gaps in where peaks in the Milankovitch cycles don’t necessarily terminate glacial cycles.
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/46277/
Frank from Nova:
I also have what could be a Story tip. It is my recently published article “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0123
It also uses a novel approach to explain why our Climate has been warming, it is not CO2, and is currently man-made.
link does not work
DMacKenzie:
Sorry. It was entered incorrectly
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
The big question is what actually is the climate sensitivity of CO2. The IPCC keeps publishing just a wide range of guesses so they do not really know. I believe that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. I would like to understand the opinion of others.
One way to illustrate the view that the climate response to CO2 cannot be reliably differentiated from zero is to consider what happens to the total energy in the atmosphere above a location on the surface. I explain in this comment from last year.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/30/essay-contest-results-delayed-a-bit-and-open-thread/#comment-3443611
My opinion is that CO2 has not raised the temperature of the United States.
It was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States, than it is today, even though much more CO2 is in the air today than was in the air in the 1930’s.
This tells me that CO2 has had very little effect on the temperatures in the United States, as the U.S. is actually cooler than the 1930’s now, even with all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
And, going by the written, historic temperature records from around the world, this circumstance in the United States applies to the whole world, where, according to the written record, it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, despite their being more CO2 in the air today.
CO2 appears to be a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. So minor we don’t need to worry about it or regulate it.
Something else is the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
Tom Abbott:
“Something else is in control of the Earth’s temperature”
Tom, I keep telling you that it is the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, but you are a tough nut to crack!.
Regarding the 1930’s it was hotter then because of fewer SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere due to decreased industrial activity.during the depression years.
Between 1929 and 1932, global industrial SO2 aerosol emissions fell from 43 Million tons in 1929 to 30 Million tons in 1932, a decrease of 13 Million tons, and temperatures rose because of the less polluted air.
There was a gradual recovery after that, but emissions did not reach the 1929 level again until 1937. The hottest year in the U.S.was in actually in 1935, when there was a stalled high pressure weather system over the mid-West, which causes SO2 aerosol levels within the stalled area to decrease..
See my article “Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”
https:doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264
You have to ignore temporary increases in global temperatures that are due to human activity when speaking of Climate Change..
I also had another article published on March 1 of this year which proves that decreased SO2 aerosol levels in the atmosphere are solely responsible for our warming climate
See “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17..2.0323
So, have I finally convinced you?
The 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s definitely had more SO2 than any following decades.
mauna_loa_transmission.png (2400×1800) (noaa.gov)
ACP – Revisiting the Agung 1963 volcanic forcing – impact of one or two eruptions (copernicus.org)
SO2 up from 1975 to 1980
Average temperature up
SO2 down from 2015 to 2023
Average temperature slightly down
SO2 and average temperature are “supposed to” move in opposite directions.
I just showed two periods where they did not.
Burl, I promise you I will read your stuff. I haven’t had time yet.
Tom Abbott;
Thanks, Tom. I was wondering where you were.
Tom Abbott:
None of my links work!
Here they are, again
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
Tom Abbott:
None of my links work.
Here they are, again:
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.3.0264
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
TA said: “It was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States, than it is today”
Was it though? Remember, the time-of-observation was changing from PM to AM especially after WWII and lower reading instrument packages were being deployed especially after 1980. Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I know many people here including you are. Do you think the people who changing the time-of-observation and instrument packages were engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the United States wasn’t warming? Were they committing fraud? What was their motive?
What a pile of baloney
More US states have their high temperature records set in the 1930s than in any other decade
Be as that may be low biasing time-of-observation changes and low biasing instrument changes were occurring. The question still stands. Did a conspiracy and/or fraud occur to make it appear as if the United States did not warm as much on average (as based on daily Tmin and Tmax) due to the implementation of these changes?
If you think it is baloney that these changes were motivated by conspiracy and fraud then I agree. And if that is baloney then it should be baloney to cite conspiracy and fraud as a motivation for addressing those changes. Yet that is the insinuation for many posters here including Tom Abbott.
Heller has shown that TOBs is BS.
No he didn’t. And his antics in this regard to the US temperature trend actually set the stage for getting himself banned from WUWT.
Either way the question still stands. Do you think the people who changing the time-of-observation and instrument packages were engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the United States wasn’t warming? Were they committing fraud?
Richard Greene:
It warmed up in the 1930’s because there was a decrease in industrial activity during the depression years,, and industrial SO2 aerosol emissions fell from 43 million tons in 1929 to 30 million tons in 1932, a decrease of 13 million tons, and temperatures warmed up because of the less polluted air.
“Was it though?”
Hansen said it was. And one of Hansen’s colleagues wrote Hansen and said his temperature data also showed that 1934, for example, was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which makes it warmer than any temperature in the satellite record. So two sources say it is cooler today in the United States than it was in the 1930’s.
This is Hansen’s U.S. chart:
I know climate change alarmists want to ignore this chart because it repudiates their claims that CO2 has a large effect on atmospheric temperatures.
Even Hansen wanted (and did) change the record after there was serious cooling after 1998, which did not follow the alarmist climate change meme of constantly rising temperatures because of constant rising CO2, so Hansen and the other data mannipulators decided to dethrone 1998, and use their computers to turn 1998 into an insignificant year.
It’s all a BIG LIE, and if you don’t know it, you haven’t been paying attention. I’ll be kind.
Hansen also says this graph is contaminated with the time-of-observation change bias and instrument package change bias both of which are cooling biases.
CO2 doesn’t oscillate, it trends. No way can CO2 explain that variability.
I crunched the USHCN numbers a while back and generated anomalies using every station in the data set, and the trend was slightly negative: -0.004 going back to at least 1990. The US is 5.42% of the Earth’s land surface and has the best weather monitoring network going.
If the US has top-notch equipment and shows practically a zero trend for the past 32 years over 1/20th of the Earth’s land surface, shouldn’t that be considered rather significant?
USCRN, supposedly the best NOAA network, if you trust NOAA, covers about 1.5% of Earth’s total surface area.
USCRN does not have a zero trend since 2005. There is an uptrend from 2005 to 2015, and a downtrend after 2015.
The overall 2005 to 2023 trend is an uptrend.
1.5% of the Earth’s surface, but 5.4% of the Earth’s land surface
I’m looking at USHCN, not USCRN. There are only 114 USCRN stations in the contiguous US, and they only go back to 2005.
USHCN has 1218 stations going back to the 1890s in some cases.
I’m also looking at TMAX, not TAVG.
Look at that chart of the USCRN anomaly at the top of the page. I just put it into an html page where I can get the coordinates with mouse clicks, and it’s got a negative trend. Very small, but negative from 2005 to Feb. 2023.
the fact that they don’t know- and make a wide range of guesses- is the definitive proof that “the science” is NOT settled
compare to a relatively settled science like physics- ask a physicist the mass of a proton, and the answer will be 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms and it’s not plus/minus 50%
hmmmmm- I wonder why climate sensitivity is always speculated to be a single number within a range – isn’t it more likely to be a variable in a complex function? (wild speculation- I’m no scientist)
No matter how much money is poured into allegedly finding this out, the central best estimate doesn’t change much and there are wide bounds. Callendar in 1938 (1.67C as stated above) Charney in 1979 (3.0C) IPCC has 3.0 or so for a central value, Happer and Wijngaarten think its under 2.0C … Using MODTRAN with constant relative humidity and assuming no effect other than radiation at the surface I get about 1.7C in mid latitudes. All estimates are
which never shrinking — endless effort with no effect is the very definition of an effort that lacks consistency.
Some modeling efforts produce outliers like RCP8.5 high baseline, but generally no amount of money spent gets one away from the 2-3C range. Supposedly the computer modeling efforts would take into account the effect that CO2 has on atmospheric dynamics, but I am not convinced. The modeling results are much above what is observed.
The whole effort appears to me a depressing waste of resources to simply spin wheels, argue, and ramp fear. Will we be better off or worse off with a 2.0C rise in a couple of centuries hence? I say better. Let’s adapt as needed and use the research money for better purposes.
“Supposedly the computer modeling efforts would take into account the effect that CO2 has on atmospheric dynamics, but I am not convinced.” I agree. The models are inherently incapable of producing the motion readily observed at high resolution (the GOES band 16 visualizations) that drives the variable emission of longwave radiation to space.
Also, you are right on the money with your conclusion, “Let’s adapt as needed and use the research money for better purposes.”
All humans have been forced to adapt to climate change for every year of their lives since the first humans existed. We must have figured it out by now.
+1 degrees warmer than today would be a climate optimum
+1 degrees warmer 5000 to 9000 years ago was a climate optimum.
So we know that answer.
Definitely not zero
You get an “F”
There is no 33K GHE
the flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2. and all of the surface having the same temperature depicts a false static and nonexistent condition scenario, which is limited to 255 K / -18C .
This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, That’s why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.
The real earth is easily heated to 30C on vast area and well over the average +15C on the lit hemisphere, The final average of +15C is determined and arrived at by the cooling rate and time as it passes through the night side,
there is no such -18C limit and there is no missing 33 degrees,
There is only a screwed up flat earth model.
You are assuming complexity that isn’t there into a very simplistic model. Incoming sunlight averages 340 W/m^2, Albedo averages 0.3, leaving 240 Watts of Short Wave incoming sunlight. Outgoing must thus be 240 W of Long Wave IR for an energy balance. Using Stephan Boltzmann equation this works out to 255 degrees C average planet temperature as viewed from outer space. But the average temperature at surface is 288, hence the oft stated 33C of greenhouse warming.
It can’t possibly be exactly right because there are many complicating factors. See a Trenberth-type diagram. What’s amazing is that it is even close….considering its basis in a couple of “spherical cow” assumptions.
Greenhouse effect is an impossible Energy amplifier
https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8?t=520
https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8?t=825
Coming your way in the UK…..
Farmers will be ordered to feed cows ‘methane suppressants’ to stop them belching | Daily Mail Online
“Dairy cows are set to be given ‘methane suppressants’ by farmers to reduce their carbon footprint – by making them burp less.
Ministers are looking to force farmers to give herds additives to reduce gas from digestion in ‘compound feeds’, which contain seaweed and essential oils.”
“The plan said the bovine supplements could be introduced ‘at pace’ from 2025 – or as ‘soon as practically possible’ – in efforts to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2030, as Britain’s commitment to the Global Methane Pledge requires.”
**************
I’m at a loss for words.
“I’m at a loss for words.”
Those people are insane. Fear does that to people.
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts.
Link
Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water.
Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend
This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link
I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data.
Malcolm Roberts of Queensland
https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g
1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures.
2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s.
3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not.
Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures.