The golden toads that were susceptible to a fungal infection. The case where the toads that were in drier hotter areas were doing better. Those golden toads?
When the golden toad drama occurred, global warming was immediately blamed, but a knowledgeable herpetologist reported that goldy died from a highly virulent South African toad fungal disease that was traced to contaminated equipmment/rubber gloves used by globetrotting scientists on a campaign to find the best species for making pregnancy testing kits for humans.
The scientist who actually discovered the golden toad attracted other scientists to study it. Suddenly, in one year, 90% died (in Costa Rica of a disease carried by one species of South African toad!!! Duh! ). The rest died off in a few years. Moreover, a large percentage of world frogs and toads died from the same disease.
The beginning: “Wanting ever more money and getting very little, the UN climate agenda is now calling for the global financial system to bend to its will. I am not making this up. Here is the exact quote from the COP27 final statement, under the heading Finance:
“The Conference of the Parties…Highlights that about USD 4 trillion per year needs to be invested in renewable energy up until 2030 to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and that, furthermore, a global transformation to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investment of at least USD 4–6 trillion per year. Also highlights that delivering such funding will require a transformation of the financial system and its structures and processes, engaging governments, central banks, commercial banks, institutional investors and other financial actors…”
So they want at about $10 trillion a year, or more. That would indeed be a transformation of the financial system! Note that this does not include reparations for loss and damage. That potentially much greater financial flow (as it is called in UN speak) is extra.
The precise nature of this called for transformation of the financial system is not specified but easy money seems a special theme.
Some of it is even backward looking, in the form of what is called “debt relief”. Between the lines there is now an interesting situation. The developed countries supposedly promised a climate focused financial flow of $100 billion a year beginning in 2020. According to the OECD we actually made about $80 billion a year, most of it in easy loans.
So now the green developing countries are laden with climate debt. No surprise they would now like to see this huge debt forgiven, of refinanced, or something else where they do not have to pay now, along the lines of “relief”.”
A lot more in the article. Please share it.
Never happen! The financial system is not in the business of giving trillions away.
Don’t make a mistake. This was on the cards for a long time. There is already AI being developed that will monitor your carbon footprint and put everything on rations, like during WW2. By trading / buying with third parties you might ‘save’ for an overseas trip. I am going to take a wild guess and think that this will take place after WW3. (After WW1 we had the league of nations, after WW2 it was the UN, after WW3 it will be?
Remember the old book of Revelations. It mentions that the last anti-christ (maybe this time a woman) will make a pact with the false prophet. Without the ‘mark’ you will not be able to buy or sell. Note that AI to monitor you is now being developed in the middle-east and China.
The theory of CO2 catastrophe is in fact the very backbone of a global financial system/government. This theory serves as the moral justification for the Great Reset: take away CO2 catastrophe and global government and the Reset have no necessity. With the theory, everything becomes “necessary.” CO2 catastrophe is the foundational premise upon which the logic of monitor/manage unfolds.
I don’t know where you live but where I live, alarmism is alive and well and so is collectivist reset thinking. We all have to pull together to save the world and this will be necessary.
I think the great danger is that with a few publications “proving” imminent tipping points, governments will then have authority to “follow the data and the science” and do what’s best in exactly the same way they supposedly followed the science during High Covid. Fifteen years to flatten the curve.
Sorry, but they are making massive headway in the blue states, and even in Texas. “Renewable energy” penetrations are too high, to the point of being de-stabilizing.
Nothing new about renewables and at least we get some juice out of them. The utilities are behind them because they are making a fortune.
But this has little to do with alarmism and nothing to do with the Reset. Renewables are not social change, especially when we are matching them with new gas capacity.
Compared to what is being called for almost nothing is happening.
I agree that the alarmist folks aren’t making a lot of progess, but so many of them are now in power and capable of making small but significant damages to well functioning systems. For example, we have a committed warmist on our Public Services Commission here who has said in response to a question I put to her that the PSC will not approve any project that releases CO2.
Now one can argue that this is not exactly like remaking the financial system, but is a cut to it. If followed through it injures the economy, wealth creation and maintenance of a critical utility. Enough cuts and some things bleed to death.
The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the more than 100 computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.
The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were “running hot”
However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.
A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim. See image
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years. Those laws of physics have not changed!! APPENDIX 4
Whereas, the CO2 ppm increased from about 280 ppm in 1825 to 412 ppm in 2020, the increase in temperature due to that ppm increase was less than 0.1 C, as shown by the graph in Appendix 4.
The Appendix 4 graph shows, each 20-ppm increase of CO2 beyond 412 ppm, causes less and less of an increase in temperature!!
Any additional temperature increase, during that period, likely was due to other factors
The UN IPCC found it so convenient to blame CO2, but that game is over. APPENDIX 5
The same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20, nitrous oxide
Both are used for producing fertilizers.
The world’s population could not be fed without them For example: Some scare-mongered politicians in Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but nationwide crop failures were the result!!
I imagine Xi in whatever passes for the Chinese Oval Office, sitting with his advisors, laughing and laughing.
The United Nations is essentially asking the western world to voluntarily give up every gain in quality of life and transfer it to China in order to build a Rube Goldberg machine that won’t even be designed for half of what we already have.
Kids today had better learn to speak Mandarin. It will be a requirement for obtaining those costly credits for things like charging a cell phone or obtaining an essential medical device.
strativarius
November 24, 2022 2:58 am
The froth of Khan…
Like an arsonist taking credit for putting out his own fire, Sadiq Khan is posing with supporters holding “Saved by Sadiq” posters, as though he’s heroically stepped in to save London’s bus routes from evil Tory cuts. The problem: he was the one who planned the cuts in the first place…
Yes, apparently U-turning on his own decision to slash dozens of bus routes is now worthy of a backslap and a photo-op. Of course, Sadiq had previously claimed his hands were tied by government diktat, even though Grant Shapps, then-Transport Secretary, made it clear in June this wasn’t the Government’s position – and the proposed scrapping of 22 bus routes was unnecessary:
“TfL’s income (from fares, commercial activity, road charges, business rates, council tax, and the emergency revenue subsidy provided by us) is about the same as before the pandemic. In other words, there is, and will be, more than enough money to maintain services. Your claims that yet further cuts, of 18 per cent to the buses and 9 per cent to the Tube, will be required unless we meet your demands for a capital deal are therefore also false.”
So, now Sadiq has changed his mind on the cuts and acting like he’s saved the day. Makes for a nice slogan though.
I have’nt lived in London since the early 1990s but I noticed recently that Transport for London (TfL) had made an estimated £93.6m since it expanded the ultra low emission zone for older vehicles by 18 times in October 2021.
If one were cynical one might think their rationale was not “to boost air quality” but to raise money. 🙂
SteveG
November 24, 2022 2:59 am
European Energy Crisis — ROLEX WATCHES –
Rolex announces a 50% cut in production from October 2022 through March 2023, due to gas supply shortages into Switzerland.
Forget CAGW and its myriad of claimed apocalyptic predictions — this climate/energy debacle is now very serious — if I have to wait another six months for my new Submariner!
If anyone can afford gas at any price, the Rollex makers can. Add 5 bucks on to the price of each one.
SteveG
November 24, 2022 3:03 am
Rolex communication —
MCourtney
November 24, 2022 3:14 am
There seems to have been a change in the social atmosphere around COPs.
During the latest jolly at Sharm-El-Sheikh I was pointing out (on the Guardian) that this was COP27 and if anyone really wanted COPs to achieve anything they would have given up a decade ago. The world would have tried something else if the world really saw climate change as a great threat.
Surprisingly, this was accepted.
Some of the Greens were angry at the politicians in the pay of the Big Oil or North London elites (Spurs fans) or the lizard people… but even they accepted that the COPs were not intended to do anything. And that the whole world had agreed to that. For decades.
Most people had moved on to realising that adaptation was the actual mainstream policy of the world and that mitigation had been abandoned before ever being implemented.
It struck me that charities and NGOs will begin moving away from AGW soon.
The runway train is running out if steam.
Don132
November 24, 2022 3:21 am
Happy Thanksgiving all!
I noticed that Mr. Pool had a decent explanation for the earth’s warming since 1935. I have a slightly different take on it and I’m building this theory.
My take is to refute the very notion that CO2 is doing anything at all; the idea is that the lapse rate mechanisms– not radiation from water vapor or CO2– dominate the vertical temperature profile of our atmosphere. Some might say “so what” we already knew that, but maybe we haven’t thought through the implications.
To be as brief as possible:
Radiation is to the inverse square of distance. We can prove this ourselves by feeling asphalt radiating intensely at the surface on a sunny day; on vegetated earth we don’t feel this directly because the radiation is less intense and mediated by conduction/convection with the surrounding air. But if we take a balloon up to say 6,000 feet, we no longer feel this radiation (from say a tropical region on a sunny day) as “heat” because it’s too attenuated.
Heat flows from warm to cool. If “back radiation” from the colder atmosphere could warm the surface then we could put ice blocks in our homes and we’d add the W/m2 radiating from the blocks to the W/m2 radiating from the walls and get W/m2+W/m2= even more W/m2! But that isn’t how heat transfer works.
Hence, neither can the attenuated radiation from the surface warm the upper atmosphere to any degree, nor can the atmosphere warm the surface to any degree. In the lower atmosphere water vapor dominates.
Heat flows from surface radiation/conduction/convection to the immediate surface-layer atmosphere and then upwards. This is what skew-T diagrams of balloon data tell us.
This heat flow is consistent and follows primarily the moist lapse rate, even in hot desert climates. The temperature trajectories of heat flow are given by the lapse rate functions plotted on skew-T diagrams, and except for obvious weather-related events, the balloon temperature plots are consistently parallel to these functions.
There is no “hot spot” recognized in skew-T diagrams of the tropical troposphere. Hot spot refuted.
Air masses are constantly moving. But no matter if warm or cold air masses flow in, or higher or lower humidity (= more or less water vapor radiating,) or more or less wind, the temperature profile for any location on earth follows the lapse rate trajectories. These govern.
The theory that with more CO2 opacity we “count down” using the lapse rate from a higher elevation but the same temperature, is bogus. Why? Because if the lapse rate is functioning, then the higher elevation must be colder. If this higher average emissions height happens to be in the isothermal tropopause then we can’t use the lapse rate because the lapse rate ends before the tropopause begins.
I post this mainly to subject it to withering criticism: a test of the ideas. Thank you! These ideas support the N-Z theory, which I realize is not-to-be-named for many. But I believe it must be correct. The vertical temperature profile is pressure-dependent (lapse rates,) and pressure is dependent on gravitational acceleration. The mass of the atmosphere is warmed simply because it has mass and anything that has mass can be warmed.
No previous withering criticism of these ideas, as they are presented occasionally by various parties at this website, has ever led any of the promoters to modify, improve or abandon them. Why bother?
I present each of the eight assertions above as stand-alones that can be refuted separately without any need to believe they necessarily lead to the N-Z theory. It just seems to me that they do. #8, for example, is I think an effective refutation of the theory of CO2 catastrophe put forward by Dr. Pierrehumbert, which theory assumes the conclusion (i.e., that the atmosphere will already have warmed to “the same temperature” higher up and that’s how we can count down from the same temperature but higher up.)
I ask for criticism of the above eight items themselves. I think numbers 2, 4, 5, 6 , 7 and 8 are pretty much irrefutable and can be seen in the evidence of balloon data. That leaves numbers 1 and 3 which might be dubious assertions open to withering criticism and for which some logical steps might be missing.
All of the above is in support of a theory I’m developing based on skew-T thermodynamic diagrams of actual balloon measurements that demonstrate over and over that lapse rate functions dominate the vertical temperature profile completely and that there’s zero evidence of any radiative forcing from either water vapor or CO2. So yes, I guess saying so really does support N-Z.
As for “… has ever led any of the promoters to modify, improve or abandon them,” that’s incorrect, as some might remember a very long discussion wherein I changed my mind about the feasibility of the idea. But I keep coming back to it because the radiative greenhouse theory makes no sense to me: see above
Number 1: “Radiation is to the inverse square of distance. “
Yes, but not pertinent to this issue. Even at the tropopause the view of earth covers nearly an entire hemisphere. The r-squared law is not apparent.
Number 2: “Heat flows from warm to cool. If “back radiation” from the colder atmosphere could warm the surface then…”
This has been debunked here I don’t know how many times. Radiation doesn’t have any idea about temperature. It simply leaves a surface and is absorbed by another. What you are speaking of is net transfer — no net transfer from cold to hot.
Number 3: “Hence, neither can the attenuated radiation from the surface warm the upper atmosphere to any degree…”
All you have to do is use MODTRAN to show that this statement is wrong. Look at the absorbance per transmission length to see that radiation from wherever is absorbed by atmosphere at any height so long as there are IR active gasses present.
Number 4: “Heat flows from surface radiation/conduction/convection…”
Having just told me that radiation cannot warm the atmosphere you say here it does.
Number 5: “This heat flow is consistent and follows primarily the moist lapse rate, even in hot desert climates.”
By heat flow you must be refering to the lapse rate of a rising or descending parcel. We much more closely follow a dry adiabatic rate in this case until consensation occurs, and then the lapse rate can take a variety of values. If you speak of the typical local static lapse rate, then that value results from application of the first law (heat minus work) to every element of the atmosphere over its evolution to present state. Radiation is a part of that evolution.
Number 6: I agree with you here. Number 7 and 8: These are vague statements that I don’t fully understand, but lapse rate varies from place to place whether we speak of rising/fall parcels or the average state of the local atmosphere as revealed on a sounding. Dry air displaced up or down follows the dry adiabatic rate even if it were to originate in the tropopause.
Now we’re getting somewhere. I’m not looking for confirmation of my ideas; I’m looking to test them.
#1 Your comment I don’t understand. We can feel heat from the surface, as it’s immediately mixed with air through radiation/conduction/convection because at lower atmosphere yes, there’s radiation going on. But at 4,000 feet above the surface where do we feel that same surface radiation?
#2 My point exactly. Radiation not necessarily equal to heat transfer.
#3 is where I have the smallest understanding: granted.
#4 Near-surface radiation warms near-surface IR-absorbing molecules. As suggested in #1, radiation is attenuated higher up: why wouldn’t inverse square law apply?
#5 Near-surface in dry climates the lapse rate follows the dry rate until enough moisture is present, but not necessarily condensation as the dew point can still be far from the temperature reading. Thereafter, the temperature profile virtually always follows the moist lapse rate trajectory, which is given from the starting (surface) temperature and runs parallel to moist lapse rate functions. The lapse rate can and does take a variety of values along the basic moist lapse rate trajectories; again, from skew-T diagrams these are clearly weather-related variations as the overall pattern is a consistent movement parallel to the moist lapse rates. These lapse rate lines are parallel to each other; which specific trajectory the lapse rate takes, or is closest to, depends on the starting surface conditions.
#7,8 Except for the polar regions, it doesn’t matter where one looks: lapse rates dominate. If a warm front comes in and displaces air in the lower atmosphere, for example, it doesn’t matter: the lapse rate adjusts. If a thunderstorm comes in the lapse rate trajectory is still there. Skew-T diagrams demonstrate this.
#8 is an important point. One theory is that as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation to space, the emissions height must move up. Then counting down from the same temperature using the “average” lapse rate (6.5C/km) we necessarily get a warmer surface: this is CO2 catastrophe. It’s complete fiction. If we’re using the lapse rate then as we go higher it necessarily gets colder; it doesn’t stay the same. The only way the temperature could stay the same is if higher up meant within the tropopause but there the “average” lapse rate doesn’t apply because by definition the tropopause is isothermal.
As Kevin said at the outset before he failed to take his own advice, nothing will cause you to modify your delusions by one iota. You did prove his point quite comprehensively though.
Rich Davis, my delusions are the result of considerations of the lapse rate and examination of skew-T diagrams comparing 1975 to 2021, where I find no differences and consistent alignment with lapse rate functions.
To Kevin Kitty, who says, “Dry air displaced up or down follows the dry adiabatic rate even if it were to originate in the tropopause.”
You don’t get my point. My point is that the only place where we could count down from a higher emissions height but at the same temperature is in the tropopause, and in the tropopause air is isothermal. Nothing is displaced. The lapse rate in the tropopause is 0C/km. What, then, do we “count down” with as we go higher up?
Further, as is evident on skew-T diagrams, often the tropopause infringes on the troposphere and we can notice warming that skews the lapse rate, and since this isn’t consistent we can surmise that it’s the result of tropopause/troposphere air mixing rather than a “hot spot.” Sometimes the tropopause is clearly defined; many times it isn’t. So in this area below the tropopause that occasionally gets warmed the lapse rate also doesn’t apply, and in fact the amount of warming varies so much that we wouldn’t know what this lapse rate is. However in the vast body of the tropopause the vertical temperature profile is consistent with simple lapse rate functions.
Curiously, it doesn’t matter how much water vapor is in the air when the moist lapse rate is describing adiabatic changes. One would think that more humidity=more warming because after all this is a GHG. It might be interesting to see what MODTRAN says about that, comparing theory to evidence. If more CO2 = more blocking of emissions and hence warming, then why wouldn’t more water vapor do the same thing? But … what do skew-T diagrams tell us? They tell us that up to a point very quickly after air leaves the surface, the amount of water vapor doesn’t matter: there’s no additional heating of the atmosphere and no additional slowing of the lapse rate.
You are on the right track. I would not use the word “pressure” as this immediately causes certain folks to think you are claiming that it is creating energy. The word “density” works better and does not lead to the same reaction.
Energy flows up from the lower atmosphere due to density changes as you rise. Each layer can only absorb energy based on its mass. This leads directly to the lapse rate. This energy flow is dependent on well mixed GHGs but their densities follow the overall densities of the entire atmosphere.
Energy is lost at all altitudes independent of well mixed GHG concentrations. This is due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation and the effect of changing densities as you rise.
N-Z got the right answer but then tried to invent an unneeded pressure induced warming effect. The warming at low altitudes is simply due to the greater mass of the atmosphere having the ability to hold more energy. The lapse rate does the rest.
Richard M, I believe I agree pretty much 99% with what you say. Not sure that energy flow is dependent on GHGs; energy flow seems to follow naturally from solar heating and the rotation of the earth causing air masses to intermingle, with adiabatic flows (lapse rates) happening irregardless of GHGs.
I think your last two sentences express it nicely.
But referring to another comment on this top post from somewhere, the basic issue is that most all the radiative calculations are theoretical but not found in the real world: this is the value of skew-T diagrams that show us what’s happening in the real world. I believe these diagrams are overlooked. Alarmists should be able to point to them and say, look here, this is catastrophic warming! But they can’t. It isn’t there.
There are those who adhere to the radiative paradigm and others who see the mass of the atmosphere as itself significant and able to hold heat merely by having mass, and needing no radiative effects to get the pressure/density-dependent lapse rates going. This latter is my view, of course.
Density is caused by pressure. Pressure is caused by the mass of the atmosphere acted upon by gravitational acceleration (weight= mass x gravity.)
How do you explain that one can’t feel the radiation from the surface at 10 km?? It’s cold, period– roughly -50C. There’s zero radiative heat from the surface reaching that level.
While it’s true there’s little radiative energy reaching 10 km from the surface, there’s plenty of reradiated energy from GHGs which make it’s way upward through the atmosphere. That’s what sets the ALR temperatures.
ALR temperatures are set by the expansion of air which adiabatically cools the air.
The lapse rate temperature profiles are not set by radiative gases. There are no terms in the lapse rate formulas for radiative effects.
Ireneusz Palmowski
November 24, 2022 3:44 am
The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years.
Planetary waves are already visible in the upper stratosphere, causing the polar vortex to ripple.
That’s what I am saying – Covid-19 only killed the very elderly and infirm, those near the end of their lives. Younger people got sick but survived.
The Covid-19 injections killed and injured many more people, including youth, children and even babies. This is the new Holocaust, and it has and will kill tens of millions of innocents.
For the record, the following early 24Mar2020 article in the Wall Street Journal is excellent. Co-author Jay Bhattacharya also co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, published 4Oct2020 – essentially identical to my note on wattsup published on 21Mar2020.
The Covid-19 lockdowns and injections were never justified and have cost trillions of dollars and tens of millions of lives. Covid-19 has superseded CAGW (Climate) as the world’s most costly and destructive leftist scam.
IS THE CORONAVIRUS AS DEADLY AS THEY SAY?Current estimates about the Covid-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude.By Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University
Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2020
[excerpt]
If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.
Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.
CO2isLife
November 24, 2022 5:02 am
CO2 is 415 parts per million. CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere. Does anyone truly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499? Especially when the 15-micron LWIR causing the vibration is consistent with the energy of a black body of -80C? CO2-driven climate change isn’t supported by science, quantum mechanics, or common sense. Ask any physicist the above question and they will immediately say it is nonsense…then tell them the molecule is CO2 and they will change their story.
OK, as of the moment I see I have 1 negative point- that means somebody thinks 100% of physicists are idiots- that they’d all go along with the fantasy that a single molecule of CO2 could “materially impact the kinetic energy….”
I agree with your handle that “CO2 is life”, but to claim that global warming has no basis in science, quantum physics or common sense, does the reputation of anyone promoting it harm.
Explain the common sense part, please. And by global warming do you mean CO2 catastrophic warming or the radiative greenhouse effect? To me neither makes any sense.
Catastrophic warming doesn’t make any sense. However, greenhouse warming up to the point of surface energy saturation does make a lot of sense.
It only takes about 100 ppm of CO2 to reach saturation. This is why complaining about the low overall concentration of CO2 is a red herring. It is more than enough to reach saturation. It consists of about 10^40 CO2 molecules.
We need GHGs to help form the lapse rate and expand the atmosphere to higher altitudes. They are crucial to a warmer planet but not in the way climate science claims.
The dry lapse rate doesn’t need a greenhouse gas (water vapor, or CO2 for that matter) to form. It makes no sense to say that a lapse rate wouldn’t form in the absence of GHGs, and I think this is the crux of the problem. Pondering the lapse rate got me going on all this.
The lapse rates are clearly pressure-dependent, and pressure is clearly dependent on the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the atmosphere is clearly dependent on gravity. I’m not sure what’s so hard about that.
Water vapor and CO2 exist within this context; they don’t drive it.
That is 100% accurate and can be scientifically demonstrated in a Gas Cell. One can be found at SpectralCalc. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form. In reality, increasing CO2 does nothing more than lower the level where 100% of the LWIR between 13 and 18 is absorbed. Once again, you can only thermalize 100% of the outgoing LWIR of 15-Micron.
Don132 said: “Explain the common sense part, please.”
CO2 impedes the transmission of energy. When a system experiences a decrease in Eout without a significant change in Ein then energy accumulates within the system. That is the law of conservation of energy. Both CO2 impeding the transmission energy and the law of conservations of energy are common sense.
I think it’s very debatable if CO2 impedes the transmission of energy in our atmosphere. Can you demonstrate this on skew-T diagrams? Can you show where the tropical hot spot is?
The tropical hot spot is an error in climate models, not a feature of CO2’s “greenhouse effect”. CO2’s ability to intercept outgoing LW radiation is greatest at the lowest latitudes, where there is most CO2, and decreases rapidly with increasing altitude. The problem with the models is not in the effect of CO2 itself, which is real but modest. The problem with the models is their use of spurious “feedbacks”. The absence of a tropical hot spot is evidence that their “feedbacks” are incorrect.
It’s not debatable. CO2 impedes the transmission of energy. This has been known since the mid 1800’s and is exploited by countless NDIR and CRDS instruments today. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere or in a building precisely because it impedes the transmission of energy. This has nothing to do with skew-t diagrams or the mid troposphere tropical hotspot.
I’m not arguing that CO2 doesn’t scatter IR or absorb and re-radiate. But it doesn’t matter. In theory, yes. In practice in our atmosphere, no.
Yes, skew-T diagrams have everything to do with this because these are diagrams of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. They are observations against which to test theory, and over and over they tell us that pressure-derived lapse rate functions determine atmospheric cooling. Nothing else does. Virtually everywhere we look in the vertical temperature profile, pressure matters. One can call it density; it’s pretty much the same thing.
If, on a skew-T diagram, we see a moist adiabatic lapse rate temperature profile in relatively dry air– dewpoint is far away from temperature and yes this happens all the time and yet we still have a moist adiabatic lapse rate without saturation– and then we see the dewpoint increase as the balloon goes through a cloud, what happens? Basically, nothing. Doesn’t this tell us that as a balloon goes through a cloud of IR-impeding water vapor, it doesn’t do anything to the temperature profile? It doesn’t impede IR energy any more than a reading of lower relative humidity would.
Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits IR. No, it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter with water vapor up to a certain, non-saturated point (despite what the moist lapse rate is by definition) no matter how much more IR-inhibiting water vapor is added, then why would it matter with a puny little 0.04% CO2 concentration?
This is what observations tell us. What are we going to believe, our theory or our lyin’ eyes?
My own take on this is that our concepts of atmospheric physics are fairly warped. Skew-T diagrams tell us a great deal, and that’s perhaps why alarmist scientists don’t refer to them by comparing their brilliant theory against observations.
Not sure that is 100% accurate, energy can be transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. CO2 implements radiation and that is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system, and in fact is why they claim the stratosphere is cooling as CO2 increases.
It is 100% accurate. Just because energy can be transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation in no way implies that CO2 does not impede its transmission. And the cooling stratosphere is one line of evidence proving it.
If science were a matter of common sense, in the manner of whatever we think we observe, or whatever our preconceived notions suggest must be so, then there wouldn’t be much point to doing science would there?
El Ninos guarantee that we will never have CAGW, even if CO2 reaches the previous peak of 7,000 PPM. El Ninos are like pressure valves for the atmosphere and once they release the energy, you go back to the ground level and have to be rewarded. At best, CO2 could cause more frequent El Ninos…but 15-micron won’t warm oceans and water.
SUMMARY
Here is the fatal flaw that most people on BOTH sides of the climate debate make: “Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…”
Too many people are committed to this flawed observation, which is true at molecular scale but is disproved by observations at Earth scale.
In engineering we often note that observations that work at lab scale do NOT work at larger scales, due to a problem called “scale-up”. That is why we often model physical processes at ever-larger scales before we “go commercial”.
In scale-up of radiative physics from molecular scale to Earth scale, which is one huge scale-up, unexpected things happen.
Since atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~~9 months in the modern data record (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013), the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming is INconsistent with observations and is thus disproved – that flawed notion alleges that the future is causing the past. In fact, climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero or non-existent.
Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. That is the only true observation we can see in the modern data record. The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008). This does not mean that some or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is cause by fossil fuels – it does mean that there is NO real climate crisis.
In the modern data record: Plot dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008) https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
I welcome counter-arguments – just do not start with “We KNOW that increasing CO2 causes dangerous global warming.” You may think that, but you do NOT know that – because that is a proved-false statement.
Since we are both engineers, and have both wrestled with scaling issues apparently, then you might agree that engineering scaling problems, always as far as I know, result from problems under the headings of “strength of materials” or “diffusion”. Strength of materials has no place in this discussion. Diffusion problems are pertinent to atmopheric heat transport and mixing (molecular diffusion is so slow at Earth scale that we can form steep boundaries of humidity and temperature known as fronts). For instance, it is nearly impossible to scale vertical structure from the atmosphere down to laboratory experiments because one cannot reproduce the gradients of temperature, total pressure, or partial pressures because of this diffusion issue.
However, this does not invalidate the notion that the atmosphere exchanges radiant energy with the ground surface by virtue of its IR active gasses, and that we can actually calculate it.
Please carefully re-read what I wrote. It is conclusive that Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales. I will always believe verified data over molecular theory. In the modern data record: Plot dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008) Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17 Earth temperatures have warmed and cooled over time, but atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and there is NO credible correlation that shows CO2 drives temperature. Any such claims are specious correlation. Ockham’s Razor: Atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to natural and human-made causes. Global temperature varies primarily due to natural causes. Increasing atmospheric CO2 has no significant effect on Earth temperature but does have a significant beneficial impact on plant and crop growth. “The future cannot cause the past.” The CAGW hypothesis is disproved.
Alan
Just a small disagreement. If you have read my argument and theory you know where the heat is coming from.
100 billion tons of CO2 enter the atmosphere naturally each year around the equator.
HCO3- + heat = CO2 + OH-
Similar amount must dissolve again there where it is cold enough.
CO2 + 2H2O + cold = HCO3- + H3O+
No problem in Antarctica. It is as cold as ever there. Problem is the arctic. Lots of melting ice and heat coming bottom up.
So, how did you calculate the decrease in areas cold enough to dissolve the CO2?.
There is a logical gap between “Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…” and “We KNOW that increasing CO2 causes dangerous global warming.”. The logical gap is the leap from “warming” to “dangerous global warming“. IOW, yes CO2 causes some warming, but no it does not cause dangerous global warming.
Practically, what you are saying is OK, but we don’t even KNOW if increasing atm. CO2 causes ANY global warming. I say Climate Sensitivity to increasing CO2 (CS) maximum is circa 1C/doubling but it could be minus~1C/doubling and most likely it is near-zero. That is all theoretical. My other observation is the world is a big place, bigger than a CO2 molecule. 🙂 Fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WW2 – and temperature COOLED until 1977! Much of global warming happened before 1940 and a bit more from ~1977 to ~2008. In 2002 we predicted natural global cooling to start circa 2020 – that was a risky prediction but I’m still comfortable with it. My practical worry is that the Brits and the Germans will freeze this winter, due to severe cold and lack of natural gas – I warned them way back in 2002 and provided more details in 2013. Excess Winter Deaths will tell the tale. I tried to warn them, without success.
Allan MacRae said: “Fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WW2 – and temperature COOLED until 1977!”
That makes sense. The positive radiative forcing from CO2 was overshadowed by the negative radiative forcing from aerosols during this period.
Allan MacRae said: “In 2002 we predicted natural global cooling to start circa 2020 – that was a risky prediction but I’m still comfortable with it.”
The planetary energy imbalance is about +0.9 W/m2 right now [Shuckmann et al. 2020]. Thus, the planet will continue to warm. The atmospheric temperature will continue to ebb and flow due to its low thermal capacity, but over decadal time scales it will continue to warm as well.
In engineering we often note that observations that work at lab scale do NOT work at larger scales, due to a problem called “scale-up”. That is why we often model physical processes at ever-larger scales before we “go commercial”.
How many test pilots said to themselves as the new plane disintegrated in flight – “darn, this thing really looked the goods in the wind tunnel demos”
I didn’t claim any such thing. I specifically identified the mechanism by which CO2 contributed to Global Warming, and that is through the thermalization of 15-micron LWIR. That is very very very low energy EM radiation. In reality, CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, it puts a temperature floor, and that is why the Stratoshopere cools to about -80 C, and not below. Water vapor thermalizes most of the outgoing IR spectrum, and definitely contributes to keeping the atmosphere warm.
“I agree with your handle that “CO2 is life”, but to claim that global warming has no basis in science, quantum physics or common sense, does the reputation of anyone promoting it harm.”
I didn’t claim any such thing, and in fact, I detailed the real science behind the GHG Effect. CO2 thermalizes 15 micron LWIR, that is 100% accurate. 15 Micron LWIR is consistent with a black body of -80C. That won’t warm anything. The GHG H2O absorbs the LWIR consistent with warmer temperatures and does contribute to the changing climate. H20 can be 4 out of every 100 molecules in the atmosphere, CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500. CO2 simply can’t materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499, especially when its kinetic energy of -80C due to 15 micron LWIR is colder than the surrounding atmosphere.
Using this calculator enter the wavelength 15 um with a lower and upper limit of 14 and 16 respectively. Then calculate the result for 193.15 K (-80 C) and 273.15 (0 C) report both the spectral radiance (15 um) and band radiance (14-16 um) in W/m2.sr for each temperature.
No, that is not accurate in dealing with CO2. Yes, a black body will emit 15- micron, but also a large spectrum around it. CO2 only thermalizes a small fraction of a black body radiation. They absorb spikes in the spectrum, not the entire spectrum. In reality a -80C black body would emit more radiation than CO2 would thermalize. You can refer to SpectralCalc or the spectrometry of a CO2 Gas Cell. That is why CO2 sublimates right around -80C, LWIR provides the marginal energy to turn it into a gas. Facts are CO2 is transparent to almost every wavelength you are referring to in Planck’s Law and a Blackbody and has nothing to do with CO2 and the GHG effect so it is irrelevant to this discussion.
This CO2 Spectrometry demonstrates that either bdgwx either doesn’t understand the basics or that he was hoping that no one would actually check his statement. Clearly, CO2 doesn’t absorb anywhere near a full black body. It absorbs a spike at 15 microns, or 666 wavenumber. bdgwx is great at sophistry, but not science. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
I stand by what I said and your own link backs me up. CO2 gas emits 15 um regardless of temperature. And the warmer the gas the more 15 um radiation that gets emitted.
That is nonsense. 15 microns has an energy of -80C, the more ice you add to a bowl doesn’t make it any colder. More energy comes from increasing the temperature and shifting the curve to the left. CO2 easily absorbs 100% of all 15-micron LWIR very close to the surface, you can check that with the gas cell at Spectralcalc. Add more CO2 and you can’t absorb more than 100%. In any case, H2O absorbs all the 15-micron LWIR. With or without CO2 100% of 15-micron LWIR gets absorbed.
Neither your own link nor Planck’s Law is nonsense.
CO2isLife said: “15 microns has an energy of -80C”
This, however, is nonsense.
15 um has an energy of 82.66 MeV per photon. And it makes no difference what the temperature of the emitter or absorber is.
CO2isLife said: “More energy comes from increasing the temperature and shifting the curve to the left.”
The spectral radiance peak shifts to left as the temperature of the blackbody increases. That does not invalidate the fact that the spectral radiance of all frequencies increase. A blackbody at 0 C emits more 15 um photons (and thus energy) than at -80 C.
That figure looks a bit high to me, bdgwx. Photons with 15μm wavelength would be up in the gamma-ray region if they had that kind of energy. Even photons in the visual light spectrum only have energies of 2 – 3 eV and photons in the microwave region have far lower energies than those.
I think the true energy-value of a 15μm photon would be about 0.08 eV and this would equate to a temperature of very nearly 687 ⁰C. (Please see my calculations below.)
___________________________________ Calculations
To find energy of photon, E, use standard quantum theory formula:
E = hc/W
where h is Planck’s Constant [6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J/Hz] c is Speed of Light [2.99792458×10⁸ m/s]
and W is photon wavelength [15×10⁻⁶ m].
Inserting these values gives:
E = 1.32430×10⁻²⁰ J (Joules)
To find value of E in electron-volts (call it Ee) use conversion factor:
1 Joule (J) = 6.24151×10¹⁸ electron-volts (eV)
This gives: Ee = 8.26561×10⁻² eV ≈ 0.08 eV ___________________
To find photon temperature (T) use:
T = E/Bₖ
where Bₖ is Boltzmann Constant [1.3806549×10⁻²³ J/⁰K]
This gives: T = 9.591846×10² ⁰K
≈ 960 ⁰K
≈ 687 ⁰C ___________________
I have checked my calculations in all the ways that I can think of and they all check out OK to my eyes. What flaw/s can you see in them?
Can you remember how you arrived at the figure of 183K for the temperature? It would be helpful if you could say. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with an irresolvable disagreement between my mathematical reasoning and your memory, will we not?
Use the calculator Blackbody Radiation (gsu.edu)
scroll down
and fill in the 15 microns in the 4th block (2nd row of the calculator block insert). Then press enter. It is 193K actually. (remember I was working from memory). It also shows the 0.08 eV.
I actually used same formula to calculate that the net effect of more CO2 /more absorption at 15um and subsequent back-radiation to earth, is equalized by the absorptions of CO2 in the sun’s spectrum (Back-radiation to space), especially at 4,3 um and 1 to 3 um. Not taking into the account the small absorption of CO2 in the UV which is how we identify and quantify it on other planets. The result is reported in the first three rows of the columns K, L and M. https://1drv.ms/x/s!At1HSpspVHO9pwve1lLJYfTXFWuB?e=CLr7Ak
I have another 4 or 5 reports that support the notion that CO2 does not cause any warming. If anyone is interested?
Thanks, Henry. I found the calculator OK and can confirm that it returns 193 ⁰K for the temperature of a black body whose peak emission is at 15 microns.
However, what I calculated was a different thing to that. My calculation (960 ⁰K) refers to the temperature of the actual 15micron photon itself, not to any material body whether black or otherwise. I calculated the actual photon temperature because CO2isLife had said“15 microns has an energy of -80C ” and I was curious to know whether that was true, although I don’t know how my disconfirming results might affect his argument and will have to leave it to him to report on that if he wants to.
Regarding your offer to provide “another 4 or 5 reports that support the notion that CO2 does not cause any warming”, I don’t know whether I would be interested or not without having seen them. But I must confess that I tend to find proposed numerical ‘solutions’ to conceptual problems distinctly unconvincing due to their great fallibility, which usually requires me to spend too many hours checking every word and digit meticulously before I can begin to form a judgment about them. I’m just speaking for myself of course, but the more simple, logical and number-free you could make them, the more interested in them I would be.
Jim Gorman
November 24, 2022 5:09 am
Happy Thanksgiving to all regardless of location. A good day to be thankful for waking up and having friends!
Joseph Zorzin
November 24, 2022 5:48 am
Oh boy, I was hoping for an open thread. The following is in the latest Unscientific American. I know it’s not good to copy an entire article- been criticized for that in the past, but if you don’t subscribe to it- you won’t be able to download it. And it’s not an off topic in somebody’s thread. The scientists’ “common sense” got this wrong- what else do they have wrong??? She now presumes wildfires will be more common despite MORE available water. Too much “common sense” and presumptions pretending to be science. The article was all plain text but I added bold and underline to some of it for emphasis.
—————————-
The Puzzle of
Vanishing Lakes
Arctic lakes are disappearing fast, and
scientists are just learning why
By Naomi Oreskes
Research sometimes proves, with data, what we more or less
already know. Exercise is good for you, and polluted air isn’t. Still,
sometimes our intuitions are incorrect, and scientific findings surprise
researchers, along with the rest of us. A recent example is
the phenomenon of disappearing lakes in the Arctic tundra.
You might think these lakes would be expanding, not vanishing.
As climate change warms the tundra—melting surface snow
and ice and thawing the permafrost—there should be more surface
water. Existing lakes should grow because of the extra water,
and new ones might appear. Recently, however, scientists have
observed not just shrinking lakes but lakes that have completely
gone away. A paper published this year in Nature Climate Change,
based on satellite imagery, found widespread lake loss across the
Arctic over the past 20 years. Led by University of Florida postdoctoral
researcher Elizabeth Webb, the scientific team found that
lakes have shrunk or disappeared completely across 82 percent
of the Arctic’s lake-rich regions.
Scientists have long recognized that global warming would
thaw permafrost, and like many climate effects, that one appears
to be happening faster than predicted. But the surprise is really
about the bodies of water in the permafrost environment.
Many scientists shared the commonsense expectation that as
permafrost thawed, lakes would at first expand because of
increased meltwater flowing into them. Eventually, researchers
projected, progressive warming during the 21st and 22nd centuries
would dry out the Arctic enough that lakes would begin to
shrink. But now it looks as if Arctic lakes are disappearing a century
or more sooner than predicted.
There is a big difference between a lake gradually dwindling
during a hotter climate and a lake vanishing from sight in less than
a year. At the end of the summer of 2018, following the warmest
and wettest winter on record at that time, 192 lakes in northwestern
Alaska had completely or partly drained away. Some large
lakes, believed to have existed for millennia, shrank drastically in
what appears to have been a matter of months. Scientists have
labeled this phenomenon “catastrophic lake drainage.”
What caused this? Basically, the ground is becoming more permeable.
We talk about “solid ground,” but its particles of rock,
mineral and organic matter actually have spaces between them.
Outside the Arctic, those spaces are filled with air or water; surface
water drains into them. (You see this after it rains, when after
a few hours the puddles have disappeared.) Arctic landscapes are
different. In permafrost, the pore spaces are filled with solid ice,
so liquid water cannot readily penetrate. But when the permafrost
thaws, water can flow downward. So these far northern lakes
are disappearing because surface water can drain rapidly into the
subsurface as the permafrost warms up.
Why did scientists miss this? One reason, offered by Webb and
her colleagues, is that most climate models assume that permafrost
thaw is driven only by warming air. New evidence suggests
that rainfall—particularly increasing autumn rain—is now contributing
substantially to permafrost loss. The rainfall carries heat
into the ground. Yet none of the models in the large Coupled
Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIPs) includes such processes.
This is a good example of why—no matter how sophisticated our
models are or may one day be—we need direct observation of the
natural world.
Lakes make up as much as 40 percent of Arctic lowlands, where
they provide crucial freshwater for Indigenous communities and
critical habitat for a wide range of plant and animal life. The loss
of marshy areas that accompany these lakes can also lead to an
increase in wildfires, which, in a troubling feedback loop, melts
more permafrost. This permafrost
holds a huge amount of methane,
a greenhouse gas that can create 80 times as much atmospheric
warming as carbon dioxide in the short term. Rapid release
of this methane could accelerate global warming dramatically.
There is, of course, a clear path to saving Arctic lakes: stop the carbon pollution that is driving global climate change.
Essentially, the claim here is still that the heat that is warming the arctic, is coming from the top down. I am saying it is coming from the bottom up; and I have the data to prove it.
(See first comment on this thread)
regardless of where it’s coming from- there is nothing terrific about millions of square miles of tundra- that land will be better if it warms up- it’ll convert to forest or maybe grassland in some areas and some of it might become agricultural- but of course Oreskes can’t think of anything positive about it
Permafrost depth varies across Alaska but on the north slope it’s generally between 200 and 600 meters deep. It must have taken many, many centuries for the ground to freeze this deep and will take many centuries for it all to thaw. In fact, it is the permafrost that enables so many lakes to form in the first place. The reason that the few communities located on permafrost use lake water for domestic purposes is that it’s impossible to drill water wells there. Water is distributed by tanker trucks and stored in tanks and drums in the homes. Since sewage disposal is similarly impossible, “honey buckets” are used for feces disposal and also collected by trucks. The sewage is then spread on the ground surface.
The Arctic is not meant to be inhabited by large group of people.
“200-600 meters deep? That can’t be right.“. That was my immediate thought, too, given the temperature gradient by depth in most places. But a quick search shows a number of sources saying that permafrost can be as little as 1m or much as 1,000m deep. eg. National Geographic. I can’t find an obviously reliable source though.
Joseph Zorzin
November 24, 2022 6:05 am
OK, while I’m at it- here’s another gem from Unscientific American. The author does mention some of the difficulties in reaching renewable energy nirvana but absolutely assumes the absolute necessity to go there.
—————————
U.S. Renewable Energy Will Surge Past Coal and Nuclear by Year’s End
Wind, solar and hydropower will generate more than 20 percent of the power supply
Renewables are on track to generate more power than coal in the United States this year. But the question is whether they can grow fast enough to meet the country’s climate goals.
Supply chain constraints and trade disputes have slowed wind and solar installations, raising questions about the United States’ ability to meet the emission reductions sought by the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration is banking on the landmark climate law cutting emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Many analysts think the United States will ultimately shake off the slowdown thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act’s $369 billion in clean energy investments. But it may take time for the law’s impact to be felt. Tax guidance needs to be finalized before developers begin plunking down money on new facilities, and companies now face headwinds in the form of higher interest rates and the looming threat of a recession.
The Inflation Reduction Act’s emission reductions hinge on the country’s ability to at least double the rate of renewable installations over the record levels observed in 2020 and 2021, said John Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group.
“Every year we don’t have capacity additions beyond the record is lost ground,” he said. “It’s going to be that much harder to make that up over time. There is a point where we don’t get to the outcomes we projected because we blew the first few years of the transition.”
For now, U.S. renewable output is edging higher. Wind and solar output are up 18 percent through Nov. 20 compared to the same time last year and have grown 58 percent compared to 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The government energy tracker predicts that wind, solar and hydro will generate 22 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this year. That is more than coal at 20 percent and nuclear at 19 percent.
Renewable output also exceeded coal in 2020, though that year saw a decrease in energy generation across the board due to the economic lockdowns associated with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Wind and solar growth has to continue at a blistering pace to meet the United States’ climate targets. Researchers at Princeton University estimate the country needs to install about 50 gigawatts of wind and solar annually between 2022 and 2024, or roughly double the 25 GW that the United States installed annually in 2020 and 2021.
Through the first nine months of this year, the United States installed 11 GW of wind and solar (Climatewire, Nov. 3).
Steve Cicala, an economics professor at Tufts University who studies energy markets, said he was optimistic the Inflation Reduction Act will ultimately spark a renewable boom. The law provides economic certainty for developers by providing incentives over 10 years. That is an improvement over the past, where renewable subsidies had to be extended by Congress every couple of years.
Still, there are limits to the law’s impacts, he said. Transmission lines need to be strung to facilitate that growth. Grid operators face a backlog of projects trying to connect to the power system. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that some 930 GW of wind, solar and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid. By comparison, the total capacity of the U.S. power system today is about 1,150 GW.
“The important thing is it continues to grow and we get more capacity installed and output from renewables,” Cicala said. “The reason that is important is it will mean less generation from fossil resources.”
Watching the FTX disaster with great curiosity. It has been alleged that the US Billions of dollars given to Ukraine, President Zelenski taking some of that money, investing it in FTX and then SBF (CEO of FTX) then funneling money back into the democrat party. If true, this is an amazing ponzi scheme. It reaffirms my belief that this Climate religion that has been created is just about moving money out of productive working people’s pockets and funneling it into the greedy hands of thieves and charlatans.
“investing it in FTX and then SBF (CEO of FTX) then funneling money back into the democrat party.”
This looks like something Congress should be looking into. I’m not sure how much Zelenski is involved, but it is certain the Democrat Party is involved.
Paul Stevens
November 24, 2022 7:57 am
I have seen, several times, global maps showing the location of weather stations around the world pre-1990. The only conclusion you could reach was that there is no data for about 75% of the earth for that time. Can anyone point me to one of those maps? Or an article that they appeared in? I foolishly didn’t save a bookmark for the information.
Appreciate the link Dave, but not what I was looking for. I recall a world map showing average temperatures areas of Africa which another map showed there was no actual data for.
Henry Pool
November 24, 2022 8:13 am
IP says
‘The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years”
That’s what I thought last year, especially because of the drought. Then came that explosion in Tonga that blasted millions of gallons of water into the air. Now I hear a big rumble again. Now it is somewhere between Hawaii and Japan….
Yes. It’s the Eddy cycle. https://www.climategate.nl/2021/03/de-thousand-year-eddy-cycle/
Unfortunately, I don’t know when that peak will come to an end yet.
Actually, we should be thankful for the extra warmth. Because it’s better than cold.
Rick C
November 24, 2022 8:14 am
Any chance that with the GOP majority in the house that they’ll hold hearings on climate – maybe joint environment/energy committees? They could force an open public debate on the “science” with folks like Koonin, Lindzen, Curry, Happer on one side and Mann, Schmidt, Dessler on the other. Could be quite a spectacle.
I’d be happy if just once, on any important topic, we could learn the full truth of the matter. Unfortunately, everything is always organized to see the Democrat party to a safe landing in the next election. Truth be damned, i am afraid.
The GOP *should* hold hearings on climate, seeing as how “the climate” is about to bankrupt the entire nation.
I’m not too enthusiastic about a GOP response to the premise of Human-caused Climate Change. I think the best they are going to do is push back on the outrageous costs of trying to rein in CO2, but they won’t challenge the basic science. A bunch of lukewarmers, if you will.
I did see a news article yesterday where a Republican committee chair said Republicans would refuse to pay climate change reparations to other nations.
And a complete waste of time. Neither Knooni, Lindzen, Curry, or Happer have a clue as to why our temperatures are rising.
Tony_G
November 24, 2022 11:45 am
I have noticed that my WUWT emails from following comments have significantly dropped off despite following the same amount of topics. Unsurprising given recent changes, I suppose. Just curious if anyone else has seen a similar trend?
Despite achieving nothing but a holiday junket for 45,000 people, many of whom arrived in over 500 private jets, COP27 has managed to eke out the usual PR “win” in the grand media theater.
They have a document they call a historic breakthrough, which is actually nothing but a wish list for future UN wet dreams and enlargement.
It’s just a “roadmap for future decision-making” meaning, they haven’t made any decisions yet.
They can’t say who’ll pay, or who’ll get the money, or how big the money will be, or exactly what it will be used for.
But they can say they will meet again and again, to figure it out. The UN simply announced a new category of globalist grafting.
“…the text of the agreement leaves open a number of crucial details to be worked out next year and beyond, including who would contribute to the fund and who would benefit.”
There is no agreement over what should count as “loss and damage” caused by climate change – which could include damaged infrastructure and property, as well as harder-to-value natural ecosystems or cultural assets.
A report by 55 vulnerable countries estimated their combined climate-linked losses over the last two decades totaled $525 billion, or 20% of their collective GDP.
Some research suggests that by 2030 such losses could reach $580 billion per year.
“Loss and damages” is a plan to tax the West for bad weather in Somalia, or a frost in Uruguay
If “loss and damage” would ever amount to anything, nations of the West would just shift money from “foreign aid” to “loss and damage” baskets, and funnel the funds through the inefficient UN, which has proven to be an ineffective way to help the world’s poor.
It will fatten up corruptocrats in Third-World countries.
It will provide bread and honey for UN junketeers.
There will be no incentive for the tin-pot nations to build sea-walls, stop erosion, or do hazard reduction to stop fires — because the greater their “loss and damage”, the greater their loss claims, and the greater their compensation.
Third-World governments will be less accountable for their own incompetence, as they shift blame to the West, but they’ll get more dependent on the UN as their go-to “sugar-daddy”.
All in all, it will be a win for creeping communism, but a loss for the everyone else.
It’s another road to the World Economic Forum, WEF, mantra: “One World Order and One World Government”
Increased CO2 is a Boon for Biomass Growth Worth Many $Billions
Third World folks are happy with cars, trucks, electricity, antibiotics, gas and planes.
They like the West’s fertilizer, polyester-cotton, concrete, sealed roads and smart phones.
The game of retrospective “loss and damage” can be played by both sides.
“There is no need to pay reparations.
Our leadership of the industrial revolution brought prosperity to the world and led to increased life expectancy and better living conditions.”
As CO2 increased, the population of Africa expanded from 155 million one hundred years ago, to 1,500 million now. A billion more African lives…
UN IPCC Climate Gate
The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the IPCC computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.
The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were deficient!
However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.
A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim. See image by opening article URL
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years, and those laws of physics have not changed!! Appendix 4 shows, according to the laws of physics, for each 20-ppm increase in CO2, there is less and less of an increase in temperature!! Appendix 5 shows, the same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20 Both are used for producing fertilizers. The world’s population could not be fed without them Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but crop failures were the result!! blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/4a83751e-64f9-4ccd-a33f-a7f100f3da1f
““Loss and damages” is a plan to tax the West for bad weather in Somalia, or a frost in Uruguay”
That’s exactly what it is. I don’t want my taxmoney going towards such boondoogles.
The newly elected majority Republican U.S. House of Representatives say they are not going to be paying for bad weather in other countries.
PaulB
November 24, 2022 2:18 pm
The biggest problem I see is that the alarmists have backed themselves into a corner they cannot possibly squirm their way out of. How can they now back down even if valid proof showed they were wrong? The money expended, the alarm they have caused and the people they have fooled. So many followers would not accept a backdown. It would be the end of their whole world. Where is their escape?
Yes, they have a dilemma. The “CO2 is dangerous” False Reality they have been living in is about to fall apart.
Menschmaschine
November 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Hello,
One issue with climate models that has been bugging me for some time is how they manage to produce less – instead of more, as one would expect – cloud cover in case of a warming climate.
Given these generally agreed on premises:
1. Warming leads to more evaporation and a higher water vapour content in the atmosphere
2. The water vapour only stays a short time in the atmosphere before falling out again as precipitation
I find it difficult to imagine how it is possible to avoid a higher cloud fraction as a result of a warming.
I can only think of three possible reasons:
1. The warming leads somehow to shorter cloud lifetimes before they precipitate the water back to earth. However, it seems to be generally accepted that it is warmer clouds that last longer – only by how much is under discussion.
(An underestimated negative cloud feedback from cloud lifetime changes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01038-1)
2. There is a really extreme increase in the average time the water remains in the atmosphere, so that after reaching equilibrium evaporation/precipitation is actually smaller than before despite the higher atmospheric water content. This also does not seem to be the case since, whereas the models indeed predict a higher atmospheric water life time (Presumably because the distance between evaporation and precipitation areas is increasing), evaporation/precipitation fluxes still are supposed to be rising.
(Figure 4, Water vapour adjustments and responses differ between climate drivers https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/12887/2019/)
3. The additional water does not go into increasing the cloud fraction, but instead into making clouds more dense. This is likely part of the answer, since the models indeed assume an increase in cloud optical density, however it seems quite small.
(Figure 2, Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/Ceppi_et_al-2017-WIREs-Climate_Change.pdf)
Sorry, clicking on the links does not work because of some weird bug and the time limit for editing seems to have run out. Instead copy the text of the link and paste this in the browser address field.
I believe that I can answer your musings, based upon the millions of tons of Industrial SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere.(72 million, in 2019).
It is possible to have higher temperatures without increased cloud formation, and this is frequently observed around the world, in warm high-pressure weather systems, which are characterized as having no precipitation and clear, cloudless skies.
The reason for this is a lack of moisture nucleation sites, caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere..
For example, when a high-pressure weather system becomes stalled, after 4-5 days temperatures always soar within the stalled area, because all of the SO2 aerosols within the area have settled out, without being replaced, and the cleansed air.allows sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity.. Temperature increases can reach 20 to 30 deg. C–and are a foretaste of our climate when the burning of fossil fuels, which also produce dimming SO2 aerosols is abandoned .
we are looking here at the global picture, so we don’t care about any local effects that might prevent the formation of clouds. Remember: All water that evaporates needs to eventually precipitate back to earth and in order to do that it needs to first condense into clouds. If some effect prevents the formation of clouds at a certain time and place, well then the water vapour will condense into clouds at some other location and/or time – no way around it.
Note that this invalidates the alarmist hype that was made about some local or regional climate models that show a disappearance of clouds with rising temperature – one can simply assume that even if the model is right, there will be more clouds forming outside the scope of the model. However, in principle GCMs show this effect too and I would be very interested to know why.
I WAS referring to Global effects, where decreasing amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere can cause temperatures to rise without increased cloud formation (fewer moisture nucleation sites)..
You had said that it is difficult to imagine how it is possible to avoid a higher cloud fraction as a result of the warming. I have given you an answer.as to how that is possible.
The local examples were simply to prove that such a mechanism exists.
“For example, when a high-pressure weather system becomes stalled, after 4-5 days temperatures always soar within the stalled area, because all of the SO2 aerosols within the area have settled out, without being replaced, and the cleansed air.allows sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity..”
That seems like something that can be testable. Do you have such data on high pressure systems? Such as the amount of SO2 contained in the high pressure system when it first forms, and then the amount after four or five days of sitting over one location?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any such data at this time, and I doubt that it is exists. But, as you say, it is easily testable.
It is claimed that, for isolated events, Industrial SO2 aerosols settle out of the air within a week, or so, which is consistent the delay in the temperature rise in stalled high pressure weather systems.
If there is a paper behind the claim, it might contain some actual measurements.
I just saw an extraordinary presentation by Dr John Campbell, who some of you may be familiar with. He has been a great source of unbiased Covid information during the pandemic.
Here he talks about the evolution of the lab leak theory, and how discussion of it was suppressed. He apologises for, two years ago, passing on information from the scientific establishment without being sufficiently sceptical. In particular, he talks about a peer reviewed paper that dismissed the lab leak theory as a “conspiracy theory”. Of course, we now know that the paper – and all the media and scientific hype that it received – was completely false.
He is distressed that a peer reviewed paper could be hopelessly wrong. Of course, as climate sceptics, we’re all too familiar with the fallibility of peer reviewed science – or pal reviewed science, as some would say.
He now believes that it was a lab leak. He mentions the recent Senate enquiry that concluded that in all probability it was a lab leak.
The parallels with the corruption of climate science are quite haunting.
It seems to me that in establishment science there are too many Dr Fauci’s and not enough Einstein’s.
Campbell has spent his life in nursing education and is probably a very good teacher. In the past few months his whole world has come down around his ears. I feel a bit sorry for him.
Tom in Florida
November 24, 2022 6:55 pm
Always wondered about this:
On all the ghost hunter shows, why do apparitions have clothes on?
It is claimed that these apparitions draw energy from surrounding sources to be able to manifest themselves. But how would their clothes draw on energy?
Seems to me that inanimate objects like clothes would have no power to do anything, especially after decades of rotting away.
Just wondering.
My take on the ghost hunter shows is all they do is get into a dark place, walk around a little, then snap their head around violently, and exclaim “What was that!”, as if they saw a ghost. But then we never see anything.
It’s a reality scam. If you can swing your head around quickly and fearfully say “What’s that!” then you are hired. The show is a bad joke.
Yeah, that’s all they do. The worse one was the original Ghost Hunters, those fellow from TAPS, who were in Romania trying to communicate with spirts from over 200 years ago. They were asking questions in English.
As an engineer with long experience in evaluating the financial viability of proposed investments I have assessed various solar system offers over many years, always with the same outcome – none of them make financial sense for the consumer. They make money for the supplier only.
They are all costs with little or no benefits.
As an example my own home has a an average consumption of 19 kWh per day including all electric 4 bedroom 2 storey home with air conditioning.
To fit out a good quality solar system capable of assisting with that load would cost at least $10,000 up front. (Don’t be sucked in by the cheap and nasty offers on TV ads.)
My current power bills total around $1,300 per year. (Australia)
A suitable solar system with feed in tariff would maybe cut that bill in half, saving $650 per year.
Why would I pay $10,000 up front to save only $650 per year meaning a lousy payback of 15.4 years, especially since the system is likely to need replacing in anything from 10 to 14 years?
And don’t tell me it’s to save the planet!
The planet is doing fine it’s the people that are screwed up – especially those in power and those that voted for them.
In short, a rooftop solar system would be a ‘dog’ of an investment and I can do a lot more productive things with the $10,000 thank you. ($10,000 is the opportunity cost of the project.)
About once every couple of years my husband seems to have time on his hands and does the calculations for solar or heat exchange. He always comes down to the only thing making sense being a solar heated water input to the heater. Then he looks into some technicalities and puts the idea aside.
I have home build solar system intentionally without feed option.
My total investment was around 3700Eur. 3,3kW installed solar panels, 3kW Victron inverter, capable to transfer 32A (7.5kW) from grid. I have Epever 200V 60A MPPT. And 2,5kWh custom build LiFePO4 battery from 50Ah CATL cells.
My home electricity consumption is 10-12kWh daily.
System is capable to produce 22kWh daily in summer and 7kwh in winter maximum. When it is overcast, it is proportionally less.
It is deployed from 1st June and so far it produced me 1900kWh of energy.
My estimation is it can produce 3000kWh of energy yearly.
My energy price currently is 0.16E/kWh (it will come up soon). So I can save around 480E yearly. So even without energies going up, system should return in 7.7 years.
Works for me, event without grid I’m energy independent somehow. During 8 summer months practically 100%, rest of year partially.
I have separate photovoltaic system for water heating. 1.2kW panels, hot water dedicated MPPT inverter connected directly to heating element. It is making me 100% of hot water for 4 summer months, for 5 people. Convenient, maintenance free.
niceguy12345
November 24, 2022 7:03 pm
Why do Cons attack Google for being right?
Trump backed up oracle insane suit against Google use of Java interface, in a move that threated to destroy computing as we know it, a complete insanity.
Of course not. Still, Google defended its right to “steal” Java from Oracle and that’s something any populist would defend. Trump is no populist.
Steve Oregon
November 25, 2022 9:48 am
Misery is necessary.
Jamie Henn (Founder and Director, Fossil Free Media):
This is going to be a difficult decade where we’re forced to move from crisis to crisis and push this transition forward in the midst of a world that is wracked by conflict. This calls on us to think differently as communicators, to be bold and visionary and put forward the change we need.
It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water
I reworked the end of my theory. Please let me know what you think.
Happy Thursday!
Fib of the week:
“”The ghost that haunts Monteverde’: how the climate crisis killed the golden toad
The loss of the amphibian from Costa Rica’s cloud forest was one of the first linked to global heating, say scientists”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/21/golden-toad-haunts-monteverde-how-species-foretold-climate-crisis-aoe
Preposterous stuff – but plausible to a believer
How can anything in the Gaurdian be “plausible”? I’d say suspect until proven otherwise.
I did say plausible to a believer
It’s all plausible to those with faith.
The golden toads that were susceptible to a fungal infection. The case where the toads that were in drier hotter areas were doing better. Those golden toads?
When the golden toad drama occurred, global warming was immediately blamed, but a knowledgeable herpetologist reported that goldy died from a highly virulent South African toad fungal disease that was traced to contaminated equipmment/rubber gloves used by globetrotting scientists on a campaign to find the best species for making pregnancy testing kits for humans.
The scientist who actually discovered the golden toad attracted other scientists to study it. Suddenly, in one year, 90% died (in Costa Rica of a disease carried by one species of South African toad!!! Duh! ). The rest died off in a few years. Moreover, a large percentage of world frogs and toads died from the same disease.
Global Warming my @55.
Oops https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.1031
UN calls for “transformation” of the global financial system
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2022/11/22/cop27-un-calls-for-transformation-of-the-global-financial-system/
The beginning: “Wanting ever more money and getting very little, the UN climate agenda is now calling for the global financial system to bend to its will. I am not making this up. Here is the exact quote from the COP27 final statement, under the heading Finance:
“The Conference of the Parties…Highlights that about USD 4 trillion per year needs to be invested in renewable energy up until 2030 to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and that, furthermore, a global transformation to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investment of at least USD 4–6 trillion per year. Also highlights that delivering such funding will require a transformation of the financial system and its structures and processes, engaging governments, central banks, commercial banks, institutional investors and other financial actors…”
So they want at about $10 trillion a year, or more. That would indeed be a transformation of the financial system! Note that this does not include reparations for loss and damage. That potentially much greater financial flow (as it is called in UN speak) is extra.
The precise nature of this called for transformation of the financial system is not specified but easy money seems a special theme.
Some of it is even backward looking, in the form of what is called “debt relief”. Between the lines there is now an interesting situation. The developed countries supposedly promised a climate focused financial flow of $100 billion a year beginning in 2020. According to the OECD we actually made about $80 billion a year, most of it in easy loans.
So now the green developing countries are laden with climate debt. No surprise they would now like to see this huge debt forgiven, of refinanced, or something else where they do not have to pay now, along the lines of “relief”.”
A lot more in the article. Please share it.
Never happen! The financial system is not in the business of giving trillions away.
Don’t make a mistake. This was on the cards for a long time. There is already AI being developed that will monitor your carbon footprint and put everything on rations, like during WW2. By trading / buying with third parties you might ‘save’ for an overseas trip. I am going to take a wild guess and think that this will take place after WW3. (After WW1 we had the league of nations, after WW2 it was the UN, after WW3 it will be?
Remember the old book of Revelations. It mentions that the last anti-christ (maybe this time a woman) will make a pact with the false prophet. Without the ‘mark’ you will not be able to buy or sell. Note that AI to monitor you is now being developed in the middle-east and China.
Klaus Schwab declares on Chinese state TV: ‘China is a model for many nations’
https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-economic-forum-chair-klaus-schwab-declares-chinese-state-tv-china-model-many-nations
Indeed; it is.
The theory of CO2 catastrophe is in fact the very backbone of a global financial system/government. This theory serves as the moral justification for the Great Reset: take away CO2 catastrophe and global government and the Reset have no necessity. With the theory, everything becomes “necessary.” CO2 catastrophe is the foundational premise upon which the logic of monitor/manage unfolds.
Except the reset is making no progress while alarmism is making very little. It is all just noise.
I don’t know where you live but where I live, alarmism is alive and well and so is collectivist reset thinking. We all have to pull together to save the world and this will be necessary.
I think the great danger is that with a few publications “proving” imminent tipping points, governments will then have authority to “follow the data and the science” and do what’s best in exactly the same way they supposedly followed the science during High Covid. Fifteen years to flatten the curve.
Alarmism is indeed loud but it has accomplished very little of substance in the US. Reset has done nothing to speak of.
Sorry, but they are making massive headway in the blue states, and even in Texas. “Renewable energy” penetrations are too high, to the point of being de-stabilizing.
Nothing new about renewables and at least we get some juice out of them. The utilities are behind them because they are making a fortune.
But this has little to do with alarmism and nothing to do with the Reset. Renewables are not social change, especially when we are matching them with new gas capacity.
Compared to what is being called for almost nothing is happening.
I agree that the alarmist folks aren’t making a lot of progess, but so many of them are now in power and capable of making small but significant damages to well functioning systems. For example, we have a committed warmist on our Public Services Commission here who has said in response to a question I put to her that the PSC will not approve any project that releases CO2.
Now one can argue that this is not exactly like remaking the financial system, but is a cut to it. If followed through it injures the economy, wealth creation and maintenance of a critical utility. Enough cuts and some things bleed to death.
Where is this?
Here.
Someone saying something is not a significant action.
CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-lifeUN IPCC Climate Gate
UN IPCC Climate Gate
The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the more than 100 computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.
The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were “running hot”
However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.
A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim. See image
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years.
Those laws of physics have not changed!!
APPENDIX 4
Whereas, the CO2 ppm increased from about 280 ppm in 1825 to 412 ppm in 2020, the increase in temperature due to that ppm increase was less than 0.1 C, as shown by the graph in Appendix 4.
The Appendix 4 graph shows, each 20-ppm increase of CO2 beyond 412 ppm, causes less and less of an increase in temperature!!
Any additional temperature increase, during that period, likely was due to other factors
The UN IPCC found it so convenient to blame CO2, but that game is over.
APPENDIX 5
The same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20, nitrous oxide
Both are used for producing fertilizers.
The world’s population could not be fed without them
For example: Some scare-mongered politicians in Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but nationwide crop failures were the result!!
I imagine Xi in whatever passes for the Chinese Oval Office, sitting with his advisors, laughing and laughing.
The United Nations is essentially asking the western world to voluntarily give up every gain in quality of life and transfer it to China in order to build a Rube Goldberg machine that won’t even be designed for half of what we already have.
Kids today had better learn to speak Mandarin. It will be a requirement for obtaining those costly credits for things like charging a cell phone or obtaining an essential medical device.
The froth of Khan…
Like an arsonist taking credit for putting out his own fire, Sadiq Khan is posing with supporters holding “Saved by Sadiq” posters, as though he’s heroically stepped in to save London’s bus routes from evil Tory cuts. The problem: he was the one who planned the cuts in the first place…
Yes, apparently U-turning on his own decision to slash dozens of bus routes is now worthy of a backslap and a photo-op. Of course, Sadiq had previously claimed his hands were tied by government diktat, even though Grant Shapps, then-Transport Secretary, made it clear in June this wasn’t the Government’s position – and the proposed scrapping of 22 bus routes was unnecessary:
“TfL’s income (from fares, commercial activity, road charges, business rates, council tax, and the emergency revenue subsidy provided by us) is about the same as before the pandemic. In other words, there is, and will be, more than enough money to maintain services. Your claims that yet further cuts, of 18 per cent to the buses and 9 per cent to the Tube, will be required unless we meet your demands for a capital deal are therefore also false.”
So, now Sadiq has changed his mind on the cuts and acting like he’s saved the day. Makes for a nice slogan though.
https://order-order.com/2022/11/23/sadiq-takes-credit-for-saving-bus-routes-from-his-own-cuts/
What an utter ….
I have’nt lived in London since the early 1990s but I noticed recently that Transport for London (TfL) had made an estimated £93.6m since it expanded the ultra low emission zone for older vehicles by 18 times in October 2021.
If one were cynical one might think their rationale was not “to boost air quality” but to raise money. 🙂
European Energy Crisis — ROLEX WATCHES –
Rolex announces a 50% cut in production from October 2022 through March 2023, due to gas supply shortages into Switzerland.
Forget CAGW and its myriad of claimed apocalyptic predictions — this climate/energy debacle is now very serious — if I have to wait another six months for my new Submariner!
This will upset all the glitterati Climate Howlers.
If anyone can afford gas at any price, the Rollex makers can. Add 5 bucks on to the price of each one.
Rolex communication —
There seems to have been a change in the social atmosphere around COPs.
During the latest jolly at Sharm-El-Sheikh I was pointing out (on the Guardian) that this was COP27 and if anyone really wanted COPs to achieve anything they would have given up a decade ago. The world would have tried something else if the world really saw climate change as a great threat.
Surprisingly, this was accepted.
Some of the Greens were angry at the politicians in the pay of the Big Oil or North London elites (Spurs fans) or the lizard people… but even they accepted that the COPs were not intended to do anything. And that the whole world had agreed to that. For decades.
Most people had moved on to realising that adaptation was the actual mainstream policy of the world and that mitigation had been abandoned before ever being implemented.
It struck me that charities and NGOs will begin moving away from AGW soon.
The runway train is running out if steam.
Happy Thanksgiving all!
I noticed that Mr. Pool had a decent explanation for the earth’s warming since 1935. I have a slightly different take on it and I’m building this theory.
My take is to refute the very notion that CO2 is doing anything at all; the idea is that the lapse rate mechanisms– not radiation from water vapor or CO2– dominate the vertical temperature profile of our atmosphere. Some might say “so what” we already knew that, but maybe we haven’t thought through the implications.
To be as brief as possible:
I post this mainly to subject it to withering criticism: a test of the ideas. Thank you! These ideas support the N-Z theory, which I realize is not-to-be-named for many. But I believe it must be correct. The vertical temperature profile is pressure-dependent (lapse rates,) and pressure is dependent on gravitational acceleration. The mass of the atmosphere is warmed simply because it has mass and anything that has mass can be warmed.
Where to begin?
No previous withering criticism of these ideas, as they are presented occasionally by various parties at this website, has ever led any of the promoters to modify, improve or abandon them. Why bother?
I present each of the eight assertions above as stand-alones that can be refuted separately without any need to believe they necessarily lead to the N-Z theory. It just seems to me that they do. #8, for example, is I think an effective refutation of the theory of CO2 catastrophe put forward by Dr. Pierrehumbert, which theory assumes the conclusion (i.e., that the atmosphere will already have warmed to “the same temperature” higher up and that’s how we can count down from the same temperature but higher up.)
I ask for criticism of the above eight items themselves. I think numbers 2, 4, 5, 6 , 7 and 8 are pretty much irrefutable and can be seen in the evidence of balloon data. That leaves numbers 1 and 3 which might be dubious assertions open to withering criticism and for which some logical steps might be missing.
All of the above is in support of a theory I’m developing based on skew-T thermodynamic diagrams of actual balloon measurements that demonstrate over and over that lapse rate functions dominate the vertical temperature profile completely and that there’s zero evidence of any radiative forcing from either water vapor or CO2. So yes, I guess saying so really does support N-Z.
As for “… has ever led any of the promoters to modify, improve or abandon them,” that’s incorrect, as some might remember a very long discussion wherein I changed my mind about the feasibility of the idea. But I keep coming back to it because the radiative greenhouse theory makes no sense to me: see above
OK, let’s start here.
Number 1: “Radiation is to the inverse square of distance. “
Yes, but not pertinent to this issue. Even at the tropopause the view of earth covers nearly an entire hemisphere. The r-squared law is not apparent.
Number 2: “Heat flows from warm to cool. If “back radiation” from the colder atmosphere could warm the surface then…”
This has been debunked here I don’t know how many times. Radiation doesn’t have any idea about temperature. It simply leaves a surface and is absorbed by another. What you are speaking of is net transfer — no net transfer from cold to hot.
Number 3: “Hence, neither can the attenuated radiation from the surface warm the upper atmosphere to any degree…”
All you have to do is use MODTRAN to show that this statement is wrong. Look at the absorbance per transmission length to see that radiation from wherever is absorbed by atmosphere at any height so long as there are IR active gasses present.
Number 4: “Heat flows from surface radiation/conduction/convection…”
Having just told me that radiation cannot warm the atmosphere you say here it does.
Number 5: “This heat flow is consistent and follows primarily the moist lapse rate, even in hot desert climates.”
By heat flow you must be refering to the lapse rate of a rising or descending parcel. We much more closely follow a dry adiabatic rate in this case until consensation occurs, and then the lapse rate can take a variety of values. If you speak of the typical local static lapse rate, then that value results from application of the first law (heat minus work) to every element of the atmosphere over its evolution to present state. Radiation is a part of that evolution.
Number 6: I agree with you here.
Number 7 and 8: These are vague statements that I don’t fully understand, but lapse rate varies from place to place whether we speak of rising/fall parcels or the average state of the local atmosphere as revealed on a sounding. Dry air displaced up or down follows the dry adiabatic rate even if it were to originate in the tropopause.
Now we’re getting somewhere. I’m not looking for confirmation of my ideas; I’m looking to test them.
#1 Your comment I don’t understand. We can feel heat from the surface, as it’s immediately mixed with air through radiation/conduction/convection because at lower atmosphere yes, there’s radiation going on. But at 4,000 feet above the surface where do we feel that same surface radiation?
#2 My point exactly. Radiation not necessarily equal to heat transfer.
#3 is where I have the smallest understanding: granted.
#4 Near-surface radiation warms near-surface IR-absorbing molecules. As suggested in #1, radiation is attenuated higher up: why wouldn’t inverse square law apply?
#5 Near-surface in dry climates the lapse rate follows the dry rate until enough moisture is present, but not necessarily condensation as the dew point can still be far from the temperature reading. Thereafter, the temperature profile virtually always follows the moist lapse rate trajectory, which is given from the starting (surface) temperature and runs parallel to moist lapse rate functions. The lapse rate can and does take a variety of values along the basic moist lapse rate trajectories; again, from skew-T diagrams these are clearly weather-related variations as the overall pattern is a consistent movement parallel to the moist lapse rates. These lapse rate lines are parallel to each other; which specific trajectory the lapse rate takes, or is closest to, depends on the starting surface conditions.
#7,8 Except for the polar regions, it doesn’t matter where one looks: lapse rates dominate. If a warm front comes in and displaces air in the lower atmosphere, for example, it doesn’t matter: the lapse rate adjusts. If a thunderstorm comes in the lapse rate trajectory is still there. Skew-T diagrams demonstrate this.
#8 is an important point. One theory is that as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation to space, the emissions height must move up. Then counting down from the same temperature using the “average” lapse rate (6.5C/km) we necessarily get a warmer surface: this is CO2 catastrophe. It’s complete fiction. If we’re using the lapse rate then as we go higher it necessarily gets colder; it doesn’t stay the same. The only way the temperature could stay the same is if higher up meant within the tropopause but there the “average” lapse rate doesn’t apply because by definition the tropopause is isothermal.
As Kevin said at the outset before he failed to take his own advice, nothing will cause you to modify your delusions by one iota. You did prove his point quite comprehensively though.
Rich Davis, my delusions are the result of considerations of the lapse rate and examination of skew-T diagrams comparing 1975 to 2021, where I find no differences and consistent alignment with lapse rate functions.
To Kevin Kitty, who says, “Dry air displaced up or down follows the dry adiabatic rate even if it were to originate in the tropopause.”
You don’t get my point. My point is that the only place where we could count down from a higher emissions height but at the same temperature is in the tropopause, and in the tropopause air is isothermal. Nothing is displaced. The lapse rate in the tropopause is 0C/km. What, then, do we “count down” with as we go higher up?
Further, as is evident on skew-T diagrams, often the tropopause infringes on the troposphere and we can notice warming that skews the lapse rate, and since this isn’t consistent we can surmise that it’s the result of tropopause/troposphere air mixing rather than a “hot spot.” Sometimes the tropopause is clearly defined; many times it isn’t. So in this area below the tropopause that occasionally gets warmed the lapse rate also doesn’t apply, and in fact the amount of warming varies so much that we wouldn’t know what this lapse rate is. However in the vast body of the tropopause the vertical temperature profile is consistent with simple lapse rate functions.
Curiously, it doesn’t matter how much water vapor is in the air when the moist lapse rate is describing adiabatic changes. One would think that more humidity=more warming because after all this is a GHG. It might be interesting to see what MODTRAN says about that, comparing theory to evidence. If more CO2 = more blocking of emissions and hence warming, then why wouldn’t more water vapor do the same thing? But … what do skew-T diagrams tell us? They tell us that up to a point very quickly after air leaves the surface, the amount of water vapor doesn’t matter: there’s no additional heating of the atmosphere and no additional slowing of the lapse rate.
Exactly right KK
You are on the right track. I would not use the word “pressure” as this immediately causes certain folks to think you are claiming that it is creating energy. The word “density” works better and does not lead to the same reaction.
Energy flows up from the lower atmosphere due to density changes as you rise. Each layer can only absorb energy based on its mass. This leads directly to the lapse rate. This energy flow is dependent on well mixed GHGs but their densities follow the overall densities of the entire atmosphere.
Energy is lost at all altitudes independent of well mixed GHG concentrations. This is due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation and the effect of changing densities as you rise.
N-Z got the right answer but then tried to invent an unneeded pressure induced warming effect. The warming at low altitudes is simply due to the greater mass of the atmosphere having the ability to hold more energy. The lapse rate does the rest.
Richard M, I believe I agree pretty much 99% with what you say. Not sure that energy flow is dependent on GHGs; energy flow seems to follow naturally from solar heating and the rotation of the earth causing air masses to intermingle, with adiabatic flows (lapse rates) happening irregardless of GHGs.
I think your last two sentences express it nicely.
But referring to another comment on this top post from somewhere, the basic issue is that most all the radiative calculations are theoretical but not found in the real world: this is the value of skew-T diagrams that show us what’s happening in the real world. I believe these diagrams are overlooked. Alarmists should be able to point to them and say, look here, this is catastrophic warming! But they can’t. It isn’t there.
There are those who adhere to the radiative paradigm and others who see the mass of the atmosphere as itself significant and able to hold heat merely by having mass, and needing no radiative effects to get the pressure/density-dependent lapse rates going. This latter is my view, of course.
Density is caused by pressure. Pressure is caused by the mass of the atmosphere acted upon by gravitational acceleration (weight= mass x gravity.)
Only from a point source.
How do you explain that one can’t feel the radiation from the surface at 10 km?? It’s cold, period– roughly -50C. There’s zero radiative heat from the surface reaching that level.
While it’s true there’s little radiative energy reaching 10 km from the surface, there’s plenty of reradiated energy from GHGs which make it’s way upward through the atmosphere. That’s what sets the ALR temperatures.
ALR temperatures are set by the expansion of air which adiabatically cools the air.
The lapse rate temperature profiles are not set by radiative gases. There are no terms in the lapse rate formulas for radiative effects.
The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years.
Planetary waves are already visible in the upper stratosphere, causing the polar vortex to ripple.
Peter Halligan
C19 Injection global death toll – somewhere between 9 million and 45 million. Injuries somewhere between 840 million and 4.2 billion (multiple injuries per person) 20Nov2022
In the UK, those boosted with C19 mRNA injections die more than twice as fast (substack.com) 10Nov2022
Lincoln Financial 2021 death pay-outs almost triple from 2019. Are deaths following C19 mRNA injections “deaths from natural causes”? (substack.com) 7Nov2022
Wayne Allyn Root delivers five minutes of truth bombs – UK rate of all-cause child mortality goes from 6 per 100,000 unvaxxed to 97 for double dosed and 289 for triple dosed kids (substack.com) 6Nov2022
A tale of two countries – one with C19 deaths of 3,272 per million people, the other just 15 (hint: the US is one of the two countries (substack.com) 3Nov2022
C19 Summary data for the 21 countries with populations of more than 68 million (substack.com) 2Nov2022
Included is the table of the 21 countries with more than 68 million populations, in descending order of deaths per million per country. These 21 countries represent more than half the global population but exclude China.
Much more worrying is the increase in deaths in working age people.
https://coronatimesnews.substack.com/p/edward-dowd-covid-19-death-data-update#details
That’s what I am saying – Covid-19 only killed the very elderly and infirm, those near the end of their lives. Younger people got sick but survived.
The Covid-19 injections killed and injured many more people, including youth, children and even babies. This is the new Holocaust, and it has and will kill tens of millions of innocents.
For the record, the following early 24Mar2020 article in the Wall Street Journal is excellent. Co-author Jay Bhattacharya also co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, published 4Oct2020 – essentially identical to my note on wattsup published on 21Mar2020.
The Covid-19 lockdowns and injections were never justified and have cost trillions of dollars and tens of millions of lives. Covid-19 has superseded CAGW (Climate) as the world’s most costly and destructive leftist scam.
21March2020 LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five. This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
22March2020 This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.
I advised our Alberta and Federal governments on 8Jan2021 that the Covid-19 “vaccines” were TOXIC AND INEFFECTIVE and that also has proved correct. That was the second part of the Covid-19 SCAM – to peddle billions of dollars of toxic, worthless injections that have now killed or harmed more people than the Covid-19 virus. It’s now time for criminal trials – Nuremberg 2.0
IS THE CORONAVIRUS AS DEADLY AS THEY SAY?Current estimates about the Covid-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude.By Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University
Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2020
[excerpt]
If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.
Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.
CO2 is 415 parts per million. CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere. Does anyone truly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499? Especially when the 15-micron LWIR causing the vibration is consistent with the energy of a black body of -80C? CO2-driven climate change isn’t supported by science, quantum mechanics, or common sense. Ask any physicist the above question and they will immediately say it is nonsense…then tell them the molecule is CO2 and they will change their story.
I would hope that not all physicists will change their story.
OK, as of the moment I see I have 1 negative point- that means somebody thinks 100% of physicists are idiots- that they’d all go along with the fantasy that a single molecule of CO2 could “materially impact the kinetic energy….”
I agree with your handle that “CO2 is life”, but to claim that global warming has no basis in science, quantum physics or common sense, does the reputation of anyone promoting it harm.
Global warming by CO2 is a red herring.
Explain the common sense part, please. And by global warming do you mean CO2 catastrophic warming or the radiative greenhouse effect? To me neither makes any sense.
Catastrophic warming doesn’t make any sense. However, greenhouse warming up to the point of surface energy saturation does make a lot of sense.
It only takes about 100 ppm of CO2 to reach saturation. This is why complaining about the low overall concentration of CO2 is a red herring. It is more than enough to reach saturation. It consists of about 10^40 CO2 molecules.
We need GHGs to help form the lapse rate and expand the atmosphere to higher altitudes. They are crucial to a warmer planet but not in the way climate science claims.
The dry lapse rate doesn’t need a greenhouse gas (water vapor, or CO2 for that matter) to form. It makes no sense to say that a lapse rate wouldn’t form in the absence of GHGs, and I think this is the crux of the problem. Pondering the lapse rate got me going on all this.
The lapse rates are clearly pressure-dependent, and pressure is clearly dependent on the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the atmosphere is clearly dependent on gravity. I’m not sure what’s so hard about that.
Water vapor and CO2 exist within this context; they don’t drive it.
That is 100% accurate and can be scientifically demonstrated in a Gas Cell. One can be found at SpectralCalc. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form. In reality, increasing CO2 does nothing more than lower the level where 100% of the LWIR between 13 and 18 is absorbed. Once again, you can only thermalize 100% of the outgoing LWIR of 15-Micron.
Don132 said: “Explain the common sense part, please.”
CO2 impedes the transmission of energy. When a system experiences a decrease in Eout without a significant change in Ein then energy accumulates within the system. That is the law of conservation of energy. Both CO2 impeding the transmission energy and the law of conservations of energy are common sense.
I think it’s very debatable if CO2 impedes the transmission of energy in our atmosphere. Can you demonstrate this on skew-T diagrams? Can you show where the tropical hot spot is?
The tropical hot spot is an error in climate models, not a feature of CO2’s “greenhouse effect”. CO2’s ability to intercept outgoing LW radiation is greatest at the lowest latitudes, where there is most CO2, and decreases rapidly with increasing altitude. The problem with the models is not in the effect of CO2 itself, which is real but modest. The problem with the models is their use of spurious “feedbacks”. The absence of a tropical hot spot is evidence that their “feedbacks” are incorrect.
It’s not debatable. CO2 impedes the transmission of energy. This has been known since the mid 1800’s and is exploited by countless NDIR and CRDS instruments today. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere or in a building precisely because it impedes the transmission of energy. This has nothing to do with skew-t diagrams or the mid troposphere tropical hotspot.
I’m not arguing that CO2 doesn’t scatter IR or absorb and re-radiate. But it doesn’t matter. In theory, yes. In practice in our atmosphere, no.
Yes, skew-T diagrams have everything to do with this because these are diagrams of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. They are observations against which to test theory, and over and over they tell us that pressure-derived lapse rate functions determine atmospheric cooling. Nothing else does. Virtually everywhere we look in the vertical temperature profile, pressure matters. One can call it density; it’s pretty much the same thing.
If, on a skew-T diagram, we see a moist adiabatic lapse rate temperature profile in relatively dry air– dewpoint is far away from temperature and yes this happens all the time and yet we still have a moist adiabatic lapse rate without saturation– and then we see the dewpoint increase as the balloon goes through a cloud, what happens? Basically, nothing. Doesn’t this tell us that as a balloon goes through a cloud of IR-impeding water vapor, it doesn’t do anything to the temperature profile? It doesn’t impede IR energy any more than a reading of lower relative humidity would.
Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits IR. No, it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter with water vapor up to a certain, non-saturated point (despite what the moist lapse rate is by definition) no matter how much more IR-inhibiting water vapor is added, then why would it matter with a puny little 0.04% CO2 concentration?
This is what observations tell us. What are we going to believe, our theory or our lyin’ eyes?
My own take on this is that our concepts of atmospheric physics are fairly warped. Skew-T diagrams tell us a great deal, and that’s perhaps why alarmist scientists don’t refer to them by comparing their brilliant theory against observations.
Not sure that is 100% accurate, energy can be transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. CO2 implements radiation and that is by far the fastest way to remove energy from the system, and in fact is why they claim the stratosphere is cooling as CO2 increases.
It is 100% accurate. Just because energy can be transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation in no way implies that CO2 does not impede its transmission. And the cooling stratosphere is one line of evidence proving it.
If science were a matter of common sense, in the manner of whatever we think we observe, or whatever our preconceived notions suggest must be so, then there wouldn’t be much point to doing science would there?
El Ninos guarantee that we will never have CAGW, even if CO2 reaches the previous peak of 7,000 PPM. El Ninos are like pressure valves for the atmosphere and once they release the energy, you go back to the ground level and have to be rewarded. At best, CO2 could cause more frequent El Ninos…but 15-micron won’t warm oceans and water.
SUMMARY
Here is the fatal flaw that most people on BOTH sides of the climate debate make:
“Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…”
Too many people are committed to this flawed observation, which is true at molecular scale but is disproved by observations at Earth scale.
In engineering we often note that observations that work at lab scale do NOT work at larger scales, due to a problem called “scale-up”. That is why we often model physical processes at ever-larger scales before we “go commercial”.
In scale-up of radiative physics from molecular scale to Earth scale, which is one huge scale-up, unexpected things happen.
Since atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~~9 months in the modern data record (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013), the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming is INconsistent with observations and is thus disproved – that flawed notion alleges that the future is causing the past. In fact, climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero or non-existent.
Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. That is the only true observation we can see in the modern data record.
The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008).
This does not mean that some or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is cause by fossil fuels – it does mean that there is NO real climate crisis.
In the modern data record: Plot dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
I welcome counter-arguments – just do not start with “We KNOW that increasing CO2 causes dangerous global warming.” You may think that, but you do NOT know that – because that is a proved-false statement.
I don’t believe that CO2 is a crisis issue.
Since we are both engineers, and have both wrestled with scaling issues apparently, then you might agree that engineering scaling problems, always as far as I know, result from problems under the headings of “strength of materials” or “diffusion”. Strength of materials has no place in this discussion. Diffusion problems are pertinent to atmopheric heat transport and mixing (molecular diffusion is so slow at Earth scale that we can form steep boundaries of humidity and temperature known as fronts). For instance, it is nearly impossible to scale vertical structure from the atmosphere down to laboratory experiments because one cannot reproduce the gradients of temperature, total pressure, or partial pressures because of this diffusion issue.
However, this does not invalidate the notion that the atmosphere exchanges radiant energy with the ground surface by virtue of its IR active gasses, and that we can actually calculate it.
Please carefully re-read what I wrote.
It is conclusive that
Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales.
I will always believe verified data over molecular theory.
In the modern data record:
Plot dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
Earth temperatures have warmed and cooled over time, but atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and there is NO credible correlation that shows CO2 drives temperature. Any such claims are specious correlation.
Ockham’s Razor:
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to natural and human-made causes.
Global temperature varies primarily due to natural causes. Increasing atmospheric CO2 has no significant effect on Earth temperature but does have a significant beneficial impact on plant and crop growth.
“The future cannot cause the past.”
The CAGW hypothesis is disproved.
Alan
Just a small disagreement. If you have read my argument and theory you know where the heat is coming from.
100 billion tons of CO2 enter the atmosphere naturally each year around the equator.
HCO3- + heat = CO2 + OH-
Similar amount must dissolve again there where it is cold enough.
CO2 + 2H2O + cold = HCO3- + H3O+
No problem in Antarctica. It is as cold as ever there. Problem is the arctic. Lots of melting ice and heat coming bottom up.
So, how did you calculate the decrease in areas cold enough to dissolve the CO2?.
There is a logical gap between “Radiative physics theory is very solid and there is no point in arguing that increasing CO2 concentration doesn’t cause warming…” and “We KNOW that increasing CO2 causes dangerous global warming.”. The logical gap is the leap from “warming” to “dangerous global warming“. IOW, yes CO2 causes some warming, but no it does not cause dangerous global warming.
Practically, what you are saying is OK, but we don’t even KNOW if increasing atm. CO2 causes ANY global warming. I say Climate Sensitivity to increasing CO2 (CS) maximum is circa 1C/doubling but it could be minus~1C/doubling and most likely it is near-zero.
That is all theoretical. My other observation is the world is a big place, bigger than a CO2 molecule. 🙂
Fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WW2 – and temperature COOLED until 1977!
Much of global warming happened before 1940 and a bit more from ~1977 to ~2008.
In 2002 we predicted natural global cooling to start circa 2020 – that was a risky prediction but I’m still comfortable with it.
My practical worry is that the Brits and the Germans will freeze this winter, due to severe cold and lack of natural gas – I warned them way back in 2002 and provided more details in 2013.
Excess Winter Deaths will tell the tale. I tried to warn them, without success.
“I say Climate Sensitivity to increasing CO2 (CS) maximum is circa 1C/doubling but it could be minus~1C/doubling and most likely it is near-zero.”
That’s the way I see it, too.
CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere as far as temperature goes.
Allan MacRae said: “Fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WW2 – and temperature COOLED until 1977!”
That makes sense. The positive radiative forcing from CO2 was overshadowed by the negative radiative forcing from aerosols during this period.
Allan MacRae said: “In 2002 we predicted natural global cooling to start circa 2020 – that was a risky prediction but I’m still comfortable with it.”
The planetary energy imbalance is about +0.9 W/m2 right now [Shuckmann et al. 2020]. Thus, the planet will continue to warm. The atmospheric temperature will continue to ebb and flow due to its low thermal capacity, but over decadal time scales it will continue to warm as well.
How many test pilots said to themselves as the new plane disintegrated in flight –
“darn, this thing really looked the goods in the wind tunnel demos”
Ultimately, the X-15 flew 199 times, and on Oct. 3, 1967, U.S. Air Force pilot Pete Knight set a speed record of Mach 6.7. Good times.
I didn’t claim any such thing. I specifically identified the mechanism by which CO2 contributed to Global Warming, and that is through the thermalization of 15-micron LWIR. That is very very very low energy EM radiation. In reality, CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, it puts a temperature floor, and that is why the Stratoshopere cools to about -80 C, and not below. Water vapor thermalizes most of the outgoing IR spectrum, and definitely contributes to keeping the atmosphere warm.
“I agree with your handle that “CO2 is life”, but to claim that global warming has no basis in science, quantum physics or common sense, does the reputation of anyone promoting it harm.”
I didn’t claim any such thing, and in fact, I detailed the real science behind the GHG Effect. CO2 thermalizes 15 micron LWIR, that is 100% accurate. 15 Micron LWIR is consistent with a black body of -80C. That won’t warm anything. The GHG H2O absorbs the LWIR consistent with warmer temperatures and does contribute to the changing climate. H20 can be 4 out of every 100 molecules in the atmosphere, CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500. CO2 simply can’t materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499, especially when its kinetic energy of -80C due to 15 micron LWIR is colder than the surrounding atmosphere.
Something still isn’t clicking. Let me try explaining it another way.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Using this calculator enter the wavelength 15 um with a lower and upper limit of 14 and 16 respectively. Then calculate the result for 193.15 K (-80 C) and 273.15 (0 C) report both the spectral radiance (15 um) and band radiance (14-16 um) in W/m2.sr for each temperature.
CO2isLife said: “Does anyone truly believe that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499?”
Yes. It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
CO2isLife said: “Especially when the 15-micron LWIR causing the vibration is consistent with the energy of a black body of -80C?”
15 um radiation is consistent with a blackbody at any temperature.
15 um radiation is consistent with CO2 gas at any temperature.
Refer to Planck’s Law for details regarding the behavior of radiation for blackbodies.
No, that is not accurate in dealing with CO2. Yes, a black body will emit 15- micron, but also a large spectrum around it. CO2 only thermalizes a small fraction of a black body radiation. They absorb spikes in the spectrum, not the entire spectrum. In reality a -80C black body would emit more radiation than CO2 would thermalize. You can refer to SpectralCalc or the spectrometry of a CO2 Gas Cell. That is why CO2 sublimates right around -80C, LWIR provides the marginal energy to turn it into a gas. Facts are CO2 is transparent to almost every wavelength you are referring to in Planck’s Law and a Blackbody and has nothing to do with CO2 and the GHG effect so it is irrelevant to this discussion.
This CO2 Spectrometry demonstrates that either bdgwx either doesn’t understand the basics or that he was hoping that no one would actually check his statement. Clearly, CO2 doesn’t absorb anywhere near a full black body. It absorbs a spike at 15 microns, or 666 wavenumber. bdgwx is great at sophistry, but not science.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
I stand by what I said and your own link backs me up. CO2 gas emits 15 um regardless of temperature. And the warmer the gas the more 15 um radiation that gets emitted.
That is nonsense. 15 microns has an energy of -80C, the more ice you add to a bowl doesn’t make it any colder. More energy comes from increasing the temperature and shifting the curve to the left. CO2 easily absorbs 100% of all 15-micron LWIR very close to the surface, you can check that with the gas cell at Spectralcalc. Add more CO2 and you can’t absorb more than 100%. In any case, H2O absorbs all the 15-micron LWIR. With or without CO2 100% of 15-micron LWIR gets absorbed.
CO2isLife said: “That is nonsense.”
Neither your own link nor Planck’s Law is nonsense.
CO2isLife said: “15 microns has an energy of -80C”
This, however, is nonsense.
15 um has an energy of 82.66 MeV per photon. And it makes no difference what the temperature of the emitter or absorber is.
CO2isLife said: “More energy comes from increasing the temperature and shifting the curve to the left.”
The spectral radiance peak shifts to left as the temperature of the blackbody increases. That does not invalidate the fact that the spectral radiance of all frequencies increase. A blackbody at 0 C emits more 15 um photons (and thus energy) than at -80 C.
“15 um has an energy of 82.66 MeV per photon.”
That figure looks a bit high to me, bdgwx. Photons with 15μm wavelength would be up in the gamma-ray region if they had that kind of energy. Even photons in the visual light spectrum only have energies of 2 – 3 eV and photons in the microwave region have far lower energies than those.
I think the true energy-value of a 15μm photon would be about 0.08 eV and this would equate to a temperature of very nearly 687 ⁰C. (Please see my calculations below.)
___________________________________
Calculations
To find energy of photon, E, use standard quantum theory formula:
E = hc/W
where h is Planck’s Constant [6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J/Hz]
c is Speed of Light [2.99792458×10⁸ m/s]
and W is photon wavelength [15×10⁻⁶ m].
Inserting these values gives:
E = 1.32430×10⁻²⁰ J (Joules)
To find value of E in electron-volts (call it Ee) use conversion factor:
1 Joule (J) = 6.24151×10¹⁸ electron-volts (eV)
This gives:
Ee = 8.26561×10⁻² eV
≈ 0.08 eV
___________________
To find photon temperature (T) use:
T = E/Bₖ
where Bₖ is Boltzmann Constant [1.3806549×10⁻²³ J/⁰K]
This gives:
T = 9.591846×10² ⁰K
≈ 960 ⁰K
≈ 687 ⁰C
___________________
John Power
From my memory, the 0.08 eV is correct. Your temperature is incorrect. It is 183K or -87 C
I have checked my calculations in all the ways that I can think of and they all check out OK to my eyes. What flaw/s can you see in them?
Can you remember how you arrived at the figure of 183K for the temperature? It would be helpful if you could say. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with an irresolvable disagreement between my mathematical reasoning and your memory, will we not?
Use the calculator
Blackbody Radiation (gsu.edu)
scroll down
and fill in the 15 microns in the 4th block (2nd row of the calculator block insert). Then press enter. It is 193K actually. (remember I was working from memory). It also shows the 0.08 eV.
Sorry. It is the third block, not the 4th.
I actually used same formula to calculate that the net effect of more CO2 /more absorption at 15um and subsequent back-radiation to earth, is equalized by the absorptions of CO2 in the sun’s spectrum (Back-radiation to space), especially at 4,3 um and 1 to 3 um. Not taking into the account the small absorption of CO2 in the UV which is how we identify and quantify it on other planets. The result is reported in the first three rows of the columns K, L and M.
https://1drv.ms/x/s!At1HSpspVHO9pwve1lLJYfTXFWuB?e=CLr7Ak
I have another 4 or 5 reports that support the notion that CO2 does not cause any warming. If anyone is interested?
Sorry. It is the third block. Another comment of mine is in the spam box.
Thanks, Henry. I found the calculator OK and can confirm that it returns 193 ⁰K for the temperature of a black body whose peak emission is at 15 microns.
However, what I calculated was a different thing to that. My calculation (960 ⁰K) refers to the temperature of the actual 15micron photon itself, not to any material body whether black or otherwise. I calculated the actual photon temperature because CO2isLife had said “15 microns has an energy of -80C ” and I was curious to know whether that was true, although I don’t know how my disconfirming results might affect his argument and will have to leave it to him to report on that if he wants to.
Regarding your offer to provide “another 4 or 5 reports that support the notion that CO2 does not cause any warming”, I don’t know whether I would be interested or not without having seen them. But I must confess that I tend to find proposed numerical ‘solutions’ to conceptual problems distinctly unconvincing due to their great fallibility, which usually requires me to spend too many hours checking every word and digit meticulously before I can begin to form a judgment about them. I’m just speaking for myself of course, but the more simple, logical and number-free you could make them, the more interested in them I would be.
Happy Thanksgiving to all regardless of location. A good day to be thankful for waking up and having friends!
Oh boy, I was hoping for an open thread. The following is in the latest Unscientific American. I know it’s not good to copy an entire article- been criticized for that in the past, but if you don’t subscribe to it- you won’t be able to download it. And it’s not an off topic in somebody’s thread. The scientists’ “common sense” got this wrong- what else do they have wrong??? She now presumes wildfires will be more common despite MORE available water. Too much “common sense” and presumptions pretending to be science. The article was all plain text but I added bold and underline to some of it for emphasis.
—————————-
The Puzzle of
Vanishing Lakes
Arctic lakes are disappearing fast, and
scientists are just learning why
By Naomi Oreskes
Research sometimes proves, with data, what we more or less
already know. Exercise is good for you, and polluted air isn’t. Still,
sometimes our intuitions are incorrect, and scientific findings surprise
researchers, along with the rest of us. A recent example is
the phenomenon of disappearing lakes in the Arctic tundra.
You might think these lakes would be expanding, not vanishing.
As climate change warms the tundra—melting surface snow
and ice and thawing the permafrost—there should be more surface
water. Existing lakes should grow because of the extra water,
and new ones might appear. Recently, however, scientists have
observed not just shrinking lakes but lakes that have completely
gone away. A paper published this year in Nature Climate Change,
based on satellite imagery, found widespread lake loss across the
Arctic over the past 20 years. Led by University of Florida postdoctoral
researcher Elizabeth Webb, the scientific team found that
lakes have shrunk or disappeared completely across 82 percent
of the Arctic’s lake-rich regions.
Scientists have long recognized that global warming would
thaw permafrost, and like many climate effects, that one appears
to be happening faster than predicted. But the surprise is really
about the bodies of water in the permafrost environment.
Many scientists shared the commonsense expectation that as
permafrost thawed, lakes would at first expand because of
increased meltwater flowing into them. Eventually, researchers
projected, progressive warming during the 21st and 22nd centuries
would dry out the Arctic enough that lakes would begin to
shrink. But now it looks as if Arctic lakes are disappearing a century
or more sooner than predicted.
There is a big difference between a lake gradually dwindling
during a hotter climate and a lake vanishing from sight in less than
a year. At the end of the summer of 2018, following the warmest
and wettest winter on record at that time, 192 lakes in northwestern
Alaska had completely or partly drained away. Some large
lakes, believed to have existed for millennia, shrank drastically in
what appears to have been a matter of months. Scientists have
labeled this phenomenon “catastrophic lake drainage.”
What caused this? Basically, the ground is becoming more permeable.
We talk about “solid ground,” but its particles of rock,
mineral and organic matter actually have spaces between them.
Outside the Arctic, those spaces are filled with air or water; surface
water drains into them. (You see this after it rains, when after
a few hours the puddles have disappeared.) Arctic landscapes are
different. In permafrost, the pore spaces are filled with solid ice,
so liquid water cannot readily penetrate. But when the permafrost
thaws, water can flow downward. So these far northern lakes
are disappearing because surface water can drain rapidly into the
subsurface as the permafrost warms up.
Why did scientists miss this? One reason, offered by Webb and
her colleagues, is that most climate models assume that permafrost
thaw is driven only by warming air. New evidence suggests
that rainfall—particularly increasing autumn rain—is now contributing
substantially to permafrost loss. The rainfall carries heat
into the ground. Yet none of the models in the large Coupled
Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIPs) includes such processes.
This is a good example of why—no matter how sophisticated our
models are or may one day be—we need direct observation of the
natural world.
Lakes make up as much as 40 percent of Arctic lowlands, where
they provide crucial freshwater for Indigenous communities and
critical habitat for a wide range of plant and animal life. The loss
of marshy areas that accompany these lakes can also lead to an
increase in wildfires, which, in a troubling feedback loop, melts
more permafrost. This permafrost
holds a huge amount of methane,
a greenhouse gas that can create 80 times as much atmospheric
warming as carbon dioxide in the short term. Rapid release
of this methane could accelerate global warming dramatically.
There is, of course, a clear path to saving Arctic lakes: stop the
carbon pollution that is driving global climate change.
Melting frost leads to permeable soil. Gosh.
Essentially, the claim here is still that the heat that is warming the arctic, is coming from the top down. I am saying it is coming from the bottom up; and I have the data to prove it.
(See first comment on this thread)
regardless of where it’s coming from- there is nothing terrific about millions of square miles of tundra- that land will be better if it warms up- it’ll convert to forest or maybe grassland in some areas and some of it might become agricultural- but of course Oreskes can’t think of anything positive about it
Sure. Agreed. Nothing wrong with more heat/ it gets warmer every thousand years (Eddy cycle)
Now you did it — you mentioned the name of she who shall not be named.
It’s ok as long as there are no pictures that turn people to stone.
Permafrost depth varies across Alaska but on the north slope it’s generally between 200 and 600 meters deep. It must have taken many, many centuries for the ground to freeze this deep and will take many centuries for it all to thaw. In fact, it is the permafrost that enables so many lakes to form in the first place. The reason that the few communities located on permafrost use lake water for domestic purposes is that it’s impossible to drill water wells there. Water is distributed by tanker trucks and stored in tanks and drums in the homes. Since sewage disposal is similarly impossible, “honey buckets” are used for feces disposal and also collected by trucks. The sewage is then spread on the ground surface.
The Arctic is not meant to be inhabited by large group of people.
200-600 meters deep? That can’t be right.
“200-600 meters deep? That can’t be right.“. That was my immediate thought, too, given the temperature gradient by depth in most places. But a quick search shows a number of sources saying that permafrost can be as little as 1m or much as 1,000m deep. eg. National Geographic. I can’t find an obviously reliable source though.
OK, while I’m at it- here’s another gem from Unscientific American. The author does mention some of the difficulties in reaching renewable energy nirvana but absolutely assumes the absolute necessity to go there.
—————————
U.S. Renewable Energy Will Surge Past Coal and Nuclear by Year’s End
Wind, solar and hydropower will generate more than 20 percent of the power supply
Renewables are on track to generate more power than coal in the United States this year. But the question is whether they can grow fast enough to meet the country’s climate goals.
Supply chain constraints and trade disputes have slowed wind and solar installations, raising questions about the United States’ ability to meet the emission reductions sought by the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration is banking on the landmark climate law cutting emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Many analysts think the United States will ultimately shake off the slowdown thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act’s $369 billion in clean energy investments. But it may take time for the law’s impact to be felt. Tax guidance needs to be finalized before developers begin plunking down money on new facilities, and companies now face headwinds in the form of higher interest rates and the looming threat of a recession.
The Inflation Reduction Act’s emission reductions hinge on the country’s ability to at least double the rate of renewable installations over the record levels observed in 2020 and 2021, said John Larsen, a partner at the Rhodium Group.
“Every year we don’t have capacity additions beyond the record is lost ground,” he said. “It’s going to be that much harder to make that up over time. There is a point where we don’t get to the outcomes we projected because we blew the first few years of the transition.”
For now, U.S. renewable output is edging higher. Wind and solar output are up 18 percent through Nov. 20 compared to the same time last year and have grown 58 percent compared to 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The government energy tracker predicts that wind, solar and hydro will generate 22 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this year. That is more than coal at 20 percent and nuclear at 19 percent.
Renewable output also exceeded coal in 2020, though that year saw a decrease in energy generation across the board due to the economic lockdowns associated with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Wind and solar growth has to continue at a blistering pace to meet the United States’ climate targets. Researchers at Princeton University estimate the country needs to install about 50 gigawatts of wind and solar annually between 2022 and 2024, or roughly double the 25 GW that the United States installed annually in 2020 and 2021.
Through the first nine months of this year, the United States installed 11 GW of wind and solar (Climatewire, Nov. 3).
Steve Cicala, an economics professor at Tufts University who studies energy markets, said he was optimistic the Inflation Reduction Act will ultimately spark a renewable boom. The law provides economic certainty for developers by providing incentives over 10 years. That is an improvement over the past, where renewable subsidies had to be extended by Congress every couple of years.
Still, there are limits to the law’s impacts, he said. Transmission lines need to be strung to facilitate that growth. Grid operators face a backlog of projects trying to connect to the power system. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that some 930 GW of wind, solar and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid. By comparison, the total capacity of the U.S. power system today is about 1,150 GW.
“The important thing is it continues to grow and we get more capacity installed and output from renewables,” Cicala said. “The reason that is important is it will mean less generation from fossil resources.”
Pure Insanity.
Watching the FTX disaster with great curiosity. It has been alleged that the US Billions of dollars given to Ukraine, President Zelenski taking some of that money, investing it in FTX and then SBF (CEO of FTX) then funneling money back into the democrat party. If true, this is an amazing ponzi scheme. It reaffirms my belief that this Climate religion that has been created is just about moving money out of productive working people’s pockets and funneling it into the greedy hands of thieves and charlatans.
“investing it in FTX and then SBF (CEO of FTX) then funneling money back into the democrat party.”
This looks like something Congress should be looking into. I’m not sure how much Zelenski is involved, but it is certain the Democrat Party is involved.
I have seen, several times, global maps showing the location of weather stations around the world pre-1990. The only conclusion you could reach was that there is no data for about 75% of the earth for that time. Can anyone point me to one of those maps? Or an article that they appeared in? I foolishly didn’t save a bookmark for the information.
Much apprecuiated
This might help.
https://wattsupwiththat.com>2008>03>06>weather-stations-disappearing-worldwide
Appreciate the link Dave, but not what I was looking for. I recall a world map showing average temperatures areas of Africa which another map showed there was no actual data for.
IP says
‘The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years”
That’s what I thought last year, especially because of the drought. Then came that explosion in Tonga that blasted millions of gallons of water into the air. Now I hear a big rumble again. Now it is somewhere between Hawaii and Japan….
Yes. It’s the Eddy cycle.
https://www.climategate.nl/2021/03/de-thousand-year-eddy-cycle/
Unfortunately, I don’t know when that peak will come to an end yet.
Actually, we should be thankful for the extra warmth. Because it’s better than cold.
Any chance that with the GOP majority in the house that they’ll hold hearings on climate – maybe joint environment/energy committees? They could force an open public debate on the “science” with folks like Koonin, Lindzen, Curry, Happer on one side and Mann, Schmidt, Dessler on the other. Could be quite a spectacle.
I’d be happy if just once, on any important topic, we could learn the full truth of the matter. Unfortunately, everything is always organized to see the Democrat party to a safe landing in the next election. Truth be damned, i am afraid.
The GOP *should* hold hearings on climate, seeing as how “the climate” is about to bankrupt the entire nation.
I’m not too enthusiastic about a GOP response to the premise of Human-caused Climate Change. I think the best they are going to do is push back on the outrageous costs of trying to rein in CO2, but they won’t challenge the basic science. A bunch of lukewarmers, if you will.
I did see a news article yesterday where a Republican committee chair said Republicans would refuse to pay climate change reparations to other nations.
Rick C:
And a complete waste of time. Neither Knooni, Lindzen, Curry, or Happer have a clue as to why our temperatures are rising.
I have noticed that my WUWT emails from following comments have significantly dropped off despite following the same amount of topics. Unsurprising given recent changes, I suppose. Just curious if anyone else has seen a similar trend?
Comments are down 25 to 50%. Less flame wars as far as I can tell.
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO LIFEhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
Despite achieving nothing but a holiday junket for 45,000 people, many of whom arrived in over 500 private jets, COP27 has managed to eke out the usual PR “win” in the grand media theater.
They have a document they call a historic breakthrough, which is actually nothing but a wish list for future UN wet dreams and enlargement.
It’s just a “roadmap for future decision-making” meaning, they haven’t made any decisions yet.
They can’t say who’ll pay, or who’ll get the money, or how big the money will be, or exactly what it will be used for.
But they can say they will meet again and again, to figure it out.
The UN simply announced a new category of globalist grafting.
Take it from Reuters:
“…the text of the agreement leaves open a number of crucial details to be worked out next year and beyond, including who would contribute to the fund and who would benefit.”
There is no agreement over what should count as “loss and damage” caused by climate change – which could include damaged infrastructure and property, as well as harder-to-value natural ecosystems or cultural assets.
A report by 55 vulnerable countries estimated their combined climate-linked losses over the last two decades totaled $525 billion, or 20% of their collective GDP.
Some research suggests that by 2030 such losses could reach $580 billion per year.
“Loss and damages” is a plan to tax the West for bad weather in Somalia, or a frost in Uruguay
If “loss and damage” would ever amount to anything, nations of the West would just shift money from “foreign aid” to “loss and damage” baskets, and funnel the funds through the inefficient UN, which has proven to be an ineffective way to help the world’s poor.
It will fatten up corruptocrats in Third-World countries.
It will provide bread and honey for UN junketeers.
There will be no incentive for the tin-pot nations to build sea-walls, stop erosion, or do hazard reduction to stop fires — because the greater their “loss and damage”, the greater their loss claims, and the greater their compensation.
Third-World governments will be less accountable for their own incompetence, as they shift blame to the West, but they’ll get more dependent on the UN as their go-to “sugar-daddy”.
All in all, it will be a win for creeping communism, but a loss for the everyone else.
It’s another road to the World Economic Forum, WEF, mantra: “One World Order and One World Government”
Increased CO2 is a Boon for Biomass Growth Worth Many $Billions
It has increased crop yields, and plant growth and helped feed the world
It has thickened the forests, increased mangroves, and reduced desertification (Goklany, 2015)
There are 18 million more square kilometers of greenery in the world (Zaichun, 2016).
If temperatures increase two degrees, and CO2 hits 700 ppm, corn is estimated to grow 25% faster and soy beans will boom by 31%. (Qiao et al 2019)
Let’s burn coal, oil and gas and feed the world.
See Images by opening article URL
The more CO2 in greenhouses and the environment, the more biomass growth
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/9b81e9e7-16c7-491d-9a78-da3bc187e59e
Carbon dioxide fertilization (in ppm, horizontal axes) of C3 crop and C4 weed
Source: von Caemmerer, et al. (2012).
.
About 90% of 700 Pacific and Indian ocean are growing more than shrinking (Duvat…, and the 11% that are shrinking are too small to have human inhabitants.
Third World folks are happy with cars, trucks, electricity, antibiotics, gas and planes.
They like the West’s fertilizer, polyester-cotton, concrete, sealed roads and smart phones.
The game of retrospective “loss and damage” can be played by both sides.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg says:
“There is no need to pay reparations.
Our leadership of the industrial revolution brought prosperity to the world and led to increased life expectancy and better living conditions.”
As CO2 increased, the population of Africa expanded from 155 million one hundred years ago, to 1,500 million now. A billion more African lives…
UN IPCC Climate Gate
The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the IPCC computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.
The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were deficient!
However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.
A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim.
See image by opening article URL
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years, and those laws of physics have not changed!!
Appendix 4 shows, according to the laws of physics, for each 20-ppm increase in CO2, there is less and less of an increase in temperature!!
Appendix 5 shows, the same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20
Both are used for producing fertilizers.
The world’s population could not be fed without them
Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but crop failures were the result!!
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/4a83751e-64f9-4ccd-a33f-a7f100f3da1f
““Loss and damages” is a plan to tax the West for bad weather in Somalia, or a frost in Uruguay”
That’s exactly what it is. I don’t want my taxmoney going towards such boondoogles.
The newly elected majority Republican U.S. House of Representatives say they are not going to be paying for bad weather in other countries.
The biggest problem I see is that the alarmists have backed themselves into a corner they cannot possibly squirm their way out of. How can they now back down even if valid proof showed they were wrong? The money expended, the alarm they have caused and the people they have fooled. So many followers would not accept a backdown. It would be the end of their whole world. Where is their escape?
Yes, they have a dilemma. The “CO2 is dangerous” False Reality they have been living in is about to fall apart.
Hello,
One issue with climate models that has been bugging me for some time is how they manage to produce less – instead of more, as one would expect – cloud cover in case of a warming climate.
Given these generally agreed on premises:
1. Warming leads to more evaporation and a higher water vapour content in the atmosphere
2. The water vapour only stays a short time in the atmosphere before falling out again as precipitation
I find it difficult to imagine how it is possible to avoid a higher cloud fraction as a result of a warming.
I can only think of three possible reasons:
1. The warming leads somehow to shorter cloud lifetimes before they precipitate the water back to earth. However, it seems to be generally accepted that it is warmer clouds that last longer – only by how much is under discussion.
(An underestimated negative cloud feedback from cloud lifetime changes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01038-1)
2. There is a really extreme increase in the average time the water remains in the atmosphere, so that after reaching equilibrium evaporation/precipitation is actually smaller than before despite the higher atmospheric water content. This also does not seem to be the case since, whereas the models indeed predict a higher atmospheric water life time (Presumably because the distance between evaporation and precipitation areas is increasing), evaporation/precipitation fluxes still are supposed to be rising.
(Figure 4, Water vapour adjustments and responses differ between climate drivers https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/12887/2019/)
3. The additional water does not go into increasing the cloud fraction, but instead into making clouds more dense. This is likely part of the answer, since the models indeed assume an increase in cloud optical density, however it seems quite small.
(Figure 2, Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/Ceppi_et_al-2017-WIREs-Climate_Change.pdf)
Any ideas?
Sorry, clicking on the links does not work because of some weird bug and the time limit for editing seems to have run out. Instead copy the text of the link and paste this in the browser address field.
Menschmaschine:
I believe that I can answer your musings, based upon the millions of tons of Industrial SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere.(72 million, in 2019).
It is possible to have higher temperatures without increased cloud formation, and this is frequently observed around the world, in warm high-pressure weather systems, which are characterized as having no precipitation and clear, cloudless skies.
The reason for this is a lack of moisture nucleation sites, caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere..
For example, when a high-pressure weather system becomes stalled, after 4-5 days temperatures always soar within the stalled area, because all of the SO2 aerosols within the area have settled out, without being replaced, and the cleansed air.allows sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity.. Temperature increases can reach 20 to 30 deg. C–and are a foretaste of our climate when the burning of fossil fuels, which also produce dimming SO2 aerosols is abandoned .
BuriHenry:
we are looking here at the global picture, so we don’t care about any local effects that might prevent the formation of clouds. Remember: All water that evaporates needs to eventually precipitate back to earth and in order to do that it needs to first condense into clouds. If some effect prevents the formation of clouds at a certain time and place, well then the water vapour will condense into clouds at some other location and/or time – no way around it.
Note that this invalidates the alarmist hype that was made about some local or regional climate models that show a disappearance of clouds with rising temperature – one can simply assume that even if the model is right, there will be more clouds forming outside the scope of the model. However, in principle GCMs show this effect too and I would be very interested to know why.
Menschmaschine
I WAS referring to Global effects, where decreasing amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere can cause temperatures to rise without increased cloud formation (fewer moisture nucleation sites)..
You had said that it is difficult to imagine how it is possible to avoid a higher cloud fraction as a result of the warming. I have given you an answer.as to how that is possible.
The local examples were simply to prove that such a mechanism exists.
Meschmaschine:
You are of course correct that the evaporated water will rain out at some other location.
The cause of the occasional devastating floods around the world?
“For example, when a high-pressure weather system becomes stalled, after 4-5 days temperatures always soar within the stalled area, because all of the SO2 aerosols within the area have settled out, without being replaced, and the cleansed air.allows sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity..”
That seems like something that can be testable. Do you have such data on high pressure systems? Such as the amount of SO2 contained in the high pressure system when it first forms, and then the amount after four or five days of sitting over one location?
Tom Abbott:
Unfortunately, I don’t have any such data at this time, and I doubt that it is exists. But, as you say, it is easily testable.
It is claimed that, for isolated events, Industrial SO2 aerosols settle out of the air within a week, or so, which is consistent the delay in the temperature rise in stalled high pressure weather systems.
If there is a paper behind the claim, it might contain some actual measurements.
Thanks, Burl.
I just saw an extraordinary presentation by Dr John Campbell, who some of you may be familiar with. He has been a great source of unbiased Covid information during the pandemic.
Here he talks about the evolution of the lab leak theory, and how discussion of it was suppressed. He apologises for, two years ago, passing on information from the scientific establishment without being sufficiently sceptical. In particular, he talks about a peer reviewed paper that dismissed the lab leak theory as a “conspiracy theory”. Of course, we now know that the paper – and all the media and scientific hype that it received – was completely false.
He is distressed that a peer reviewed paper could be hopelessly wrong. Of course, as climate sceptics, we’re all too familiar with the fallibility of peer reviewed science – or pal reviewed science, as some would say.
He now believes that it was a lab leak. He mentions the recent Senate enquiry that concluded that in all probability it was a lab leak.
The parallels with the corruption of climate science are quite haunting.
It seems to me that in establishment science there are too many Dr Fauci’s and not enough Einstein’s.
Dr Campbell’s video is well worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckD6qL76uA
Chris
Campbell has spent his life in nursing education and is probably a very good teacher. In the past few months his whole world has come down around his ears. I feel a bit sorry for him.
Always wondered about this:
On all the ghost hunter shows, why do apparitions have clothes on?
It is claimed that these apparitions draw energy from surrounding sources to be able to manifest themselves. But how would their clothes draw on energy?
Seems to me that inanimate objects like clothes would have no power to do anything, especially after decades of rotting away.
Just wondering.
“On all the ghost hunter shows”
My take on the ghost hunter shows is all they do is get into a dark place, walk around a little, then snap their head around violently, and exclaim “What was that!”, as if they saw a ghost. But then we never see anything.
It’s a reality scam. If you can swing your head around quickly and fearfully say “What’s that!” then you are hired. The show is a bad joke.
Yeah, that’s all they do. The worse one was the original Ghost Hunters, those fellow from TAPS, who were in Romania trying to communicate with spirts from over 200 years ago. They were asking questions in English.
That’s funny! 🙂
As an engineer with long experience in evaluating the financial viability of proposed investments I have assessed various solar system offers over many years, always with the same outcome – none of them make financial sense for the consumer. They make money for the supplier only.
They are all costs with little or no benefits.
As an example my own home has a an average consumption of 19 kWh per day including all electric 4 bedroom 2 storey home with air conditioning.
To fit out a good quality solar system capable of assisting with that load would cost at least $10,000 up front. (Don’t be sucked in by the cheap and nasty offers on TV ads.)
My current power bills total around $1,300 per year. (Australia)
A suitable solar system with feed in tariff would maybe cut that bill in half, saving $650 per year.
Why would I pay $10,000 up front to save only $650 per year meaning a lousy payback of 15.4 years, especially since the system is likely to need replacing in anything from 10 to 14 years?
And don’t tell me it’s to save the planet!
The planet is doing fine it’s the people that are screwed up – especially those in power and those that voted for them.
In short, a rooftop solar system would be a ‘dog’ of an investment and I can do a lot more productive things with the $10,000 thank you. ($10,000 is the opportunity cost of the project.)
The concept of ROI is unknown to many, many people.
About once every couple of years my husband seems to have time on his hands and does the calculations for solar or heat exchange. He always comes down to the only thing making sense being a solar heated water input to the heater. Then he looks into some technicalities and puts the idea aside.
“As an example my own home has a an average consumption of 19 kWh per day including all electric 4 bedroom 2 storey home with air conditioning.”
Per Get Smart, “I find that hard to believe”
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20average%20annual,about%20886%20kWh%20per%20month.
But I’m with you both on incremental ROR calculations. They are key, and they must include a realistic base case.
Hi Ken,
I have home build solar system intentionally without feed option.
My total investment was around 3700Eur. 3,3kW installed solar panels, 3kW Victron inverter, capable to transfer 32A (7.5kW) from grid. I have Epever 200V 60A MPPT. And 2,5kWh custom build LiFePO4 battery from 50Ah CATL cells.
My home electricity consumption is 10-12kWh daily.
System is capable to produce 22kWh daily in summer and 7kwh in winter maximum. When it is overcast, it is proportionally less.
It is deployed from 1st June and so far it produced me 1900kWh of energy.
My estimation is it can produce 3000kWh of energy yearly.
My energy price currently is 0.16E/kWh (it will come up soon). So I can save around 480E yearly. So even without energies going up, system should return in 7.7 years.
Works for me, event without grid I’m energy independent somehow. During 8 summer months practically 100%, rest of year partially.
I have separate photovoltaic system for water heating. 1.2kW panels, hot water dedicated MPPT inverter connected directly to heating element. It is making me 100% of hot water for 4 summer months, for 5 people. Convenient, maintenance free.
Why do Cons attack Google for being right?
Trump backed up oracle insane suit against Google use of Java interface, in a move that threated to destroy computing as we know it, a complete insanity.
And now this:
https://nitter.net/TXAG/status/1527343649822220289
Texas AG is telling that Google Chrome incognito mode is working as it should (*) and so they attack?
Insanity defined.
That’s how the Cons make the intelligent young people afraid of them. (Twenty years ago it was with Conservapedia.)
(*) Some far left Google critics say incognito doesn’t work as it should but still back up Texas AG.
Note: also that lawsuit doesn’t exactly sounds like Texas is a business friendly state. It sounds like Texas is Calif-dumber.
Google and Microsoft are not your friends.
Of course not. Still, Google defended its right to “steal” Java from Oracle and that’s something any populist would defend. Trump is no populist.
Misery is necessary.
Even as dumb and dishonest as the lunatic left is, I wonder sometimes, if resistance futile?
When I reviewed an old WUWT post on The UnGreens
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/24/day-of-the-ungreens-dreaming-up-scary-language-to-convince-people-global-warming-is-really-just-like-a-scary-movie/
I went to the source to see what’s new. Climateaccess.org
Their resource page shows the massive width and depth of the climate crusade propaganda machine. https://climateaccess.org/resource-search
They have the Phase Out Fossil Fuel Playbooks
Climate Equity & Engagement Resources
and much more
https://climateaccess.org/resource/phase-out-fossil-fuels-and-fast-track-clean-energy-united-states-playbook
https://climateaccess.org/blog/war-fossil-fuels-and-climate-change
Collections