Is it worthwhile to focus on a WUWT topic for 2023, Anthony & Charles?
Could you see value in a theme to background many articles?
One type of theme I have in mind might be a proper estimate of the social cost of carbon.using both positive and negative costs.
Or a proper economic analysis of the real comparative costs of hydrocarbon electricity versus solar and wind, to show which is really the cheaper in actual operation?
These are fundamental to what many commenters here worry about. Show those 2 concepts to be wrong and you starve others of big talking points.
In concept, it is like what is happening in Australian education right now, where diverse subjects are encouraged to use climate change as examples, like math that 1+1 = 2 becomes 1 windmill + 1 windmill = 2 windmills. Geoff S
Good point especially about the “social cost of carbon” misconception. The benefits deriving from the use of hydrocarbons from natural deposits are huge. And the benefits to agriculture from the increased concentration of CO2 are notable too.
Good idea. I suspect if someone did a legitimate and accurate cost/benefit for fossil fuels, there would be a clear argument for banning renewables and maybe even nuclear and hydro. Coal would be king again.
The way to determine what energy source mix is most cost effective is to remove regulations, taxes and subsidies and let the free market function.
Alex Epstein is making the case exactly along the lines of policy you describe, except not with a full cost/benefit accounting to directly counter the SCC claims.
A slightly different take on “Or a proper economic analysis of the real comparative costs of hydrocarbon electricity versus solar and wind, to show which is really the cheaper in actual operation?” is what mix of fossil fuels plants and renewables will result in the least total emissions of CO2? By total emissions, I am referring to including all of the emissions related to construction and decommissioning the various fossil fuel generation, renewable generation and energy storage. I suspect that the minimum total emissions scenario would be close to the most economic scenario.
This came about from a discussion on the relative amount of materials need to generate a kw-hr from nuclear versus wind, with one study showing the nuclear required about 10% that of wind. This did not take into account materials required for energy storage, which would like make an even better case for nuclear.
My point was more of a criticism about the Net-Zero movement where the advocates don’t have a clue on how to reduce CO2 emissions, never mind the cluster bomb on the energy infrastructure.
There’s a simlar cluster bomb with the EPA’s imposition of the Tier IV regulations on diesel locomotives. The railroads responded by stop buying new locomotives, which is leading to higher emissions than ahd EPA stuck with Tier III limits.
I would very much enjoy reading several different cost-benefit analyses on using petrochemical fuels. Of course, we have so many examples of reports of their negative impact, it might be enough to see the benefits listed.
bairddavid
December 24, 2022 2:23 am
But it’s still Nuclear and Nuclear is BAD. No, no, we must continue to despoil the planet by building more wind farms and solar panel forests. Oh, the horror of a technology that defeats the Malthusian Great Reset.
Another study from Andrew Derocher. Melting sea ice and models.
– – – – – – – – –
Drivers of polar bear behavior and the possible efects of prey availability on foraging strategy (By Derocher)
Change in behavior is one of the earliest responses to variation in habitat suitability. It is therefore important to understand the conditions that promote different behaviors, particularly in areas undergoing environmental change. Animal movement is tightly linked to behavior and remote tracking can be used to study ethology when direct observation is not possible.
(20 pages.) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365444505_Drivers_of_polar_bear_behavior_and_the_possible_effects_of_prey_availability_on_foraging_strategy
We need an independent count and health survey of H Bay bears, like Anthony’s surfacestations.org for temperatures. If we hadn’t had this to discipline the temperature felons, they would have simply cooked temperatures to fit their devilish plans.
They did fiddle earlier temperatures to steepen the T increase, but present temperatures have been constrained, shoulders have been looked over. This allowed an 18yr “Pause” to go forward and ultimately for agreement that T models based on CO2 emissions were running a way too hot! Anthony may not take credit, but it is well-known that when you shine a light into the darkness, you curtail a lot of skulduggery.
I know that uncorrupted biologists are few. It was the first science that fell to the néomarxistes – Ehrlich the best known. Susan Crockford seems to be the only polar bear specialist in the world who gives alternative evidence on the good health and status of the bears bears. Jim Steel is another example of an objective biologist/ecologist.
HBay is accessible for this type of monitoring. Heck, you can take the train to Churchill, Manitoba. Maybe hire Inuit to count the bears, with Susan managing the program.
OK, the spellchecker confused Cornwall with Ukraine – we all make mistakes.
Here’s hoping their ambulance driving skills are up to equally good scratch
🙁
Mercy, peace and love for you all this Christmas!! Many thanks to all who keep WUWT going!
You are part of promoting the truth, the very same Truth that Pilate asked Jesus about….
May I ask for those of you who know for some peer review on my last report on the CO2,
here,
“BOMB” is a cyclone that deepens 24 mb or more in 24 hours. OK, but it does look like hysterical hype. Why don’t ‘they’ borrow another charming sounding Spanish word like “derecho”, “arroyo”, “tornado”, etc?
bill snider
December 24, 2022 3:04 am
I certainly hope these are not stupid questions on my part. I mean them in all seriousness and I hope you will take them that way.
What am I missing? So much of what people who say climate change or global warming is an emergency does not make sense to me. An increase of average global temperature of more than 1.5C degrees since preindustrial times (around 1850) is supposed to be a catastrophe?
Will the increase in average temperature be uniform over the entire globe? If not, can one determine where it will happen? An average includes numbers higher than the average and numbers lower than the average. Where in the world will be above average and where in the world will be below average? People experience changes in climate and temperature at certain times and in certain geographic places. How can one determine when and where and what will happen? I understand it is projected that the most warming will be in cold areas, during the cold months and will be in the form of warmer lows at night. If that is the case, then it seems huge parts of the world will experience little or no warming. The people of N. Dakota might not mind the temperature in February at night being only -25F degrees rather than -30F degrees.
Thriving populations exist in Helsinki, in Riyadh, in Singapore. The average annual temperature in these places is dramatically different. The average annual temperature N. Dakota and in Florida are dramatically different and thriving populations live in both places also. People live by the ocean, by rivers, in the desert, in the forest, in the mountains, on the plains. How can an average global temperature increase of more than 1.5C degrees cause a catastrophe that people cannot easily manage and adapt to? People have been managing and adapting to their climate for thousand of years.
I understand since preindustrial times there has already been approximately 1C degree of warming and it has been an incredibly prosperous time with unimagined human advances, but we are supposed to believe if temperature exceeds another .5C degree or so of warming it is going to cause a catastrophe?
bill snider said, “So much of what people who say climate change or global warming is an emergency does not make sense to me.”
Welcome aboard the good ship Skepticism (aka WattsUpWithThat), Bill.
You asked, “How can one determine when and where and what will happen?”
To a very limited degree, based on data during earlier warming periods (the mid-1910s to the mid-1940s for example), we can say that the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere should warm at a faster rate than lower latitudes. See the grey curve in the graph below.
The global average temperature already reached +1.5 degrees C. in April 1998 and February 2016 during the peak heat from ti ow very large El Nino heat releases from the Pacific Ocean.
As expected, +1.5 degrees C. was a disaster.
Millions of people died
It was in all the newspapers.
At +2.0 degrees C., all life will end
Except for Mothers-in-Law
They are eternal.
Scientists said so.
So that must be correct.
Bill, also keep in mind that they have NEVER been able to quantify what is natural and what is Man-caused. They just repeatedly make the claim that it is.
First, Best Wishes to all for the Holidays and the New Year! Merry Christmas!
For Bill Snider:
Today I updated the following paper – Climate is the first part and Covid-19 the second. Climate and Covid are the two greatest frauds in history – the most costly and the most harmful, in terms of squandered dollars and wasted lives, and both frauds were promoted by the same scoundrels for personal gain – wolves stampeding the sheep.
This was never about the science – the scoundrels don’t debate the science, they just vilify and harass anyone who dares to point out their falsehoods, and enlist imbeciles to do their dirty work. The scoundrels know they are lying and the imbeciles believe them.
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
By Allan M.R. MacRae, October 20, 2021, Update December 24, 2022 https://energy-experts-international.com The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. Following are the correct predictions of Allan MacRae and colleagues on two important subjects: – GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM – COVID-19 LOCKDOWNS AND ”VACCINES” Our scientific predictions on both these subjects are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date. [continued…]
Following are the last updates sent to our Alberta and Canadian politicians and the (mostly-bought) North American media: THE NEED FOR ANALYSIS OF EXCESS MORTALITY AND ITS CORRELATION WITH C19 INJECTIONS GROWS MORE URGENT Peter Halligan 25Nov2022 [excerpt] Bottom line? Excess mortality is increasingly converging with estimates of under-reporting factors of around 40 for EUDRA and VAERS. The worry is that adverse events are increasing and are not being reported to adverse event reporting systems and are, instead, being attributed to other leading causes of death. The number of excess deaths [caused by the Covid-19 injections] is increasing BEYOND 20 million. … It is a tragedy that big pharma, medical regulators and practitioners plus politicians will delay, distract, outright lie and prevaricate until the more conclusive data for excess deaths in 2022 for a fully “vaccinated” population is impossible to deny. BABY ALEX UPDATE WHO PASSED AFTER RECEIVING VACCINATED BLOOD AGAINST HIS PARENTS’ WISHES Forty-five-day-old Baby Alex died of a clot so long it extended from his left knee to his heart. That was twenty-four days after staff at Providence Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital in Spokane, Washington, had administered a transfusion using blood from vaccinated donors—explicitly against parents’ wishes. – Dr Paul Alexander, 24Dec2022 “And remember: you must never, under any circumstances, despair. To hope and to act, these are our duties in misfortune. To do nothing and to despair is to neglect our duty.” —Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ABOUT THOSE COURAGEOUS FEW WHO CHOSE TO FIGHT THE COVID-19 SCAM Dr Paul Alexander re-posted the following:
Abraxas Hudson is one of those who is silent yet does so much behind the scenes for community and humanity. A hat tip is in order. Abraxas’s words: “We all knew that once we made the decision to step into the fire, our lives may never be the same again. Crossing the threshold meant pledging allegiance to truth and principle, versus stable comfort, often alone, knowingly risking everything dear. Many of us have paid a high price and others see that. It deters them, as they value comfort over principle, even more so when they see the price we have paid defending freedom. To stand against the narrative requires the spiritual strength one would need to stand in front of a tank. Many of us faced the tank alone. Thankfully, we now have each other. Bare chested, tank facing patriotism is rare, but necessary, to retain the liberty we love… We know this. We see how rare that patriotism is when we look around. We answered the call, most of us feeling as though we had no choice. The call came from deep within our souls and we wonder – did others feel the call, if so, did they ignore it?” What is my reason for existence, if not to protect children from harm? I suggest that no honest, rational person could be this wrong, this utterly obtuse, for this long. They must know what they are doing. Crimes Against Humanity! Nuremberg 2.0! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! – Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc. (Eng.), M.Eng., Calgary
I’ve known for ~three years that this Cull of Humanity would unfold, I predicted it, tried to stop it, only saved a handful of people, and had to watch the unfolding carnage – this will be the greatest deliberate Cull of Humanity in the history of the world. In a few years it could exceed the murder of hundreds of millions by Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
I identified the Covid-10 lockdown fraud here on wattsup almost three years ago on 21Mar2020, six months before the ~identical Great Barrington Declaration by world experts. I knew it was fraud in Feb2020 but only published in March when my good friend Dr Dave told me that our Alberta hospitals were all EMPTY! Some pandemic! No patients! There was NO “CURVE” TO FLATTEN!
Remember how the health authorities BS story kept mutating, even faster than the virus?
Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve”? Turned out to be TWO YEARS – must have been a typo.Remember the “virtuous masks”? The virus is so small that hundreds of them can pass side-by-side through any pore in the masks!Remember “fashion masks” that people sewed and sold – made of cloth that was even more porous than the paper masks. Fashion AND Virtue-signalling!Remember “Safe and Effective Vaccines”? Oops!!! – Not So Much!Remember “These vaxxes will absolutely stop you from getting Covid and passing it on to granny. Don’t kill granny!”Remember “Anyone who resists the vaxxes is selfish and evil and should be shunned, stoned or spit upon, etc.!” – Justin Turdo”Remember “Breakthrough Infections”- the vaxxed were getting Covid? Oops!!! – Not So Effective.Remember “So the vaxxes don’t stop infections, but they make the infections less severe.” More BS! The vaxxes weaken your immune system and make all infections worse! Oops! Not so safe!Remember the Variants? These were CAUSED by the vaxxes – basic biology (Darwin) says you NEVER vaccinate into an epidemic with a leaky vaccine – the virus will just mutate and end-run your vaccine with a new variant, time after time – and it did!And then came the clot-shots, with multitudes of young athletes, etc dropping dead every day, and the sheep just nodded and looked the other way and took another toxic shot. Darwin Awards!
And then the more grievous harm, the suppression of natural immunity by the toxic shots, and millions of people getting sick and dying from lowered resistance to bacteria, flus and cancers, now called “turbo-cancers because they are so fast and deadly.
And now we are entering the next Winter flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Carnage will unfold – the Cull of the Vaxxed will take friends and family, and people will still line up for the toxic “vaccines”.
And I will mourn them, and wonder if I could have done more, or how I could have been more effective.
Epilogue:
The rat-b@stards who pushed the toxic Covid-19 injections have killed tens of millions worldwide and vaxx-injured billions more (ref. Peter Halligan) – the full carnage will be even more obvious this winter.
Anyone who denies this reality is being deliberately obtuse – there is no longer any debate among honest, intelligent observers.
Every statement by our health authorities about the lockdowns, the masking and the “vaccines” was false and caused millions of deaths.
Unfinished Business:
Identify the leaders of this scam, try them, convict them and execute them.
I don’t agree with the belief that vaccine injuries were deliberate. That is just speculation. I see no evidence that people involved in developing, testing and manufacturing the vaccines have avoided the vaccines — they would know the devious purpose of the vaccines if there was one.
You bullet point summary near the end of the comment was very good, except for one point.
While is it believed that vaccines cause the development of variants, it is also true that viral epidemics lead to variants without vaccines. Less deadly variants is how all respiratory viral epidemics end with no vaccines. including the 1918 to 1920 epidemic.
If it is true that Covid19 vaccines caused accelerated development of Covid19variants, then that may be good news about the vaccines.
Because after many Covid19 variants — I lost track at Delta — we got lucky when Omicron showed up in 2022, and became the dominant virus, ending the Covid19 pandemic.
Omicron is a coronavirus common cold with the same very low infection fatality rate of other coronavirus common colds — too low to support an epidemic.
How did Omicron get create?
It was most likely created in the body of a person simultaneously infected with real Covid19 and a coronavirus common cold.
Unlike a typical Covid19 variant with one or two spike protein mutations, and a relatively high infection fatality rate, Omicron had 30 mutations of the Delta Covid19spike protein and an extremely low infection fatality rate.
So why is the Omicron common cold called a Covid variant? Used by governments to create fear and control people. Just like the Covid scaremongering in 2020 and 2021.
Omicron may have a similar CFR as the common cold, or it may not. Many Omicron harms are now hidden as now the PTB are doing about 25 percent of former testing, at a more accurate threshold or lower cycles to determine positive. Why? Because they no longer want to associate the myriad harms of the likely man made virus with massive vaccine failure. The test positive rate remains very very high, just a lot fewer tests. However pathologically it is far different than a cold, as the spike protein is responsible for a host of harms including to the brain. There are hundreds of papers on the disparate harms of Covid. However the vaccines can and do the same harms, likely more with greater immune system damage.
South African doctors were the first to identify Omicron as a much less dangerous variant. Everything known about Omicron says to call it a coronavirus common cold rather than scaremongering as a new Covid19 variant.
Omicron harms are NOT hidden. The harms are not worse than any common cold — it could kill a very sick elderly person, like any common cold could.
It would be easy to confuse Omicron symptoms with Covid19, influenza, or any other common cold virus.
I agree: If natural spike proteins would severely harm a patient (a small percentage of patients, mainly the elderly with comorbidities) then the spike proteins generated by a Covid vaccine would cause the same severe harm. And there could be other problems from the vaccines too, that are not problems seen from natural Covid19 infections.
MacRae goes full-on MacRae at the way our so-called leaders reacted to covid 19 with lockdowns, masking and “vaccines”. Well Mr. MacRae, your insights are fine, especially in hindsight, but remember this:
Before we were offered vaccines, the Wuhan strain was abroad for well over a year, and it actually killed quite a lot of people. My spouse and I both had original Wuhan strain of covid in April 2020 – it was a mild infection, barely noticeable if it hadn’t been for all the panic in the media. But both of us developed long covid, which lasted for a year and got progressively worse. It almost killed me, and it did kill my spouse. So pardon me for having the following thought, but when you have watched your life partner die in front of you because she couldn’t breathe (despite having been told by your family doctor that “your lungs are clear, you have nothing to worry about” less than 24 hours before), you might be excused for thinking that perhaps “somebody” should do “something” about this very nasty disease.
Now for the serious question that I haven’t seen anyone else ask:
You may recall that, in early 2021, we in Canada were being offered a choice between the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA concoctions, and the Astra-Zeneca non-mRNA vaccine. But somehow, the Astra-Zeneca never made it into widespread use – it was “All mRNA, all the time”. I have yet to meet anyone who had the A-Z shot. Why did we never get a choice of having a vaccine made by traditional methods, similar to the flu vaccines that many of us having been taking for decades without adverse effect?? You know the answer as well as I do; the power of big pharma’s money to gain influence over scientifically illiterate politicians while hiding incomplete, unpublished testing that showed mRNA does not inhibit transmission of the virus. There were just too many billions on the table for any ethical considerations to have a role.
Not to forget the messaging coming from China that helped to put those scientifically illiterate politicians in a right old panic. Including (staged?) photos of bodies in the street and apartment doors being welded shut.
Finally, I do offer this positive thought, if anyone has read my rant this far: Both the covid 19 virus and the mRNA vaccines appear to do much of their dirty work by causing blood clots on micro- and macro-scales. I had a heart attack back in 2010 and have been on medications ever since, including anti-coagulants (apixaban and time-release aspirin, full-strength 325 mg; never mind the wimpish 81 mg dose they recommend). Is it possible that anti-coagulants helped me to survive long covid while my poor wife didn’t?? There is a field for study here, if anyone is brave enough to take it up. Could taking aspirin help reduce the harmful effects of mRNA vaccines and/or the SARS covid 2 virus? OK, it’s only a suggestion about pharmaceuticals from a geologist, but IMHO there’s enough logic there to call it a testable hypothesis.
In Cheyenne Wyoming this week the temperature dropped 40F in 30 minutes. Almost no living thing survived the unprecedented climate change – wait, what – not unprecedented? No catastrophe? Never mind.
But another 1.8 F (1 C) increase in average temperature over the next 77 years will definitely be catastrophic – its what the science says.
Same here just north of Denver. I’ve seen this at least 3 times in my life. Rare, yes, uncommon, yes. Catastrophic, not hardly.
strativarius
December 24, 2022 3:47 am
One year since the technocrats lost their grip who outside the media even thinks of Covid 19? Very few.
From Spiked
How SAGE almost stole Christmas
Seeing someone wearing a face mask today is like seeing someone wearing a monocle. And yet it is only 12 months since a group of scientists, activists and journalists tried to bounce England into a fourth lockdown. … It is easy to forget how intense was the pressure on Boris Johnson to impose ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions on a population that was brimming with immunity … At the centre of it was the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and the teams of epidemic modellers at various universities. Any pretence that they were dry academics offering impartial advice died last Christmas. They were active participants in a campaign, leaking documents to the press and briefing against the government when speaking to the media ‘in a personal capacity’. The modelling, which had been too pessimistic for at least a year (most famously when Neil Ferguson predicted 100,000 cases a day after ‘Freedom Day’ in summer 2021), became laughably apocalyptic. A million cases a day were predicted by Christmas. Thirty-thousand hospital admissions a day were thought likely. Six-thousand deaths a day was considered a reasonable worst-case scenario. Even the best-case scenario expected a peak of 600 deaths a day.
As it turned out, the number of deaths peaked at barely 200, a sixth of the death toll reached in the two previous waves. Hospital admissions briefly exceeded 2,000 a day and many of these were ‘incidental’ – ie, among people who happened to have Covid but were admitted for other reasons. How did the scientists get it so wrong? … The evidence that Omicron was more infectious (which it was) came from South Africa and was immediately considered settled science. But when evidence from South Africa suggested that Omicron was resulting in relatively few hospitalisations and deaths (which it also was), SAGE experts went out of their way to dismiss it. South Africans were younger, they said. They had built up immunity from earlier waves, they said, as if the UK hadn’t had its own waves of infections and a far more extensive vaccination programme. … Almost from the outset, doctors in South Africa were telling us that Omicron was ‘far less severe’ and that the UK was ‘panicking unnecessarily’. Anyone who followed the data from South Africa could see what they were talking about. Waves of infections rose and then fizzled out with far fewer hospital admissions and deaths than in previous waves. On social media, this was dismissed as ‘hopium’ and a range of excuses were wheeled out, such as it being summer in the southern hemisphere and South Africa having a lower rate of obesity (which, in fact, it does not). The head of the South African Medical Association, Dr Angelique Coetzee, later said that she was asked by European scientists to shut up about Omicron being milder. … On 16 December, Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London claimed that there was ‘no evidence’ that Omicron was less severe than Delta, based on a study involving just 24 hospital patients in London.
By this time, SAGE was more or less openly lobbying for ‘more stringent restrictions’ to be introduced as soon as possible (‘if implemented late, it is less likely that these would prevent considerable pressure on health and care settings’). One of its members, the psychologist Stephen Reicher, told the press that ‘all the science suggests that [mandatory masks and vaccine passports] are not going to be enough… things are closing down anyway, because of the spread of infection. So I think we need to act now.’ The grab bag of self-appointed experts and hypochondriacs at ‘Independent SAGE’ had already called for an immediate ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown.
Much of the media joined in. Already obsessed by ‘Partygate’ and unable to get out of a 2020 mindset, they seemed intent on reliving the drama of the previous Christmas. On 19 December, the Guardian’s science editor wrote that ‘the scientific case for more restrictions is overwhelming’. LBC’s James O’Brien tweeted: ‘Scientists issue warnings about what is likely to happen next if Johnson doesn’t act now. Johnson refuses to act until it actually happens. We’ve seen this film before.’ The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr tweeted: ‘It’s March 2020 all over again.’ … So here’s to a merry Christmas without the threat of a lockdown for the first time since 2019. The attempts to cancel Christmas last year have largely been forgotten. But for those of us who remember, those responsible will never quite be forgiven.
It will go through the population. That cannot be avoided. Lockdowns merely slow it down and cause far more [major societal] problems. It could have been a one year phenomenon, but China has eked it out to 3 years and counting
Lockdowns overall have a negative effect.
On the other hand Lockins can be quite effective at preventing spread, a lot easier to apply in the 17th century than the 21st
The point of the lockdowns in Europe was (of course) to gain time for the population to be vaccinated. And it seems to have worked, though the UK would probably have had a much lower death toll if it had started its first lockdown sooner. Lockdown + vaccination has been shown by the event to have been the right way to deal with it. Lockdown by itself is the wrong way.
However strativarius, like some others here, is anti vax as well as anti-lockdown. So strativarius’ preferred scenario would be to have done nothing, no vaccination and no lockdowns, let it rip and get it over with.
Fortunately S was not in a decision making role in the UK at the time. Fortunately for him/her, as much as for the UK.
Italy by accident carried out a controlled experiment on a partial version of what S advocates. It assumed medieval proportions in many locations.
S says “It will go through the population. That cannot be avoided. Lockdowns merely slow it down…”
Yes, it will go through the population. But because of vaccination it will cause less havoc, much less severe illness, less hospitalizationl less deaths. And yes, lockdowns merely slow it down. But that time gained was critical because it could be used to vaccinate.
China’s problem has been that it locked down without properly vaccinating. It now seems to be paying the price in the form of an out of control outbreak as soon as lockdown was lifted.
all that was needed was the use of well known prophylactic treatment and contact tracing.
Uttar Pradesh went from just shy of 20 percent positive for Covid (20 out of every 100 people tested) to .01 percent positive, (only 1 out of 10,000 tested positive) then to 0 percent. Why was their Ivermectin test better than the very high 85 percent efficacy in the meta analysis of all the Ivermectin studies? Mainly for two reasons. One is they broke the RO, (the transmobility of the virus in the real world.). A test or study does not target a localised population, so the overall RO is not threatened. However India, via extensive contact tracing and thousands of teams went throughout the province, distributing Ivermectin to all positive test subjects, their families and close contacts. They broke the RO and shattered the disease, which then, having nowhere to go, died in about 10 weeks. The second reason is they did not distribute just Ivermectin, but Zinc and vitamin D. (None of the studies did this as well)
Hans, lease provide a link to something other than propaganda that shows the vaccines did anything to actually lesson the number of illnesses and deaths from the Wuhan virus.
IMO, yes an opinion only, those who had Covid THEN got vaccinated, essentially erased their natural immunity so they could get Covid again, helping to keep the cycle running. If no one had EVER been MRNA “vaccinated”, herd immunity would have been achieved almost 2 years ago.
Yes I had the China virus ONCE, I never used masks except where required, I traveled 8000 miles around the US during the “peak” of Covid and never had a problem until my son came to our house sick with it last New Years eve. He had been visiting friends of the lower reaches of society where all communicable decease seem to spread.
BTW the wife, 71, me 66 and diabetic. No real issues with the virus, but the cough did hang around for a week or so. We only had fever for a little over a day. I did take Hydroxychloroquine for about 5 days, starting 2 days before my son arrived, since he told us he was feeling ill and lost his sense of smell, something my wife and I never experienced.
Good question, we did not test. We don’t want anything to do with this BS which is mostly a massive transfer of wealth to the “healthcare” industry for essentially no positive societal benefit.
We got sick shortly after our son left, HE had all the normal symptoms including loss of taste and smell. We had the same symptoms less the loss of taste and smell but much milder.
We have, since the start of this virus, taken Quercetin, D3, zinc, K, B and C at reasonable doses.
We had not been sick during the “pandemic” until this occurrence the first week of January this year, while traveling by vehicle with our trailer the summer of 2020 and the fall of 2021. Each trip roughly 2 months long and 8000 miles. Variously routes across the North, South and central US. and up and down the east coast from Mass. to Georgia. Lots of contact with lots of people, but rarely anyone with symptoms.
Our vaccines were Vitamin C, D, zinc and quercetin. I’ve been talking the first three supplements for over 50 years. Added quercetin in January 2021. No Covid19, Omicron, influenza or even a common cold for both of us since January 2020. I have never had influenza and no common cold for at least five years. I’m confident the supplements helped — my diet is not good and I don’t get exercise. We are also n both old.
We would NEVER take any c vaccine developed in nine months, or even in a few years. A typical vaccine takes 10 years to develop with a 98% failure rate.
I had a bad allergic reaction to a vaccine as a child and my doctor decided no more vaccines for me. I never even got a smallpox vaccine, So that makes about 63 years with no vaccines. I was not going to break that streak with Covid vaccines. They have been a medical disaster.
NOT safe and NOT effective. A two-way loser.
No decline in excess deaths or all-cause mortality resulting from Covid vaccines. VAERS reported SERIOUS adverse side effects at least 50x more common than any other vaccine in history.
If the deaths did not decline, it is very unlikely that hospitalizations declined. You are a brainwashed commenter. When the government says “jump”, you ask “How high?”
The problem with China is not the lack of a vaccination policy, but requiring the use of the relatively ineffective vaccine produced in China.
The problem with lockdowns is that they may result in more years of life lost than were saved by reduced infections. Probably the most idiotic form of lockdowns were the ones that discouraged or prohibited people from spending time outside as exercise and sunshine help in reducing severity of Covid infections.
I was among those looking carefully at the South African data and presenting the evidence that it is a mild variant to the shrieking hyenas in UK politics. Just as with the humongous waste of money that was Test and Trace, which was doomed to failure because it could not work speedily enough to have any useful effect – always looking in the rear view mirror while the infections had long ago spread elsewhere.
Politicians do not do science. They love scientists who promulgate fear.
David Dibbell
December 24, 2022 4:17 am
In my view, Dr. Roy Spencer has done us all a lot of good recently by posting this as a parenthetical point: “(Yes, I know some of you don’t like the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change. Feel free to ignore this post if it bothers you.)”
It is a reminder that the framing of the issue of non-condensing greenhouse gas emissions as a “forcing” perturbation leads inevitably to an endless debate about what response to expect, as the characterization of “feedbacks” can take so many different directions and involve so much uncertainty.
This paradigm errs, in my opinion, by making you think (“thinking past the sale” as Scott Adams would describe it) that the surface is what emits energy to space, and the atmosphere is what keeps it from getting there due to the “greenhouse effect.” This is incomplete and misleading, as the atmosphere itself is the major emitter, by far. We live at the bottom of a fluid layer with a mass equivalent to over 33 feet of water. It moves impressively, and we experience it all as weather. It’s amazing to watch.
We can do better by re-framing the GHG question: What happens to the effectiveness of the working fluid as an emitter, as non-condensing GHGs increase in concentration? And what does the emission of longwave energy look like from space to begin with?
As I see it, the alternate framing I have been suggesting ends up with the sense that heat energy cannot, in fact, be made to accumulate to harmful effect at the surface by what non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere.
Comments welcome. If I am wrong about this, tell me why in terms of the dynamic operation of the atmosphere.
(To be clear, the existence of the static “greenhouse effect” is not in dispute in the sense that yes, there is a warming effect, at the surface looking toward space, from the absorption and emission of longwave energy by “greenhouse gases” such as water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc.)
Excellent! I’ve often wondered what the LW emission looks like over a super cell. It must be true that water vapor emits to space at 50,000 ft. far easier than at 5 feet. Yet, I’ve never seen this tackled.
Another paradigm shift, away from obsessing over temperature and towards measuring energy flows might get us closer to thinking about heat engines instead of ‘blankets’.
Actually there are satellite images from GOES that show cloud top temperatures. In the summer very high cloud tops will suggest a temperature of around 200K. This is a derived temperature made possible by IR emitted power measured at the satellite — so, just assuming for the sake of illustration that the cloud emissivity is 1.0 (perfect black emitter) the emitted power must have been .
Now, also for sake of illustration, assume a surface temperature of 300K under a mid-latitude atmosphere with low RH. A situation not unusual where I live. The troposphere can easily be 30% transparent to IR in these conditions. So, calculating surface emitted power with an emissivity of 1.0 we find and 30% of this is around . So even though people think of the atmosphere as stopping LWIR cooling, you can see that a warm surface makes a pretty good radiator.
Good points. One of the implications I see from the GOES East Band 16 animated visualizations, for example, is the highly self-regulating nature of cloud-top emission in the warm tropics. It’s as if the array of emitter elements is semi-conductor controlled. In other words, the very low emitter output (-90C brightness temperature) from thunderstorm tops works to retain energy within the atmosphere to help drive circulation away from the equator and ultimately toward the poles.
An IR spectroscope shows those lines as absorption lines and no emission in those lines. I need an explanation as to how zero emissions strike a surface and make it warmer.
Paul_Rossiter
December 24, 2022 4:50 am
Why arguing the facts about climate change is not going to have any impact on the minds of those committed to The Cause:
A fundamental problem in all of this is simple ignorance. Our civilization has advanced to the point where technologists are attempting to understand enormous complexity in an increasingly undereducated populace.
Absent true understanding, mythologies flourish. Science is hard. Emotion is easy. I have a EE bachelors, a masters in mathematics, and a PhD. in physical oceanography and I struggle with many of the technical posts here.
I don’t know that my education makes me smarter about climate, but I am absolutely convinced that it equips me to know well what I don’t know. My fear is that there are a multitude of Gretas who know nothing but the mythology they have enveloped themselves within.
An excellent comment, Paul B. I must say, you have an interesting educational background. Considering how complex much of the modern world is, one can only marvel that we can make it all work very reliably. The unfortunate aspect of making the very complex also very easy to use and very reliable is that it leads people to believe they understand waaay more than they do, or possibly can. Dunning-Kruger look out!
“A fundamental problem in all of this is simple ignorance”
A logical person would say that, but it is wrong. Ignorance and incompetence would result in random mistaked — some decisions would benefit America and others would be counterproductive THAT IS NOT happening Every decision by leftists harms America That is their intention These are not random errors
Democrats are promoting a fundamental transformation
We thought they meant socialism in the Obama era
We were wrong
We already have socialism in the US with total government spending for 2022 (at all levels of government) at 34.5% of GDP
So why does fundamental transformation continue?
Fundamental transformation is to Marxism, as the ultimate goal.
You transform to Marxism by destroying the existing economic system (usually called capitalism, but is really socialism)
“A logical person would say that, but it is wrong.”
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right, in that what you describe appears to indeed be the case. Wrong in that the ignorance is intentionally promulgated among the masses* who are then easier to deceive.
* See Dewey’s description of the intent of public education, if you can find it.
The internet has given irrationality a voice. Lots of people have irrational feelings. In the past irrational feelings were put through a slow test period and people learned those feelings were wrong. They got crushed by reason.
Today these feelings spread like wildfire in the virtual world and find lots of minds to infect. This has led to a situation where many irrational feelings are now accepted as real. It also has led to strong resistance to reason and the need to shut down those who espouse reason. It has also allowed these irrational views to grow/combine into larger and larger constructs even more irrational than the individual feelings.
We now live in the age of irrationality. Of course, this is not sustainable and will eventually collapse. What happens then may not be pretty.
Maybe we should stop trying to argue the facts and instead encourage them to double down and go further in the hope that it would accelerate the collapse and we could then get back to a more rational basis?
Well, it is questionable as to whether Republicans will be able to stop the radical Democrat Authoritarian agenda.
We already have a dozen or more Republican Senators enabling the radical Democrat agenda, the one that seeks to take away our personal freedoms, and seeks to place radical Democrats in positions of power in perpetuity.
We also had a few Republicans in the U.S. House who voted to enable the radical Democrat agenda, although most of those will not be back in Congress in January.
So the U.S. Senate Republicans will not help to stop the radical Democrat agenda, instead they will enable it.
And it is still a question as to whether House Republicans have the ability to come together to form a defense against the radical Democrat agenda.
Republicans who vote to enable the radical Democrat agenda are our political enemies just as the radical Democrats are our political enemies.
Our political enemies are trying to steal our freedoms away from us and they are doing so right in front of our eyes.
Our only hope is a shaky, Republican House of Representatives.
What will it take to get Republicans out marching in the streets in protest? Will they wait until all their freedoms are gone?
Some of us living in Red States do have a fall-back position. The State can shield us from a tyranical federal government. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
Tom, so you mentioned “radical Democrat agenda” a bunch of times here. Can you tell me in a sentence exactly what the the RDA is? I know Trump used the phrase a lot, but it’s a genuine question… what is it?
Anything that aids in the establishment of one-party, Democrat rule in the USA. For the most part it is not a fixed “agenda” per se but rather ad hoc governance. One example is to so burden the private economy with regulation that it cannot operate, and then under the excuse of “market failure” the nationalization of most or all of the economy.
One party democrat rule? Isn’t that just democracy? If more people vote for one party then they get in and get to implement their policies. Anyway, so how are these policies that different from what Democrats have been pushing in the past? I mean it’s not like they are proposing to storm the capitol and use force to try to overthrow the government? (I mean who would be brazen and crazy enough to do that?)
And if you are talking about “ad hoc governance” wasn’t the last Republican one pretty “make it up as you go?”
You proclaim to have a genuine interest, but don’t. You missed the distinction between Democrat and democratic, and missed also any lessons you may have gotten from civics classes about how a republic differs from some sorts of democracies.
A few hundred people some of whom storm the Capitol and some of whom were waved in by police, and none of whom had any form of effective weaponry meant to overthrow the government? Really? And exactly how did the Trump administration engage in “ad hoc” governance — got any examples?
It is apparent that you have fantasy narratives that guide your thinking. I can’t recall any effort in the past to engage with you but there isn’t much reason to do so in future.
Trump = ad hoc. But an example…. Hmmm where to start. The wall was never finished, drawing on a weather map with a sharpie. Lying about the size of his inauguration crowd. Sacking the competent advisors he had(general Kelly, Rex tillerson) and keeping only those who professed loyalty. Insulting families of war hero’s. Saying he believed Putin over his own secret service. Calling African nations shit holes. Enough? I have loads more.
Your turn …. do u have any evidence the police let in the crowds in to the capital buildings?
Ignorance and arrogance, you wear them well.
Trump fought the democratic lawfare in regards to illegal immigration, he fought the democrats, he fought the RINOS, and he was winning, And he was winning, and Mexico was cooperating. Care to compare illegal immigration in Trump’s last three months to today? It was the media that lied about crowd sizes constantly. Care to compare the crowd size of Trump versus Biden? (The sharpie bothered you?) I would not trust your view of “competent advisors” as the main Covid and vaccine failure was the politically leftist fascist CDC FDA and Fauci, working with WHO, and Trump, seeing his very successful economic reforms being destroyed, and his rational nationalism working here and in many other nations, trusted the “experts” while pushing alternatives that worked, and appropriately wanted State rights to determine policy. His initial instinct to stop flights from China was quite rational. I believe Putin over our corrupt FBI and CIA, and Trump said “I trust my intelligence people”
“Trump fought the democratic lawfare in regards to illegal immigration”
It was a vote winner. Nothing more. “Care to compare illegal immigration in Trump’s last three months to today? “
Biden has not changed the policies so no change. ” It was the media that lied about crowd sizes constantly.”
Bollocks Trump embellished it all. The man can’t be seen to come second… https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/fact-check-inauguration-crowd-size/96984496/ “(The sharpie bothered you?) ”
The sharpie was classic Trump trying to cover one of his lies… so yes that bothers me when a president lies so blatantly. We should all be bothered, at least those of us who value truth. “I would not trust your view of “competent advisors” as the main Covid and vaccine failure was the politically leftist fascist CDC FDA and Fauci, working with WHO”
Do you have any filter for truth at all? I’m guessing not. “I believe Putin over our corrupt FBI and CIA”
Then you are a fool…. there is no other way to put it. Trump embarrassed himself and the USA on the stage in Helsinki. Putin played him for a fool and won.
You failed to look at results and compare illegal immigration numbers. You ignore the results and lawsuits. You assume having a law is the same as enforcement. The sharpie was accurate to the models at the time. Trump was 100 percent correct in warning europe about dependence on Russian energy. He encouraged all nations to be as energy independent as possible. Putin has been doing exactly what he said he would do for the past decade. The US was a fool to not listen, and you are acting foolish to believe US intelligence agencies.
None of what you proclaim is “governance”! Rhetoric maybe, governance no.
You want governance, how about getting a COVID vaccine in a very short time. How about securing the border much better than Biden. How about getting NATO countries to meet their declared spending. On, and on.
“You want governance, how about getting a COVID vaccine in a very short time.” Best thing he did. Not popular with the looney right though is it? “How about getting NATO countries to meet their declared spending. “ Really? “How about securing the border much better than Biden. “ The rules around the border have not changed.
Oh and let’s not forget the Olympic level disaster that was his covid response. Probably the worst by any western leader. Be gone by Easter apparently.
99.5% of Trump supportes on January 6, 2021 listened to his speech and did not go near the capital building.
None of the protestors were armed
A minority trespassed
A small minority did damage inside
Police opened doors to let them in and some police waved them in. FBI informant Ray Epps in the crowd repeatedly encouraged trespassing
The protests were not to overthrow the government. Only an idiot would think that. On January 6, 2021, the government was led by Donald Trump. The protests delayed Congress for a few hours. That is not an insurrection.
Election protests were very justified. They should have been at state capitals right after the election. Democrats are corrupt and serial liars — horrible people with a lust for political power, by any means necessary, and then micromanaging your life using “experts” in Washington DC.
“The protests delayed Congress for a few hours. That is not an insurrection. That’s only because they failed. They attempted to subvert a free fair democratic election using force. that is an insurrection.
I would argue the term is progressive. The progressive era was between 1900 and 1920. They went underground only to pop up when times were right. Now granted, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between Fabian Socialist and Progressives.
They believe that it’s only a matter of time before they control the government. What surprises me is that they are so bold today about what they are. Anybody who takes the time to review history would see how destructive they are but I guess they figure they aren’t going to lose this time.
Progressivism (women’s rights, child labor laws, etc) was a movement whose name the Fabian’s stole. Consider Teddy Roosevelt. Some people today still call him a Republican but he was a stealth Fabian Socialist … i.e., a communis … all along. And he used the progressive movement to further his agenda.
Read what he said in his acceptance speech for the nomination by the Progressive Party (https://www.ssa.gov/history/trspeech.html ). He attacked capitalism, business and the wealthy. He called for redistribution of wealth, called for the abolition of competition, and called for a strong central government that would regulate nearly every aspect of American lives. He called for national health and social insurance, and for all manner of social tinkering, called for new taxes, including an inheritance tax and the first ever Federal income tax. He spoke repeatedly of “social and industrial justice”, which were then and still are watch words for socialism and communism.
Even the New York Times back then recognized what he was. They wrote of Teddy’s “super socialism (http://supersocialism.blogspot.com/2012/09/dedicated-to-teddy-roosevelt.html). Clear as day, his goals and his methods were EXACTLY those of Fabian socialists. Exactly the same as what Stuart Chase would list in his 1942 book.
And it’s no coincidence. Teddy was visited by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, two of the founders of the Fabian Society, in the 1890s. That was BEFORE he joined the Republican Party. Remember, the methodology advocated by Fabian socialists is to gain power through STEALTH and GRADUALISM … and what could be stealthier and more gradual than to pretend to be a Republican in order to gain office, then begin to do what Republicans wouldn’t otherwise have done?
Consider the fact that while Teddy began as a Republican, once he became President he was soon attempting to move the GOP toward Progressivism. This is widely acknowledged … even left-leaning Wikipedia acknowledges this fact. By 1907 Teddy was proposing even more radical reforms, which were blocked by the Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats. This is what finally caused him to split with Republicans. He’d gone as far as he could in that disguise.
Teddy met with many other Fabian Socialists, as well. One example is the Social Gospel minister Walter Rauschenbush. Rauschenbush had also visited England where he became interested in the Fabian Society … so interested that he became a member.
Teddy’s own autobiography had an appendix titled “Social and Industrial Justice” in which he complimented a hardcore Socialist, Vladimir Simkhovitch who distinguished between revolutionary Marxism (which Teddy didn’t like) and another socialism … one that would get to that beautiful world socialists envision, not by revolution, but by gradual change … in other words, by the means that Fabian Socialists advocated.
In 1904, when Teddy appointed William Taft as his Secretary of War, it was an effort to groom him as a handpicked successor for the President. He did this thinking that Taft was a Progressive Republican. But after Taft won the Presidency, he turned more conservative. When he refused to support Progressive Republican and Democrat congressmen on a bill that would have limited the power of a conservative Speaker of the House, Teddy must have known that nothing more could be done from inside the Republican Party.
So in 1912 he decided it was the time to launch a new Progressive Party, with himself as their candidate for President. He believed that enough Republican Progressives and Democrat Progressives would switch to it for him to be elected. But he lost. This put Woodrow Wilson, into office. Unfortunately for America, Wilson was another Fabian Socialist … who would do much to further their aims.
Seems the Fabians had all the bases covered by that point. Teddy had served his purpose and could be discarded. And Fabians had enough control of the Democrat Party to move forward without trying to form a new party.
“Can you tell me in a sentence exactly what the the RDA is?”
I can, Simon. The radical Democrats are currently using the power of the federal government to suppress and jail their political opposition, in an effort to keep themselves in power in perpetuity. I call that a radical agenda, among other things.
There might be a small bit of hope in Kyrsten Sinema switching to independent and the fact that Joe Manchin effectively got sandbagged by Biden on the Green New Deal bill masquerading as Inflation Reduction. Their votes would be the difference in defeating Dem overreach. Maybe not a lot of hope, but at least it could backstop any Dem schemes that might make it through the house.
Sinema is my senator and before she was a democrat, she was green party. She hasn’t moved to the right and all she is doing is to set up for reelection in 2024. She knows she is losing some of the progressive support with her view of the filibuster and she is trying to make up for it by picking up a few left leaning Republicans.
CO2isLife
December 24, 2022 5:45 am
CO2 is 400 parts per million, man is claimed to be responsible for 100 ppm since the start of the industrial age. That means man produced 1 CO2 molecule for every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Does it seem plausible that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules with the energy consistent with 15-micron LWIR can materially alter the thermal energy of the other 9,999?
CO2 and H2O easily impede 100% of outgoing 15 LWIR at an altitude very close to the surface. Increasing CO2 does nothing more than slightly lower the altitude where 100% saturation is reached. How does that possibly alter the climate and weather above that layer? Nothing changes, the saturation level simply gets lowered. You can’t “trap” more than 100% of the available energy.
The below image shows no warming for a large part of the earth with an increase of CO2 by about 25%. How can CO2 warm some areas of the earth and not others? Do the laws of physics cease to exist in certain parts of the globe? There are also many many many more locations that show no warming all over the globe.
The chart is a really bad example.
Due to the temperature inversion over Antarctica, more CO2 causes global cooling there. The cooling appears to have offset some local warming from underseas volcanoes and tide changes that affected the Antarctica peninsula
No Richard. You are wrong. But I am not blaming you. You have been indoctrinated and brought up to believe that there is (some) man made climate change. In fact, they have indoctrinated a whole generation of people who have become so estranged to reality that they are willing to attach themselves with superglue to paintings and streets and what not.
But truthfully, in fact, there is no manmade climate change at all.
As I have proven to you. ‘Man produced 1 CO2 molecule for every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Does it seem plausible that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules with the energy consistent with 15-micron LWIR can materially alter the thermal energy of the other 9,999?’
The answer is clearly: no
In 25 years of climate science reading I have only found two “scientists” who clam there’s no (or close to no) manmade climate change. They are Murray Salby and Ed Berry. Both are crackpots. And so are you. The three of you are the Moe, Larry and Curley of climate science
Have a Happy Holiday and New Year, Curley
That is utter nonsense, temperature inversion? Really? Even with an inversion, there would still be warming, the temps would simply be shifting northward. There is no warming over a huge area. Also, there are countless other examples. Local warming due to volcanoes? Really? Those underseas volcanoes are why the ice shelves are melting, it isn’t due to CO2. Keep trying.
The underseas volcanoes only affect the ice shelfs in a few locations. The ocean current changes only affect the peninsula. Those areas with local warming are offset by the cooling effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA OF OUR PLANET.
Don’t blame me because you are misinformed on the subject. There are good reasons why the average temperature of Antarctica is not warming since the 1970s. completely unlike the Arctic temperatures since the 1970s.
I will not l keep trying!
Trying to teach you basic climate science is harder than trying to teach my cat geometry.
The “southern polar” band does not include most of the central portion of Antarctica. It is mostly the coastal areas. And, the southern ocean is not showing any warming either.
All the warming over the past 20 years occurred in one year and since then, has slowly returned back to where it was. IOW, you have 2 decades with no warming over 60% of the SH.
Your chart starts in 2001. For trend purposes, you divide it into two periods, 2001-2015 and 2015 – present, which neatly gives you two nice downward trends.
What you don’t show is the full trend from 2001 – present, which is fairly clear warming.
That’s misleading. You can’t help yourself, can you?
I clearly stated all the warming occurred in one year. I then presented a graph that verified my claim. Not at all misleading. The full trend doesn’t provide that level of detail.
I can see why delusional folks would object. CO2 based warming is unlikely to only show up in one year. Since you are a true believer you immediately go into denial mode.
You are correct. The constant spam of inaccurate information from this poster does nothing to help promote proper analyses that show up the real shortcomings in climate modelling.
I’ve been trying to refute CAGW for the past 25 years.
To do that, I can’t dismiss everything leftist Climate Howlers say about AGW. They are right once in a while. But they men CAGW when they say climate change not AGW — there’s a big difference
AGW is real and harmless, supported by data
CAGW is imaginary, with no data
I send the first three hours of each day reading online articles about climate, energy Covid. etc. Then I spend up to an house, as a public service, placing links to the best articles, and sometimes quotes on three different blogs. My climate science and energy blog reached 367,000 page views today. I hope I have publicized good articles that changed some minds. The false fear of the future climate is being used by leftists for very devious purposes. Leftists ruin everything they touch. They are now working on ruining electric grids, and we have ti stop that.
Part of this sounds right. But what do I know. Ive been trying to get a really good and compact explanation of why the increase in CO2 is limited in its warming effect. And yes i understand feed back, albedo decadel ocean current theory etc
. Im talking about what the molecule itself is capable of doing or not combined with the water in the atmosphere. Example: absorption , reflection etc. because when I debate your average person all they know is CO2 greenhouse gas. More CO 2 bad . We re all going to die! In a sweltering desert. And yes i know its complicated.
Yes that is a fantastic piece. I have seen it before but ran out of time dissecting and reducing it to something simple enough for public consumption. Basically CO2 % increase only.01%v/v, atmosphere predominantly still transparent, heat CO2 can’t accumulate in lower atmos where it counts, And eart not really a true black body. Energy in energy out still negative. I love the shower analogy!
The reason CO2 has limited warming has to do with saturation as described in point 2. I like to use the bucket of water analogy. The current situation is like a full bucket of water. The water is essentially equivalent to the warming effect of CO2. It is real up to a point. We’ve are past that point. The alarmist view claims you can get more water in a full bucket. That at least gets them wondering.
Scissor
December 24, 2022 6:44 am
Merry Christmas. Enjoy family, friends and simple pleasures.
I will be getting one of these made for my wardrobe next year: (Apologies to those too young to remember the expression “it’s not my bag’ and for defacing Albrecht Dürer’s masterpiece)
morfu03
December 24, 2022 7:21 am
I was wondering if WUWT could have an preemptive post about “it´s cold because it´s hot” explaining how the current situation in the US had no measurable human influence..
I am pretty sure there will be a need for it..
CD in Wisconsin
December 24, 2022 7:46 am
This really cracks me up. Aussie PM Albanese claiming a year ago that solar panels on your roof can recharge your EV overnight.
Could the push for EV mandates be fomented by the coal companies?
Don’t laugh yet.
Hear me out.
As I’ve discussed in the past, the concept of Global Warming was a creation of the Nuclear Power Industry. It was an effort, started in the 1970s, to jumpstart stalled nuclear plant construction. Today, coal use for power generation has reached a 30 year low. Is the Coal Industry, similarly, attempting to create an environment that will boost usage?
Electric Vehicles (battery plug in – not hybrid) have a niche place in society. They are good for around town trips and daily commutes in moderate climates. They are a play thing for the well to do, and for people whose life requires virtue signaling. A U.S. light vehicle fleet with total EVs accounting for 1% – 1.25% can be accommodated without a need for increased power generation or transmission grid buildouts. Currently the EV share is about 0.66%. With present EV sales accounting for 2.5% – 5% of total light vehicle sales per year, power generation requirements are stable for another 25 – 40 years. Note: I am examining only EV usage effects. Other mandates such as changes from gas to electric for heating, cooking, etc. are not considered here. In addition there is no attempt to address increased cost from higher rates of consumption, carbon sequestration, etc.
Question – So what would happen if EV ownership and usage increased dramatically?
Say that there was a mandate that EV sales be:
2026 – 35% of new car sales
2028 – 51% of new car sales
2030 – 68% of new car sales
2035 – 100% of new car sales
This is the recently passed California Law. Virginia has already signed on, and 17 more
states are very seriously considering adopting the mandate. Answer – Power generation requirements would increase dramatically in very short order.
How will this demand be met? Nuclear would do the trick. But the lag time to build new or reopen/refurbish closed plants is prohibitive. Besides it is despised by the Green Crowd. Modular nuclear could help if deployed in single site, multiple unit, parallel array configurations. Renewables are out of the picture. As I have discussed in the past, there is no Moore’s Law for renewables. The Shockley–Queisser and Betz limits are realities of physics. Practical green energy, in commercial quantities, is an endeavor for the future, and requires new grid infrastructure and storage solutions.
That leaves fossil fuels – gas and coal. Over the last 30 years as the price of gas decreased (due to improved production and transport systems) the use of coal decreased. At present, about 22% of U.S. electricity is generated from coal. With the administration’s efforts to hamper present and future gas production it is projected to increase another 22% for a total of about 27% of power generation. This represents the upper bounds for the industry.
So, if you are the Coal Industry, and if you can’t increase your share of the pie, and you know that there is no alternative source, how do you increase revenue? You make the pie bigger – the bigger the better. How do you do this? You find ways to substitute the use of electricity for other energy sources in everyday life.
A conspiracy theory? Yes.
Improbable? Possibly.
But I saw what the Nuclear Power Industry attempted. Just because it failed to revive nuclear plant construction does not mean that an agenda like this wouldn’t be attempted to increase coal use.
The coal industry hit a new record in 2022. I assume you are referring to the US coal industry. Of course, this could work but the entire reason for the mandates is to lower CO2 emissions. You would need affordable carbon capture.
No, sequestration would not be an issue. The premises of EU green policies is CO2 reduction. As a consequence of the policy failures, coal, wood, etc. are being utilized with no thought of CO2. An emergency is an emergency. Here in the U.S. an emergency of inadequate electric supply would be met without any attempt to limit CO2. Look at California. It’s energy policies are the greenest in the U.S. Yet, when their “Green Energy” is insufficient to meet needs, they buy power from any surrounding state, with no concerns over the degree of green in the generation.
“the concept of Global Warming was a creation of the Nuclear Power Industry.”
The prediction of warming caused by CO2 emissions was already in science papers in the late 1950s. The best known of those scientists was Roger Revere, Al Gore’s hero. The global warming from CO2 was specified in the 1979 Charney Report (“specified” = wild guessed) and only changed a few years ago by the IPCC (an arbitrary change of a wild guessed number) This is government science, folks.
“The Shockley–Queisser and Betz limits are realities of physics.” Dumbocrats don’t believe in limits. One Democrat Congressman actually said: “Limits, LIMITS, We don’t need no stinkin’ limits”
Many People generally credit Al Gore with discovering Global Warming; right after he invented the internet. The origins, however preceded him by about 25 years. The current CO2 concerns, as an industry, have their origins in the 1973 energy crisis when the Gulf States instituted the first oil embargo. Concerns over the dangers of atmosphertic C02 were initiated by the nuclear power industry.
By the 1970s nuclear power in the U.S. was stalled, and in decline. As a result of government regulations, nuclear plant construction was dramatically slowed, costs were escalating, and new plants were being cancelled. At the same time fossil fuel emissions, primarily in the form of acid rain and smog were under intense scrutiny by environmental groups. While they did not embrace nuclear power, their consensus was that it did not create atmospheric pollution. Nuclear power proponents needed “something” to get back in the game.
The study of atmospheric CO2, and the possible ramifications of its increase, began in the late 1950s with the work of Roger Revelle, a highly respected oceanographer, and several other scientists worldwide. But the light was always placed on the imminent crises du jour: Rachel Carson’s <i>Silent spring</i> DDT apocalypse, Paul Ehrlich’s <i>Population Bomb</i> famine apocalypse, the <i>Club of Rome 1972 Report</i> declaring that we’re running out of everything, the Coming Ice Age, etc. CO2 studies were relegated to the accompanying penumbra. However, there was some ongoing research.
Failing to get serious government action, in 1968 the National Academy of Sciences created the U.S. Comittee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP). In 1975 the committee published a report stating that, “We simply cannot afford to be unprepared for either a natural or man-made climatic catastrophe,” and that more study was necessary. The federal research budget for climate research was doubled from $20M to $40M. In 1977 the committee published a second report on <i>Energy and Climate</i>. Revell chaired the panel which stated, that continued study of the problem required, “A lively sense of urgency.” In 1980, the budget was doubled again. And, so it had begun. We need more study: so we need more money, and then again, we need more study: so we need … .
In 1974 the CIA published, <i>A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems</i>. The diagnosis was dramatic. It warned of the emergence of a new era of weird weather, leading to political unrest and mass migration. The CIA had heard from scientists warning of global cooling as well as global warming. The direction in which the thermometer was travelling wasn’t their immediate concern; it was the political impact. Climate Change wasn’t getting the attention it should, and there was a lack of urgency in discussions.
In 1976, Stephen Schneider, while looking for grad project, published <i>The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival</i>. After years of headlines about droughts and famine, he figured the time was right for a popular science book on the danger climate change could cause. He also proposed that you could actually simulate something as complicated as the Earth, and then pollute the model, and figure out what might happen.
In the wake of the oil embargo four years earlier and the attendant energy crisis, the Carter Administration began, in 1977, backing a transition from petroleum products to coal, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Iranian oil shock of 1979 added impetus to this endeavor. This caused environmental groups to amplify their polution concerns.
Pres. Carter’s initiative was the hook that advocates of nuclear power needed. Nuclear was clean. Shortly after the announcement of the proposed transition, a cadre of nuclear power scientists, lobbyists, and companies, led by Alvin Weinberg, began advocating for the study man made CO2 atmospheric pollution. The danger of CO2, they explained, could require limiting its production. Pres. Carter’s plan for transition from oil to coal, began the blending of climate studies and politics. What had been a niche field of study became a mainstream endeavor, with lots of funding available.
The efforts of the nuclear power lobby in the 70s and 80s failed to kick start nuclear power generation in the United States. It did, however, create a new industry – Man Made Climate Change.
Sage,
In 1970 I started my scientific career emphasis on nuclear. I was hands on in the early parts of the nuclear fuel cycle at a national level, working to influence policy.
At no stage did I find any evidence of any type that the nuclear power industry was involved in promotion of CO2 global warming action or activism.
It was 1990 before I even heard of fellow scientists knowing about the CO2 alarmism, let alone treating the GHG hypothesis seriously. Industry time was spent mostly on publicising nuclear benefits, not much on countering activist propaganda for the simple reason that most was wrong and could be shown wrong.
I was in a position to know if the nuclear industry promoted global warming as you describe. It did not. Geoff S
I suggest that you review the writings of Alvin Weinberg in the 1970s.
One suggestion, from 1976, is: Economic and environmental implications of a U. S. nuclear moratorium, 1985–2010.A simply search for “Alvin Weinberg, global warming” will produce many papers on the dangers of CO2.
I’m seeing contributions from battery manufacturing followers raising serious concerns about the supply chains of essential inputs such as cobalt, lithium, nickel etc.
Do you have any thoughts about this, Sage?
PMHinSC
December 24, 2022 9:04 am
I have been unsuccessful in finding high and low temperature records by zip code. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
How about an even better idea: Ask them which summer was the hottest, and which winter was the coldest, in their memory.
I’d like to think that would be a good conversation and lead to some local knowledge.
On the other hand, with my family, I’d ask the question and then hear tall tales about walking four miles to school, in three feet of snow, and uphill in both directions!
CO2isLife
December 24, 2022 10:24 am
Here is the problem all this CO2 drives temperature nonsense faces. If the laws of thermodynamics hold, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. The earth emits a finite amount of LWIR, atmospheric CO2 can only absorb 100% of that finite amount. CO2 can’t magnify that amount of energy. Well, climate scientists obviously have never used a gas cell to test their nonsensical theories. 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15 micron LWIR is absorbed by CO2 by 10 cm…yes 10 cm. Adding more CO2 simply lowers the level at which 100% is absorbed that is it. Does anyone think that absorbing 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15 microns at 9 cm is any different than 10 cm? This is all pure nonsense.
This is what happens when you change CO2 to Pre-Industrial Levels. The entire global warming nonsense is the difference between these three charts. You can only absorb 100%, and marginally changing the level at which 100% is absorbed is immaterial. Climate scientists simply don’t understand the physics of the CO2 molecule.
If you fill your gas cell with CO2 you will get Svante Arrhenius’ results. When it is dilute mixture in the atmosphere the results are different. That is because energy gets transferred to other non GHG molecules rather than simply building up in CO2 only. Your figure only demonstrate high absorbance for the narrow resonance peaks, either side of which absorbance is much less. Do you understand what you are looking at here?
Please produce the graphics and make your point. I isolated CO2. H2O also absorbs those same wavelengths, so with or without CO2, 100% of 15 micron gets absorbed. Anyway, please produce the evidence that either CO2 can absorb more than 100% of LWIR of 15 micron, or that somehow adding other gasses can absorb 100%. Once again, you can only absorb 100%. CO2 alone does that by 10 cm. How are you magnifying that energy?
Please study Wijngaarden and Happer. They explain it all. Your evidence shows that CO2 does NOT absorb 100% of radiation between say 650 and 690 cm-1. Close to 100% absorption only happens at the very narrow resonant peaks that relate to permitted quantum rotation energies. That means that if a highly specific energy photon happens to encounter a CO2 molecule within the absorption cross section it is very likely to be absorbed. However, if it misses, it carries on its way, and if it has an energy in between the rotation spikes it is unlikely to be absorbed.
I think we are making the same point, and don’t disagree with your points. The reason I chose that band is because that is the exact band CO2 absorbs that is relatant to the GHG effect. CO2 is obviously transparent to all others…and you point out.
I have put together the following chart of GB generation, interconnector flows, demand and day ahead prices for the past year. It displays daily averages for the various items. Do click on the chart to see an enlarged version.
The early part of the year is dominated by a regime of good wind output, supplemented by significant net imports from the Continent and some coal burn. The start of the Ukraine war sees prices spike upwards in March followed by a collapse of wind as the spike abates. France has remained a net importer throughout. By mid April, with demand lower, imports have been cut back and exports commence in earnest. The role of CCGT in balancing the variations in wind output is clear. Also all generation above the yellow domestic demand line is dispatchable, and thus can be thought of as the marginal origin of exported power. It is clear that the export was driven by excess gas burn.
As Nordstream is progressively shut down over the early summer prices continue to rise, culminating in a price spike in late August after the pipeline had been completely shut down and it became clear that it was unlikely to restart. More than a month afterwards the pipelines were sabotaged, but electricity markets barely registered a flicker as prices collapsed again.
Interconnector export mode continued until end November, when the weather suddenly turned cold, sending electricity demand (and gas demand) higher. October and November were mild and windy, with the mild weather leading to a much slower than anticipated natural gas stock drawdown on the Continent, and once again long queues of LNG ships awaiting discharge. The ability of the UK to handle a high volume of LNG and re-export it either as gas via the pipelines from Bacton to Belgium and the Netherlands, or as electricity via interconnectors allowed the purchase of cheap LNG (thus saving big demurrage bills for cargo owners while ships are at anchor awaiting discharge), and that kept electricity prices down. The windier weather helped a little, but wind really only set prices during low demand overnight on windier days – enough to affect the day average.
The cold weather induced another price spike to the highest day ahead levels of the year as a combination of industrial and even consumer demand destruction and bidding for interconnector supply during extreme Dunkelflaute were necessary, as available capacity was running at maximum. The end of the cold snap and the start of the low demand period over Christmas has seen prices fall back.
wilpost
December 24, 2022 11:41 am
Excerpt from article
Often one sees various turnkey capital costs for battery systems
Here is an estimate, based on the latest 2022 pricing
Turnkey Capital Costs of Site-specific, Custom-designed, Utility-grade, Grid-scale Battery Systems Tesla Megapacks
Tesla is at the forefront of providing the world with lithium-ion battery systems, that include front-end power electronics, the batteries, and back-end power electronics, and systems for battery heating and cooling, as needed, in standardized enclosures.
The Megapack ratings shown in the table, in bold, fit into a standard container W, 286” x D, 85” x H, 99”
If multiple Megapacks are purchased, the $/kWh becomes less. See URL https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design
The 2022 Megapack pricing is shown in the table
The 2022 Megapack pricing is 24.5% greater than the 2021 pricing. See URL
The 2025 Megapack price likely will be much higher, due to: 1) Increased inflation rates, 2) Increased interest rates3) Supply chain disruptions, which delay projects, increase costs, 4) Increased energy prices, such as oil, gas, coal, etc., 5) Increased materials prices, such as of Tungsten, Cobalt, Lithium, and Copper, 6) Increased labor rates. ?itok=lxTa2SlF https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars
Open Article URL to view Tesla 2022 pricing table
Example of Large-Scale Battery System
PG&E, a California utility, put in operation, at Moss Landing, a li-ion battery system with 256 Megapacks, rated capacity is 182.5 MW/730 MWh, 4-h energy delivery duration.
Power = 256 Megapacks x 0.770 MW x 0.926, factor = 182.5 MW
Energy = 256 Megapacks x 3.070 MWh x 0.929, factor = 730 MWh
1 Megapack costs $1.566 million, per above table
Supply by Tesla was about 256 Megapacks x $1.25 million each = $320 million, or $320 million/730,000 kWh = $438/kWh, 2022 pricing.
Supply by Others was about $46 million/730,000 kWh = $63/kWh, 2022 pricing. All-in, turnkey cost was about $438 + $63 = $500/kWh. See Notes
NOTE 1: After looking at several aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, it is clear many other items of equipment are shown, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the total battery system cost on a site. NOTE 2: World Cobalt production was 142,000 and 170,000 metric ton, in 2020 and 2021, respectively, of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 120,000 metric ton in 2021.
Grid-Scale Battery Systems Round-Trip Losses, A-to-Z basis
Often one sees various round-trip losses for battery systems
Here is an estimate, based on greatly increased wind and solar systems tied to the New England high voltage grid, with a one-day, wind/solar shortfall made up with a battery system
Grid-scale battery systems typically are connected to the NE high-voltage grid by step-down and step-up transformers. The below calculations show the electricity drawn from the high voltage grid to charge the battery system, and then discharge the battery system to counteract a one-day wind/solar lull.
We make the following assumptions:
1) Greatly increased wind and solar connected to the NE grid at a future date, such as: wind onshore at 12.5%, wind offshore at 12.5%, and solar at 25% of annual grid load, a total of 50%, or 125/2 = 62.5 TWh/y, or 0.171 TWh/d
The required installed wind/solar nameplate capacities would be:
Wind offshore = 0.125 x 125 TWh/y / (8766 h/y x 0.45, CF) = 3,961 MW; existing about 30 MW, at end 2021
Solar = 0.25 x 125 TWh/y / (8766 h/y x 0.15, CF) = 23,766 MW, existing about 5,500 MW, at end 2021
2) Wind/solar output at 15% of their annual average grid load, during a wind/solar lull lasting 24 hours
Wind/solar loaded onto the NE grid would be 0.15 x 0.171 = 0.02568 TWh/d
Wind/solar shortfall would be 0.171 – 0.02568 = 0.14555 TWh/d
3) Grid-scale battery systems, connected to the HV gird, provide the entire shortfall, in TWh/d
Step-by-Step Battery System Losses
The below calculation shows the step-by-step losses of battery systems, A-to-Z basis
1) Fed to HV grid via step-up transformer 0.14555, as AC, to make up the above shortfall
Step-up transformer loss at 1%.
From back-end power electronics, as AC, to step-up transformer 0.14700
2) Back-end power electronics loss at 3.5%
From battery to back-end power electronics 0.15215, as DC
3) Battery discharge loss at 4%
Deduction from battery charge 0.15823, as DC
4) Battery charge loss at 4%
From front-end power electronics to battery 0.16456, as DC
5) Front-end power electronics loss at 3.5%
From step-down transformer to front-end power electronics 0.17032, as AC
6) Step-down transformer loss at 1%
Drawn from HV grid via step-down transformer 0.17203, as AC
Battery System Loss, A-to-Z basis
About 0.17203/0.14555 x 100% = 18.2% more needs to be drawn from the HV grid to charge the battery systems up to about 80% full (preferably many days before any wind/solar lull starts), than is fed to the HV grid by discharge from the battery system to about 20% full; the loss percentage increases with aging.
Battery systems are rated at a level of power, MW, provided for a number of hours, MWh, such as providing 2 MW for 4 hours, 2 MW/8 MWh, as AC at battery voltage, which needs to be stepped up to HV voltage.
where the lifetime record of battery charging is a total of 397GWh of which 310GWh have been discharged back to the grid for an overall round trip efficiency of 78.1%. Some of the difference with your figures will be for cooling and some for battery ageing. As the total capacity is <<1GWh the current state of charge is not a factor in the calculation over the long timescale.
The battery systems will be in hot and cold climates
They have HVAC systems to heat/cool the Megapack enclosures and batteries
My calculated losses do not include the HVAC loss
Energy Losses of Site-specific, Custom-designed, Utility-grade, Grid-scale Battery Systems
Articles often assume a battery loss of 10%, which likely would be only the battery.
That loss should have been assumed at about 20%, on a-to-z basis.
See Note.
Here are two sources:
Source 1 is based on measured data, on a-to-z basis
This article identifies 18 losses of a stationary battery system, totaling about 20% for a round-trip, excluding transformer losses.
See Note.
– The system model has four coupled, component models: 1) Battery, 2) Power Electronics, 3) Thermal Management, such as heating/cooling of batteries and enclosures, and 4) Control and Monitoring.
– Electricity for site lighting, O&M, surveillance, etc.
Source 2 is based on EIA survey data from OPERATING grid-scale battery systems
Per EIA survey, grid-scale battery efficiency is about 80%, AC-to-AC basis, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses.
Aging had only a minor effect, because the battery systems were only a few years old.
See Note. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756
Sequence of Losses:
1)AC electricity from a distribution, or high-voltage grid, via a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery
2) Through the power electronics to DC
3) In battery
4) Out battery
5) Through power electronics; DC is digitized, made into a sine wave with same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid
6) Via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution, or high-voltage grid
“I think the consensus view, even when you talk about to people in the global warming community, is that a forcing for clear sky of CO2, which is about 3W/m2. When you take clouds into account that’s going to reduce it by about 30% to about 2W/m2. But that’s where there is a lot of uncertainty at the present time..”
Great stuff, but very difficult to explain to the ignoratissimos, which means, with a big foghorn, all lies will continue, until something blows up in their faces.
Great talk by van Wijngaarden, covering the ground of the WH paper on 5 GHGs in clear skies, and moving on to introducing their later modelling including clouds. Ending up with considering the effects on the biosphere, crops etc. pointing up that climate policies are more dangerous than climate changes.
Robert Kernodle
December 24, 2022 5:17 pm
The block-quote feature here is a mess — the big quotes and the block lines merge with the text to give a sloppy, broken appearance. Can this be fixed?
In blockquote::before I change font-size to 10px and it actually looks pretty good IMO. Maybe also change left to -3 to -5px
rckkrgrd
December 24, 2022 8:00 pm
It seems a greenhouse gas is one because it is not completely transparent to infrared radiation which is a quality of greenhouse glass. It is also a quality of water vapor, water itself, dust or any solids suspended in the atmosphere, or the very air itself. Most insulations in use today depend on trapped air pockets. Then there is the very surface of the earth itself which is much more effective at trapping heat and is a major factor in the UHI effect.
Still they are trying to convince me that the extremely tiny percentage of CO2 content in the air is significant.
michel
December 25, 2022 1:29 am
Reading recommendations for 2023
Its been clear for some time now that very similar thinking and reasoning patterns are found in all three of the great ‘woke’ ideologies of recent decades. I have been reading about the other two – gender and race. Here are some of what I’ve found thought provoking and helped clarify thought and approach. Whether you agree with them or not (and I have not always ended up agreeing) reading them carefully will help anyone work out what they think and why.
Gender
Kathleen Stock, ‘Material Girls’.
Stock is a professional philosopher who was forced out of Sussex University in the UK for the heretical view she took in this book of gender issues . Its not in the least trans-phobic however, its a calm and reasoned approach to sex and gender in humans and the associated policy issues currently under debate. As you would expect from a philosopher there is quite a bit of emphasis on the logic or illogic of trans ideology.
Abigail Shrier, ‘Irreversible Damage’. Mainly directed at the phenomenon of the wave of trans among teenage girls, and is a critical look at the way in which its being handled.
Helen Joyce, ‘Trans – When Ideology Meets reality’.
Joyce is a writer for the Economist. A level headed and wide ranging account.
Race
Thomas Sowell, ‘Intellectuals and Race’.
An examination of the logic, evidence for and history of the collection of ideas that has become known as Critical Race Theory. Calm in tone and factually based, with some eye opening accounts of the antecedents of modern day thinking in the Eugenicist and Progressive movements of the early 20c. He is very good on movements of thought, what persists and what has changed, and how.
John McWhorter, ‘Woke Racism’.
This is different from the others, written informally as if you were listening to a speaking voice, funny, acerbic, indignant, pointed. But still very logical and has some very penetrating insights. The basic argument is that the critical race theory movement has many of the characteristic marks of a religion, and this insight is then used to explain many of the puzzling and internally inconsistent features of it.
Climate
What does any of this have to do with climate? Well, the thing that strikes you as you move through the other two waves of opinion of our time is the similarity of the methods of reasoning, the approaches, and the way in which policies are being justified in all three cases. Read McWhorter attentively and you will no longer be puzzled by (for instance) the fact that New Zealand is talking about lowering or eliminating CO2 emissions from sheep, to tackle climate change, when its obvious to the most casual observer that whatever they do about their sheep can have no effect whatever on climate.
The pattern of thought running through the climate, the trans or gender, the critical race theory movements is the same. Read about all three, with the help of these writings, and you will see it clearly. And also, probably, at the same time you will come to see that on some non-trivial issues you don’t agree with the authors. But you will know where you stand and why.
Gunga Din
December 25, 2022 12:51 pm
Today is Christmas Day as I type this.
(Merry Christmas!)
“A Christmas Carol” is one of the most filmed stories of all time.
I’d like to see a compilation of them all, “Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol” (The first animated TV Christmas special), the ones with Alister Sims, Patrick Steward, the guy who played “Patton”, all of them rolled up and spliced into one story. (The best scenes. Some scenes may need to be doubled up.)
The copyright stuff would be a nightmare, but I think it could be very entertaining.
Tony_G
December 26, 2022 3:12 pm
Is anyone else being randomly logged out?
I was logged in earlier today, then when I got back on just a few hours later, I’m logged out. I always check “remember me”. In fact, I had been logged in for at least a week up until this happened just now.
It’s happened several times over the past few weeks.
Gunga, no. Like I said it maintains the cookies for quite some time of normal use. The particular incident yesterday was a case of me finishing my reading this site and closing those tabs, then returning to check my email for new articles, without having closed firefox in between. Something I do multiple times per day just about every day without similar incident.
Without CO2, earth would be a dead planet. Because life on earth is entirely composed of little carbon sacks of water we call cells. More CO2, up to at least 2,000ppm of the atmosphere, makes life greener, stronger, more drought tolerant, and abundant. Greenhouse growers routinely pay to add up to 1,600ppm CO2 to their operations to make their products greener, healthier, and more productive. Just like using coal, oil, and gas does for our atmosphere for free today. And today recycling more CO2 makes it easier to feed eight billion people than it took to feed 3.5 billion a century ago. How? With arguably, the most important and powerful aspect of life’s metabolism – photosynthesis. Whose formula is sunlight plus CO2 plus H2O, with the green enzyme chlorophyll, converting sunlight into the high-energy bonds of life’s carbon compound sugar. And as a bonus, also produces 100% of our atmospheric oxygen! While, as Dr. John Christy has clearly proven, CO2 is insignificant in climate. EVERY one of the over 100 CO2 driven climate model projections massively overestimates temperatures compared to actual weather balloon and satellite data. Our normal, natural ever changing climate has moved twice during human existence through 12°C cycles. 100 thousand year cycles driven by Milankovitch Eccentricity. And in the warmest 4°C portion of that massive normal, natural range of earth’s temperature, earth’s orbit is in its warmest, near circular shape. We call these warm periods interglacials. In our current interglacial, the Holocene, we invented agriculture and civilization. In our CO2 driven life on earth, warmer with more CO2 is always better.
vinceram
December 27, 2022 8:10 am
I find it interesting that many on this site buy-in to the concept that CO2 can cause warming, when in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a coolant. In my opinion, there are basic thermodynamic principles that dictate this fact. Any theory — GHG, pressure induced warming, etc., that do not recognize this fact are not portraying physical reality.
Is it worthwhile to focus on a WUWT topic for 2023, Anthony & Charles?
Could you see value in a theme to background many articles?
One type of theme I have in mind might be a proper estimate of the social cost of carbon.using both positive and negative costs.
Or a proper economic analysis of the real comparative costs of hydrocarbon electricity versus solar and wind, to show which is really the cheaper in actual operation?
These are fundamental to what many commenters here worry about. Show those 2 concepts to be wrong and you starve others of big talking points.
In concept, it is like what is happening in Australian education right now, where diverse subjects are encouraged to use climate change as examples, like math that 1+1 = 2 becomes 1 windmill + 1 windmill = 2 windmills. Geoff S
Uh, the proper term is “Wind Turbine” </sarc>
“Tilting Targets”?
The proper term in my book is “Bied and bat shredders:
That’s all they are good at.
Good point especially about the “social cost of carbon” misconception. The benefits deriving from the use of hydrocarbons from natural deposits are huge. And the benefits to agriculture from the increased concentration of CO2 are notable too.
Good idea. I suspect if someone did a legitimate and accurate cost/benefit for fossil fuels, there would be a clear argument for banning renewables and maybe even nuclear and hydro. Coal would be king again.
The way to determine what energy source mix is most cost effective is to remove regulations, taxes and subsidies and let the free market function.
Alex Epstein is making the case exactly along the lines of policy you describe, except not with a full cost/benefit accounting to directly counter the SCC claims.
Are there any negative costs?
No negative costs that I can see. CO2: It’s all good!
A slightly different take on “Or a proper economic analysis of the real comparative costs of hydrocarbon electricity versus solar and wind, to show which is really the cheaper in actual operation?” is what mix of fossil fuels plants and renewables will result in the least total emissions of CO2? By total emissions, I am referring to including all of the emissions related to construction and decommissioning the various fossil fuel generation, renewable generation and energy storage. I suspect that the minimum total emissions scenario would be close to the most economic scenario.
This came about from a discussion on the relative amount of materials need to generate a kw-hr from nuclear versus wind, with one study showing the nuclear required about 10% that of wind. This did not take into account materials required for energy storage, which would like make an even better case for nuclear.
“is what mix of fossil fuels plants and renewables will result in the least total emissions of CO2? By total emissions,”
Why? CP2 is massively net beneficial.
My point was more of a criticism about the Net-Zero movement where the advocates don’t have a clue on how to reduce CO2 emissions, never mind the cluster bomb on the energy infrastructure.
There’s a simlar cluster bomb with the EPA’s imposition of the Tier IV regulations on diesel locomotives. The railroads responded by stop buying new locomotives, which is leading to higher emissions than ahd EPA stuck with Tier III limits.
Bad math.
1 windmill + 1 windmill=0.65 +/- .05 generating windmills.
I would very much enjoy reading several different cost-benefit analyses on using petrochemical fuels. Of course, we have so many examples of reports of their negative impact, it might be enough to see the benefits listed.
But it’s still Nuclear and Nuclear is BAD. No, no, we must continue to despoil the planet by building more wind farms and solar panel forests. Oh, the horror of a technology that defeats the Malthusian Great Reset.
Unleashing Clean Fusion Power Is America’s Best Defense Against Tyranny | ZeroHedge
O dear the hudson bay polar bears, what is Susan Crockford’s take on this message of doom?
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145327852/polar-bears-canada-hudson-bay-dropping
FOX News-World also picked up the story. Almost exactly verbatim as the NPR one.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadian-polar-bears-near-polar-bear-capital-dying-alarming-rate-new-survey-found
Another study from Andrew Derocher. Melting sea ice and models.
– – – – – – – – –
Drivers of polar bear behavior and the possible efects of prey availability on foraging strategy (By Derocher)
Change in behavior is one of the earliest responses to variation in habitat suitability. It is therefore important to understand the conditions that promote different behaviors, particularly in areas undergoing environmental change. Animal movement is tightly linked to behavior and remote tracking can be used to study ethology when direct observation is not possible.
(20 pages.)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365444505_Drivers_of_polar_bear_behavior_and_the_possible_effects_of_prey_availability_on_foraging_strategy
We need an independent count and health survey of H Bay bears, like Anthony’s surfacestations.org for temperatures. If we hadn’t had this to discipline the temperature felons, they would have simply cooked temperatures to fit their devilish plans.
They did fiddle earlier temperatures to steepen the T increase, but present temperatures have been constrained, shoulders have been looked over. This allowed an 18yr “Pause” to go forward and ultimately for agreement that T models based on CO2 emissions were running a way too hot! Anthony may not take credit, but it is well-known that when you shine a light into the darkness, you curtail a lot of skulduggery.
I know that uncorrupted biologists are few. It was the first science that fell to the néomarxistes – Ehrlich the best known. Susan Crockford seems to be the only polar bear specialist in the world who gives alternative evidence on the good health and status of the bears bears. Jim Steel is another example of an objective biologist/ecologist.
HBay is accessible for this type of monitoring. Heck, you can take the train to Churchill, Manitoba. Maybe hire Inuit to count the bears, with Susan managing the program.
A good number of HBay bears are tagged with radio. Have 16% of these died? If course not.
about four percent of polar bears die annually. What percentage of tagged bears die, I don’t know.
Ukraine is surely saved – British Army comes to the rescue 😀
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-64082342
OK, the spellchecker confused Cornwall with Ukraine – we all make mistakes.
Here’s hoping their ambulance driving skills are up to equally good scratch
🙁
Try Kernow….
Mercy, peace and love for you all this Christmas!! Many thanks to all who keep WUWT going!
You are part of promoting the truth, the very same Truth that Pilate asked Jesus about….
May I ask for those of you who know for some peer review on my last report on the CO2,
here,
An evaluation of the greenhouse effect by carbon dioxide | Bread on the water
Happy Christmas.
May Santa bring all the good boys and girls coal, and the bad ones the name plate from a wind farm.
Play safe 🙂
I’m guessing lots of people in Europe are asking for coal this winter.
Coal would be a great gift in the EU and UK this winter.
How things change.
Every time I see a headline with Bomb Cyclone, I pronounce Bomb as Inspector Clouseau would.
Merry Christmas,
Bob
I “roll my eyes” when I hear “bomb cyclone”.
But does your dog bite?
That is not my derg.
And then there was the dyslexic atheist who proclaimed:
“There is no dog!
Careful Allan.
Trudeau has classified dyslexic-ism as a HATE CRIME!
The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac would often stay awake at night wondering if there was a dog.
“BOMB” is a cyclone that deepens 24 mb or more in 24 hours. OK, but it does look like hysterical hype. Why don’t ‘they’ borrow another charming sounding Spanish word like “derecho”, “arroyo”, “tornado”, etc?
I certainly hope these are not stupid questions on my part. I mean them in all seriousness and I hope you will take them that way.
What am I missing? So much of what people who say climate change or global warming is an emergency does not make sense to me. An increase of average global temperature of more than 1.5C degrees since preindustrial times (around 1850) is supposed to be a catastrophe?
Will the increase in average temperature be uniform over the entire globe? If not, can one determine where it will happen? An average includes numbers higher than the average and numbers lower than the average. Where in the world will be above average and where in the world will be below average? People experience changes in climate and temperature at certain times and in certain geographic places. How can one determine when and where and what will happen? I understand it is projected that the most warming will be in cold areas, during the cold months and will be in the form of warmer lows at night. If that is the case, then it seems huge parts of the world will experience little or no warming. The people of N. Dakota might not mind the temperature in February at night being only -25F degrees rather than -30F degrees.
Thriving populations exist in Helsinki, in Riyadh, in Singapore. The average annual temperature in these places is dramatically different. The average annual temperature N. Dakota and in Florida are dramatically different and thriving populations live in both places also. People live by the ocean, by rivers, in the desert, in the forest, in the mountains, on the plains. How can an average global temperature increase of more than 1.5C degrees cause a catastrophe that people cannot easily manage and adapt to? People have been managing and adapting to their climate for thousand of years.
I understand since preindustrial times there has already been approximately 1C degree of warming and it has been an incredibly prosperous time with unimagined human advances, but we are supposed to believe if temperature exceeds another .5C degree or so of warming it is going to cause a catastrophe?
bill snider said, “So much of what people who say climate change or global warming is an emergency does not make sense to me.”
Welcome aboard the good ship Skepticism (aka WattsUpWithThat), Bill.
You asked, “How can one determine when and where and what will happen?”
To a very limited degree, based on data during earlier warming periods (the mid-1910s to the mid-1940s for example), we can say that the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere should warm at a faster rate than lower latitudes. See the grey curve in the graph below.
figure-2.png (640×523) (wordpress.com)
It’s from the WUWT post here:
Early 20th Century Warming – Polar Amplification, Model-Data & Model-Model Comparisons – Watts Up With That?
That’s it for now, Bill.
Regards,
Bob
PS Bill.
Polar amplification also works in the other direction when global surface temperatures are cooling. See the graph below:
figure-18.png (642×418) (wordpress.com)
It’s from the post here:
Tisdale on Polar Amplification – Watts Up With That?
Regards,
Bob
On the Kelvin scale it’s 0.2%
Bill you ask the kinds of questions that all rational adults ask about claimed climate changes.
Me, I’ve assigned all the answers provided so as –
“Things not to worry about in life”.
The global average temperature already reached +1.5 degrees C. in April 1998 and February 2016 during the peak heat from ti ow very large El Nino heat releases from the Pacific Ocean.
As expected, +1.5 degrees C. was a disaster.
Millions of people died
It was in all the newspapers.
At +2.0 degrees C., all life will end
Except for Mothers-in-Law
They are eternal.
Scientists said so.
So that must be correct.
I saw that movie!
And the sequel that showed everything turned out fine . .
(oh wait . . . )
Bill, also keep in mind that they have NEVER been able to quantify what is natural and what is Man-caused. They just repeatedly make the claim that it is.
First, Best Wishes to all for the Holidays and the New Year! Merry Christmas!
For Bill Snider:
Today I updated the following paper – Climate is the first part and Covid-19 the second.
Climate and Covid are the two greatest frauds in history – the most costly and the most harmful, in terms of squandered dollars and wasted lives, and both frauds were promoted by the same scoundrels for personal gain – wolves stampeding the sheep.
This was never about the science – the scoundrels don’t debate the science, they just vilify and harass anyone who dares to point out their falsehoods, and enlist imbeciles to do their dirty work. The scoundrels know they are lying and the imbeciles believe them.
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
By Allan M.R. MacRae, October 20, 2021, Update December 24, 2022
https://energy-experts-international.com
The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.
Following are the correct predictions of Allan MacRae and colleagues on two important subjects:
– GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM
– COVID-19 LOCKDOWNS AND ”VACCINES”
Our scientific predictions on both these subjects are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.
[continued…]
Following are the last updates sent to our Alberta and Canadian politicians and the (mostly-bought) North American media:
THE NEED FOR ANALYSIS OF EXCESS MORTALITY AND ITS CORRELATION WITH C19 INJECTIONS GROWS MORE URGENT
Peter Halligan 25Nov2022
[excerpt]
Bottom line? Excess mortality is increasingly converging with estimates of under-reporting factors of around 40 for EUDRA and VAERS. The worry is that adverse events are increasing and are not being reported to adverse event reporting systems and are, instead, being attributed to other leading causes of death.
The number of excess deaths [caused by the Covid-19 injections] is increasing BEYOND 20 million.
…
It is a tragedy that big pharma, medical regulators and practitioners plus politicians will delay, distract, outright lie and prevaricate until the more conclusive data for excess deaths in 2022 for a fully “vaccinated” population is impossible to deny.
BABY ALEX UPDATE WHO PASSED AFTER RECEIVING VACCINATED BLOOD AGAINST HIS PARENTS’ WISHES
Forty-five-day-old Baby Alex died of a clot so long it extended from his left knee to his heart.
That was twenty-four days after staff at Providence Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital in Spokane, Washington, had administered a transfusion using blood from vaccinated donors—explicitly against parents’ wishes.
– Dr Paul Alexander, 24Dec2022
“And remember: you must never, under any circumstances, despair. To hope and to act, these are our duties in misfortune. To do nothing and to despair is to neglect our duty.”
—Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago
IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ABOUT THOSE COURAGEOUS FEW WHO CHOSE TO FIGHT THE COVID-19 SCAM
Dr Paul Alexander re-posted the following:
Abraxas Hudson is one of those who is silent yet does so much behind the scenes for community and humanity. A hat tip is in order.
Abraxas’s words:
“We all knew that once we made the decision to step into the fire, our lives may never be the same again. Crossing the threshold meant pledging allegiance to truth and principle, versus stable comfort, often alone, knowingly risking everything dear. Many of us have paid a high price and others see that. It deters them, as they value comfort over principle, even more so when they see the price we have paid defending freedom.
To stand against the narrative requires the spiritual strength one would need to stand in front of a tank. Many of us faced the tank alone. Thankfully, we now have each other. Bare chested, tank facing patriotism is rare, but necessary, to retain the liberty we love… We know this. We see how rare that patriotism is when we look around. We answered the call, most of us feeling as though we had no choice. The call came from deep within our souls and we wonder – did others feel the call, if so, did they ignore it?”
What is my reason for existence, if not to protect children from harm?
I suggest that no honest, rational person could be this wrong, this utterly obtuse, for this long.
They must know what they are doing.
Crimes Against Humanity! Nuremberg 2.0!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
– Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc. (Eng.), M.Eng., Calgary
I’ve known for ~three years that this Cull of Humanity would unfold, I predicted it, tried to stop it, only saved a handful of people, and had to watch the unfolding carnage – this will be the greatest deliberate Cull of Humanity in the history of the world. In a few years it could exceed the murder of hundreds of millions by Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
I identified the Covid-10 lockdown fraud here on wattsup almost three years ago on 21Mar2020, six months before the ~identical Great Barrington Declaration by world experts. I knew it was fraud in Feb2020 but only published in March when my good friend Dr Dave told me that our Alberta hospitals were all EMPTY! Some pandemic! No patients! There was NO “CURVE” TO FLATTEN!
Remember how the health authorities BS story kept mutating, even faster than the virus?
Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve”? Turned out to be TWO YEARS – must have been a typo.Remember the “virtuous masks”? The virus is so small that hundreds of them can pass side-by-side through any pore in the masks!Remember “fashion masks” that people sewed and sold – made of cloth that was even more porous than the paper masks. Fashion AND Virtue-signalling!Remember “Safe and Effective Vaccines”? Oops!!! – Not So Much!Remember “These vaxxes will absolutely stop you from getting Covid and passing it on to granny. Don’t kill granny!”Remember “Anyone who resists the vaxxes is selfish and evil and should be shunned, stoned or spit upon, etc.!” – Justin Turdo”Remember “Breakthrough Infections”- the vaxxed were getting Covid? Oops!!! – Not So Effective.Remember “So the vaxxes don’t stop infections, but they make the infections less severe.” More BS! The vaxxes weaken your immune system and make all infections worse! Oops! Not so safe!Remember the Variants? These were CAUSED by the vaxxes – basic biology (Darwin) says you NEVER vaccinate into an epidemic with a leaky vaccine – the virus will just mutate and end-run your vaccine with a new variant, time after time – and it did!And then came the clot-shots, with multitudes of young athletes, etc dropping dead every day, and the sheep just nodded and looked the other way and took another toxic shot. Darwin Awards!
And then the more grievous harm, the suppression of natural immunity by the toxic shots, and millions of people getting sick and dying from lowered resistance to bacteria, flus and cancers, now called “turbo-cancers because they are so fast and deadly.
And now we are entering the next Winter flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Carnage will unfold – the Cull of the Vaxxed will take friends and family, and people will still line up for the toxic “vaccines”.
And I will mourn them, and wonder if I could have done more, or how I could have been more effective.
Epilogue:
The rat-b@stards who pushed the toxic Covid-19 injections have killed tens of millions worldwide and vaxx-injured billions more (ref. Peter Halligan) – the full carnage will be even more obvious this winter.
Anyone who denies this reality is being deliberately obtuse – there is no longer any debate among honest, intelligent observers.
Every statement by our health authorities about the lockdowns, the masking and the “vaccines” was false and caused millions of deaths.
Unfinished Business:
Identify the leaders of this scam, try them, convict them and execute them.
I don’t agree with the belief that vaccine injuries were deliberate. That is just speculation. I see no evidence that people involved in developing, testing and manufacturing the vaccines have avoided the vaccines — they would know the devious purpose of the vaccines if there was one.
You bullet point summary near the end of the comment was very good, except for one point.
While is it believed that vaccines cause the development of variants, it is also true that viral epidemics lead to variants without vaccines. Less deadly variants is how all respiratory viral epidemics end with no vaccines. including the 1918 to 1920 epidemic.
If it is true that Covid19 vaccines caused accelerated development of Covid19variants, then that may be good news about the vaccines.
Because after many Covid19 variants — I lost track at Delta — we got lucky when Omicron showed up in 2022, and became the dominant virus, ending the Covid19 pandemic.
Omicron is a coronavirus common cold with the same very low infection fatality rate of other coronavirus common colds — too low to support an epidemic.
How did Omicron get create?
It was most likely created in the body of a person simultaneously infected with real Covid19 and a coronavirus common cold.
Unlike a typical Covid19 variant with one or two spike protein mutations, and a relatively high infection fatality rate, Omicron had 30 mutations of the Delta Covid19spike protein and an extremely low infection fatality rate.
So why is the Omicron common cold called a Covid variant? Used by governments to create fear and control people. Just like the Covid scaremongering in 2020 and 2021.
Omicron may have a similar CFR as the common cold, or it may not. Many Omicron harms are now hidden as now the PTB are doing about 25 percent of former testing, at a more accurate threshold or lower cycles to determine positive. Why? Because they no longer want to associate the myriad harms of the likely man made virus with massive vaccine failure. The test positive rate remains very very high, just a lot fewer tests. However pathologically it is far different than a cold, as the spike protein is responsible for a host of harms including to the brain. There are hundreds of papers on the disparate harms of Covid. However the vaccines can and do the same harms, likely more with greater immune system damage.
South African doctors were the first to identify Omicron as a much less dangerous variant. Everything known about Omicron says to call it a coronavirus common cold rather than scaremongering as a new Covid19 variant.
Omicron harms are NOT hidden. The harms are not worse than any common cold — it could kill a very sick elderly person, like any common cold could.
It would be easy to confuse Omicron symptoms with Covid19, influenza, or any other common cold virus.
I agree: If natural spike proteins would severely harm a patient (a small percentage of patients, mainly the elderly with comorbidities) then the spike proteins generated by a Covid vaccine would cause the same severe harm. And there could be other problems from the vaccines too, that are not problems seen from natural Covid19 infections.
https://rumble.com/v1ze4d0-covid-19-vaccines-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-possible-causes-of-injuri.html?mref=nmtun&mrefc=2
MacRae goes full-on MacRae at the way our so-called leaders reacted to covid 19 with lockdowns, masking and “vaccines”. Well Mr. MacRae, your insights are fine, especially in hindsight, but remember this:
Before we were offered vaccines, the Wuhan strain was abroad for well over a year, and it actually killed quite a lot of people. My spouse and I both had original Wuhan strain of covid in April 2020 – it was a mild infection, barely noticeable if it hadn’t been for all the panic in the media. But both of us developed long covid, which lasted for a year and got progressively worse. It almost killed me, and it did kill my spouse. So pardon me for having the following thought, but when you have watched your life partner die in front of you because she couldn’t breathe (despite having been told by your family doctor that “your lungs are clear, you have nothing to worry about” less than 24 hours before), you might be excused for thinking that perhaps “somebody” should do “something” about this very nasty disease.
Now for the serious question that I haven’t seen anyone else ask:
You may recall that, in early 2021, we in Canada were being offered a choice between the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA concoctions, and the Astra-Zeneca non-mRNA vaccine. But somehow, the Astra-Zeneca never made it into widespread use – it was “All mRNA, all the time”. I have yet to meet anyone who had the A-Z shot. Why did we never get a choice of having a vaccine made by traditional methods, similar to the flu vaccines that many of us having been taking for decades without adverse effect?? You know the answer as well as I do; the power of big pharma’s money to gain influence over scientifically illiterate politicians while hiding incomplete, unpublished testing that showed mRNA does not inhibit transmission of the virus. There were just too many billions on the table for any ethical considerations to have a role.
Not to forget the messaging coming from China that helped to put those scientifically illiterate politicians in a right old panic. Including (staged?) photos of bodies in the street and apartment doors being welded shut.
Finally, I do offer this positive thought, if anyone has read my rant this far: Both the covid 19 virus and the mRNA vaccines appear to do much of their dirty work by causing blood clots on micro- and macro-scales. I had a heart attack back in 2010 and have been on medications ever since, including anti-coagulants (apixaban and time-release aspirin, full-strength 325 mg; never mind the wimpish 81 mg dose they recommend). Is it possible that anti-coagulants helped me to survive long covid while my poor wife didn’t?? There is a field for study here, if anyone is brave enough to take it up. Could taking aspirin help reduce the harmful effects of mRNA vaccines and/or the SARS covid 2 virus? OK, it’s only a suggestion about pharmaceuticals from a geologist, but IMHO there’s enough logic there to call it a testable hypothesis.
In Cheyenne Wyoming this week the temperature dropped 40F in 30 minutes. Almost no living thing survived the unprecedented climate change – wait, what – not unprecedented? No catastrophe? Never mind.
But another 1.8 F (1 C) increase in average temperature over the next 77 years will definitely be catastrophic – its what the science says.
Same here just north of Denver. I’ve seen this at least 3 times in my life. Rare, yes, uncommon, yes. Catastrophic, not hardly.
One year since the technocrats lost their grip who outside the media even thinks of Covid 19? Very few.
From Spiked
How SAGE almost stole Christmas
Seeing someone wearing a face mask today is like seeing someone wearing a monocle. And yet it is only 12 months since a group of scientists, activists and journalists tried to bounce England into a fourth lockdown.
…
It is easy to forget how intense was the pressure on Boris Johnson to impose ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions on a population that was brimming with immunity
…
At the centre of it was the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and the teams of epidemic modellers at various universities. Any pretence that they were dry academics offering impartial advice died last Christmas. They were active participants in a campaign, leaking documents to the press and briefing against the government when speaking to the media ‘in a personal capacity’. The modelling, which had been too pessimistic for at least a year (most famously when Neil Ferguson predicted 100,000 cases a day after ‘Freedom Day’ in summer 2021), became laughably apocalyptic. A million cases a day were predicted by Christmas. Thirty-thousand hospital admissions a day were thought likely. Six-thousand deaths a day was considered a reasonable worst-case scenario. Even the best-case scenario expected a peak of 600 deaths a day.
As it turned out, the number of deaths peaked at barely 200, a sixth of the death toll reached in the two previous waves. Hospital admissions briefly exceeded 2,000 a day and many of these were ‘incidental’ – ie, among people who happened to have Covid but were admitted for other reasons. How did the scientists get it so wrong?
…
The evidence that Omicron was more infectious (which it was) came from South Africa and was immediately considered settled science. But when evidence from South Africa suggested that Omicron was resulting in relatively few hospitalisations and deaths (which it also was), SAGE experts went out of their way to dismiss it. South Africans were younger, they said. They had built up immunity from earlier waves, they said, as if the UK hadn’t had its own waves of infections and a far more extensive vaccination programme.
…
Almost from the outset, doctors in South Africa were telling us that Omicron was ‘far less severe’ and that the UK was ‘panicking unnecessarily’. Anyone who followed the data from South Africa could see what they were talking about. Waves of infections rose and then fizzled out with far fewer hospital admissions and deaths than in previous waves. On social media, this was dismissed as ‘hopium’ and a range of excuses were wheeled out, such as it being summer in the southern hemisphere and South Africa having a lower rate of obesity (which, in fact, it does not). The head of the South African Medical Association, Dr Angelique Coetzee, later said that she was asked by European scientists to shut up about Omicron being milder.
…
On 16 December, Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London claimed that there was ‘no evidence’ that Omicron was less severe than Delta, based on a study involving just 24 hospital patients in London.
By this time, SAGE was more or less openly lobbying for ‘more stringent restrictions’ to be introduced as soon as possible (‘if implemented late, it is less likely that these would prevent considerable pressure on health and care settings’). One of its members, the psychologist Stephen Reicher, told the press that ‘all the science suggests that [mandatory masks and vaccine passports] are not going to be enough… things are closing down anyway, because of the spread of infection. So I think we need to act now.’ The grab bag of self-appointed experts and hypochondriacs at ‘Independent SAGE’ had already called for an immediate ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown.
Much of the media joined in. Already obsessed by ‘Partygate’ and unable to get out of a 2020 mindset, they seemed intent on reliving the drama of the previous Christmas. On 19 December, the Guardian’s science editor wrote that ‘the scientific case for more restrictions is overwhelming’. LBC’s James O’Brien tweeted: ‘Scientists issue warnings about what is likely to happen next if Johnson doesn’t act now. Johnson refuses to act until it actually happens. We’ve seen this film before.’ The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr tweeted: ‘It’s March 2020 all over again.’
…
So here’s to a merry Christmas without the threat of a lockdown for the first time since 2019. The attempts to cancel Christmas last year have largely been forgotten. But for those of us who remember, those responsible will never quite be forgiven.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/23/how-sage-almost-stole-christmas/
And many of the bad actors remain in post.
A merry Christmas to all.
Lockdown and no vaccination policy now severely backfires on China
It will go through the population. That cannot be avoided. Lockdowns merely slow it down and cause far more [major societal] problems. It could have been a one year phenomenon, but China has eked it out to 3 years and counting
Lockdowns overall have a negative effect.
On the other hand Lockins can be quite effective at preventing spread, a lot easier to apply in the 17th century than the 21st
First, find an amenable landlord…
The point of the lockdowns in Europe was (of course) to gain time for the population to be vaccinated. And it seems to have worked, though the UK would probably have had a much lower death toll if it had started its first lockdown sooner. Lockdown + vaccination has been shown by the event to have been the right way to deal with it. Lockdown by itself is the wrong way.
However strativarius, like some others here, is anti vax as well as anti-lockdown. So strativarius’ preferred scenario would be to have done nothing, no vaccination and no lockdowns, let it rip and get it over with.
Fortunately S was not in a decision making role in the UK at the time. Fortunately for him/her, as much as for the UK.
Italy by accident carried out a controlled experiment on a partial version of what S advocates. It assumed medieval proportions in many locations.
S says “It will go through the population. That cannot be avoided. Lockdowns merely slow it down…”
Yes, it will go through the population. But because of vaccination it will cause less havoc, much less severe illness, less hospitalizationl less deaths. And yes, lockdowns merely slow it down. But that time gained was critical because it could be used to vaccinate.
China’s problem has been that it locked down without properly vaccinating. It now seems to be paying the price in the form of an out of control outbreak as soon as lockdown was lifted.
The more vaccinated, the more likely to get infected. (Really)
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallery=15999
all that was needed was the use of well known prophylactic treatment and contact tracing.
Uttar Pradesh went from just shy of 20 percent positive for Covid (20 out of every 100 people tested) to .01 percent positive, (only 1 out of 10,000 tested positive) then to 0 percent. Why was their Ivermectin test better than the very high 85 percent efficacy in the meta analysis of all the Ivermectin studies? Mainly for two reasons. One is they broke the RO, (the transmobility of the virus in the real world.). A test or study does not target a localised population, so the overall RO is not threatened. However India, via extensive contact tracing and thousands of teams went throughout the province, distributing Ivermectin to all positive test subjects, their families and close contacts. They broke the RO and shattered the disease, which then, having nowhere to go, died in about 10 weeks. The second reason is they did not distribute just Ivermectin, but Zinc and vitamin D. (None of the studies did this as well)
“Lockdown + vaccination has been shown by the event to have been the right way to deal with it”
You know nothing about viruses.
I am not anti vax and have never been
Got any other wild claims you want to air?
Hans, lease provide a link to something other than propaganda that shows the vaccines did anything to actually lesson the number of illnesses and deaths from the Wuhan virus.
IMO, yes an opinion only, those who had Covid THEN got vaccinated, essentially erased their natural immunity so they could get Covid again, helping to keep the cycle running. If no one had EVER been MRNA “vaccinated”, herd immunity would have been achieved almost 2 years ago.
Yes I had the China virus ONCE, I never used masks except where required, I traveled 8000 miles around the US during the “peak” of Covid and never had a problem until my son came to our house sick with it last New Years eve. He had been visiting friends of the lower reaches of society where all communicable decease seem to spread.
BTW the wife, 71, me 66 and diabetic. No real issues with the virus, but the cough did hang around for a week or so. We only had fever for a little over a day. I did take Hydroxychloroquine for about 5 days, starting 2 days before my son arrived, since he told us he was feeling ill and lost his sense of smell, something my wife and I never experienced.
How did you confirm it was COVID?
Good question, we did not test. We don’t want anything to do with this BS which is mostly a massive transfer of wealth to the “healthcare” industry for essentially no positive societal benefit.
We got sick shortly after our son left, HE had all the normal symptoms including loss of taste and smell. We had the same symptoms less the loss of taste and smell but much milder.
We have, since the start of this virus, taken Quercetin, D3, zinc, K, B and C at reasonable doses.
We had not been sick during the “pandemic” until this occurrence the first week of January this year, while traveling by vehicle with our trailer the summer of 2020 and the fall of 2021. Each trip roughly 2 months long and 8000 miles. Variously routes across the North, South and central US. and up and down the east coast from Mass. to Georgia. Lots of contact with lots of people, but rarely anyone with symptoms.
Our vaccines were Vitamin C, D, zinc and quercetin. I’ve been talking the first three supplements for over 50 years. Added quercetin in January 2021. No Covid19, Omicron, influenza or even a common cold for both of us since January 2020. I have never had influenza and no common cold for at least five years. I’m confident the supplements helped — my diet is not good and I don’t get exercise. We are also n both old.
We would NEVER take any c vaccine developed in nine months, or even in a few years. A typical vaccine takes 10 years to develop with a 98% failure rate.
I had a bad allergic reaction to a vaccine as a child and my doctor decided no more vaccines for me. I never even got a smallpox vaccine, So that makes about 63 years with no vaccines. I was not going to break that streak with Covid vaccines. They have been a medical disaster.
NOT safe and NOT effective. A two-way loser.
General rules of thumb
Recovery in 2 to 7 days = Omicron common cold or any other common cold
Recovery in 1 to 3 weeks = Covid19 or influenza
many common symptoms among respiratory diseases
Loss of smell = probably Covid19
Fact check: Belief COVID-19 vaccines are not effective comes from misinterpreted data (msn.com)
Before writing off the article as “propaganda,” intellectual honesty would require a compelling argument that either the facts or logic are false.
No decline in excess deaths or all-cause mortality resulting from Covid vaccines. VAERS reported SERIOUS adverse side effects at least 50x more common than any other vaccine in history.
If the deaths did not decline, it is very unlikely that hospitalizations declined. You are a brainwashed commenter. When the government says “jump”, you ask “How high?”
The problem with China is not the lack of a vaccination policy, but requiring the use of the relatively ineffective vaccine produced in China.
The problem with lockdowns is that they may result in more years of life lost than were saved by reduced infections. Probably the most idiotic form of lockdowns were the ones that discouraged or prohibited people from spending time outside as exercise and sunshine help in reducing severity of Covid infections.
“Seeing someone wearing a face mask today is like seeing someone wearing a monocle.”
I saw Trafficker-in-Chief, Joe Biden and his wife wearing masks yesterday while reading to children.
The mask was to prevent old Joe from sniffing the kids’ hair?
I think you are right, and that’s not a joke.
I was among those looking carefully at the South African data and presenting the evidence that it is a mild variant to the shrieking hyenas in UK politics. Just as with the humongous waste of money that was Test and Trace, which was doomed to failure because it could not work speedily enough to have any useful effect – always looking in the rear view mirror while the infections had long ago spread elsewhere.
Politicians do not do science. They love scientists who promulgate fear.
In my view, Dr. Roy Spencer has done us all a lot of good recently by posting this as a parenthetical point: “(Yes, I know some of you don’t like the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change. Feel free to ignore this post if it bothers you.)”
It is a reminder that the framing of the issue of non-condensing greenhouse gas emissions as a “forcing” perturbation leads inevitably to an endless debate about what response to expect, as the characterization of “feedbacks” can take so many different directions and involve so much uncertainty.
This paradigm errs, in my opinion, by making you think (“thinking past the sale” as Scott Adams would describe it) that the surface is what emits energy to space, and the atmosphere is what keeps it from getting there due to the “greenhouse effect.” This is incomplete and misleading, as the atmosphere itself is the major emitter, by far. We live at the bottom of a fluid layer with a mass equivalent to over 33 feet of water. It moves impressively, and we experience it all as weather. It’s amazing to watch.
We can do better by re-framing the GHG question: What happens to the effectiveness of the working fluid as an emitter, as non-condensing GHGs increase in concentration? And what does the emission of longwave energy look like from space to begin with?
Please consider reviewing my comment at the recent cross-posting from Dr. Spencer’s blog here at WUWT. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/20/climate-sensitivity-from-1970-2021-warming-estimates/#comment-3653611
As I see it, the alternate framing I have been suggesting ends up with the sense that heat energy cannot, in fact, be made to accumulate to harmful effect at the surface by what non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere.
Comments welcome. If I am wrong about this, tell me why in terms of the dynamic operation of the atmosphere.
(To be clear, the existence of the static “greenhouse effect” is not in dispute in the sense that yes, there is a warming effect, at the surface looking toward space, from the absorption and emission of longwave energy by “greenhouse gases” such as water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc.)
Excellent! I’ve often wondered what the LW emission looks like over a super cell. It must be true that water vapor emits to space at 50,000 ft. far easier than at 5 feet. Yet, I’ve never seen this tackled.
Another paradigm shift, away from obsessing over temperature and towards measuring energy flows might get us closer to thinking about heat engines instead of ‘blankets’.
Actually there are satellite images from GOES that show cloud top temperatures. In the summer very high cloud tops will suggest a temperature of around 200K. This is a derived temperature made possible by IR emitted power measured at the satellite — so, just assuming for the sake of illustration that the cloud emissivity is 1.0 (perfect black emitter) the emitted power must have been
.
Now, also for sake of illustration, assume a surface temperature of 300K under a mid-latitude atmosphere with low RH. A situation not unusual where I live. The troposphere can easily be 30% transparent to IR in these conditions. So, calculating surface emitted power with an emissivity of 1.0 we find
and 30% of this is around 
. So even though people think of the atmosphere as stopping LWIR cooling, you can see that a warm surface makes a pretty good radiator.
Good points. One of the implications I see from the GOES East Band 16 animated visualizations, for example, is the highly self-regulating nature of cloud-top emission in the warm tropics. It’s as if the array of emitter elements is semi-conductor controlled. In other words, the very low emitter output (-90C brightness temperature) from thunderstorm tops works to retain energy within the atmosphere to help drive circulation away from the equator and ultimately toward the poles.
An IR spectroscope shows those lines as absorption lines and no emission in those lines. I need an explanation as to how zero emissions strike a surface and make it warmer.
Why arguing the facts about climate change is not going to have any impact on the minds of those committed to The Cause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8gw1T3yo0
Are we doomed to fail and watch the destruction of Western Civilisation or is there a better strategy?
Paul R.
A fundamental problem in all of this is simple ignorance. Our civilization has advanced to the point where technologists are attempting to understand enormous complexity in an increasingly undereducated populace.
Absent true understanding, mythologies flourish. Science is hard. Emotion is easy. I have a EE bachelors, a masters in mathematics, and a PhD. in physical oceanography and I struggle with many of the technical posts here.
I don’t know that my education makes me smarter about climate, but I am absolutely convinced that it equips me to know well what I don’t know. My fear is that there are a multitude of Gretas who know nothing but the mythology they have enveloped themselves within.
Their voices are as strong as their ignorance.
An excellent comment, Paul B. I must say, you have an interesting educational background. Considering how complex much of the modern world is, one can only marvel that we can make it all work very reliably. The unfortunate aspect of making the very complex also very easy to use and very reliable is that it leads people to believe they understand waaay more than they do, or possibly can. Dunning-Kruger look out!
“A fundamental problem in all of this is simple ignorance”
A logical person would say that, but it is wrong.
Ignorance and incompetence would result in random mistaked — some decisions would benefit America and others would be counterproductive
THAT IS NOT happening
Every decision by leftists harms America
That is their intention
These are not random errors
Democrats are promoting a fundamental transformation
We thought they meant socialism in the Obama era
We were wrong
We already have socialism in the US with total government spending for 2022 (at all levels of government) at 34.5% of GDP
So why does fundamental transformation continue?
Fundamental transformation is to Marxism, as the ultimate goal.
You transform to Marxism by destroying the existing economic system (usually called capitalism, but is really socialism)
“A logical person would say that, but it is wrong.”
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right, in that what you describe appears to indeed be the case. Wrong in that the ignorance is intentionally promulgated among the masses* who are then easier to deceive.
* See Dewey’s description of the intent of public education, if you can find it.
The internet has given irrationality a voice. Lots of people have irrational feelings. In the past irrational feelings were put through a slow test period and people learned those feelings were wrong. They got crushed by reason.
Today these feelings spread like wildfire in the virtual world and find lots of minds to infect. This has led to a situation where many irrational feelings are now accepted as real. It also has led to strong resistance to reason and the need to shut down those who espouse reason. It has also allowed these irrational views to grow/combine into larger and larger constructs even more irrational than the individual feelings.
We now live in the age of irrationality. Of course, this is not sustainable and will eventually collapse. What happens then may not be pretty.
Maybe we should stop trying to argue the facts and instead encourage them to double down and go further in the hope that it would accelerate the collapse and we could then get back to a more rational basis?
Shockingly observant, Richard.
Well, it is questionable as to whether Republicans will be able to stop the radical Democrat Authoritarian agenda.
We already have a dozen or more Republican Senators enabling the radical Democrat agenda, the one that seeks to take away our personal freedoms, and seeks to place radical Democrats in positions of power in perpetuity.
We also had a few Republicans in the U.S. House who voted to enable the radical Democrat agenda, although most of those will not be back in Congress in January.
So the U.S. Senate Republicans will not help to stop the radical Democrat agenda, instead they will enable it.
And it is still a question as to whether House Republicans have the ability to come together to form a defense against the radical Democrat agenda.
Republicans who vote to enable the radical Democrat agenda are our political enemies just as the radical Democrats are our political enemies.
Our political enemies are trying to steal our freedoms away from us and they are doing so right in front of our eyes.
Our only hope is a shaky, Republican House of Representatives.
What will it take to get Republicans out marching in the streets in protest? Will they wait until all their freedoms are gone?
Some of us living in Red States do have a fall-back position. The State can shield us from a tyranical federal government. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
Tom, so you mentioned “radical Democrat agenda” a bunch of times here. Can you tell me in a sentence exactly what the the RDA is? I know Trump used the phrase a lot, but it’s a genuine question… what is it?
Anything that aids in the establishment of one-party, Democrat rule in the USA. For the most part it is not a fixed “agenda” per se but rather ad hoc governance. One example is to so burden the private economy with regulation that it cannot operate, and then under the excuse of “market failure” the nationalization of most or all of the economy.
One party democrat rule? Isn’t that just democracy? If more people vote for one party then they get in and get to implement their policies. Anyway, so how are these policies that different from what Democrats have been pushing in the past? I mean it’s not like they are proposing to storm the capitol and use force to try to overthrow the government? (I mean who would be brazen and crazy enough to do that?)
And if you are talking about “ad hoc governance” wasn’t the last Republican one pretty “make it up as you go?”
You conveniently missed the implication that the goal was to eliminate competition from anyone who wasn’t an avowed Democrat.
You proclaim to have a genuine interest, but don’t. You missed the distinction between Democrat and democratic, and missed also any lessons you may have gotten from civics classes about how a republic differs from some sorts of democracies.
A few hundred people some of whom storm the Capitol and some of whom were waved in by police, and none of whom had any form of effective weaponry meant to overthrow the government? Really? And exactly how did the Trump administration engage in “ad hoc” governance — got any examples?
It is apparent that you have fantasy narratives that guide your thinking. I can’t recall any effort in the past to engage with you but there isn’t much reason to do so in future.
Trump = ad hoc. But an example…. Hmmm where to start. The wall was never finished, drawing on a weather map with a sharpie. Lying about the size of his inauguration crowd. Sacking the competent advisors he had(general Kelly, Rex tillerson) and keeping only those who professed loyalty. Insulting families of war hero’s. Saying he believed Putin over his own secret service. Calling African nations shit holes. Enough? I have loads more.
Your turn …. do u have any evidence the police let in the crowds in to the capital buildings?
Ignorance and arrogance, you wear them well.
Trump fought the democratic lawfare in regards to illegal immigration, he fought the democrats, he fought the RINOS, and he was winning, And he was winning, and Mexico was cooperating. Care to compare illegal immigration in Trump’s last three months to today? It was the media that lied about crowd sizes constantly. Care to compare the crowd size of Trump versus Biden? (The sharpie bothered you?) I would not trust your view of “competent advisors” as the main Covid and vaccine failure was the politically leftist fascist CDC FDA and Fauci, working with WHO, and Trump, seeing his very successful economic reforms being destroyed, and his rational nationalism working here and in many other nations, trusted the “experts” while pushing alternatives that worked, and appropriately wanted State rights to determine policy. His initial instinct to stop flights from China was quite rational. I believe Putin over our corrupt FBI and CIA, and Trump said “I trust my intelligence people”
“Trump fought the democratic lawfare in regards to illegal immigration”
It was a vote winner. Nothing more.
“Care to compare illegal immigration in Trump’s last three months to today? “
Biden has not changed the policies so no change.
” It was the media that lied about crowd sizes constantly.”
Bollocks Trump embellished it all. The man can’t be seen to come second…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/fact-check-inauguration-crowd-size/96984496/
“(The sharpie bothered you?) ”
The sharpie was classic Trump trying to cover one of his lies… so yes that bothers me when a president lies so blatantly. We should all be bothered, at least those of us who value truth.
“I would not trust your view of “competent advisors” as the main Covid and vaccine failure was the politically leftist fascist CDC FDA and Fauci, working with WHO”
Do you have any filter for truth at all? I’m guessing not.
“I believe Putin over our corrupt FBI and CIA”
Then you are a fool…. there is no other way to put it. Trump embarrassed himself and the USA on the stage in Helsinki. Putin played him for a fool and won.
You failed to look at results and compare illegal immigration numbers. You ignore the results and lawsuits. You assume having a law is the same as enforcement. The sharpie was accurate to the models at the time. Trump was 100 percent correct in warning europe about dependence on Russian energy. He encouraged all nations to be as energy independent as possible. Putin has been doing exactly what he said he would do for the past decade. The US was a fool to not listen, and you are acting foolish to believe US intelligence agencies.
“You ignore the results and lawsuits.”
I’m glad you bought lawsuits up. How many is Trump facing at this point in time?
Simon regurgitates Democrat talking points. All of them distortions of reality.
People believe what they want to believe. It simplifies their world. Why they want to believe in a particular worldview is another question.
None of what you proclaim is “governance”! Rhetoric maybe, governance no.
You want governance, how about getting a COVID vaccine in a very short time. How about securing the border much better than Biden. How about getting NATO countries to meet their declared spending. On, and on.
You might want to try again.
“You want governance, how about getting a COVID vaccine in a very short time.”
Best thing he did. Not popular with the looney right though is it?
“How about getting NATO countries to meet their declared spending. “
Really?
“How about securing the border much better than Biden. “
The rules around the border have not changed.
Oh and let’s not forget the Olympic level disaster that was his covid response. Probably the worst by any western leader. Be gone by Easter apparently.
99.5% of Trump supportes on January 6, 2021 listened to his speech and did not go near the capital building.
None of the protestors were armed
A minority trespassed
A small minority did damage inside
Police opened doors to let them in and some police waved them in. FBI informant Ray Epps in the crowd repeatedly encouraged trespassing
The protests were not to overthrow the government. Only an idiot would think that. On January 6, 2021, the government was led by Donald Trump. The protests delayed Congress for a few hours. That is not an insurrection.
Election protests were very justified. They should have been at state capitals right after the election. Democrats are corrupt and serial liars — horrible people with a lust for political power, by any means necessary, and then micromanaging your life using “experts” in Washington DC.
“99.5% of Trump supportes on January 6, 2021 listened to his speech and did not go near the capital building.”
Then who are these people…. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1008211655/new-videos-underscore-the-violence-against-police-at-the-jan-6-capitol-riot
“None of the protestors were armed”
Seems you just make stuff up…..
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used
“Police opened doors to let them in and some police waved them in.”
Any evidence of that?
And the Ray Epps thing was dead months ago. But still dishonest people like you drag it on. Leave the poor guy alone (if you have any honesty at all).
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-ray-epps.html
“The protests delayed Congress for a few hours. That is not an insurrection.
That’s only because they failed. They attempted to subvert a free fair democratic election using force. that is an insurrection.
“npr” /snip/ “npr” /snip/ “nytimes”
Regurgitating standard lies of the Marxstream Media–go away, clown.
Yawn. You don’t even read it so how would you know? I read both sides to get balance. Do you?
This Simon person regurgitates the lies and talking points of the Marxist anti-Trump media 100%, Very likely paid to do so.
Simon does of good job of it.
I’m still debating with myself whether Simon really believes all this Democrat propaganda or not.
Come on Tom you know I have conviction in what I write as do you. Merry Christmas by the way.
“Can you tell me in a sentence exactly what the the RDA is?”
Read the book “The Road We are Traveling” by Fabian Socialist Stuart Chase.
Here:
https://ia802600.us.archive.org/29/items/TheRoadWeAreTraveling/TheRoadWeAreTraveling.pdf
Fabian Socialists have had a MAJOR impact on US politics since the early 1900s. Wilson, FDR and others were Fabian Socialists.
I would argue the term is progressive. The progressive era was between 1900 and 1920. They went underground only to pop up when times were right. Now granted, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between Fabian Socialist and Progressives.
They believe that it’s only a matter of time before they control the government. What surprises me is that they are so bold today about what they are. Anybody who takes the time to review history would see how destructive they are but I guess they figure they aren’t going to lose this time.
“I would argue the term is progressive.”
Progressivism (women’s rights, child labor laws, etc) was a movement whose name the Fabian’s stole. Consider Teddy Roosevelt. Some people today still call him a Republican but he was a stealth Fabian Socialist … i.e., a communis … all along. And he used the progressive movement to further his agenda.
Read what he said in his acceptance speech for the nomination by the Progressive Party (https://www.ssa.gov/history/trspeech.html ). He attacked capitalism, business and the wealthy. He called for redistribution of wealth, called for the abolition of competition, and called for a strong central government that would regulate nearly every aspect of American lives. He called for national health and social insurance, and for all manner of social tinkering, called for new taxes, including an inheritance tax and the first ever Federal income tax. He spoke repeatedly of “social and industrial justice”, which were then and still are watch words for socialism and communism.
Even the New York Times back then recognized what he was. They wrote of Teddy’s “super socialism (http://supersocialism.blogspot.com/2012/09/dedicated-to-teddy-roosevelt.html ). Clear as day, his goals and his methods were EXACTLY those of Fabian socialists. Exactly the same as what Stuart Chase would list in his 1942 book.
And it’s no coincidence. Teddy was visited by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, two of the founders of the Fabian Society, in the 1890s. That was BEFORE he joined the Republican Party. Remember, the methodology advocated by Fabian socialists is to gain power through STEALTH and GRADUALISM … and what could be stealthier and more gradual than to pretend to be a Republican in order to gain office, then begin to do what Republicans wouldn’t otherwise have done?
Consider the fact that while Teddy began as a Republican, once he became President he was soon attempting to move the GOP toward Progressivism. This is widely acknowledged … even left-leaning Wikipedia acknowledges this fact. By 1907 Teddy was proposing even more radical reforms, which were blocked by the Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats. This is what finally caused him to split with Republicans. He’d gone as far as he could in that disguise.
Teddy met with many other Fabian Socialists, as well. One example is the Social Gospel minister Walter Rauschenbush. Rauschenbush had also visited England where he became interested in the Fabian Society … so interested that he became a member.
Teddy’s own autobiography had an appendix titled “Social and Industrial Justice” in which he complimented a hardcore Socialist, Vladimir Simkhovitch who distinguished between revolutionary Marxism (which Teddy didn’t like) and another socialism … one that would get to that beautiful world socialists envision, not by revolution, but by gradual change … in other words, by the means that Fabian Socialists advocated.
In 1904, when Teddy appointed William Taft as his Secretary of War, it was an effort to groom him as a handpicked successor for the President. He did this thinking that Taft was a Progressive Republican. But after Taft won the Presidency, he turned more conservative. When he refused to support Progressive Republican and Democrat congressmen on a bill that would have limited the power of a conservative Speaker of the House, Teddy must have known that nothing more could be done from inside the Republican Party.
So in 1912 he decided it was the time to launch a new Progressive Party, with himself as their candidate for President. He believed that enough Republican Progressives and Democrat Progressives would switch to it for him to be elected. But he lost. This put Woodrow Wilson, into office. Unfortunately for America, Wilson was another Fabian Socialist … who would do much to further their aims.
Seems the Fabians had all the bases covered by that point. Teddy had served his purpose and could be discarded. And Fabians had enough control of the Democrat Party to move forward without trying to form a new party.
“Can you tell me in a sentence exactly what the the RDA is?”
I can, Simon. The radical Democrats are currently using the power of the federal government to suppress and jail their political opposition, in an effort to keep themselves in power in perpetuity. I call that a radical agenda, among other things.
Fair enough. Who have they jailed that didn’t deserve it? By that I mean didn’t break any law?
There might be a small bit of hope in Kyrsten Sinema switching to independent and the fact that Joe Manchin effectively got sandbagged by Biden on the Green New Deal bill masquerading as Inflation Reduction. Their votes would be the difference in defeating Dem overreach. Maybe not a lot of hope, but at least it could backstop any Dem schemes that might make it through the house.
Don’t let your hopes get too high.
Sinema, as well as Manchin and Testor have claimed to be conservative but voted for every far left extreme bill pushed through by Pelosi and Schumer.
Sinema had the balls to force a big giveaway to her corporate sponsors, Manchin DID NOT have the balls to force his “pipeline” rules into the IRA.
They are leftists, but with Testor and Manchin, were able to fool their electorate 4 years ago.
Sinema is my senator and before she was a democrat, she was green party. She hasn’t moved to the right and all she is doing is to set up for reelection in 2024. She knows she is losing some of the progressive support with her view of the filibuster and she is trying to make up for it by picking up a few left leaning Republicans.
The chart is a really bad example.
Due to the temperature inversion over Antarctica, more CO2 causes global cooling there. The cooling appears to have offset some local warming from underseas volcanoes and tide changes that affected the Antarctica peninsula
Your other statements are wrong too.
No Richard. You are wrong. But I am not blaming you. You have been indoctrinated and brought up to believe that there is (some) man made climate change. In fact, they have indoctrinated a whole generation of people who have become so estranged to reality that they are willing to attach themselves with superglue to paintings and streets and what not.
But truthfully, in fact, there is no manmade climate change at all.
As I have proven to you. ‘Man produced 1 CO2 molecule for every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Does it seem plausible that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules with the energy consistent with 15-micron LWIR can materially alter the thermal energy of the other 9,999?’
The answer is clearly: no
In 25 years of climate science reading I have only found two “scientists” who clam there’s no (or close to no) manmade climate change. They are Murray Salby and Ed Berry. Both are crackpots. And so are you. The three of you are the Moe, Larry and Curley of climate science
Have a Happy Holiday and New Year, Curley
That is utter nonsense, temperature inversion? Really? Even with an inversion, there would still be warming, the temps would simply be shifting northward. There is no warming over a huge area. Also, there are countless other examples. Local warming due to volcanoes? Really? Those underseas volcanoes are why the ice shelves are melting, it isn’t due to CO2. Keep trying.
One reference to back up my statement on Antarctica.
Carbon dioxide has an unexpected effect in Antarctica (snexplores.org)
The underseas volcanoes only affect the ice shelfs in a few locations. The ocean current changes only affect the peninsula. Those areas with local warming are offset by the cooling effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA OF OUR PLANET.
Don’t blame me because you are misinformed on the subject. There are good reasons why the average temperature of Antarctica is not warming since the 1970s. completely unlike the Arctic temperatures since the 1970s.
I will not l keep trying!
Trying to teach you basic climate science is harder than trying to teach my cat geometry.
The “southern polar” band does not include most of the central portion of Antarctica. It is mostly the coastal areas. And, the southern ocean is not showing any warming either.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2001/to/offset/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2001/to:2015/offset/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2015/to/trend
All the warming over the past 20 years occurred in one year and since then, has slowly returned back to where it was. IOW, you have 2 decades with no warming over 60% of the SH.
Your chart starts in 2001. For trend purposes, you divide it into two periods, 2001-2015 and 2015 – present, which neatly gives you two nice downward trends.
What you don’t show is the full trend from 2001 – present, which is fairly clear warming.
That’s misleading. You can’t help yourself, can you?
I clearly stated all the warming occurred in one year. I then presented a graph that verified my claim. Not at all misleading. The full trend doesn’t provide that level of detail.
I can see why delusional folks would object. CO2 based warming is unlikely to only show up in one year. Since you are a true believer you immediately go into denial mode.
You are correct. The constant spam of inaccurate information from this poster does nothing to help promote proper analyses that show up the real shortcomings in climate modelling.
I’ve been trying to refute CAGW for the past 25 years.
To do that, I can’t dismiss everything leftist Climate Howlers say about AGW. They are right once in a while. But they men CAGW when they say climate change not AGW — there’s a big difference
AGW is real and harmless, supported by data
CAGW is imaginary, with no data
I send the first three hours of each day reading online articles about climate, energy Covid. etc. Then I spend up to an house, as a public service, placing links to the best articles, and sometimes quotes on three different blogs. My climate science and energy blog reached 367,000 page views today. I hope I have publicized good articles that changed some minds. The false fear of the future climate is being used by leftists for very devious purposes. Leftists ruin everything they touch. They are now working on ruining electric grids, and we have ti stop that.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Is what I say. CO2 is a red herring. There is no warming by adding more CO2 into the sky.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
Let me know what you think.
It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water
.”CO2 is a red herring”.
Are you claiming fish cause climate change?
Part of this sounds right. But what do I know. Ive been trying to get a really good and compact explanation of why the increase in CO2 is limited in its warming effect. And yes i understand feed back, albedo decadel ocean current theory etc
. Im talking about what the molecule itself is capable of doing or not combined with the water in the atmosphere. Example: absorption , reflection etc. because when I debate your average person all they know is CO2 greenhouse gas. More CO 2 bad . We re all going to die! In a sweltering desert. And yes i know its complicated.
It is not that complicated.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
let me know what is not clear to you?
Yes that is a fantastic piece. I have seen it before but ran out of time dissecting and reducing it to something simple enough for public consumption. Basically CO2 % increase only.01%v/v, atmosphere predominantly still transparent, heat CO2 can’t accumulate in lower atmos where it counts, And eart not really a true black body. Energy in energy out still negative. I love the shower analogy!
The reason CO2 has limited warming has to do with saturation as described in point 2. I like to use the bucket of water analogy. The current situation is like a full bucket of water. The water is essentially equivalent to the warming effect of CO2. It is real up to a point. We’ve are past that point. The alarmist view claims you can get more water in a full bucket. That at least gets them wondering.
Merry Christmas. Enjoy family, friends and simple pleasures.
Big whale news:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/21/ten-whale-groups-slam-atlantic-osw/
I will be getting one of these made for my wardrobe next year: (Apologies to those too young to remember the expression “it’s not my bag’ and for defacing Albrecht Dürer’s masterpiece)
I was wondering if WUWT could have an preemptive post about “it´s cold because it´s hot” explaining how the current situation in the US had no measurable human influence..
I am pretty sure there will be a need for it..
This really cracks me up. Aussie PM Albanese claiming a year ago that solar panels on your roof can recharge your EV overnight.
WHAT? Albo says solar panels can charge your electric car at night – YouTube
The patients are in charge of the asylum.
This is what Albo and co. regard as appropriate vehicles for the proles –
Progress can’t be stopped 🙂
I’ve been wondering ……….
Could the push for EV mandates be fomented by the coal companies?
Don’t laugh yet.
Hear me out.
As I’ve discussed in the past, the concept of Global Warming was a creation of the Nuclear Power Industry. It was an effort, started in the 1970s, to jumpstart stalled nuclear plant construction. Today, coal use for power generation has reached a 30 year low. Is the Coal Industry, similarly, attempting to create an environment that will boost usage?
Electric Vehicles (battery plug in – not hybrid) have a niche place in society. They are good for around town trips and daily commutes in moderate climates. They are a play thing for the well to do, and for people whose life requires virtue signaling. A U.S. light vehicle fleet with total EVs accounting for 1% – 1.25% can be accommodated without a need for increased power generation or transmission grid buildouts. Currently the EV share is about 0.66%. With present EV sales accounting for 2.5% – 5% of total light vehicle sales per year, power generation requirements are stable for another 25 – 40 years. Note: I am examining only EV usage effects. Other mandates such as changes from gas to electric for heating, cooking, etc. are not considered here. In addition there is no attempt to address increased cost from higher rates of consumption, carbon sequestration, etc.
Question – So what would happen if EV ownership and usage increased dramatically?
Say that there was a mandate that EV sales be:
2026 – 35% of new car sales
2028 – 51% of new car sales
2030 – 68% of new car sales
2035 – 100% of new car sales
This is the recently passed California Law. Virginia has already signed on, and 17 more
states are very seriously considering adopting the mandate.
Answer – Power generation requirements would increase dramatically in very short order.
How will this demand be met? Nuclear would do the trick. But the lag time to build new or reopen/refurbish closed plants is prohibitive. Besides it is despised by the Green Crowd. Modular nuclear could help if deployed in single site, multiple unit, parallel array configurations. Renewables are out of the picture. As I have discussed in the past, there is no Moore’s Law for renewables. The Shockley–Queisser and Betz limits are realities of physics. Practical green energy, in commercial quantities, is an endeavor for the future, and requires new grid infrastructure and storage solutions.
That leaves fossil fuels – gas and coal. Over the last 30 years as the price of gas decreased (due to improved production and transport systems) the use of coal decreased. At present, about 22% of U.S. electricity is generated from coal. With the administration’s efforts to hamper present and future gas production it is projected to increase another 22% for a total of about 27% of power generation. This represents the upper bounds for the industry.
So, if you are the Coal Industry, and if you can’t increase your share of the pie, and you know that there is no alternative source, how do you increase revenue? You make the pie bigger – the bigger the better. How do you do this? You find ways to substitute the use of electricity for other energy sources in everyday life.
A conspiracy theory? Yes.
Improbable? Possibly.
But I saw what the Nuclear Power Industry attempted. Just because it failed to revive nuclear plant construction does not mean that an agenda like this wouldn’t be attempted to increase coal use.
The coal industry hit a new record in 2022. I assume you are referring to the US coal industry. Of course, this could work but the entire reason for the mandates is to lower CO2 emissions. You would need affordable carbon capture.
No, sequestration would not be an issue. The premises of EU green policies is CO2 reduction. As a consequence of the policy failures, coal, wood, etc. are being utilized with no thought of CO2. An emergency is an emergency. Here in the U.S. an emergency of inadequate electric supply would be met without any attempt to limit CO2. Look at California. It’s energy policies are the greenest in the U.S. Yet, when their “Green Energy” is insufficient to meet needs, they buy power from any surrounding state, with no concerns over the degree of green in the generation.
“the concept of Global Warming was a creation of the Nuclear Power Industry.”
The prediction of warming caused by CO2 emissions was already in science papers in the late 1950s. The best known of those scientists was Roger Revere, Al Gore’s hero. The global warming from CO2 was specified in the 1979 Charney Report (“specified” = wild guessed) and only changed a few years ago by the IPCC (an arbitrary change of a wild guessed number) This is government science, folks.
“The Shockley–Queisser and Betz limits are realities of physics.”
Dumbocrats don’t believe in limits. One Democrat Congressman actually said: “Limits, LIMITS, We don’t need no stinkin’ limits”
Many People generally credit Al Gore with discovering Global Warming; right after he invented the internet. The origins, however preceded him by about 25 years. The current CO2 concerns, as an industry, have their origins in the 1973 energy crisis when the Gulf States instituted the first oil embargo. Concerns over the dangers of atmosphertic C02 were initiated by the nuclear power industry.
By the 1970s nuclear power in the U.S. was stalled, and in decline. As a result of government regulations, nuclear plant construction was dramatically slowed, costs were escalating, and new plants were being cancelled. At the same time fossil fuel emissions, primarily in the form of acid rain and smog were under intense scrutiny by environmental groups. While they did not embrace nuclear power, their consensus was that it did not create atmospheric pollution. Nuclear power proponents needed “something” to get back in the game.
The study of atmospheric CO2, and the possible ramifications of its increase, began in the late 1950s with the work of Roger Revelle, a highly respected oceanographer, and several other scientists worldwide. But the light was always placed on the imminent crises du jour: Rachel Carson’s <i>Silent spring</i> DDT apocalypse, Paul Ehrlich’s <i>Population Bomb</i> famine apocalypse, the <i>Club of Rome 1972 Report</i> declaring that we’re running out of everything, the Coming Ice Age, etc. CO2 studies were relegated to the accompanying penumbra. However, there was some ongoing research.
Failing to get serious government action, in 1968 the National Academy of Sciences created the U.S. Comittee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP). In 1975 the committee published a report stating that, “We simply cannot afford to be unprepared for either a natural or man-made climatic catastrophe,” and that more study was necessary. The federal research budget for climate research was doubled from $20M to $40M. In 1977 the committee published a second report on <i>Energy and Climate</i>. Revell chaired the panel which stated, that continued study of the problem required, “A lively sense of urgency.” In 1980, the budget was doubled again. And, so it had begun. We need more study: so we need more money, and then again, we need more study: so we need … .
In 1974 the CIA published, <i>A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems</i>. The diagnosis was dramatic. It warned of the emergence of a new era of weird weather, leading to political unrest and mass migration. The CIA had heard from scientists warning of global cooling as well as global warming. The direction in which the thermometer was travelling wasn’t their immediate concern; it was the political impact. Climate Change wasn’t getting the attention it should, and there was a lack of urgency in discussions.
In 1976, Stephen Schneider, while looking for grad project, published <i>The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival</i>. After years of headlines about droughts and famine, he figured the time was right for a popular science book on the danger climate change could cause. He also proposed that you could actually simulate something as complicated as the Earth, and then pollute the model, and figure out what might happen.
In the wake of the oil embargo four years earlier and the attendant energy crisis, the Carter Administration began, in 1977, backing a transition from petroleum products to coal, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Iranian oil shock of 1979 added impetus to this endeavor. This caused environmental groups to amplify their polution concerns.
Pres. Carter’s initiative was the hook that advocates of nuclear power needed. Nuclear was clean. Shortly after the announcement of the proposed transition, a cadre of nuclear power scientists, lobbyists, and companies, led by Alvin Weinberg, began advocating for the study man made CO2 atmospheric pollution. The danger of CO2, they explained, could require limiting its production. Pres. Carter’s plan for transition from oil to coal, began the blending of climate studies and politics. What had been a niche field of study became a mainstream endeavor, with lots of funding available.
The efforts of the nuclear power lobby in the 70s and 80s failed to kick start nuclear power generation in the United States. It did, however, create a new industry – Man Made Climate Change.
Sage,
In 1970 I started my scientific career emphasis on nuclear. I was hands on in the early parts of the nuclear fuel cycle at a national level, working to influence policy.
At no stage did I find any evidence of any type that the nuclear power industry was involved in promotion of CO2 global warming action or activism.
It was 1990 before I even heard of fellow scientists knowing about the CO2 alarmism, let alone treating the GHG hypothesis seriously. Industry time was spent mostly on publicising nuclear benefits, not much on countering activist propaganda for the simple reason that most was wrong and could be shown wrong.
I was in a position to know if the nuclear industry promoted global warming as you describe. It did not. Geoff S
I suggest that you review the writings of Alvin Weinberg in the 1970s.
One suggestion, from 1976, is: Economic and environmental implications of a U. S. nuclear moratorium, 1985–2010.A simply search for “Alvin Weinberg, global warming” will produce many papers on the dangers of CO2.
“At no stage did I find any evidence of any type that the nuclear power industry was involved in promotion of CO2 global warming action or activism.”
Based on my reading on the history of climate scaremongering, I believe you are correct.
I’m seeing contributions from battery manufacturing followers raising serious concerns about the supply chains of essential inputs such as cobalt, lithium, nickel etc.
Do you have any thoughts about this, Sage?
I have been unsuccessful in finding high and low temperature records by zip code. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
NOAA has a list of National Weather Service stations, but not including zip code. Why do you need zip code?
Station List (weather.gov)
Thanks for the reply. Would like to see record highs and lows where friends and family live.
Merry Christmas
You could look up a nearby weather stations.
Or just look up state records here:
U.S. state and territory temperature extremes – Wikipedia
How about an even better idea: Ask them which summer was the hottest, and which winter was the coldest, in their memory.
I’d like to think that would be a good conversation and lead to some local knowledge.
On the other hand, with my family, I’d ask the question and then hear tall tales about walking four miles to school, in three feet of snow, and uphill in both directions!
Here is the problem all this CO2 drives temperature nonsense faces. If the laws of thermodynamics hold, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. The earth emits a finite amount of LWIR, atmospheric CO2 can only absorb 100% of that finite amount. CO2 can’t magnify that amount of energy. Well, climate scientists obviously have never used a gas cell to test their nonsensical theories. 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15 micron LWIR is absorbed by CO2 by 10 cm…yes 10 cm. Adding more CO2 simply lowers the level at which 100% is absorbed that is it. Does anyone think that absorbing 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15 microns at 9 cm is any different than 10 cm? This is all pure nonsense.
Here is what happens when you double CO2. Basically nothing, 100% is 100%.
This is what happens when you change CO2 to Pre-Industrial Levels. The entire global warming nonsense is the difference between these three charts. You can only absorb 100%, and marginally changing the level at which 100% is absorbed is immaterial. Climate scientists simply don’t understand the physics of the CO2 molecule.
If you fill your gas cell with CO2 you will get Svante Arrhenius’ results. When it is dilute mixture in the atmosphere the results are different. That is because energy gets transferred to other non GHG molecules rather than simply building up in CO2 only. Your figure only demonstrate high absorbance for the narrow resonance peaks, either side of which absorbance is much less. Do you understand what you are looking at here?
Please produce the graphics and make your point. I isolated CO2. H2O also absorbs those same wavelengths, so with or without CO2, 100% of 15 micron gets absorbed. Anyway, please produce the evidence that either CO2 can absorb more than 100% of LWIR of 15 micron, or that somehow adding other gasses can absorb 100%. Once again, you can only absorb 100%. CO2 alone does that by 10 cm. How are you magnifying that energy?
Please study Wijngaarden and Happer. They explain it all. Your evidence shows that CO2 does NOT absorb 100% of radiation between say 650 and 690 cm-1. Close to 100% absorption only happens at the very narrow resonant peaks that relate to permitted quantum rotation energies. That means that if a highly specific energy photon happens to encounter a CO2 molecule within the absorption cross section it is very likely to be absorbed. However, if it misses, it carries on its way, and if it has an energy in between the rotation spikes it is unlikely to be absorbed.
I think we are making the same point, and don’t disagree with your points. The reason I chose that band is because that is the exact band CO2 absorbs that is relatant to the GHG effect. CO2 is obviously transparent to all others…and you point out.
Here is a recent article about Excel customers complaining about high electricity prices. Some of the increases are higher natural gas costs and most are around the transition to renewables:
https://coloradosun.com/2022/12/23/big-utility-bills-help-colorado/
And looks like Colorado isn’t the only place with folks paying extraordinary energy bills:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/25/uk/warm-banks-cost-of-living-crisis-intl-gbr-cmd/index.html
Although this is a model based study around a mass extinction event, it strongly touches on the side effect of too little CO2 in the biosphere and atmosphere:
https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-uncover-new-information-regarding-an-ancient-mass-extinction-event/amp/
And my other recent favorite article around the nutritional content and absorbability of nutrients in plant based fake meat:
https://studyfinds.org/meat-substitutes-lack-nutrition/
I have put together the following chart of GB generation, interconnector flows, demand and day ahead prices for the past year. It displays daily averages for the various items. Do click on the chart to see an enlarged version.
The early part of the year is dominated by a regime of good wind output, supplemented by significant net imports from the Continent and some coal burn. The start of the Ukraine war sees prices spike upwards in March followed by a collapse of wind as the spike abates. France has remained a net importer throughout. By mid April, with demand lower, imports have been cut back and exports commence in earnest. The role of CCGT in balancing the variations in wind output is clear. Also all generation above the yellow domestic demand line is dispatchable, and thus can be thought of as the marginal origin of exported power. It is clear that the export was driven by excess gas burn.
As Nordstream is progressively shut down over the early summer prices continue to rise, culminating in a price spike in late August after the pipeline had been completely shut down and it became clear that it was unlikely to restart. More than a month afterwards the pipelines were sabotaged, but electricity markets barely registered a flicker as prices collapsed again.
Interconnector export mode continued until end November, when the weather suddenly turned cold, sending electricity demand (and gas demand) higher. October and November were mild and windy, with the mild weather leading to a much slower than anticipated natural gas stock drawdown on the Continent, and once again long queues of LNG ships awaiting discharge. The ability of the UK to handle a high volume of LNG and re-export it either as gas via the pipelines from Bacton to Belgium and the Netherlands, or as electricity via interconnectors allowed the purchase of cheap LNG (thus saving big demurrage bills for cargo owners while ships are at anchor awaiting discharge), and that kept electricity prices down. The windier weather helped a little, but wind really only set prices during low demand overnight on windier days – enough to affect the day average.
The cold weather induced another price spike to the highest day ahead levels of the year as a combination of industrial and even consumer demand destruction and bidding for interconnector supply during extreme Dunkelflaute were necessary, as available capacity was running at maximum. The end of the cold snap and the start of the low demand period over Christmas has seen prices fall back.
Excerpt from article
Often one sees various turnkey capital costs for battery systems
Here is an estimate, based on the latest 2022 pricing
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
PART 1
Turnkey Capital Costs of Site-specific, Custom-designed, Utility-grade, Grid-scale Battery Systems
?itok=lxTa2SlF
Tesla Megapacks
Tesla is at the forefront of providing the world with lithium-ion battery systems, that include front-end power electronics, the batteries, and back-end power electronics, and systems for battery heating and cooling, as needed, in standardized enclosures.
The Megapack ratings shown in the table, in bold, fit into a standard container W, 286” x D, 85” x H, 99”
If multiple Megapacks are purchased, the $/kWh becomes less. See URL
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design
The 2022 Megapack pricing is shown in the table
The 2022 Megapack pricing is 24.5% greater than the 2021 pricing. See URL
The 2025 Megapack price likely will be much higher, due to: 1) Increased inflation rates, 2) Increased interest rates3) Supply chain disruptions, which delay projects, increase costs, 4) Increased energy prices, such as oil, gas, coal, etc., 5) Increased materials prices, such as of Tungsten, Cobalt, Lithium, and Copper, 6) Increased labor rates.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars
Open Article URL to view Tesla 2022 pricing table
Example of Large-Scale Battery System
PG&E, a California utility, put in operation, at Moss Landing, a li-ion battery system with 256 Megapacks, rated capacity is 182.5 MW/730 MWh, 4-h energy delivery duration.
Power = 256 Megapacks x 0.770 MW x 0.926, factor = 182.5 MW
Energy = 256 Megapacks x 3.070 MWh x 0.929, factor = 730 MWh
1 Megapack costs $1.566 million, per above table
Supply by Tesla was about 256 Megapacks x $1.25 million each = $320 million, or $320 million/730,000 kWh = $438/kWh, 2022 pricing.
Supply by Others was about $46 million/730,000 kWh = $63/kWh, 2022 pricing.
All-in, turnkey cost was about $438 + $63 = $500/kWh. See Notes
The primary purpose of the battery system is to absorb midday solar output bulges.
None of the costs associated with such systems will be charged to Owners of solar systems
https://www.10news.com/news/national/pg-es-tesla-megapack-battery-in-san-francisco-now-operational
NOTE 1: After looking at several aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, it is clear many other items of equipment are shown, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the total battery system cost on a site.
NOTE 2: World Cobalt production was 142,000 and 170,000 metric ton, in 2020 and 2021, respectively, of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 120,000 metric ton in 2021.
https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-02-02/Global-cobalt-production-hits-record-in-2021-as-mined-cobalt-output-in-DR-Congo-jumps-22-4.html
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/drc-mining-industry-child-labor-and-formalization-small-scale-mining
Excerpt from article
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
Part 9
Grid-Scale Battery Systems Round-Trip Losses, A-to-Z basis
Often one sees various round-trip losses for battery systems
Here is an estimate, based on greatly increased wind and solar systems tied to the New England high voltage grid, with a one-day, wind/solar shortfall made up with a battery system
Grid-scale battery systems typically are connected to the NE high-voltage grid by step-down and step-up transformers. The below calculations show the electricity drawn from the high voltage grid to charge the battery system, and then discharge the battery system to counteract a one-day wind/solar lull.
We make the following assumptions:
1) Greatly increased wind and solar connected to the NE grid at a future date, such as: wind onshore at 12.5%, wind offshore at 12.5%, and solar at 25% of annual grid load, a total of 50%, or 125/2 = 62.5 TWh/y, or 0.171 TWh/d
The required installed wind/solar nameplate capacities would be:
Wind onshore = 0.125 x 125 TWh/y / (8766 h/y x 0.29, capacity factor) = 6,146 MW; existing about 1450 MW, at end 2021
NE has high project costs/MW, about $2,600 in 2019, and low CFs, which means high costs/kWh. See page 42 of URL
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/land_based_wind_market_report_2202.pdf
Wind offshore = 0.125 x 125 TWh/y / (8766 h/y x 0.45, CF) = 3,961 MW; existing about 30 MW, at end 2021
Solar = 0.25 x 125 TWh/y / (8766 h/y x 0.15, CF) = 23,766 MW, existing about 5,500 MW, at end 2021
2) Wind/solar output at 15% of their annual average grid load, during a wind/solar lull lasting 24 hours
Wind/solar loaded onto the NE grid would be 0.15 x 0.171 = 0.02568 TWh/d
Wind/solar shortfall would be 0.171 – 0.02568 = 0.14555 TWh/d
3) Grid-scale battery systems, connected to the HV gird, provide the entire shortfall, in TWh/d
Step-by-Step Battery System Losses
The below calculation shows the step-by-step losses of battery systems, A-to-Z basis
1) Fed to HV grid via step-up transformer 0.14555, as AC, to make up the above shortfall
Step-up transformer loss at 1%.
From back-end power electronics, as AC, to step-up transformer 0.14700
2) Back-end power electronics loss at 3.5%
From battery to back-end power electronics 0.15215, as DC
3) Battery discharge loss at 4%
Deduction from battery charge 0.15823, as DC
4) Battery charge loss at 4%
From front-end power electronics to battery 0.16456, as DC
5) Front-end power electronics loss at 3.5%
From step-down transformer to front-end power electronics 0.17032, as AC
6) Step-down transformer loss at 1%
Drawn from HV grid via step-down transformer 0.17203, as AC
Battery System Loss, A-to-Z basis
About 0.17203/0.14555 x 100% = 18.2% more needs to be drawn from the HV grid to charge the battery systems up to about 80% full (preferably many days before any wind/solar lull starts), than is fed to the HV grid by discharge from the battery system to about 20% full; the loss percentage increases with aging.
Battery systems are rated at a level of power, MW, provided for a number of hours, MWh, such as providing 2 MW for 4 hours, 2 MW/8 MWh, as AC at battery voltage, which needs to be stepped up to HV voltage.
Alternatively you can look at the cumulative charge and discharge flows of grid batteries e.g. here
OpenNEM: South Australia
where the lifetime record of battery charging is a total of 397GWh of which 310GWh have been discharged back to the grid for an overall round trip efficiency of 78.1%. Some of the difference with your figures will be for cooling and some for battery ageing. As the total capacity is <<1GWh the current state of charge is not a factor in the calculation over the long timescale.
Thank you for reminding me.
The battery systems will be in hot and cold climates
They have HVAC systems to heat/cool the Megapack enclosures and batteries
My calculated losses do not include the HVAC loss
Energy Losses of Site-specific, Custom-designed, Utility-grade, Grid-scale Battery Systems
Articles often assume a battery loss of 10%, which likely would be only the battery.
That loss should have been assumed at about 20%, on a-to-z basis.
See Note.
Here are two sources:
Source 1 is based on measured data, on a-to-z basis
This article identifies 18 losses of a stationary battery system, totaling about 20% for a round-trip, excluding transformer losses.
See Note.
– The system model has four coupled, component models: 1) Battery, 2) Power Electronics, 3) Thermal Management, such as heating/cooling of batteries and enclosures, and 4) Control and Monitoring.
– Electricity for site lighting, O&M, surveillance, etc.
Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”
See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315696
Source 2 is based on EIA survey data from OPERATING grid-scale battery systems
Per EIA survey, grid-scale battery efficiency is about 80%, AC-to-AC basis, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses.
Aging had only a minor effect, because the battery systems were only a few years old.
See Note.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756
Sequence of Losses:
1) AC electricity from a distribution, or high-voltage grid, via a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery
2) Through the power electronics to DC
3) In battery
4) Out battery
5) Through power electronics; DC is digitized, made into a sine wave with same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid
6) Via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution, or high-voltage grid
Overall efficiency of about 78%, less with aging at about 1.5%/y. See URL
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-inverters-work.html
Did I just turn into consensus?!
Interesting statement here by Wijngaarden..
“I think the consensus view, even when you talk about to people in the global warming community, is that a forcing for clear sky of CO2, which is about 3W/m2. When you take clouds into account that’s going to reduce it by about 30% to about 2W/m2. But that’s where there is a lot of uncertainty at the present time..”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfwnKWIWPzk&t=3770s
Yes, that community is me.. 😉
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
Great stuff, but very difficult to explain to the ignoratissimos, which means, with a big foghorn, all lies will continue, until something blows up in their faces.
Great talk by van Wijngaarden, covering the ground of the WH paper on 5 GHGs in clear skies, and moving on to introducing their later modelling including clouds. Ending up with considering the effects on the biosphere, crops etc. pointing up that climate policies are more dangerous than climate changes.
The block-quote feature here is a mess — the big quotes and the block lines merge with the text to give a sloppy, broken appearance. Can this be fixed?
In blockquote::before I change font-size to 10px and it actually looks pretty good IMO. Maybe also change left to -3 to -5px
It seems a greenhouse gas is one because it is not completely transparent to infrared radiation which is a quality of greenhouse glass. It is also a quality of water vapor, water itself, dust or any solids suspended in the atmosphere, or the very air itself. Most insulations in use today depend on trapped air pockets. Then there is the very surface of the earth itself which is much more effective at trapping heat and is a major factor in the UHI effect.
Still they are trying to convince me that the extremely tiny percentage of CO2 content in the air is significant.
Reading recommendations for 2023
Its been clear for some time now that very similar thinking and reasoning patterns are found in all three of the great ‘woke’ ideologies of recent decades. I have been reading about the other two – gender and race. Here are some of what I’ve found thought provoking and helped clarify thought and approach. Whether you agree with them or not (and I have not always ended up agreeing) reading them carefully will help anyone work out what they think and why.
Gender
Kathleen Stock, ‘Material Girls’.
Stock is a professional philosopher who was forced out of Sussex University in the UK for the heretical view she took in this book of gender issues . Its not in the least trans-phobic however, its a calm and reasoned approach to sex and gender in humans and the associated policy issues currently under debate. As you would expect from a philosopher there is quite a bit of emphasis on the logic or illogic of trans ideology.
Abigail Shrier, ‘Irreversible Damage’. Mainly directed at the phenomenon of the wave of trans among teenage girls, and is a critical look at the way in which its being handled.
Helen Joyce, ‘Trans – When Ideology Meets reality’.
Joyce is a writer for the Economist. A level headed and wide ranging account.
Race
Thomas Sowell, ‘Intellectuals and Race’.
An examination of the logic, evidence for and history of the collection of ideas that has become known as Critical Race Theory. Calm in tone and factually based, with some eye opening accounts of the antecedents of modern day thinking in the Eugenicist and Progressive movements of the early 20c. He is very good on movements of thought, what persists and what has changed, and how.
John McWhorter, ‘Woke Racism’.
This is different from the others, written informally as if you were listening to a speaking voice, funny, acerbic, indignant, pointed. But still very logical and has some very penetrating insights. The basic argument is that the critical race theory movement has many of the characteristic marks of a religion, and this insight is then used to explain many of the puzzling and internally inconsistent features of it.
Climate
What does any of this have to do with climate? Well, the thing that strikes you as you move through the other two waves of opinion of our time is the similarity of the methods of reasoning, the approaches, and the way in which policies are being justified in all three cases. Read McWhorter attentively and you will no longer be puzzled by (for instance) the fact that New Zealand is talking about lowering or eliminating CO2 emissions from sheep, to tackle climate change, when its obvious to the most casual observer that whatever they do about their sheep can have no effect whatever on climate.
The pattern of thought running through the climate, the trans or gender, the critical race theory movements is the same. Read about all three, with the help of these writings, and you will see it clearly. And also, probably, at the same time you will come to see that on some non-trivial issues you don’t agree with the authors. But you will know where you stand and why.
Today is Christmas Day as I type this.
(Merry Christmas!)
“A Christmas Carol” is one of the most filmed stories of all time.
I’d like to see a compilation of them all, “Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol” (The first animated TV Christmas special), the ones with Alister Sims, Patrick Steward, the guy who played “Patton”, all of them rolled up and spliced into one story. (The best scenes. Some scenes may need to be doubled up.)
The copyright stuff would be a nightmare, but I think it could be very entertaining.
Is anyone else being randomly logged out?
I was logged in earlier today, then when I got back on just a few hours later, I’m logged out. I always check “remember me”. In fact, I had been logged in for at least a week up until this happened just now.
It’s happened several times over the past few weeks.
Is your browser set to remove cookies when you shut it down or run another program that does something like that?
Gunga, no. Like I said it maintains the cookies for quite some time of normal use. The particular incident yesterday was a case of me finishing my reading this site and closing those tabs, then returning to check my email for new articles, without having closed firefox in between. Something I do multiple times per day just about every day without similar incident.
Then I don’t know.
Sorry I couldn’t help.
Without CO2, earth would be a dead planet. Because life on earth is entirely composed of little carbon sacks of water we call cells. More CO2, up to at least 2,000ppm of the atmosphere, makes life greener, stronger, more drought tolerant, and abundant. Greenhouse growers routinely pay to add up to 1,600ppm CO2 to their operations to make their products greener, healthier, and more productive. Just like using coal, oil, and gas does for our atmosphere for free today. And today recycling more CO2 makes it easier to feed eight billion people than it took to feed 3.5 billion a century ago. How? With arguably, the most important and powerful aspect of life’s metabolism – photosynthesis. Whose formula is sunlight plus CO2 plus H2O, with the green enzyme chlorophyll, converting sunlight into the high-energy bonds of life’s carbon compound sugar. And as a bonus, also produces 100% of our atmospheric oxygen! While, as Dr. John Christy has clearly proven, CO2 is insignificant in climate. EVERY one of the over 100 CO2 driven climate model projections massively overestimates temperatures compared to actual weather balloon and satellite data. Our normal, natural ever changing climate has moved twice during human existence through 12°C cycles. 100 thousand year cycles driven by Milankovitch Eccentricity. And in the warmest 4°C portion of that massive normal, natural range of earth’s temperature, earth’s orbit is in its warmest, near circular shape. We call these warm periods interglacials. In our current interglacial, the Holocene, we invented agriculture and civilization. In our CO2 driven life on earth, warmer with more CO2 is always better.
I find it interesting that many on this site buy-in to the concept that CO2 can cause warming, when in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a coolant. In my opinion, there are basic thermodynamic principles that dictate this fact. Any theory — GHG, pressure induced warming, etc., that do not recognize this fact are not portraying physical reality.