by Judith Curry
“The first rule of climate chess is this. The board is bigger than we think, and includes more than fossil fuels.” – Jon Foley
The strategy to limit global warming is tied directly to limiting the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Emissions targets are a centerpiece of the UNFCCC Paris Agreement. The goal of the emissions targets is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Centigrade, compared to pre-industrial levels (typically the baseline period 1851-1900). For reference, the climate has warmed in 2020 by about 1.2oC
Using the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), the IPCC AR6 constrained global mean temperature projections indicate that there is a 50% chance that the 1.5oC threshold would be crossed around 2030 and the 2oC threshold would be crossed around 2052. There is uncertainty in the year for which the thresholds would be crossed (2026-2042 for the 1.5oC threshold and 2038-2072 for the 2oC threshold), mostly owing to the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 among different models.
This post illustrates now natural climate variability could influence the global mean surface temperature change through 2050, and hence influence the time of crossing the 1.5 and 2.0oC thresholds. Specifically, alternative scenarios of volcanic eruptions, solar variability and internal climate variability are considered. The risk from not realistically accounting for natural climate variability is that critical possible future climate outcomes are being discounted, potentially causing maladaptation. Each of the scenarios presented here is arguably more plausible than the high emissions scenarios RCP8.5/SSP4-8.5 LINK. For additional reference, see also theis previous blog post.
Natural internal variability
Variations in global mean surface temperature are linked to recurrent multi-decadal variations in large-scale ocean circulations. Not taking multi-decadal internal variability into account in predictions of future warming runs the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is expected to shift into its cold phase.
While climate models simulate the large-scale ocean circulations and internal climate variability, the magnitude in the multi-decadal band is too low in most models and the phasing of the variability is not synced with the actual, observed climate variations in long-term simulations. Averaging multiple simulations from climate models effectively averages out the internal variations, leaving only the forced climate variability (e.g. CO2 forcing).
Maher et al. (2020) used six single model initial condition large ensembles (SMILEs) for 21st century simulations found that on a 15-year time-scale, surface temperature trend projections are dominated by internal variability, with little influence of structural model differences or the emissions scenario. On a 30-year time-scale, structural model differences and emissions scenario uncertainties play a larger role in controlling surface temperature trend projections. However, even for projections out to thirty years, most of the globe could still experience no warming due to internal variability even with continued CO2 forcing.
So, for the period between 2020 and 2050, will natural internal variability contribute to warming or cooling, relative to the underlying warming trend from emissions? Most analyses have identified the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as having the dominant multi-decadal imprint on global temperatures. It has been estimated that there is a peak-to-trough impact of the AMO on global mean surface temperatures of 0.3 to 0.4oC The climate has been in the warm phase of the AMO since 1995; hence in 2021 it has been 26 years since the previous shift. Analysis of historical and paleoclimatic records suggests that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO should occur within the next 12 years (by 2032), with a 50% probability of the shift occurring in the next 5 years (by 2026).
While we are currently in the warm phase of the AMO, we are past the peak of the warm phase. Hence we consider the following three scenarios for the contribution of multi-decadal internal variability to global mean surface temperature change averaged for the period 2021-2050:
- The None scenario (0oC) assumes no net impact of multidecadal internal variability on the global mean surface temperature, which is implicit in constrained projections of the IPCC AR6.
- The Moderate scenario (-0.2oC) assumes a shift to the cool phase of the AMO in the 2030’s with a moderate impact;
- The Strong scenario (-0.3oC) assumes a shift to the cool phase of the AMO in the 2020’s with a stronger impact.
The Moderate and Strong scenarios are contingent on the assumptions that the AMO is the primary driver of multi-decadal internal climate variability and that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO is expected in the next decade. Other facets of multi-decadal and decadal scale internal variability could come into play over the next three decades, but these scenarios illustrate the magnitude of plausible outcomes over the next three decades.
While the scenarios presented here focus on cooling over the next three decades, it is noted that the same reasoning leads to the expectation that internal variability will contribute to warming during decades in the 2nd half of the 21stcentury.
Volcanoes
The instrumental period covering the past 150 years has been relatively quiet with regards to volcanic eruptions, and thus it is tempting to ascribe potential volcanism a minor role in future climate projections. However over the past two millennia, there have been periods with considerably stronger volcanic activity. Clusters of strong tropical eruptions have contributed to sustained cold periods such as the Little Ice Age.
Explosive volcanoes are omitted from scenarios used for future climate projections, because they are unpredictable. Due to the direct radiative effect of volcanic aerosol particles that reach the stratosphere, large volcanic eruptions lead to an overall decrease of global mean surface temperature, which can extend to multi-decadal or even century timescales in the case of clusters of large volcanic eruptions. (see IPCC AR6 Cross-chapter Box 4.1)
Explosive volcanic eruptions of the magnitude of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption or larger have occurred on average twice per century throughout the past 2500 years. (Sigl et al., 2015). About 8 extremely explosive volcanic eruptions (more than 5 times stronger than Pinatubo) occurred during this period. The largest of these are Samalas in 1257 and Tambora in 1815, the latter resulting in “the year without a summer” with harvest failures across the Northern Hemisphere (Raible et al., 2016). It has been estimated that a Samalas-type eruption may occur 1-2 times per millennium on average.
Given the unpredictability of individual eruptions, the CMIP5/CMIP6 climate model simulations either specify future volcanic forcing as zero or a constant background value (Eyring 2016). The background value used in the CMIP6 simulations has been estimated from the historical record 1850. Background estimates of volcanic cooling determined from climate models range from 0.1oC (Bethke et al. 2017) to 0.27oC (Fyfe et al. 2021), the differences arising from model structural differences.
The IPCC AR6 states that it is likely that at least one large eruption will occur during the 21st century. The AR6 further acknowledges that a low likelihood, high impact outcome of several large eruptions would greatly alter the 21st century climate trajectory compared to emissions-based projections. (Cross Chapter Box 4.1) How much cooling could happen from explosive volcanic eruptions in the 21st century? A cluster of explosive eruptions such as happened in the first half of the 19th century is estimated to have caused 0.5oC cooling averaged over several decades. (Figure 7.8 IPCC AR6)
This analysis considers three scenarios of volcanic cooling for the 21st century:
- Low Baseline scenario, equivalent to a weak response to the average volcanic forcing over the historical record since 1850, estimated at -0.1oC;
- High Baseline scenario, estimated at -0.27oC;
- Extreme Cluster of volcanoes, analogous to the explosive eruptions that occurred during 1810-1840, estimated to have caused a decadally-averaged cooling of -0.5oC
Solar variations
A detailed analysis of the rationale for selecting scenarios of solar variations is described an a recent blog post LINK
There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. The recently completed solar cycle 24 was the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Some solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24. Further, a grand maximum is more likely to be followed by a grand minimum than by another grand maximum. Empirically-based projections imply a new solar minimum starting in 2002–2004 and ending in 2063–2075. It has been estimated that there is an 8% chance of the Sun falling into a Grand Minimum during the next 40 years. However, the depth and length of a phase of low solar activity in the 21st century is largely uncertain.
If the Sun did fall into a minimum during mid 21st century of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum, how much cooling could we expect? Estimates from climate models and other analytical models expect the cooling to be small, ranging from 0.09 to 0.3oC. These models assume that solar-climate interaction is limited to TSI forcing alone.
Recent research suggest that solar indirect effects could amplify an anomaly in solar insolation by a factor of up to 3-7. If such an amplification factor is included, then a surface temperature decrease of up to 1oC (or even more) from a Maunder Minimum could occur.
In light of these considerations, three scenarios for solar variability in the mid 21st century are considered here:
- CMIP6 Reference scenario: approximately -0.1oC
- Intermediate: -0.3oC, corresponds to high Maunder minimum estimate without amplification effects, or a weaker minimum with amplification effects
- High: -0.6oC, a low solar scenario (which is not a Maunder Minimum) with amplification by solar indirect effects
Global surface temperature projections to 2050
Synthetic scenarios building upon historical and paleo data, climate model outputs, process models and storylines based on physical reasoning provide a broader range of outcome scenarios than global climate model simulations, particularly with regards to natural climate variability.
The scenarios presented in the previous subsections are integrated here to assess how natural climate variability could change our expectations for the amount of warming expected by 2050, in particular the years in which the 1.5 and 2.0oC thresholds will be crossed. All of the scenarios of natural variability considered here point in the direction of cooling through 2050, for reasons justified in the preceding subsections.
This analysis adopts the SSP2-4.5 emissions scenario as the most likely scenario to 2050 [LINK], based on analyses by the IEA.
The final integral temperature change is the sum of temperature changes driven by:
- SSP2-4.5 emissions – 3 scenarios that span the AR6 likely range (+1.6, +2.0, +2.5oC), referenced to the baseline period 1851-1900
- Volcanoes – 3 scenarios relative to a nominal baseline of -0.1oC in the CMIP6 simulations (0, -0.17, -0.4 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020
- Solar – 3 scenarios relative to a nominal baseline of -0.1oC in the CMIP6 simulations (0, -0.2, -0.5 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020
- Natural internal variability – 3 scenarios (0, -0.2, -0.3 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020
With four sources of variables and three scenarios for each variable, we can produce a total of 81 scenarios by adding combinations of scenarios inputs for the individual variables. Three of these outcome scenarios correspond directly to the AR6 values associated with SSP2-4.5, while the others include some combination of the scenarios of natural climate variability.
Figure 1 shows a histogram of the 81 different scenario outcomes. The outcome frequencies are indicated on the y-axis. For reference the temperature in 2020 is 1.2oC above the 1851-1900 baseline, which is indicated by the red vertical line. The scenario with the most warming is 2.5oC, which corresponds to the upper bound of the likely range from the AR6 (with no additional impacts from natural variability). The scenario with the lowest amount of warming is 0.4oC, which corresponds to the lower bound of the AR6 likely range with the most extreme scenario for each of the components of natural variability – this extreme outcome scenario for 2050 is 0.8oC cooler than the temperature in 2020.
Temperature change, oC
Figure 1. Distribution of scenarios of global temperature change for 2050, referenced to a baseline of 1851-1900. The vertical red line corresponds to 1.2oC, representing the warming to 2020. The y-axis is frequency of outcomes, based on 81 scenarios.
There is weak justification for providing likelihoods of the individual outcomes. While each of these scenario outcomes is arguably plausible, the distribution of outcomes in Figure 1 does not in any way reflect the probability of the outcomes. Are some of these scenarios more likely than others? Selecting the intermediate scenario for each variable produces an outcome scenario of +1.43oC, indicating that we would not cross the 1.5oC threshold before 2050 (compared to an expected crossing circa 2030 using the AR6 best estimate for SSP2-4.5). It is seen in Figure 1 that for the intermediate scenario outcomes between 1.0 and 2.0oC, there are multiple pathways to the same temperature outcomes, supporting a greater likelihood for these intermediate outcomes. However, judgment about the likelihood of individual outcomes rests on the assessment of the likelihood of the individual input scenarios.
All of the components of natural variability point to cooling during the period 2020-2050. Individually these components are not expected to be large in the moderate scenarios. However when summed, their magnitude approaches, or could even exceed, the magnitude of the emissions-driven warming for the next three decades. The odds of all three natural variability inputs maintaining at the IPCC baseline levels to 2050 seems low to me.
Studies using global climate models to assess the probability of decades in the 21st century being characterized by net cooling have mostly focused only on natural internal variability (Maher et al. 2020 Knutson et al..2016), with a single study that I’m aware of that considers volcanic eruptions plus internal variability (Bethke et al. 2017). Volcanic-induced cooling becomes increasingly important in facilitating neutral or negative temperature trends on longer timescales, in conjunction with natural internal variability effects. Several studies have addressed the combination of internal and solar variability LINK Apart from the ‘wild card’ of volcanic eruptions, the big uncertainty is solar indirect effects. The growing likelihood of a solar minimum of some magnitude during the mid 21st century emphasizes the need for a resolution to the debate over low versus high variability solar reconstructions, and improved understanding of solar indirect effects.
The bottom line is that uncertainty in global temperature projections to 2050 is skewed towards lower values, as uncertainty in near term scenarios of emissions is decreasing. The confluence of cooling contributions from solar, volcanoes and natural internal variability during the period 2020-2050 could extend by decades the time horizon for keeping the global mean surface temperature below the thresholds of 1.5 and 2.0oC. This extension has important implications for the urgency of emissions reductions and planning for geoengineering interventions.
The targets of 1.5 and 2oC are easy to measure and communicate, and have been effective at galvanizing political will and public support. However, these targets are vague approximations to some of the dangers of climate change and mis-represent the nature of the scientific knowledge upon which these numbers are claimed to rest. (Hulme, Fetishizing the number) These targets have arguably become a “fetish” that exert excessive power over our imagination of the climatic future, narrowing our policy options and directing our policy making. Further, these targets encourage goal displacement (Jerry Muller, The Tyranny of Metrics), which occurs when attention becomes focused on hitting the target while obscuring the real reasons why we are concerned about climate change in the first place – the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems.
The long way of saying the emperor has no clothes.
Warm surfaces in the eastern Pacific may have seen a millennial peak (1). A solar decline contributes to more wavy intrusions of Arctic air into lower latitudes (2). As for the vagaries of thermohaline circulation and climate change – God only knows (3).
But this is far from saying that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a greenhouse gas in the globally coupled nonlinear Earth system. Like it or not – dynamical complexity is given as the rationale for the temperature targets. And you would need a whole new science to show the Earth system ain’t spatiotemporal chaotic.
(1) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
(2) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001
(3) https://connectusfund.org/7-strong-prayers-for-sailors-at-sea
Imperialism and fashion have nothing to do with the case. But the the assumptions and calculations of those concerned with global warming (whether they want to “promote” the hypothesis or “debunk” it are worthy of consideration. As always, those who aren’t interested, shouldn’t bother reading this.
Always if empiricism is out of fashion.
Judith’s last sentence says:
Further, these targets encourage goal displacement (Jerry Muller, The Tyranny of Metrics), which occurs when attention becomes focused on hitting the target while obscuring the real reasons why we are concerned about climate change in the first place – the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems. (bold added).
Empirical evidence overwhelming shows that warming is beneficial for the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems and for the world economy. Therefore, there is no valid justification for policies to attempt to reduce global warming.
Climate policy needs to be justified on the impacts of global warming (which are net beneficial), not the projected amounts. This is largely ignored by climate scientists and IPCC.
Peter Lang commented:
Empirical evidence overwhelming shows that warming is beneficial for the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems and for the world economy.
No, only junky economic models that make laughable assumptions.
Didn’t yours’ find benefits up to 2 or 3 C of warming? Despite the fact that that amount of warming would inundate every coastal city in the world.
Peter Lang commented:
Climate policy needs to be justified on the impacts of global warming (which are net beneficial), not the projected amounts. This is largely ignored by climate scientists and IPCC.
Climate scientists think climate economists’ models are a joke. For one thing they completely ignore the possibility of tipping points. For another you price damage reclamation as a positive contribution to economic growth while ignoring the damage itself.
“warming is beneficial” – yes, but only up to a point before desiccation and soil salinisation begins. Then its a long trend downwards.
As mentioned in posts below, these have happened in the past, with ‘dyings’ blamed many times on a host of issues that may be collateral to the above. These all happened post warm periods, and we may be seeing the beginning of a return.
“Despite the fact that that amount of warming would inundate every coastal city in the world.”
Assuming this is going to happen a fair time frame is 50 years from now. So we have this one thing that doesn’t say much about everything. There are many benefits of cheap reliable energy that are can be had right now.
Is Lomberg too using junky economic models too?
One problem is that the target of +1.5º or +2.0ºC can be reached or not regardless of what the climate does.
Between 2000 and 2015 a total of +0.4ºC were introduced into datasets by cooling the past and warming the present, as this figure for GISS demonstrates:
https://i.imgur.com/8TQRmcB.png
Prof. Ole Humlun keeps a record in his Climate4you.com site.
AR6 recognizes that warming from AR5 includes +0.1ºC from dataset changes.
So since 2000, +0.5ºC warming has taken place in datasets. Doing the same again will make us surpass +1.5ºC whenever they want. Undoing it will make us never reach +1.5ºC.
It is hard to play this game when the cards are marked.
The believe in a 21st century solar grand minimum is largely misplaced. I expect about the same level of solar activity for the 21st century as for the 20th.
https://i.imgur.com/7vftVRy.png
SC25 is already having a little more activity than SC24, as I projected in 2016.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Permafrost thawing? Failure to reduce CO2 emissions?
Elvis lives? The questions are endless.
Regarding multidecadal variability, the climate shifted into a warm phase in 1976, and shifted again into a cool phase in 1997. AMO lags these shifts as part of Marcia and yourself “stadium-wave” hypothesis.
If I have to guess I would say the climate will shift again to a warm phase c. 2030, during the next solar minimum. This means little warming or even some cooling (not much, perhaps -0.2ºC) until c. 2035, when warming will resume.
Based on stadium wave analysis, and lack of a cold AMO transition so far, we estimate warming to resume circa 2040
Javier:
As I have previously pointed out, Earth’s temperatures are solely controlled by varying amounts of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere . There is no effect from CO2, sunspots, or ANY cycles.
Future temperatures cannot even be estimated because of their unpredictability.
See: http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
And: https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/
Sorry, but I don’t believe that even for a nanosecond.
In response to Ragnaar about this comment on the previous thread:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-969428
If Judith is interested in an article of mine about my knowledge (as a molecular biologist) and experience with COVID, and how to manage its risk, I have the time to write it at present. She just have to let me know.
A guest post would be most welcome, thx!
Javier,
I read your comment and would be very interested in a longer article on the same subject. I have thought for most of this pandemic that we were ignoring how our immune system and most viruses behave. I would like to know your thoughts on viral evolution and the likelihood that this virus will continue to evolve around our immune system response and cause mostly mild disease in the future.
Hello Javier
I look forward to your commentary on Covid, and vaccines.
The last vaccine I took of any type was for polio in the late 1950’s. At the time when the jab was replaced by a small oral dose. You are correct, the individual needs to focus on their own health and educate themselves.
Would you be so kind as to perhaps also give some insight into these data analysis mainly from the UK health system.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/20/public-health-data-confirms-vaccinated-more-likely-to-die-of-covid/
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/19/vaccines-double-chance-of-catching-covid/
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/23/world-government-data-shows-covid-vaccinated-suffering-ade/
Regards
See this quote from and check Figs 1-5 at :
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
“Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals
Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur. “
I cannot see Figure 1
oops let me fix that
A sober and logical analysis. Heaven forbid. Thank you, Judith.
A question. We see how above water volcanoes affect temperatures by cooling due to the aerosols. What are the numbers and geothermal affects of underwater volcanoes on ocean temperatures and currents?
See previous post on this topic, but this is highly uncertain
https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
Thank you!
The “science is settled” crowd spare themselves all this complexity by simply asserting the 450 scenario for 2 degrees Celsius and recently the 430 scenario for 1.5 degrees. Easy peasy.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/co2-mauna-loa-projected.png
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C thresholds – Climate- Science.press
Of course the LIA was caused by savage white men, not by volcanoes. So as long as white men don’t move about, there should be no more ice ages ;)
According to the study, the Native American genocide, often referred to as “The Great Dying,” not only reduced the continent’s population by countless millions but subsequently made global temperatures fall drastically.
“The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperatures,” said the study’s lead author, Alexander Koch.
The mass death of Native Americans through contact with foreign diseases or murder on behalf of the settlers purportedly left so much abandoned native agricultural land to be reclaimed by nature that it drew enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to cause the Little Ice Age, which was a period of global cooling between the 15th and 18th centuries.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/little-ice-age-cause
Does this make sense? Seems that the big attraction of the New World was land, that was quickly put to use for agriculture- think sugar plantations in the Caribbean the planting on the Great Plains, etc. Related, how many samples of pre-1850 ish air are there to put the “base” CO2 level at ~ 280 ppm?
Pete – personally, I believe Dr. Curry’s account of the LIA. But this article (about the demise of indigenous peoples) just goes to show there are some nut jobs out there when it comes to the intersection of woke and global warming.
Pete Bonk commented:
Related, how many samples of pre-1850 ish air are there to put the “base” CO2 level at ~ 280 ppm?
Proxies.
Jim2:
No, the LIA was not caused by carbon dioxide being drawn from the air. It was solely caused by increased volcanic activity
Burl Henry commented:
No, the LIA was not caused by carbon dioxide being drawn from the air. It was solely caused by increased volcanic activity
Well, now it seems to depend:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
“Little Ice Age abruptly triggered by intrusion of Atlantic waters into the Nordic Seas,” Francois Lapointe et al, Science Advances, 15 Dec 2021 v7i51
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abi8230
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi8230
Davidappell02: Jan23, 2002 11:03
“Well now, it seems to depend”
I am familiar with the references cited, but they are either incomplete, or wrong.;
For the correct cause, see https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/
Interesting observation. There is little info (afaik) of the past from the new world, other than that from the south continent.
But the LIA dying, and every 980yrs before that up to some 8k ago. are traceable in the old world.
The dying occurred across the globe during the LIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
I am going with 40 million combined for total for North and South. These days, we can do some plowing. Around 1400 AD, not so much. Any CO2 released after 1500 from the Americas saw functioning local sinks in a lower CO2 environment.
Feedbacks are beginning to kick in and will likely offset any AMOC cooling.
1.5 C is already locked in, and if we clean up air pollution 2.0 C is already locked in too.
Regardless of any internal variability, which doesn’t warm or cool the planet in the long-term but merely shift warming somewhere else for a few decades. When the AMOC shifts phases again warming will be above the trend again.
The issue is timing of crossing these thresholds: early/mid/late 21st century makes a big difference in terms of the urgency of the energy transition and the types of technologies (and on what time scale) we are willing to contemplate.
Happily we skeptics do not believe any of this so there is no urgency issue
or transition issue.
Speaking of the so-called transition, I just developed a simple reliability analysis for solar that is rather fun. The storage amounts are enormous, making the cost absurd.
https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/19/unreliability-makes-solar-power-impossibly-expensive/
I just use the predictable intermittency. Nighttime and 5 cloudy days.
Anyone who knows how much electricity is consumed and understands the first law of thermo understands that compensating for the intermittency of solar and wind with storage is a practical impossibility. For example, all of the new storage installed everywhere in the world in 2020 would replace one large power plant for only about 24 hours, and then only if that storage was operated outside of its design.
dougbadgero wrote:
For example, all of the new storage installed everywhere in the world in 2020 would replace one large power plant for only about 24 hours, and then only if that storage was operated outside of its design.
Storage isn’t everything with respect to solar and wind.
How much of today’s electricity generation with coal and gas is stored?
curryja wrote:
The issue is timing of crossing these thresholds: early/mid/late 21st century makes a big difference in terms of the urgency of the energy transition and the types of technologies (and on what time scale) we are willing to contemplate.
No this isn’t an issue Judith. All you have are guesses and assumptions and suppositions. No hard science.
The world is going to keep warming. AMO cooling, if any, could well be countered by increased feedbacks, or positive internal variability, as your post seems to allude to but won’t admit.
All you want to talk about in any detail are potentially negative factors, while ignoring all potentially positive factors.
People are suffering and dying at 1.5 C of warming. Even more people will suffer and die at 2.0 C of warming.
You want to ignore that for sake of continued fossil fuel profits. (No, I don’t think at all that energy or electricity nonintermittency is foremost on your mind. That can be figured out with sustainable energy sources, and will be. Are you for or against a full-on effort/war to do that?)
Speculating about volcanoes is really quite a pathetic attempt to deny action on climate change, I have to say. I’m flabergasted.
davidappell02 | January 24, 2022 at 12:00 am:
“All you have are guesses and assumptions and suppositions. No hard science.”
That perfectly describes climate science.
Javier commented:
That perfectly describes climate science.
How much of it have you ever studied?
Especially mathematically?
davidappell02 | January 24, 2022 at 1:13 am:
“How much of it have you ever studied?”
As much as you but with better avail.
“People are suffering and dying at 1.5 C of warming. Even more people will suffer and die at 2.0 C of warming.”
Says you
“Climate change has led to more than half a million fewer deaths over the past 20 years, analysis from the Office for National Statistics suggests.
There has been a reduction in deaths caused by cold winters since 2001 in England and Wales, as the climate warms, while there was relatively little increase in deaths due to hotter weather, the figures show.
Temperature-related deaths, with the UK experiencing fewer cold days and more warm days, have fallen by 555,103 or an average of 27,755 deaths a year between 2001 and 2020.”
Says the ONS.
davidappell02 | January 23, 2022 at 11:06 pm |
dougbadgero wrote:
For example, all of the new storage installed everywhere in the world in 2020 would replace one large power plant for only about 24 hours, and then only if that storage was operated outside of its design.
“Storage isn’t everything with respect to solar and wind.”
“How much of today’s electricity generation with coal and gas is stored?”
Appell – The fuel for Gas and Coal is stored – but you cant store the fuel for wind and solar . when the wind doesnt blow there is no fuel for the windmills, When the sun doesnt shine, there is no fuel for the solar panels.
“Storage isn’t everything with respect to solar and wind.
How much of today’s electricity generation with coal and gas is stored?”
If you have a big pile of coal, there’s your store.
Where’s the big pile of sunshine? Where’s the big pile of wind?
So of course storage is ‘everything’ for solar and wind if you’re going to rely on it.
Appell writes – “People are suffering and dying at 1.5 C of warming. Even more people will suffer and die at 2.0 C of warming.”
Appell – the great die offs occurred during periods of cold – where as civilizations grow during periods of warmth.
1/3 of the worlds population died during the LIA, where as there was tremendous growth of the world population during the MWP.
Just another example of climate science ignoring well known world history.
02
“ People are suffering and dying at 1.5 C of warming. Even more people will suffer and die at 2.0 C of warming.”
An absurd Gretaism. Instead of reading the cataclysmic stories for adolescents, why don’t you read the actual science.
“ How much of it have you ever studied?
Especially mathematically?”
That is your problem. You get down in the weeds and have convinced yourself that those equations are reality, when they are human constructs that oversimplify reality. 8th grade equations are so yesterday.
“That is your problem. You get down in the weeds and have convinced yourself that those equations are reality, when they are human constructs that oversimplify reality. 8th grade equations are so yesterday.”
And so beyond you.
Frequently the equations are reality. The problem is the gross conceptual error regarding what those equations mean in the real world. A typical thermal-hydraulic model will have three equations on three conserved quantities…mass, energy, and momentum. That model will then solve those equations in multiple fields, e.g. liquid, vapor, and droplet.
The issue is that the equations are both coupled and non-linear. The modeler can select plausible inputs and construct plausible probabilities for parametric parameters and still get wildly incorrect answers. That is why, IMO, there are so many different climate models with so many different results.
That is also why such models are best used to create inequalities, e.g. temperature will be no greater than “x”, not precise predictions.
dougbadgero commented:
That is also why such models are best used to create inequalities, e.g. temperature will be no greater than “x”, not precise predictions.
Climate models can’t make predictions, only projections.
Climate models give different results because they make different assumptions and choose different schemes to model the physics.
Climate modelers rarely care about their projections, they mostly use models as experiments to see what happens if they change one subroutine or another, viz. try different representations for parts of the underlying physics.
Every six years or a few really big, global models run long projections out to the year 2100 to satisfy the requests of IPCC report writers. Then they go back to doing science.
Assuming all feedbacks are positive – increasing warming – may be their greatest blunder ever. 🤣
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Assuming all feedbacks are positive – increasing warming – may be their greatest blunder ever.
Never assumed that, but the three major feedbacks are all positive.
1. water vapor feedback
2. ice-albedo feedback
3. cloud feedback
I don’t know what I can suggest to David.
Positive feedbacks- appell
Can y explain why positive feedbacks didn’t sent the earth into the death spiral during any of the prior warming periods ? Is there something climate scientists know that this co2 caused warming is different
Robert I. Ellison commented:
I don’t know what I can suggest to David.
You can suggest equivalent negative feedbacks instead of meaningless videos.
The Planck feedback is the biggest negative – stabilising climate. But I as thinking more of thermohaline circulation and ice sheets.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Can y explain why positive feedbacks didn’t sent the earth into the death spiral during any of the prior warming periods ?
Sure, this is taught in every basic climate science course. You should go learn about it.
Appel man
Sure it’s taught in every climate science course!
But why do climate science courses teach that positive feedbacks react different when the warming is “caused by man made co2”
Warming is warming
How are the positive feedbacks able to tell the difference
Joe the non climate scientist commented:
But why do climate science courses teach that positive feedbacks react different when the warming is “caused by man made co2”
I doubt they do.
What’s your evidence they do?
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
The Planck feedback is the biggest negative – stabilising climate. But I as thinking more of thermohaline circulation and ice sheets.
Yes, the Planck feedback, and while it ultimately limits warming, it doesn’t prevent a bunch of it.
Not sure what you mean by “thermohaline circulation” and “ice sheets.” Ice sheets have disappeared in Earth’s past. So not a limiting feedback. As they disappear they’re a positive feedback via the ice-albedo feedback.
groan…
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20Heinrich%20and%20Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger%20Events%20-%20Final-OCT%202021.pdf
Robert I. Ellison commented:
groan…
Click to access 2%20Heinrich%20and%20Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger%20Events%20-%20Final-OCT%202021.pdf
What’s your point Re: feedbacks?
Ice sheets come and go.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Ice sheets come and go.
guffaw cackle cackle lol
A reduction in thermohaline circulation reduces heat moving into northern latitudes – in low NH summer insolation ice sheets grow in a runaway feedback.
I did hint that some rudimentary oceanography an atmospheric physics might help David bridge the yawning chasms in his education.
If all feedbacks were really positive, we would all be dead. We aren’t, so not all feedbacks are positive.
Sorry, I should have written AMO above, instead of AMOC.
The best storage option is a nuclear power plant; several years energy stored in fuel at plant. Coal is next at several months of energy stored in coal piles at power plant. Natural gas a few hours, with fuel stored in pipelines.
Green energy does not store energy and in fact screws up the grid’s reliability.
In passing, anyone who thinks climate models can predict the planet’s future temperature is seriously out of touch with reality. The models are not fit for that purpose owing to fundamental mathematical limitations
Mike Keller commented:
In passing, anyone who thinks climate models can predict the planet’s future temperature is seriously out of touch with reality. The models are not fit for that purpose owing to fundamental mathematical limitations
Fundamental limitations such as?
PS: Models project, they don’t predict.
“Feedbacks are beginning to kick in and will likely offset any AMOC [AMO] cooling.”
The feedback kicked in notably from 1995, with the AMO warming in response to weaker solar wind states since then, it’s a negative feedback. The corollary of that was much stronger solar wind states in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, driving colder AMO anomalies. With a colder AMO there is more low cloud cover, and conversely less low cloud cover with a warmer AMO. So it’s a self amplified negative feedback with overshoot. Aerosols have little to do with it.
Given that rising CO2 forcing should increase positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, by default it can never drive a warmer AMO which is dependent on negative NAO conditions.
You cannot blame rising CO2 forcing for surface warming which is the result of negative feedbacks to weaker indirect solar forcing.
All intelligent info but missing the bigger and simpler picture. Many ideas essential if mainstream view are correct make perfect sense regardless of the nature, extent, cause and direction of climate change; they also work if we get an unexpected volcanic winter, ocean current shifts cause localised cooling in a warming world or a major food crop fails. Examples include less waste, restoring fish stocks, alternatives to fossil fuels, silviculture, regenerative farming, combining conservation with careful use and growing fewer cash crops, especially livestock feed. Sorry to sound anti-intellectual but look up the Time for Action scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Time, effort and cash need to be put into such win-win options not into more discussions.
Sorry but any forecast, “good” or “bad”, based on climate models is unreliable at best (NB. I’m talking about GCM-type models, ot Marcia Wyatt’s). Our far more accurate weather models show that once a GCM-type model has moved more than a couple of days forward it is out of territory that is predictable from initial conditions and is firmly into random number generation territory. There is no point in using such a model – or any number of such models – to investigate climate even as little as 10 years ahead.
Mike Jonas commented:
Sorry but any forecast, “good” or “bad”, based on climate models is unreliable at best
Climate models don’t make forecasts, they make projections.
To evaluate climate models, you have to correct them for the actual emissions, solar variations, volcanic eruptions, aerosol emissions, etc that actually took place, because no one can forecast the future of these. Then:
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
Appell 02 – Climate models don’t make forecasts, they make projections.
In psychiatry a projection is a defence mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else. It seems to me that our climate projection models follow that trait rather too accurately and do not track what Planet Earth is likely to be doing next whatever at all.
Is there a computer on the planet that can accurately project a series of coin tosses and how far does it get before it fails in what is a fifty/fifty game of chance? Randomness is a truly hard taskmaster.
When it comes to weather our forecasting models do rather better in settled weather than they do with unsettled weather. That should give us a clue as to why our computers struggle as much as we do when it comes to seeing into the future. It is so much harder to get things right even a short time ahead when there is so much more going on.
Logic machines have their virtues but they are as hopeless as their designers when it comes to foreseeing what lies ahead. Resolution is the key to seeing anything clearly and we are still really raw creatures when it comes to understanding how nature works via observational and recorded data. Our history makes it pretty clear that at times long gone we may have had a much better sense of harmony with nature than we do now.
IMO we have lost our way by focusing on carbon dioxide and not paying attention to meeting our energy needs by the most efficient, reliable and effective means we have (i.e. nuclear energy, backed up by coal, gas and hydro, but not solar, not wind, and not battery nonsense). Who knows what breakthroughs we may have if we stop being so precious about what we may be doing wrong?
UK-Weather Lass commented:
Appell 02 – Climate models don’t make forecasts, they make projections.
You don’t understand.
No one knows how much CO2 will be emitted next year, or the year after, or the year after that, etc. Or how much of that will stay in the atmosphere.
Same for CH4, N2O, and all the other GHGs.
Same for aerosols. Volcanic eruptions. Solar irradiance.
Hence no one knows what the actual forcing will be year-by-year.
But climate models have to assume something, so they use the various IPCC scenarios.
But none of these scenarios will actually match the actual emissions, volcanic eruptions, irradiance, etc.
So you can’t compare model scenario outputs to what actually happened.
You can try if you go back and adjust the models for what actually DID transpire, year by year, using actual emissions (really the atmospheric levels of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc), solar irradiance, etc.
That’s all you can do. Because no one knows the future.
Models don’t predict, they project.
Weather models can predict, because the underlying conditions don’t change much over a few days. No assumptions are needed.
UK-Weather Lass wrote:
IMO we have lost our way by focusing on carbon dioxide and not paying attention to meeting our energy needs by the most efficient, reliable and effective means we have (i.e. nuclear energy, backed up by coal, gas and hydro, but not solar, not wind, and not battery nonsense).
Are fossil fuels “efficient” and “effective” is they prematurely kill one in five people, change the climate for the next 100,000 years, raise sea level by meters over the next few centuries, acidify the ocean, melt tens of trillions of tons of ice, intensify storms and rainfall, degrade agricultural growing conditions, and kill more in heat waves, increase wildfires, decrease snowpacks, intensify droughts? Do you have any idea what 3 C of warming will do to the planet, then to civilization? Do you understand that 3 C of warming is half of the difference between 2 miles of ice over Chicago and pre-industrial civilization?
davidappell02 | January 25, 2022 at 11:43 pm
During the last 5000 years, drought and wildfires have been most profound during grand solar minima periods, such as the 4.2 kyr and 3.2 kyr aridity events. Partly because El Nino conditions increase. But the intensity and frequency of major heat and cold waves won’t have changed as they are dependent on discrete indirect solar forcing rather than the mean state of the global climate.
They cannot be random number generators or predictions of +1,000,000 degrees would occur with frequencies of -273 degrees.
Why exactly is the global temperature during the 1850 -1900 period the perfect Earth Temperature…from which it should never naturally deviate?
We had just barely emerged from the coldest 2 centuries of the Holocene Interglacial. And with CO2 being the “control knob” of Earth Temperature… how did we ever climb out of the LIA with stable CO2 levels?
See my earlier post on the Goldilocks dilemma
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/22/the-goldilocks-principle/
Because change is bad. They’re conservatives. They cannot think outside the box.
Let me point out that model projections are inconsistent with spectral line calculators. Both a 3.7W/m2 2xCO2 forcing, as well as 1.8W/m2 in vapor feedback, can be optained in spectral line calculators in the absence of overlaps. If you remove other GHGs (and clouds), this is the growth of the respective SFR (single factor removal, or “gross”) figures.
With overlaps included (intra-GHGs, clouds), you get much lower numbers. Surface emissivity btw. (~0.91) also has a role to play. Under these realistic circumstances, 2xCO2 forcing is rather only 2W/m2, vapor feedback ~0.65W/m2. With these the current 5 decadel warming trend can not be explained by CO2 emissions.
Indirectly this is an analogy to the attribution problem. The “science” is far off in terms of the GHE attributable to GHGs. A GHE of 150W/m2 (or more) is an undue simplification, even more so if you simply blame it on GHGs.
a) the surface is not emitting some 390W/m2, but only about 355W/m2, consistent with an emissivity of 0.91
b) clouds may “add” 30W/m2 to this GHE, but that is only the SFA (single factor addition) figure. The SFR contribution by clouds is rather ~75W/m2.
c) it follows that the non-overlapped exclusive GHG share in the GHE is a mere 355 – 240 – 75 = 40W/m2.
Only these ~40W/m2 are the variable part so to say, if you change GHG concentrations (be it CO2, vapor..). That is opposed to some 100W/m2, or more.
https://greenhousedefect.com/
You can’t just say RADIATIVE energy get converted into Heat. It’s more likely it stays Radiative energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The spectrum of the radiation will tend to be shifted towards the red (and infra-red) with time as it interacts with the surface of the earth. Entropy increases in these interactions.
Judith
I’m interested in your level of confidence in the 1850 global temperatures.
Pre 1900 the Southern Hemisphere had only 12% of station coverage. The SST measurements pre 1900 was scanty, limited mostly to sea lanes. The OHC measurements pre 1900 were mostly from the Challenger expedition and even that left millions of square miles not sampled.
The best I can see, we had very little reliable data that was somewhat spatially complete until after 1900.
Here is just 1 tide gauge. The SLR rate is of little importance. I’m looking for the significant acceleration effect of CO2 over the last 170 years that should be apparent.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=120-022
How would you best describe your level of confidence in the 1850 global temperature. Thank you. As always, this post is superb.
“limit global warming to well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Centigrade, compared to pre-industrial levels (typically the baseline period 1851-1900).”
When I search for industrial revolution, I get start dates between 1750 and 1850. Most references I find show the Little Ice Age ending between 1850-1890. If the 2 degrees reference is between 1850-1900, it is inaccurate to call it “preindustrial.” It more accurately should be reference to as the end of the Little Ice Age.
Inaccurate use of the term “preindustrial” preconditions the reader to blame industry. Using the phrase “end of the Little Ice Age,” preconditions readers to wonder why they would want to live during the Little Ice Age. It is hard to win a debate when you accept your opponent’s inaccurate verbiage without challenge. Words matter!
Lewis Carroll addressed this in 1865: ““When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.” In 2022, it is still about who is to be master, alleged dangerous warming is only a weapon in the battle for power.
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t think there is any fuzz on 1851-1900 is not “preindustrial.”
I fail to see how someone can win a debate when they not only don’t challenge their opponents pejorative phrases, but actually adopt them.
“Explosive volcanoes are omitted from scenarios used for future climate projections, because they are unpredictable.”
Hansen (1988) attempted to deal with this in his infamous presentation to Congress by arbitrarily picking a couple of dates for hypothetical eruptions, which didn’t take place on schedule.
I think that an alternative approach that should be considered, is to increase the uncertainty range (error bars) of projections, in the direction of cooling as the time increases from the last significant eruption.
Uncertainty ranges tend to get short shrift from climatologists, but they can provide useful information beyond the implied precision of measurements.
Clyde Spencer commented;
Hansen (1988) attempted to deal with this in his infamous presentation to Congress by arbitrarily picking a couple of dates for hypothetical eruptions, which didn’t take place on schedule.
In other words, Hansen was generous with assumptions about volcanic cooling, yet they still didn’t come true and here we are with the warming they didn’t cancel.
(As if anyone expects anyone to predict future huge volcanic eruptions, let alone “on schedule,” LOL.)
davidappell02,
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Hansen hypothesized two eruptions that didn’t take place, and yet the projections still ran warm compared to reality.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
Clyde Spencer commented:
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Hansen hypothesized two eruptions that didn’t take place, and yet the projections still ran warm compared to reality.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
Clyde, if you think something from WUWT is going to convince me of anything, you are seriously off base. That site bans me, and many others, from even commenting. They aren’t interested in science.
You said, “That site bans me, …” I suspect that is a personal problem from what I remember about your comments.
However, the link I provided is something written by me. It is not the official position of WUWT. WUWT is just acting as an honest-broker publisher, with a history of allowing non-skeptic pieces such as by Nick Stokes.
If you are unwilling to even read something because of WHERE it was published, then again that is your personal problem.
Clyde Spencer commented:
However, the link I provided is something written by me. It is not the official position of WUWT. WUWT is just acting as an honest-broker publisher, with a history of allowing non-skeptic pieces such as by Nick Stokes.
WUWT is an “honest broker” — LOL LOL LOL.
If you want to be taken seriously, Clyde, don’t publish there. You’ll be ignored and get the site’s cooties, too.
WUWT blocks every serious commenter & blogger I know of. It also blocks them on Twitter. It also blocks me on Twitter, just because it can.
Watts is afraid of honest, direct commentary, while lying about me several times. He’s made his bed; his reputation is forever ruined. Your’s will be too by putting your writing there.
I would call the post by JC wishful thinking. It’s all if, if, and if. It seems if we don’t cross the 1.5 or 2 C threshold in the next 80 years, we don’t have to do anything about CO2 emissions. That somehow, it’s not a problem. Even if what she says is true — that’s a big if — all it does is slowdown the CO2 effect. It doesn’t stop it or reverse it. We have one shot at fixing this. There is no mulligan on this one. Policy has to be based on the worst-case scenario.
Let’s look at each component of natural variability.
Internal variability
This component is comprised of ocean circulation. That has zero impact on planetary temperature. I’ve gone through this before. To cause the temperature of the planet to change, energy has to be added to or subtracted from the planet. Moving energy around does not accomplish that. Sure, surface temperatures go up and down but that does not cause an energy of the planet to change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/
I’ve used this graph before. Look at the period between 1880 and 1940. The temperature changes in the planet tracks solar irradiance. Where is the impact of internal variability? What happened? Did it decide to take a vacation?
There was a discussion of the impact on ocean currents on albedo. There is not a lot of data on this, but I found NASA link that discusses this:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
Bottom line, there is no significant change in albedo.
Volcanoes
It true that volcanoes emit aerosols that can cool the planet by increasing the albedo. It is also true these are short lived. It is also true that volcanoes emit greenhouse gases. It’s a mixed bad. There is no way to predict volcanic activity or how it is going to impact planetary temperature. What happened in the past means nothing.
Solar radiation
If you look at the graph, I posted of planetary temperature vs solar irradiance by year and look at the years from 1985 – 2020, you’ll notice that solar irradiance is decreasing but temperature change is increasing. It tracks CO2 ppm. That means solar radiation is going to have to decrease significantly more than it has in order to have an impact on planetary temperature change. Is there any evidence that is going to happen? NO!
You can’t base policy on effects that have no impact on planetary temperature or effects that are having minimal impact that could have an impact that you can’t quantify.
So you are saying if an ocean current ferries hot water from the equator to the poles, where it is emitted into space, then it has no impact on climate? Interesting, that.
The “it” being energy of the hot water emitted into space as IR.
What I’m saying is that if you transfer the hot water to the poles and that radiates energy into space where it came from at the equator is colder and that radiates less energy into space. Net-net is zero. I went through this when I invalidated the planet rotation theory.
You can’t change planetary temperature by moving energy from place to place on the planet. The temperatures adjust to satisfy the energy balance.
jim2 commented:
So you are saying if an ocean current ferries hot water from the equator to the poles, where it is emitted into space, then it has no impact on climate?
What physics says it’s emitted to space?
Even the poles are hotter than space. Therefore, energy will flow from the poles to space.
In radiative heat transfer energy always flows from a body with a temperature above absolute zero. Whether a body gets hotter or colder depends on how much radiant energy comes from other sources that the body absorbs.
Outer space is not hotter or colder. That applies to things that have mass.
JJB
You said, “You can’t change planetary temperature by moving energy from place to place on the planet.”
However, you can be fooled into thinking that the surface temperature is increasing if heat energy “hiding” in the deep oceans is moved to the surface. Using sea surface temperatures as a proxy for the volumetric temperature only works for ‘Flat Earthers.’
Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics? You can’t increase total energy by moving energy around. That’s like taking money from one pocket and putting it into another and thinking you have more money. That’s what these guys keep trying to argue.
Planetary temperature is a function of the total amount of energy on the planet. It can only increase by an energy imbalance at TOA. Changes in the greenhouse effect can cause that imbalance.
JJB said: Outer space is not hotter or colder. That applies to things that have mass.
Space does have a radiation temperature. You are confusing energy contained in moving particles, sometimes referred to as heat, with radiation temperature.
Empty space can’t have a radiation temperature because it can’t create energy. Any radiation that passes through empty space originates from something that has mass.
However, there’s also what’s known as the cosmic background temperature, which is minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit. So what would a thermometer in space reveal? Somewhere between those extremes — depending on whether it’s in the sun or the shade.
https://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html
Cosmic radiation that is responsible for that temperature is not coming from empty space. A body(s) are responsible for that.
If you took a thermometer and tried to measure the temperature of space with no radiation passing through. The thermometer reading would drop and drop toward absolute zero but never reach it. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you could say the temperature of space is absolute zero.
I think it depends on how you think of energy being transferred. If you think energy is transferred “to” space, then you could make a case for absolute zero. If you think energy is transferred “through” space, then the temperature is undefined. I think energy transferred “through” space is the correct way to think about it.
And if you travel out far away from everything in the Universe, you can never get lower than a minimum of just 2.7 Kelvin or -270.45 Celsius.
This is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which permeates the entire Universe.
In space? It’s as cold as it can get.
https://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/
“Policy has to be based on the worst-case scenario.”
Just policy or all decisions? Worst case, an asteroid could take us out.
We could be speaking Chinese in 30 years. What about that? I can come up with a lot of worst cases.
We can do something about climate change. It a much more serious threat. Asteroids are another matter. Even there we are looking at ways to deflect them.
Green extremist policy is sure-fire worse than climate change.
Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C thresholds Overview
The strategy to limit global warming is tied directly to limiting the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
There is uncertainty, mostly owing to the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 among different models.
This post illustrates now natural climate variability – alternative scenarios of volcanic eruptions, solar variability and internal climate variability are considered.
Variations in global mean surface temperature are linked to recurrent multi-decadal variations in large-scale ocean circulations.
Volcanoes Clusters of strong tropical eruptions have contributed to sustained cold periods such as the Little Ice Age.
Solar variations. There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. solar activity in the 21st century is largely uncertain.
Synthetic scenarios building upon historical and paleo data, climate model outputs, process models and storylines based on physical reasoning provide a broader range of outcome scenarios
–
–
The uncertainty in climate sensitivity to CO2 is due to misuse of the science. CO2 sensitivity is well known and a lot lower than the models use due to feedback loops that are skewed in one direction only.
–
Variations in global mean surface temperature can only be due to the solar output variation.
What we do not understand due to orbital, inclination, wobble , rotation speed changes is the effect of the solar output in forming winds and currents.
Recurrent multi-decadal variations in large-scale ocean circulations exist and can be mapped but are the result of previous heat input and the cloud cover this created.
This is no to dispute measuring ocean circulations and the effects that a variable temperature density surface has on shifting radiation to space can give a valuable way of trying to assess future climate changes. It means they are not the primary cause.
It is a surrogate way of assessment due to our lack of knowledge of the chaos caused each day by the sun and the absence of the sun.
–
Natural variability certainly outweighs the probable small CO2 effect.
To such an extent that it might take centuries to sort out a small associated temperature rise that does exist.
–
More to the point we need to have the estimate of solar output put to better use as the major starting point and then consider why the globe is not following it as expected to work out the cloud formation and current physics interplay that determine the range of natural variability.
angech commented:
Natural variability certainly outweighs the probable small CO2 effect.
Why?
—
If that’s true, explain why cumulative warming has so far been closely proportional to cumulative emissions.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0095069618302122-gr2.jpg
davidappell02 | January 24, 2022 at 1:05 am:
“explain why cumulative warming has so far been closely proportional to cumulative emissions.”
A force acts over the velocity of a body, not over its position. The same way a forcing, like CO2, should act over the velocity of warming, not over temperature.
The velocity of warming is responding mainly to multidecadal variability, not to CO2.
https://i.imgur.com/7PksH7H.png
Where do you get this stuff?
An UNBALANCED force does work on a body. That work is energy, and that energy becomes kinetic energy or energy of motion of that body. Velocity is the measure of that kinetic energy.
CO2 increases the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules through radiant heat transfer. Velocity is the measure of the kinetic energy of a body and temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules that make up a body.
Velocity of warming? Just more junk science.
02
This paper indicates that as much as 60% of recent Arctic warming is from internal variability. It used to be under 50% in papers and then 50% in more recent papers. Now in this new paper it is 60%. I see a trend here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28047-8
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 11:16 am:
“Velocity of warming? Just more junk science.”
That’s good because if you think that accelerating increase in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with decelerating rate of warming (temperature first time derivative) it means you don’t understand the essence of the hypothesis you defend, so I don’t have to waste my time arguing with you, as you join the mass of people that don’t have a clue.
It’ pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Even if the rate of warming is decelerating, that doesn’t mean the temperature stops rising. That’s what happens as you approach steady state. Is that part of your warming velocity theory?
BTW CO2s greenhouse’s effect will be at a quasi-steady state at an increase of another 30 – 50 C. That when the 15 MM band no longer can drive climate change, but the other two bands still can. It will take a very long time before they have a serious impact.
I wouldn’t debate me either. I have this unique ability to expose charlatans.
JJ
“ I have this unique ability to expose charlatans.”
Are you certain you aren’t their numero uno goodwill ambassador?
Positive!
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 2:02 pm:
“Even if the rate of warming is decelerating, that doesn’t mean the temperature stops rising. That’s what happens as you approach steady state.”
You keep demonstrating you have no clue what you talk about. No model shows multidecadal decrease in warming rate with accelerating increase in CO2 levels. It is just not possible according to theory. Go play with KNMI climate explorer to see what models do with temperature rate of change under RCP8.5
Temperature stops rising if/when the rate of warming reaches the zero line. At the current rate of decrease it would take 30 years to get there so it is unlikely to happen, but expect very little warming for the next couple of decades regardless of what CO2 does. Your hypothesis cannot accommodate that even with low climate sensitivity. It gets refuted.
You came up with a new term “velocity of warming”. I have done extensive reading on climate change and have never come across that term. I have heard of climate velocity, but that has nothing to do with how you are using “velocity of warming”. I just did search and there is nothing on the internet about “velocity of warming” The graph you provided has units of Deg C/year. On the usual plot its temperature change/year vs year, but that looks nothing like that plot. Here’s the usual plot:
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/gallery/2017EarthDay_TempAndCO2_en_title_lg.jpg
“A force acts over the velocity of a body, not over its position. The same way a forcing, like CO2, should act over the velocity of warming, not over temperature.”
Here’s why that statement is BS. We are dealing with energy. Velocity is the measure of the kinetic energy of a body. You apply a force to a body the velocity increase and the kinetic energy increases. In this regard, velocity is a state variable.
Temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules in a body. CO2s greenhouse effect increases the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules of earth and raises its temperature. In this regard, temperature is a state variable.
In terms of energy, velocity and temperature are a measure of the same thing. Your graph says the warming velocity is temperature change per year but looks nothing like mine. Since I cannot find a reference for this BS, I have to assume, like most junk science, it’s pure fiction.
JJB
You said, “Here’s why that statement is BS. We are dealing with energy. Velocity is the measure of the kinetic energy of a body.”
You are demonstrating the you are out of your element, yet still acting as if you are the final arbiter.
The common use of the term “velocity” is to designate the change in position and direction of an object over a unit interval of time. It is the slope of the plotted positions, or the first-derivative in calculus. Any property that changes with respect to time can be assigned a ‘velocity’ (y’) or an ‘acceleration’ (y”), in the conventional notation of calculus.
The kinetic energy of a body is a function of the velocity squared, as in, KE = 1/2 m v^2, but also takes into account the mass. Velocity alone is not a “measure” of the KE, but, importantly, also takes into account the mass.
I think that you should be asking questions rather than pontificating on subjects with which you obviously only have a passing acquaintance.
Guess you don’t know much about thermodynamics. All energy state properties are reported independent of mass. We have specific internal energy and specific enthalpy. That is energy/mass.
I’m using velocity as a measure of kinetic energy. In that regard it is a state variable. Guess you also don’t realize that climate change is all about energy and how it’s building up on the planet. Guess you also don’t realize that the poster was using the term velocity in the context of energy — not speed.
All this proves is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you need to stop promoting junk science. I don’t need to ask you any questions because you’ve now proven you’re not capable of answering them.
You erroneously said, “Guess you don’t know much about thermodynamics. All energy state properties are reported independent of mass.”
Except for the energy necessary for a change of state — energy/mass
And, specific heat capacity — energy/mass
You are a legend in your own time, in YOUR mind.
What are you talking about?
Specific internal energy and enthalpy are independent of mass. If they weren’t then those properties would vary with mass.
I can see why you have such screwed up opinions about climate change.
Are you saying that specific heat capacity and energy requirements are not part of the “energy state properties” of matter? They are certainly important to “thermodynamics.”
Specific heat is a measure of the inertia of a body to temperature change. The higher the specific heat the more energy it takes to raise the temperature. Internal energy and enthalpy are measures of energy.
I’m not here to teach you thermodynamics. Go buy yourself a copy of “Thermodynamics for Dummies.”
Javier wrote:
The velocity of warming is responding mainly to multidecadal variability, not to CO2.
https://i.imgur.com/7PksH7H.png
Your graph is a laughable pile of horsesh!t.
Total warming is very close to proportional to total emissions. This is settled science, and not complicated at all. Mean value is 1.65 degC/Tt carbon
Matthews, H., Gillett, N., Stott, P. et al. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08047
angech wrote:
Variations in global mean surface temperature can only be due to the solar output variation.
Ridiculous. Writing this shows you aren’t even the slightest bit serious.
Judith mentioned 5 causes of possible natural variation of global surface temperature.
CO2, ocean currents, solar variability, volcano and synthetic simulations.The effect of CO2 is too small to be measured against natural variability. Ocean currents are a result of solar input, not a cause on their own.
Synthetic means not real.
Clouds can cause albedo changes hence temperature changes but are dependent on what comes in
Volcanoes only cause intermittent variation.
When looking at global surface temperature change it all comes back to the suns output.
Has the earth become hotter in the last 40 years?
Then an increase in heat from the sun is the only sensible conclusion
Solar irradiance has been decreasing for the past 20 years. So much for that theory.
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 10:55 am |
“Solar irradiance has been decreasing for the past 20 years. So much for that theory.”
University of Colorado at Boulder shows an overall upward trend since circa 1900. You should be commended for cherrypicking the a starting point coinciding with a peak of the normal 10-20 cycles.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png
I didn’t cherry-pick anything. Here’s the graph from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/
The only thing you seem to be good at is being consistently wrong.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png
JJB – here is the graph from the U of Colorado
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/
https://t-weather.net/total-solar-irradiance-tsi.php
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reconstructions-of-total-solar-irradiance-in-the-last-2k-years-The-record-by-Steinhilber_fig13_263807238
A few more links to solar irradiance
Over eons change in energy in is solar. Some is reflected and AGW keeps it in the atmosphere nanoseconds longer. Is that what the fuss is all about? The internal response can’t be predicted but may be catastrophic (in the sense of Rene Thom) – with small changes in control variables crossing a threshold and triggering shifts in the spatiotemporal chaotic Earth system. The patterns are bound by physical mechanisms of heat, matter, motion… – the mid to late Pleistocene glacial/interglacial pattern being the current mode. I could be wrong – but internal responses to changing solar input may bring global cooling this century. But let’s pragmatically clean up the atmosphere – for we know not what we do – and do this experiment on natural variability properly.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations.png
The whole concept of climate change is that the earth is warmed by the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, due chiefly to the combustion of fossil fuels. The climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is, according to the IPCC, in the range of 1.5 to 4.5degC. This is a wide variation of estimates considering that climate scientists have been studying this topic for more than 30 years. What if the IPCC have got it wrong? A number of recent studies suggest that climate sensitivity is nearer 0.5degC. If this is so it presumably changes the whole of climate science and the corresponding apocalyptic assumptions.
One such study, that I am familiar with is to be found at http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 .
and yes I am familiar with this because I am the lead author. I am not a climate scientist, just a common or garden physicist who is experienced in infra-red spectroscopy. I thus was able to approach this issue without a dog in the fight. Using the well respected HITRAN database of gaseous infra-red absorption spectra it is possible to calculate, with some precision, the absorption characteristics of all atmospheric “greenhouse gases”, in particular CO2 and H2O both in isolation and in combination. From this it is possible to calculate the impact of those gases on the current atmospheric planetary warming from 255K to the existing average temperature of 288K. The conclusion is that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming while CO2 has contributed just 3.3K of warming, the remaining 0.3K coming from CH4 and N2O. Thus 90% of our warming comes from the greenhouse effect of H2O. CO2 absorption is such that further increases in concentration have little further effect because of the “saturation” of its IR absorption bands. The calculated CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.5degC even allowing for the notorious H2O feedback effects.
Inspite of over 7000 views of this recently published work I am still waiting for its conclusions to be refuted. If my colleagues and I are correct it means that the discussion on climate change is starting with a false premise. CO2 is not responsible. It reminds me of the story of the traveller in Ireland who stopped a local farmer to ask directions. The response he got was “well if I was you I wouldn’t start from here!”.
David Coe: How can climate sensitivity be 0.5 C when global temperature has already warmed by 1.1 C and CO2 has only increased by 50%?
I don’t think my comments are getting past moderation, but I will try one more just for fun. Between you and JJB, the competition for who can post the most ridiculous nonsense is fierce.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 lower than UN models project
By David Wojick |October 12th, 2021
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/12/climate-sensitivity-to-co2-lower-than-un-models-project/
A new research approach has found a very low value for CO2 climate sensitivity, on the order of just one half degree C. This is in stark contrast to the latest IPCC computer modeling results, many of which give sensitivity results over five degrees. Sensitivity is a standard benchmark, the warming that might be expected when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is doubled.
This result is especially interesting because the journal that has published it conducted two separate reviews before doing so. They did this because of strong resistance from alarmists. While this double review does not guarantee the truth of the findings it certainly strengthens their credibility.
The article is “The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures” by Coe, Fabinski and Weigleb, in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.
The article is open access so not paywalled. Take a look here: http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
Lead author David Coe explains the paper this way:
“The concept of this paper is to reduce the complexity of the problem of climate sensitivity determination by the separation of variables, a common technique. We conclude that The atmosphere, mainly due to the beneficial characteristics and impact of H2O absorption spectra, proves to be a highly stable moderator of global temperatures. There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures, that accolade falls to H2O. CO2 is simply the supporter of life on this planet as a result of the miracle of photosynthesis.“
from davidappell02
to David Coe: How can climate sensitivity be 0.5 C when global temperature has already warmed by 1.1 C and CO2 has only increased by 50%?
This question strikes at the core of this whole posting. I have simply shown that CO2 increases are not the main cause of global warming. There are other factors at play. I leave it to the climate “scientists” to do some real work and identify those factors instead of simply dumping the problem onto CO2 emissions.
David Coe: CO2 isn’t saturated. This is a long-standing myth that was debunked a long time ago.
See the sidebar on page 37 of:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“Saturation fallacies
“The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in 1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists) argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth’s climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth’s atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres, Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström’s laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström’s sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would become still hotter if one added CO2 to its atmosphere.”
davidappello2
IR Spectroscopy has moved on since the days of Angstrom and Arrhenius. You are perhaps partially correct in saying that the CO2 absorption spectrum is not fully saturated, but the overlapping absorption bands of H2O are, making the effects of any increase in CO2 result in the climate sensitivity of 0.5degC. H2O is responsible for 90% of the warming due to the greenhouse effect and it is H2O that provides the remarkable stability of the earth’s atmosphere. CO2 is, in comparison, a bit player. If you make the effort you will be able to see the HITRAN plots of CO2 and H2O IR absorption in the paper referred to above.
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds - Western Highlights
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That? - News7D
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That? - All4UR
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds |
There is a general assumption that GCMs can accurately predict the future state of the atmosphere. It is somewhat strange that the majority adhere to this idea, even when the IPCC stated that:
“long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”
Through the MSU era, anyway, there is no demonstrated climate model capability of accurately predicting the qualitative distribution of temperature, humidity, clouds, or zonal wind speeds.
(See figures 5,6,7 & 8:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/climate-change-vertical-profiles )
Now, there may be nuance to predictability. Imposed net energy surplus at the tropopause would appear to impose a -direct- consequence of an overall warming troposphere.
Similar direct effects would tend to directly cool the stratosphere.
These effects may be predictable, becuase the radiative terms dominate.
But many of the other imagined features ( tropical cyclones, floods, droughts, tornadoes, fires, blizzards ) are both indirect and dependent on numerous other parameters which may dominate the radiative terms or the global mean temperature. So these phenomena are probably not predictable and maybe not subject to change from a warming troposphere.
We gravitate toward the mean surface temperature number because it may well be predictable. But this may be a big distraction from actual climate phenomena which are not predictable. In fact, many now conceive of climate change solely as the change of global mean surface temperature.
This tendency obscures the fact that there are NO climate models proven to accurately predict climate on a multi-decadal scale.
So, what do we do? Wait and see what happens?
We know what is going to happen and it’s all bad. What we don’t know is how long it is going to take to get there. Doing nothing and continuing on our current path is not an option.
JJ Braccili
But these things have to be realistic. An outbreak of world peace and the immediate creation of a global grid isn’t going to happen as you have proposed.
Unfortunately wind and solar have huge deficiencies which I detailed in my post a couple of days ago. Their lack of density, reliability and proven intermittency can not be swept under the counter and nor can their enormous environmental and social damage.
Environmentalists such as Shellenberger and Michael Moore have come to realise that nuclear is-like it or not-the only answer and likely to remain so for many decades, as most other solutions rely on technologies not yet invented or can not be economically scaled up.
i am not wedded to fossil fuel but would need to see a better alternative before it is consigned to history
tonyb
Unfortunately, we don’t have the time to sit around waiting to see what happens. By the time it happens, we won’t be able to do anything about it. Everything bad thing they say will happen, will happen. We just don’t know the time frame. It could be longer, or it could be shorter. We may already be past the point of no return.
It’s like the anti-Vaxers who wind up with covid go to the hospital and tell the doctor: “I’ll take the vaccine now.” It’s a little too late at that point.
The deficiencies in solar and wind are an engineering problem. They are solvable.
I’m agnostic about nuclear power. It will probably be necessary, but the plants will have to be located far from populated areas and the waste problem will have to be solved. Both are solvable engineering wise but may not be solvable politically.
climatereason (tonyb)
I could make an argument that we should set aside in reserve enough FF so we don’t run out of the stuff making all the chemicals and plastics that will support our growing standard of living. In that light, using wind and solar to offset using such a vital resource has some merit.
We are currently dispersing 350,000 manmade molecules into the environment and expect to triple that in the next 30 years.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-969402
JJ Braccili
“The deficiencies in solar and wind are an engineering problem. They are solvable.”
No they are not, both sources are inherently unsuited to large amounts of reliable base power. As ancillary sources in the right places they may have more merit. For example, extensive solar farms in our sunniest part of the UK at 1700 hours per year is mad. That is why they are 11% efficient. Onshore wind is 24% and offshore wind around 34%
Solar panels in the Arizona sun supplying power to a relatively small number of people might be a more practical proposition.
As say, I am not wedded to fossil fuel and will gladly switch if something better comes along but to date-other than nuclear with all that entails-it hasn’t
tonyb
I thought I went through this already.
The wider the geographic area, the less intermittency becomes a problem. Combine that with advanced battery technology and you can solve the problem.
That’s not conjecture. That’s fact. You’re looking at the way things are now when all of this is in its infancy.
I guess if you were around when the horseless carriage was invented, you’d be saying it was useless and had too many problems. Why change to that when horses are perfectly capable of getting the job done? Who wants to crank the engine manually? I don’t have to crank a horse.
JJ
“ Unfortunately, we don’t have the time to sit around waiting to see what happens”
40 years ago they thought there was no time.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
18 years ago they expected an apocalypse by 2020.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Instead of 10 feet of SLR and cities underwater, SLR is just as it has been for 200 years with no obvious and significant acceleration.
Just more failed predictions.
Oh, so you don’t think things have gotten worse over the last 40 years? Maybe, the changes haven’t met those predictions, but the situation is not exactly stable,
What I said is that the difficulty is in predicting the timeframe — not the destruction that climate change is going to cause.
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 12:22 pm |
“I thought I went through this already.
The wider the geographic area, the less intermittency becomes a problem. Combine that with advanced battery technology and you can solve the problem.
That’s not conjecture. That’s fact. You’re looking at the way things are now when all of this is in its infancy.”
JJb- you keep ignoring facts. Even though it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, the wind doesnt always blow, the wind frequently doesnt blow over large swaths of the continents. During the Feb freeze, there was little if any wind across the entire continent for multiple days.
Europe just went through those continetnal doldroms
Just stop!
You’re basing your comments on that load data you used. There are large swaths of the country that have little or no wind power. To say that the wind doesn’t blow for long periods of time over large portions of the country is ridiculous. What proof do you have of that?
http://www.usa.com/rank/us–average-wind-speed–state-rank.htm#:~:text=U.S.%20Average%20Wind%20Speed%20State%20Rank%20%20,Wyoming%20%2F%20575%2C251%20%2047%20more%20rows%20
TX ranks 39th in average wind speed. Yet, they still manage to utilize wind power.
Wind has higher speeds during the winter:
https://www.windlogger.com/blogs/news/how-does-cold-weather-affect-wind-speed
JJ Braccili
“The wider the geographic area, the less intermittency becomes a problem. Combine that with advanced battery technology and you can solve the problem.”
Please clarify the nature of this vast battery storage needed to power millions of homes and industries for perhaps many days when renewables fail, plus the need to top up EV batteries, power heat pumps and also create blue hydrogen
I think you are talking about technology not yet invented, may not conform to the laws of physics or may be impossible to scale up economically. As I constantly say I am not a proponent of fossil fuels but there needs to be something better before we move to it.
You also seem to ignore the environmental problems with mining and processing the resources for renewables, often using coerced labour or that the balsa wood for many blades is logged illegally
You just seem to want to sweep problems under the carpet.
Provide me with a real world cost effective alternative and why wouldn’t I want to change to it? i have bought solar products for over 40 years. Unfortunately they have limitations
tonyb
Solar and wind are here to stay.
Battery technology has improved by leaps and bounds and there is no reason why that can’t continue. Batteries are meant to supplement during time of disruption — not to replace
Maybe, we wind up with a national grid or a North American grid, or an America’s grid. All that is possible. You want to dismiss all of that because you see no other solution than fossil fuels or nuclear.
Fossil fuels have problems. Coal is an environmental nightmare. Oil drilling is an environmental nightmare. Transporting oil is an environmental nightmare. Yet, that is all acceptable to you, but the problems with solar and wind, those are insurmountable. Everything has limitations.
Another reason to end the use of fossil fuels is because oil is a limited resource and we need it as a source of petrochemicals, lubricants, and asphalt, etc. New processes will have to be developed to convert what we now burn into useful products.
How much would it impact the world if we had to limit the production of plastics for lack of feedstock?
JJB – your link is to average wind speed. that is a useless measurement
the link I posted shows load factor by the hour. from that data, it is pretty easy to see when the wind blows and when the wind doesnt blow. ITs not hard to extrapolate – then again maybe it is for an engineer that ignores reality
What don’t you understand about the fact the wind power is used in a small portion of the country? We have only two offshore wind platforms. The scope of your data is too small to draw any conclusions from. Yet, you insist on doing it.
Kid
“40 years ago they thought there was no time.”
40 years ago they told us we didn’t have time to build nuclear power plants.
Today they’re burning more coal and oil to make electricity. And turning off emissions-free power plants. Time to admit it: the “climate concerned” aren’t.
JJ
Why do you think you are any different than those JJs of the 1980s or 18 years ago. Obviously, they made assumptions about the rate of warming that was significantly greater than reality. Nothing has changed from 40 years ago, just a new generation of doom sayers. In 2050 there will be a new group who have just moved the goalposts and will be making excuses for their predecessors. Just like you.
I already presented data from NASA that evaluated 17 climate models and they did a pretty good job of predicting temperature rise over the last 40 years. Even the early models did a decent job.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Rising temperatures means increasing energy on the planet. Everything else flows from that. No matter what the models predict, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is currently cause the planet’s temperature to rise and that’s not good.
JJ braccili
Once again you have just ignored information you have been provided with. It seems that wind and solar can do no wrong. You do not tell me where these enormous storage batteries are to come from, they simply don’t exist, so you are hoping something will be invented that is light years away from what is possible
“Maybe, we wind up with a national grid or a North American grid, or an America’s grid. All that is possible. You want to dismiss all of that because you see no other solution than fossil fuels or nuclear.”
With respect we are not some third world nation. We have had a national grid (in which I have shares) for nearly 100 years. Here is an interesting history of it
https://www.nationalgrid.com/about-us/what-we-do/our-history
If you look at 2019 you will see we are one of the most advanced nations in the world regarding wind power generation. The huge lack of wind power at times causes immense practical problems. Generation has been around 3% of its theoretical capacity of 24GW for many weeks. This happens every year. If you look at the Wind Farms of the UK they cover a very large area and Europe had the same problem with lack of wind. That reality is one of the reasons for the Nordstream gas pipe
I see the UK National; Grid has been operating in the US since 2000 so perhaps there is more of a drive towards a national grid than you are aware of?
Certainly all advanced countries should have one. I note there is a National Grid USA. I have no idea of its size or its development potential. Perhaps you might care to tell me?
What is possible and what you would like to be possible are unfortunately 2 different things and without nuclear-another fuel with which I have no particular brief -the lights will not stay on.
tonyb
In the US we have the eastern grid, the western grid, and Texas. Not much power is transferred between grids. There are no plans, as far as I know, to integrate the grids.
You keep implying that the problems with renewables are insurmountable. They are not. They are engineering problems. Technology exists to solve these problems. Wide area grids using HVDC, offshore windfarms, batteries, supplemental nuclear power, hydroelectric, geothermal. The only thing we can’t do is to keep burning fossil fuels.
I read about technology that generates power from ocean currents. I haven’t heard much about it lately.
JJB
You said, “Battery technology has improved by leaps and bounds and there is no reason why that can’t continue.”
That sounds more like a declaration of faith than an objective analysis supported by facts. Get back to me when you can show that batteries have achieved 200% of their theoretical capacity.
How about I get back to you now:
https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2021/11/emerging-battery-technology-renewable-energy-industry/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise
JJB
You said, “… 17 climate models and they did a pretty good job of predicting temperature rise over the last 40 years. ”
How about defining “pretty good?”
I have demonstrated that a simple linear extrapolation of Hansen’s own temperature data provides an estimate that is closer to reality than his infamous model projections presented to Congress in 1988.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
I already posted this. Try to keep up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
WUWT traffics in junk science.
I asked you a simple, direct question: How do YOU define “pretty good.” Your link was not responsive to my question.
You, like DavidAppell2, judge something based on where it was published, rather that its content. That is really an ad hominem attack. If it isn’t published in something you approve of, then it isn’t of value — despite not having read it.
Further, since I am the author, it is a personal insult to say that “WUWT traffics in junk science.” Your arrogance is astounding.
“I asked you a simple, direct question: How do YOU define “pretty good.” Your link was not responsive to my question.”
Really? That wasn’t the answer you were looking for? Did you want me to do an analysis? That’s what the link was for. Do you only accept sources from WUWT? I think NASA is a pretty good reference. You ought to try it and Berkely Earth as well. They do what is called real science.
The last time I was on WUWT was about 2-3 years ago and what was on there was junk science — not even good junk science. I do not intend to waste my time going through that site again. GWPF, the Heartland Institute, and WUWT are birds of the same feather.
You seem to have a talent for rationalizing your irrational behavior.
My behavior isn’t irrational. I don’t conform to your myopic view of the world. That’s your problem — not mine.
“We know what is going to happen and it’s all bad.”
Do you realize how this makes you sound?
You don’t need verification because you already know what’s going to happen. This is “revelation” a la religion.
Science has a higher standard.
It doesn’t take much to figure out where this is going. All you have to do is look at an IR spectrograph of earth’s radiant energy and think about what happens if CO2 in the atmosphere is not reduced. I can tell you where it winds up but not how long it takes to get there.
That’s not religion. That’s science.
I expect that factory fabricated mini-nukes of various sizes will be coming online more frequently by 2030 – and wind and solar will be relics languishing in the landscape. Decentralised reliable power and not continents(s) spanning grids.
Factory fabrication is significant for 2 reasons:
1. Costs;
2. quality control.
Yes, distributed nuclear reactors. What could possibly go wrong? I wouldn’t hold my breath. That’s going to be a hard sell to the NRC.
What could go wrong? Nothing much. GA is working on a 50 MWe version for delivery this decade.
https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
Let’s see how many people are willing to tolerate a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood. I told you the only way nuclear power will be tolerated is if it is located in uninhabited areas far from population centers.
States won’t allow nuclear waste to be transported across the state. Think they are going to allow small nuclear reactors all over the place? Dream on.
They might allow it in TX. They’re already a toxic waste dump.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/08/29/how-far-do-you-have-to-run-after-a-small-modular-nuclear-meltdown/?sh=78b667147393
JJB
>So, what do we do? Wait and see what happens?
>We know what is going to happen and it’s all bad. What we don’t know is how long it is going to take to get there. Doing nothing and continuing on our current path is not an option.
Well, that’s exactly what we do. Wait, observe and see what is happening. Spending trillions without any evidence of catastrophe (getting slightly warmer is not evidence of catastrophe) is foolish, and in itself may have the chance of being catastrophic in itself. Obviously you’re passionate about this, but I suggest that there are many facets about warming that we just don’t know … yet. Have you read Coe’s paper, sited above. I would be interested in your critique.
As I try to keep telling you and others, where this is going is not in dispute. The timeframe is. Here’s the thing. If you sit and wait there is the distinct possibility that you wait too long, and nothing can be done about it. There is also the possibility that it becomes self-sustaining from greenhouse gases released from melting permafrost. Then there is the possibility that a prehistoric pathogen is released as ice melts.
It’s like not getting vaccinated for covid, getting it, and then asking the doctor for the vaccine. It’s too late.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a30643717/viruses-found-melting-glacier/
JJB
Your ‘Ode to a Battery,’ as in, “Researchers have been able to successfully design solid-state batteries that have UNPRECEDENTED levels of energy density.”, is long on ambiguous adjectives, but short on any kind of pertinent numbers.
I didn’t write the article. That was to show that battery technology is improving with more in the pipeline.
I was under no illusions that you had written it. However, you selected it in lieu of answering a simple question.
I saved myself a post, which I’m wasting now, had I said how I came to my conclusion you would have asked for the source. I gave you the source. Judge for yourself.
Now JJB brings up a prehistoric pathogen. Oooooooooooo. I’m scared now! Let’s build wind turbines to kill it. (Maybe it’s a flyin’ pathogen – the very worst kind!)
I’m not bringing up anything. I just stated the possibilities. Climate change is scary enough all by itself.
I’m watching the news and Ted Cruz said he’s for TX secession. I’m for that too and every other red state can go as well. Good riddance!
Worried about the ‘color’ of a state? I think that you just gave us a clue about what really motivates you and influences what you believe.
My views on climate change are based on science — not politics. I’m a progressive and I do not try to hide it. The vast majority of scientists and engineers in the US are progressive or lean liberal. Conservatism, in the US, is anti-intellectual and anti-science and they don’t try to hide it.
A pathogen that evolved when humans were scarce, and probably absent from the tundra. Therefore, it would be unlikely to be a threat to humans. (It might be a threat to steppe mammoths, so they should be very concerned!) Its just another scary thing for a hand waver to bring up, without regard to probabilities.
Viruses want to survive. They evolve. You do believe in evolution, don’t you? Who’s to say that some ancient virus can’t evolve into a threat. What was the probability that the covid virus would evolve and cause a pandemic? It must have been very low because we weren’t prepared.
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/#:~:text=Assuming%20that%20we%20could%20actually,percent%20of%20a%20demonstrated%20bound.
1 Kg crude oil has 50 mega J of chemical energy.
This is about 10 kilowatt-hour per kilogram.
The physical limit for the best battery is
5 mega J for 1 Kg
This is about 1 kilowatt-hour per kilogram.
JJ Braccili
“I’m not bringing up anything. I just stated the possibilities. Climate change is scary enough all by itself.”
its only scary if you refuse to look at history .If you study the Holocene its not scary at all, but the norm.
Its morning here and lying in bed listening to the radio the BBC were interviewing an energy expert and the prospects for gas prices with the Ukraine situation. He said -as we have been trying to tell you- that the energy crisis in Europe has been brought on by a wind shortage.’
We have posted numerous official links showing the poor performance of wind. Currently once again at 3% in the UK-the largest wind producer in the world, and around the same in Europe.
We have a wind fleet of 24GW, soon to double as we go towards net zero when to replace all fossil fuel the estimate is around 120GW.
So we have 3% of 24GW. We can discount solar.
Here are the official figures
“Energy use in the United Kingdom stood at 2,249 TWh (193.4 million tonnes of oil equivalent) in 2014. This equates to energy consumption per capita of 34.82 MWh (3.00 tonnes of oil equivalent) compared to a 2010 world average of 21.54 MWh (1.85 tonnes of oil equivalent).”
Please tell me how we will store electrical power totaling over 100GW over an extended period when renewables don’t perform-around 2 months during the current session and around 12/16 weeks in an average year.
Its not an engineering problem. Its a physics p[roblem its a cost problem its a not having any energy when needed problem.
You mentioned currents. We are an island so the sea should be a more important source of power as waves are merely liquid wind aren’t they?
The ocean 400 yards from my door is dead flat. Its a useful adjunct but no more, tides are much more reliable and currents and the temperature differences between the surface and a few hundred metres down also offers some heat possibilities.
However due to its nature the sea is a very difficult medium and estimates show that we could get possibly 10% of our energy from this source but the cost and technology have meant developers have gone for the easier option of wind.
tonyb
Look, intermittency is not a physics problem. It’s an engineering problem. It will be solved with a variety of technologies — wider grids, solar, batteries etc.
What you want to do is to say there is no solution to the intermittency problem. That is not true.
I mentioned the ocean current energy generation because I read about it. I’m not an expert, and it has nothing to do with waves.
JJ Braccili
“Oh, so you don’t think things have gotten worse over the last 40 years? Maybe, the changes haven’t met those predictions, but the situation is not exactly stable,”
if you had any knowledge of Climate history you would know ‘the situation has never been exactly stable’. We are currently living through a century long relatively benign climatic period.
For the weather of the future we should look to the climate of the past and build in more resilience to our infrastructure.
tonyb
I got news for you. They can’t build infrastructure resilient enough for what is coming. There are limits — even for engineers.
JJ
Time to put the debate into context. Most skeptics accept we are warming. Most skeptics accept CO2 has something to do with that warming. Most skeptics accept we have a problem.
The nub of the issue is the level of uncertainty of the future warming and the scale of it and how quickly a transition is needed away from fossil fuels. The reason I put up articles about previous apocalyptic predictions that didn’t occur is to remind us of how little we know about the future and that if the experts we so wrong before and we are using the same assumptions in making the current apocalyptic predictions, then the prudent thing to do is to rethink those assumptions.
Let’s be more realistic about the transition time frame if there are indications that we might not be technologically capable of making a smooth transition to scale without major disruptions in our energy supply.
Sloman-Fernbach have coined the term The Knowledge Illusion. Others have warned against our predilection toward hubris. We need to take a time out. That might be the most prudent course of action.
The climate scientist that are telling us we have to address the problem now and must be carbon neutral by 2050 aren’t kidding. We should have started to address this problem 25 years ago. We didn’t and it is what it is.
Where this headed is not in doubt. The timeframe is. You may be willing to risk the future of humanity on the hope that maybe we have more time to adapt. I’m not.
JJ Braccili
Can I point you to this quote by Prof Mackay. He was the Head Scientist of the Words first dedicated climate change Govt Dept (ours) in response to the enacting of the first legally binding climate change act (Ours again).
America had pulled out of the kyoto protocol and has never been a climate leader-which is presumably why you still have reasonably priced power, whilst we here in the UK and Europe see shortages and soaring prices. We have been through all this whilst America hasn’t
Please look at the numbers cited by this highly respected scientist who died way before his time
— —- —
“Speaking on his first day as Chief scientist at DECC, (2009) Mackay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart and expanded on his ideas on energy here.
Probably one of the elements that helped secure his current position is that he wrote a very good book on renewable energy options from which the quotes above-and those below- were originally taken . Available here online for free:
“Among all the energy-supply technologies, the three with the biggest potential today are solar power, wind power and nuclear power.
As a thought-experiment, let’s imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let’s imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.
To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.
To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.
To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today’s levels.
I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can’t discuss all the technology options.
But the sober message about wind and solar applies to all renewables: All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area, so if we want renewable facilities to supply power on a scale at all comparable to our consumption, those facilities must be big.
If you don’t want to build 1 million wind turbines, you can drill 1 million geothermal boreholes instead.”
Have you reached 125kwh per day per person? its still much higher than that (but has been dropping) so the calculations need to be raised accordingly.
tonyb
That interesting, but I posted a calculation that I did of how much energy could be generated if the surface area of the US were covered with solar panels. That number was 1500 TW or about 50x the current human consumption of energy.
The US occupies about 7% of the surface area of the planet. You can do a quick check to see if that number is about right. The planet absorbs 120,000 TW of solar radiation. 7% of that is 8400 TW. The efficiency of a solar panel is about 15%. That means solar panels covering the US could generate about 1260 TW. In the ball bark.
I would say his numbers are BS because he wants to promote nuclear power. The Sun is our most potent source of energy.
climatereason commented:
But the sober message about wind and solar applies to all renewables: All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area, so if we want renewable facilities to supply power on a scale at all comparable to our consumption, those facilities must be big.
I agree with Elon Musk that in 20 years all rooftops on all residential and commercial buildings could be, should be and, he says, will be solar panels. That eliminates much of the need for large solar facilities. Sure it remains to work out how they will all connect into the grid, but that’s not an intractable problem and it’s a problem that has to be solved.
Above all we shouldn’t act like these things are impossible and therefore we have to stay on fossil fuels. That’s fossilized thinking and not 21st century thinking.
It’s not even fossilized thinking. These guys think that fossil fuels and the energy generation from them just dropped out of the sky. There were plenty of technical challenges that had to be overcome. No different with renewables. In fact, with the state of science at the time and the tools available to them, it was a remarkable achievement. The problems with renewables aren’t anywhere near as challenging.
Clyde Spencer wrote:
You, like DavidAppell2, judge something based on where it was published, rather that its content. That is really an ad hominem attack.
That’s funny, complaining about an ad hominem attack on a place that is the kingdom of ad hominem attacks.
No, it’s simply dismissing a site that is well known for publishing junk. Likewise I’m also not interested in spending time debunking stories from the National Enquirer.
Wind power is hardly modern, in fact it predates the mass use of fossil fuels for power. There is a good reason wind power was dropped. Today’s wind turbines are actually a step backwards in development.
Where did you get your degree in engineering? Out of a cracker jack box?
Elon Musk says, on a YouTube clip, that all US electricity needs could be handled by 150-200 km2 of solar panels. That’s a square not bigger than 14 km on a side. 9 miles. A city.
Haven’t verified this, but I’d believe him before anyone here.
Dividing the global yearly demand by 400 kW•h per square meter (198,721,800,000,000 / 400) and we arrive at 496,804,500,000 square meters or 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles) as the area required to power the world with solar panels. This is roughly equal to the area of Spain.
First, he was talking about US demand for electricity — not total global demand for energy.
Let’s take a look at your numbers.
The world consumes per year 14420 Mtoe or 167,705 TWh. There are 8760 hrs in a year. The world requires 19.1 TW of power. Let’s call it 20 TW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption
A solar panel produces about 150 w/m2. 1 TW = 1E12 watts. To generate the power required worldwide requires 133,333 sq km.
https://www.waystosaveenergy.net/2021/04/solar-energy-per-square-meter.html#:~:text=%22Solar%20panels%20produce%20about%20150%20watts%20of%20energy,this%20translates%20to%2015%20watts%20per%20square%20foot.%22
You claim it takes 496,805 sq km. You are off by a factor of 3.7. It’s worse than that because the efficiency for a solar panel I used was 15%. You can get solar panels with efficiencies in the low 20s.
The US uses 4222.5 TWh of electricity in a year or 0.48 TW of power. Let’s call it 0.5 TW. That means it would require 3,333 km2 of solar panels to power the US. Elon Musk is off by a factor of 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States.
CKid commented:
The reason I put up articles about previous apocalyptic predictions that didn’t occur is to remind us of how little we know about the future and that if the experts we so wrong before and we are using the same assumptions in making the current apocalyptic predictions, then the prudent thing to do is to rethink those assumptions.
What about the things that have happened that weren’t predicted?
Did anyone predict that global average sea level would be accelerating by now?
Did anyone predict that a monstrous, 1-in-1000 year heat wave in the Pacific Northwest would kill 1,000 people in 2021? 117 F temperature in Salem, Oregon?
That a horrendous wildfire in Oregon in 2020 would burn over 1 M acres, destroy thousands of homes and keep people in western Oregon trapped in their homes for two weeks due to horrific air quality conditions?
That wildfires in 2020 and 2021 would destroy entire towns in California and British Columbia? 121 F in BC?
That a wildfire in December (of all months) fueled by an unseasonal drought would destroy suburbs of Denver that no one ever thought vulnerable to such fires?
That Key West would now be looking to spend a billion dollars to raise their roads?
Were any of these disasters foreseen?
Bill Fabrizio commented:
Well, that’s exactly what we do. Wait, observe and see what is happening. Spending trillions without any evidence of catastrophe (getting slightly warmer is not evidence of catastrophe) is foolish, and in itself may have the chance of being catastrophic in itself.
Continued warming will lead to catastrophe. Guaranteed. Watching warming accumulate and only dealing with catastrophe when it gets here is absolutely stupid. It’s like smoking one cigarette one at a time, coughing steadily worse, and saying you’ll deal with lung cancer when it happens. Not very smart.
Can’t believe this has to be told to you.
In fact, catastrophes are already happening. Yet they seem not to be big enough for you to care about.
JJ Braccili
You commented about Professor David Mackay
“I would say his numbers are BS because he wants to promote nuclear power. The Sun is our most potent source of energy.”
No. David Mackay was an avowedly left wing scientist and otherwise would never have got his position as head scientist at the world first politically motivated Dept of Environment and Climate change.
Mackay once said ‘Burning gas should be made a thermogenic crime.” So hardly sympathetic to fossil fuels
However he did the stats on renewables for his book/lecture/govt advice and said it would take only ‘trivial back of the envelope calculations’ to demonstrate that renewables couldn’t provide the energy needed.
Therefore he was a reluctant proponent of nuclear in the absence of a better alternative. Others that have done the figures for a book or a film are left wing environmentalists Shellenberger, Michael Moore and Lomborg, all firm believers in man made warming and all have switched to the need for nuclear as the only practical solution.
Perhaps they have reached this position after very many years of promoting renewables for a reason? I gave you details of their books earlier, where you can see their calculations
Anyway I have enjoyed our discussion, but its time to move on with the new post, as this thread has become extremely unwieldy
with regards
tonyb
His numbers are wrong. I just went through the calcs that show if you cover the US with solar panels, it will generate 50xs the power the world uses. That means 2% of the surface area of the US would generate the power the world is using today.
The state of California is about 4% of the surface area of the US. That means covering 1/2 of California with solar panels would provide enough energy to satisfy current worldwide energy needs. That is not impossible. That doesn’t take into account improvements in solar panel efficiency. I used 15%. Some solar panels get up into the low 20s
‘So, what do we do? Wait and see what happens?
We know what is going to happen and it’s all bad. What we don’t know is how long it is going to take to get there. Doing nothing and continuing on our current path is not an option.’ JJB
We get in an epic thread from it’s all bad to some 10 million square kilometres of continuous solar panel. Small modular nuclear reactors are a better idea. That way land and soils can be conserved and restored packing away organic carbon.
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and a pair of.0C Thresholds – Watts Up With That? – ChicHue.com
Pingback: 1.5 및 2.0C 임계값을 초과(또는 교차하지 않음) – 와트 업? – Blog Ciencia
Judith Curry, thank you for this essay.
Dr. Curry, the 1.5C threshold will be exceeded within 3-6 years, according to my sun-climate threshold work regarding the solar cycle influence on the ocean, as long as SC25 equals or exceeds SC24.
The ocean will likely warm from SC25 similarly as it did from SC24. 2022 will see solar activity exceed my sun-ocean decadal warming threshold of 95SN on a monthly basis, then quarterly this year; and then onto yearly within a few years, for several years, during which the ocean will warm again by 0.3-0.5C.
The effect of TSI ocean warming above my threshold is represented by the thick red line (m) in the bottom panel (k) in Fig.13 below. We are now nearly at the same point in SC25 as in SC24 represented by (n), where the change to net decadal ocean warming starts:
https://i.postimg.cc/7ZPt9G7G/AGU-Fig13.jpg
Then we’ll be onto the 2C ‘limit’ during the next solar cycle #26, and no amount of emissions reduction or sequestration will stop it.
The only thing that will stop more warming is a Dalton Minimum or Grand solar minimum. Since we are now at a v2 SN 30ya of 62.9, about 2x Usoskin’s GS Min threshold of 31.9 for 30y sunspot activity (v2 SN), it’s going to be long time before significant climate cooling occurs other than the typical solar cycle cooling into the minimum as we’ve seen, until the warming threshold is reached again in the next solar cycle.
Solar activity will drive more warming for decades to centuries w/o a GSM.
bobweber: Why did global warming increase through the 2010s if solar cycle 24 was so much lower than solar cycle 23?
I just showed you why in Fig.13, but you didn’t get it.
I determined the 95 v2 SN threshold (120 sfu F10.7cm) in June of 2014 and the SORCE TSI threshold equivalent of 1361.25 W/m2 in 2015.
The detrended sum of TSI≥1361.25, the sun-ocean decadal warming threshold Fig.13(h), increased from (f) to (g), warming the ocean until TSI fell below the threshold in March 2016, when the equatorial OHC fell below the zero anomaly line at the TSI threshold as predicted:
https://i.postimg.cc/wTMzSGtm/AGU-Fig10.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/1zHrhxKZ/Rathore-etal-Fig-1-Asymmetrical-OHC-vs-SORCE-TSI-overlay.jpg
The ocean warming since 1980 has resulted from ENSO activity:
https://i.postimg.cc/ryYzHWhQ/30y-SST3-v-30-i-MEI.jpg
Put it together David, you have natural climate change via the sun.
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds – TECH LIFE
When it comes to wind, there multiple periods of 4 or more days of doldrums in Texas.
https://www.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?mimic_duns=000000000&doclookupId=819154741
So, what about the rest of the country or the rest of North America, or the rest of the Americas? That’s why you need a national grid or more — especially with renewables.
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 1:50 pm | Reply
“So, what about the rest of the country or the rest of North America, or the rest of the Americas? ”
When there wind doldrums in one part of the country, those doldrums typically cover large swaths of the country/continent
Do you have data to support that? Are you a non-meteorologist practicing meteorology like you do climate science?
I do watch the news and it seems to me that a day when the weather isn’t changing somewhere is non-existent. Changing weather means wind.
Let’s consider there is always winds in one third of the country.
The national grid will transfer electric power to other two thirds.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili – I think that some perspective might help. The 600 year Little Ice Age was a period of frequent cold spells. The River Thames famously froze and markets were held on the ice. It did not start warming again until around 1870. Coincidentally, the temperature monitor that later evolved into the HadCrut dataset began at that time. The consequence is that the dataset is a record of the warming from the LIA. It is no surprise that almost every year brings a higher new record temperature, a fact trumpeted by the Met Office and BBC who always fail to mention the role of the LIA.
I notice that you did not mention it either. Many climate scientists fail to mention it. They don’t know why it occurred or why it ended. They probably don’t mention it since atmospheric CO2 was constant throughout and therefore it does not fit with the CO2 control knob belief system.
Today, 1.1 degrees warmer than when the LIA ended, climate scientists try to attribute this to CO2 and again ignore the LIA. Also, today, there has been no significant warming since 2016. So when all of that is looked at in perspective, we have warmed up gradually from the LIA. Since 1998 we have had a prolonged temperature pause, interrupted by several El Nino warming events.
Reality seems to suggest that there is no need for the Greenhouse Gas Effect to explain any of this, suggesting that the ECS is low and CO2 is a spent force. David Coe, who comments above, is correct. Water vapour did all the heavy lifting in the early days of our planet. That leaves a radiative legacy which is with us today. Greenhouse gases were not invented yesterday.
Peter
Unfortunately you are mentioning Historical events with which I frequently regale JJ Braccili with. Unfortunately he says history has no relevance to our current situation and point blank refuses to take any notice of data that it has been warmer or colder in the past or past extreme climate events make todays look very mild
tonyb
I’ve read all that before. There is a reason why climate scientists ignore climate history. It’s because it has no impact on what is happening today. Climate change is all cause and effect. That means there were reasons why the climate changed decades or eons ago and they have no impact on what’s happening today.
Today we can measure all things that can cause the temperature of the planet to change and fortunately there aren’t many. You have solar radiation, albedo, volcanoes, and the greenhouse effect. The only one of those that is increasing significantly is CO2. That is also what the data tells us. That doesn’t mean one of the other factors couldn’t become significant, but that’s not occurring at the moment. The other things that are discussed on this board — oceans currents, water cycle, planet rotation — either have little or no impact and I’m being generous when I say little.
Here’s is data on the temperature rise of the planet from Berkley Earth — the gold standard for that type of data:
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/
As you can see the temperature trend is straight up since 1960 and closely corresponds with CO2 increases. What the snake oil salesmen do is to take a period of several years where it appears temperature is trending downward and blow it up to make it appear the trend is down.
It makes no difference that H2O supplies most of the greenhouse effect. What is driving climate is the greenhouse gas that is significantly changing. That’s CO2. As CO2 increases and drives the temperature higher, the atmosphere can hold more H2O and increase its greenhouse effect.
The idea that CO2 isn’t the cause of climate change doesn’t conform with the science or the data.
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 3:04 pm | Reply
“I’ve read all that before. There is a reason why climate scientists ignore climate history. It’s because it has no impact on what is happening today. Climate change is all cause and effect. That means there were reasons why the climate changed decades or eons ago and they have no impact on what’s happening today.”
JJB – that statement rates as one of the most idiotic statements ever , even when we compare the multitute of other idiotic statements you have made.
You simply cant know where you are going if you dont know where youve been.
That why you’re Joe – the non-climate scientist. You don’t have a clue.
Where we’ve been has no impact on where we are going. You can’t even duplicate the conditions that caused climate change in the past because stars put out more energy as they age.
It’s all cause and effect. It doesn’t matter what happened 10 minutes ago, 10 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. If the sun starts ramping up it’s energy output to the point it becomes the dominant driving force, guess what? The temperature change of the earth will stop tracking CO2 and start tracking solar irradiance. If the sun effect petered out, the temperature would start tracking CO2 again.
You need about minimum 12 knots to drive a wind turbine. When you take that into account, there is even less usable wind right now. It’s stupid to try to use unreliable power sources and needlessly complex to boot. Also, it chews up a lot of land and nice scenery. What we need is more compact NG and nuclear plants.
Yet, Texas 39th in average wind speed and Iowa which has a much higher average wind speed have the most deployed wind turbines. Two red states going green. What are they thinking?
Jim2
Yes, there is not only a minimum speed required, but a maximum speed that cannot be exceeded out of risk of damaging the turbine. Basically, there is an envelope of usable speeds, and the wind speeds need to be known with respect to time because the baseplate power output varies with wind speed, and terminates abruptly at the cutoff speeds.
“The idea that CO2 isn’t the cause of climate change doesn’t conform with the science or the data.”
So you say. I expect to soon have a guest article on WUWT addressing that point.
I can’t wait. Please post it here. I could use a good laugh.
You need to acquaint yourself with IR spectrographs of earth’s radiant energy and how they change with temperature. It might save you some embarrassment.
JJ: “I’ve read all that before. There is a reason why climate scientists ignore climate history. It’s because it has no impact on what is happening today.”
“If climate models are able to successfully hindcast past climate variables, such as surface temperature, this gives scientists more confidence in model forecasts of the future”. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
Even though historic climate parameters are used to validate the models the catastrophic AGW narrative is based on JJ has determined the historic climate record is irrelevant to estimating future global climate. Either the historic record is relevant or it’s not.
What’s your point?
If they have the conditions at a particular point in time and can match that with climate models that doesn’t mean what happened then has any impact on what’s happening today.
No, it means that the climate of the past has a big impact on what the models are telling us what the climate of the future is supposed to be.
No, what it means is that the models have accounted for the conditions in the past that caused climate change at that time. That has nothing to do with the current conditions that are causing climate change.
For example, you can’t say that at some point in the past the CO2 ppm was lower, and the temperature was higher, so CO2 has no impact on rising temperature now.
Peter commented:
The 600 year Little Ice Age was a period of frequent cold spells. The River Thames famously froze and markets were held on the ice.
Did it? I’ve also heard that the Thames River was full of silt then and much shallower. Let’s now take a painting as the final truth on climate.
Peter commented:
So when all of that is looked at in perspective, we have warmed up gradually from the LIA.
Peter the Earth doesn’t warm up from some cold period like it’s a bouncing ball.
The Earth warms when it’s forced to warm, no other reason.
There have been plenty of cold period when the Earth didn’t warm, or cooled further. Your conclusion is unscientific and blinkered.
The question is, why did the Earth warm after the LIA — which by the way WASN’T GLOBAL.
So you don’t even have the right question, let alone the right answer. You are far off of any base.
Saying the LIA “wasn’t global” seems wrong to me. There’s a bias in measurement, as most of the land area is in the northern hemisphere (40% land mass v 20%) and that’s where all the proxies are.
I must also say that when you google the LIA the first link is a wikipedia article containing Michael Mann’s ridiculous hockey stick; a graph the procedure for which involved literally throwing out any proxy that didn’t “fit”.
To someone like me, used to a 5 sigma standard, and being taught if you don’t know your error you haven’t made a measurement, this is all absolutely mind-boggling.
Robinson wrote:
I must also say that when you google the LIA the first link is a wikipedia article containing Michael Mann’s ridiculous hockey stick
Science by Google — interesting, for someone who claims 5-sigma is their standard.
Robinson commented:
Saying the LIA “wasn’t global” seems wrong to me. There’s a bias in measurement, as most of the land area is in the northern hemisphere (40% land mass v 20%) and that’s where all the proxies are.
Are they?
Proof that wind doesn’t blow over large swaths of the country. Live link, so click it now. Western third of the country is doldrums.
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?35.876,-84.175,5,m:eTGacWk
If you expand that to the world view, there are huge land areas of the world without wind right now. This ain’t rocket science.
There are huge areas that do. That’s the point. What is so hard to understand about that? You’re right this ain’t rocket science, and you definitely are not a rocket scientist.
The question is how you balance it out. It’s doable.
I’m not seeing these huge areas that do on land anyway. I think you want technology for technology’s sake.
Trying to power the planet is obviously a very dumb idea!
Actually, it’s a very good idea because it gives you maximum flexibility and efficiency. Probably not going to happen because of politics, but it would be the ideal.
It would be great if the politicians got out of the way and let the scientists and engineers deal with climate change.
“ It would be great if the politicians got out of the way and let the scientists and engineers deal with climate change.”
Over the course of American history some have said this.
“It would be great if politicians got out of the way and let the soldiers deal with war.”
I wouldn’t go there with politicians and war.
I have a solution for our problem with war. Implement a draft for the children, grandchildren, and great children of all federally elected officials. Order everyone in the country by net worth and draft the children, etc. of those with the highest net worth. Send the draftees to all the hot zones around the world that the politicians get us involved in so that their children, etc. are on the front lines. I guarantee you we will only have to go to war when absolutely necessary and the “wars” will be short and sweet. No more multi-decade involvements.
JJ
Jim
Here is the UK version
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Wind is currently providing 3% and solar nil (its dark) Biomass is of course burning wood pellets.
Most power is coming from Nuclear, Gas and coal-this from the 2 power stations we haven’t deliberately blown up at the insistence of the green lobby
The references to France are interconnectors probably carrying nuclear.
Looking at my own weather diary, wind and solar have been providing very little power for some 2 months. We had the dullest December since 1956. No battery technology can cope with providing power to a 24/7 society of 66 million people as we are for such extended periods , and in the case of America that would be far larger battery needs.
tonyb
Yet, we are moving forward, and California is leading the way.
How about the other 2/3s of the country and the oceans? Don’t they count?
One excuse after another.
That’s not an excuse. That’s reality. I’m sorry to rain all over your parade — not really!
Note much of the USA today has 12 knots or over, the minimum needed for a wind turbine. Look at the data instead of specious theoretical narratives.
Minimum wind speed for a wind turbine is 12 – 14 km/h. That’s a wind speed of 7.5 – 8.7 mph.
Maybe you don’t know how to do a unit conversion. I’m looking at a wind map of the US and I’d say about 40-50% of country is above the minimum. Offshore the wind speeds are 10 – 20 mph. Give it a rest.
https://www.wunderground.com/maps/wind/current-winds
JJB
40% – 50% of the country above the minimum
That means 50% – 60% is below the minimum
How Many batteries is it going to take to cover that shortfall for 1 minute or for one hour
How much redundant fossil fuel generation will it take to cover the shortfall
None. We’ll build offshore wind platforms to make up the shortfall.
So let me understand in simple terms, Currently the projection is to hit 1.5 in 2030 under SOME models. yet if the AMO shifts then it is possible we will be at .9 at or near in 2030?
However there are some that are suggesting we will hit 1.5 in the next 3 – 6 years such as bobweber. ( which seems a little extreme but possible I suppose )
JJBraccili thinks that the end of the world has come and we are past time doing something… ( extreme paraphrasing )
JJBraccili – you also suggested that Wind and Solar is just an engineering problem. Isn’t everything? For instance we could probably come up with a way to use fossil fuels and not have CO2 go into the air. Yet we don’t because it is overly expensive to do so.
Technically dealing with warmer temperatures is ‘just ‘ and engineering problem.
Just saying.
Pretend I am horribly ignorant ( which I admit I am ) Why is Climate Change a problem in the direction of a warmer earth? I suppose I fail to see it.
Some scientists think that we are past the point of no return. I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that some point we will be past the point of no return.
Engineering problems are solvable with current technology or improvements in current technology.
If you could capture all the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuels, you could store it or convert it to something else. You can’t capture all the CO2, I think the estimate is that we could capture about 14% of it, but I’m not sure of that number. Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the quantities required would take a scientific miracle — not going to happen. If you wanted to find a way to bring about Armageddon, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere would be a good choice.
JJBraccili
What I do know is that some point we will be past the point of no return.
If you could capture all the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuels, you could store it or convert it to something else. Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the quantities required would take a scientific miracle — not going to happen.
–
Which came first ?
The fossil fuels ?
No a miracle! Called trees and vegetation.
Very efficient at scrubbing CO2.
Luckily for us.
We are dumping more CO2 in the atmosphere than they can handle. That’s why the ppm of CO2 keeps rising.
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here is new England
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/01/24/new-england-will-freeze-if-sleepy-joe-gets-his-green-new-deal/#more-55103
We have the worlds largest off shore wind farm they are expensive and difficult to maintain but fortunately can go in the shallow waters of the dogger bank, an ancient land flooded by climate change 8000 years ago
The main advantage of the offshore wind is that there are no nosey ornithologists collecting bird carcasses.
Solutions to nonlinear equations face the evolution of uncertainty. See Fig. 1 in the link. The longer the simulation the murkier it gets.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/rowlands2012.pdf
Sergey Kravtsov et al 2018 used a reanalysis product – a sort of a model using recorded parameters – to compare to climate models. To find no trace – there are no equations of state – of decadal scale natural variability that is as large as 0.3 degrees C over the past 40 years of accelerated energy and economic growth.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Decades ago, at the start of this “global warming/climate change” debacle, temperature emerged as a major variable, in part because temperature has been observed in many places for over a century and thus provided a basis for scientific study.
Also, temperature is an important variable because of its known effects on many chemical and physical processes, in nature and in the lab.
Philosophically, we can now ask if the importance of temperature has been overdone. (I think it has, and badly. Others might differ).
A problem exists if temperature records are inaccurate to the stage of being less than useful, such as misleading. For the last 30 years, I have done a lot of study of the Australian temperature record, with the outcome that it is dismally poor. Climategate’s Harry agreed “getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.” That was around year 2009.
Authorities steadfastly decline to be specific about the real magnitude of errors in these historical temperature records. My own view is that a daily maximum temperature Y can commonly be +/- X deg C, where X is 0.8 deg C (assuming normal distribution statistics apply and using 2 sigma envelopes).
How can we measure these synthetic targets of 1.5 and 2 deg C under such large error constraints?
As Peter Lang notes above, the social cost of warming is net beneficial under reasonable assumptions.
It seems that we might be feeling those benefits, but we might be in a decreasing, or steady, or rising global temperate regime right now, without the ability to accurately determine which.
And, we need to get scientists to reduce their interminable temperature chatter and concentrate on other variables, which is part of Judith’s message here. Geoff S
In Texas for the year 2021 wind turbines produced a WHOPPING average 33% of installed capacity. What a waste of resources!
jim2
Yes, the operative words being Installed capacity and average. That disguises that for days or weeks no power was produced and that intermittency problem is one that Mr Braccili seems to refuse to contemplate.
tonyb
What you can’t contemplate is that intermittency is a problem that can be solved. I’ve had to deal with it when I get involved with batch operations.
Intermittency in energy distribution is a much bigger problem, but not unsolvable.
The best solution is to use energy sources that aren’t intermittent. Then there is no intermittency problem to solve.
JJ Braccilli
Is the intermittency in batch production due to nature randomly deciding to shut down its entire input for an unknown period? Or one that in your own words would require a global response to fix?
I think you are comparing apples and sardines.
If there’s no wind or sun at random times the only way you can solve that is by storing sufficient surplus in times of plenty. But that would not only have to power the entire population and its industry but be able to top up EV batteries, Heat pumps and to supply power to create green hydrogen
You have never been able to explain how this enormous storage will be created nor its cost.
tonyb
I said that the problems that I solve involving batch operations aren’t as complicated as the intermittency problem with electrical distribution. That doesn’t mean it’s not solvable.
I don’t understand why you and others treat this problem as unsolvable. Take solar. You could ring the planet with solar. The technology to distribute it worldwide exists. Now it’s a reliable source of power. Same with wind the wider the geographic area you can collect and distribute it over, the less the intermittency problems.
I just posted that fossil fuels had problems that you would call insurmountable when it was in its infancy. How do you produce it? How do you refine it? How do you distribute it? How do we use it to generate electricity? Do you think electrical turbines just magically appeared? All kinds of problems with electrical distribution. The fight between Edison and Westinghouse over DC vs AC. You know what? We solved all of them. Frankly, I don’t view intermittency as a problem. Certainly not enough of a problem to scrap the technology.
jim2 commented:
The best solution is to use energy sources that aren’t intermittent. Then there is no intermittency problem to solve.
All energy sources are intermittent. Do you think natural gas and coal power plants don’t shut down for repairs or maintenance? Did you see how the natural gas infrastructure froze in Texas in Feb 2021 and killed several hundred people? France just had nuclear power plants go offline.
climatereason commented:
If there’s no wind or sun at random times the only way you can solve that is by storing sufficient surplus in times of plenty.
No, you can also have a smart grid that automatically sends electricity from where there’s a surplus to where there’s a shortage.
davidappell02 | January 25, 2022 at 12:05 pm |
jim2 commented:
The best solution is to use energy sources that aren’t intermittent. Then there is no intermittency problem to solve.
Appell comment – “All energy sources are intermittent. Do you think natural gas and coal power plants don’t shut down for repairs or maintenance? Did you see how the natural gas infrastructure froze in Texas in Feb 2021 and killed several hundred people? France just had nuclear power plants go offline.”
Appell – neither you or JJB have been able to comprehend that Wind in Texas shut down for a solid 9 days during the freeze,
Neither you or JJB have been able to comprehend that 4 solid days of virtually no wind across the entire NA continent.
Neither you or JJB who talks about a national grid have been able to comprehend that two of US grids were near collapse at the same time. Fortunately those grids were saved partly due to the much lower reliance on wind energy.
“Neither you or JJB who talks about a national grid have been able to comprehend that two of US grids were near collapse at the same time. Fortunately those grids were saved partly due to the much lower reliance on wind energy.”
Where’s your proof? I just searched for confirmation, and I found zip. Those other “grids” were probably attached to the east or western interconnect. TX was not, except for two counties in TX and they were just fine.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Appell – neither you or JJB have been able to comprehend that Wind in Texas shut down for a solid 9 days during the freeze,
“Wind Turbines Didn’t Cause Texas Energy Crisis,” Factcheck.org, 2/19/21
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-texas-energy-crisis/
David, the reason nobody respects your opinion and why EVERYBODY debunks your assertions is because you cherry pick only sources that support your claims. An intellectually honest researcher would review both PRO and CON sources and then come to a conclusion based on the FACTS and EVIDENCE.
“Wind was operating almost as well as expected”… A Texas-sized Energy Lie
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/25/wind-was-operating-almost-as-well-as-expected-a-texas-sized-energy-lie/
“fact checking the fact checkers” by David Middleton
Read the entire article complete with charts and graphs that support David’s conclusions.
And this puts the lie to these fact checker claims:
Fact check LIES:
o Renewable energy is not to blame for the Texas energy crisis
o No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages
o No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts
The truth…
o Renewable energy is why Texas has less natural gas and coal capacity than it would have had otherwise.
o Frozen wind turbines are why coal-fired power plants were operating at >90% of capacity from February 9-14 and natural gas power plants were operating at 70% to more than 80% of capacity from February 11-14.
o Wind farms aren’t the main cause of the Texas blackouts because most of them had already been knocked offline by freezing temperatures and ice… Nearly a week before the blackouts! Where’s my Sam Kinison video?
The desperation on the part of the lamestream media to proactively defend wind power during this fiasco would be funny, if not for the fact that this lie quickly gained so much traction, that I have even repeated it. Wind power did not perform better than expected in any rational sense of the phrase.
That said, wind power has generally been very successful in Texas… The problem is that ERCOT’s plan for a total failure of wind power seems to have been hoping that natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants could successfully operate at about 90% of capacity until the wind power came back online.
“Hope ain’t a tactic.”
Even with all of the system-wide failures, natural gas is the only reason that this energy disaster didn’t claim hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Winter Storm Younger Dryas will probably surpass Hurricane Harvey as the most expensive natural disaster in Texas history and ERCOT was possibly within five minutes of it being possibly the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history when they began load-shedding.
The wind turbines froze because they weren’t winterized. That’s the result of conservative ideology and the “free market” solves everything lunacy. When there aren’t regulations that require winterization, why spend the money?
There were two counties in TX that winterized and were connected into the eastern and western interconnect. Guess what? They had no problems.
https://news.yahoo.com/parts-texas-not-ercot-power-080159059.html
No, the TX power failure was not due to renewables. What caused it was the usual cause — conservative ideology. Another case that proves conservatives can’t be trusted to run a lemonade stand.
David
I am not sure you have been around the last few days when we have been discussing smart grids. The only way to achieve this is to cover the entire world, according to Mr Braccili.
That isn’t going to happen for political, practical and economic reasons. In Europe there has been a huge deficit of wind and solar for many weeks. There are many interconnectors and this all covers a large geographical area. The only thing keeping it all together is Gas nuclear and coal.
Did you see the various wind drought figures posted? The UK and Europe has been seeing around 3% of installed nameplate capacity for a long time.
tonyb
I didn’t say that. I said it was the ideal solution. You have the annoying habit of attributing things to people that they did not say. Knock it off!
climatereason commented:
Did you see the various wind drought figures posted? The UK and Europe has been seeing around 3% of installed nameplate capacity for a long time.
Install more wind and solar, especially offshore and rooftop solar. Scotland was on almost 100% renewable energy last year largely due to offshore wind.
Again, these are not unsolvable problems. But the first problem that has to be overcome is the attitude that “we can’t do this because” which is endemic here and is just the latest byproduct of denying climate change not that global warming can’t be denied.
David
“Install more wind and solar, especially offshore and rooftop solar. Scotland was on almost 100% renewable energy last year largely due to offshore wind.”
if there is no wind you could have a million turbines and it would make no difference . Scotland has a tiny economy and a tiny population and little heavy industry.
Where do you believe all the materials will come from for all the green projects planned world wide? We would need a Planet A, B and C.. Where will the space come from, the vast amounts of storage needed and in the case of America and much of the world, as we already have one, the money for the grids and pylons ?.
Incidentally we already have the largest wind fleet in the world but the only thing keeping our lights on at present are gas nuclear and coal. Certainly not wind and most definitely not solar
Wind and solar have their place, but not as base load power for a large population and a big 24/7 economy.
tonyb
“If there’s no wind or sun at random times the only way you can solve that is by storing sufficient surplus in times of plenty. ”
Also we can keep a formidable energy backup having the standing-by fossil fuels burning electric plants.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Fossil fuels were developed by private entities because they are profitable. “Green” energy wind and solar are not profitable and cannot function without government subsidies. (And, no, the depletion allowance for oil companies and miners is NOT a subsidy!)
The oil industry was subsidized in the 1920s by the government. It was called the oil depletion allowance. It’s still around. Yes, it is a subsidy.
The first programmable computer was developed at the University of PA in the 1940s. It was a DOD funded project. From that project the company UNIVAC was born, and the entire computer industry.
The internet was developed in the 1960s. It was a research project funded by DARPA.
Stick a sock in it.
JJ Braccili
“I don’t understand why you and others treat this problem as unsolvable. Take solar. You could ring the planet with solar. The technology to distribute it worldwide exists. Now it’s a reliable source of power. Same with wind the wider the geographic area you can collect and distribute it over, the less the intermittency problems.”
So you are back to an international grid serving 9 billion people? I thought you had backed down from that due to the political, economic and practical problems.
Please can you tell me where all the raw materials are to come from for this vast project? Many of them are in short supply or require vast amounts of mining and processing often in filthy conditions by coerced workers.
China has a virtual monopoly on building solar panels due to their vast amounts of cheap coal and cheap labour according to Bloomberg. There are not enough for all the green projects already proposed let alone an International grid.
This is utterly unrealistic.
I can not stress enough i hold no special brief for fossil fuels but at present nuclear and fossil fuels look the most likely way of keeping the power on until possibly the ocean or new batteries for storage come along.
tonyb
JJ Braccili
Your 2.58/ Are you saying that you didn’t say that about having a larger grid, which is the only way to distribute the power from the various turbines and solar farms you want to see globally in order to have the widest possible geographical coverage to capture whatever solar or wind is available?
tonyb
What I said is that the wider the grid the less intermittency becomes a problem. A national grid would be good. A North American grid would be better. An Americas grid would be even better. A worldwide grid would be ideal. That has nothing to do with the cost or politics of getting that done. The technology exists to do it.
In the US I think it’s a stretch to get even a national grid, even though we need it badly. For conservatives in the US, it’s ideology over common sense. All you need to look at is TX to see the problem.
The DEPLETION allowance applies to MINERs of any type. It exists because rational people understand that as a resource is extracted, the mine or reservoir becomes less valuable. The money handed to “green” energy projects has no rational basis whatsoever. JJB obviously doesn’t understand the term DEPLETION and is just a sock puppet for the left.
There is a reason it’s called the OIL depletion allowance.
In the 1920’s the allowance was raised to about 25% of income. Let’s say back then it cost $100,000 to drill a well. You strike $10 million in oil. Normally, you get to depreciate the $100,000 investment over the life of the well, let’s say 10 years or a $10,000/year tax deduction. You derive $1 million/yr. in income from the well and you get a $250,000/year tax deduction. How is that not a subsidy? It’s not as bad today, but it shouldn’t exist.
Joke!
JJBraccili | January 25, 2022 at 4:28 pm |
“There is a reason it’s called the OIL depletion allowance.
In the 1920’s the allowance was raised to about 25% of income. Let’s say back then it cost $100,000 to drill a well. You strike $10 million in oil. Normally, you get to depreciate the $100,000 investment over the life of the well, let’s say 10 years or a $10,000/year tax deduction. You derive $1 million/yr. in income from the well and you get a $250,000/year tax deduction. How is that not a subsidy? It’s not as bad today, but it shouldn’t exist.
Joke!”
JJB –
You may want to take a look at the amendments to Section 613A , US Title 26 which were made by the 1976 tax reform act before you continue to embarrass yourself.
since I gave you the citation, you should be able find your error easily.
What’s what happened in 1976 have to do with anything? We talking about the period from 1913 – 1930. The time the automobile went into mass production and the oil depletion allowance came to be and became a gigantic giveaway.
The only one who continually embarrasses himself is you.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
You may want to take a look at the amendments to Section 613A , US Title 26 which were made by the 1976 tax reform act before you continue to embarrass yourself.
What does a 1976 amendment have to do with massive tax advantages oil companies had back in the day LOL??
climatereason commented:
Incidentally we already have the largest wind fleet in the world but the only thing keeping our lights on at present are gas nuclear and coal. Certainly not wind and most definitely not solar
“The largest” means nothing. Build more. Build a lot more, everywhere. Same with solar, including on every rooftop. But it everywhere.
Why can’t these things be done? What’s your next excuse? Not enough of certain minerals? Too dirty to dig up? How dirty is coal to dig up? How many coal miners have died digging up coal? How many acquired black long disease? How many mountaintops ruined? How many streams and other water sources ruined? How many hundreds of millions have died from pollution from coal power plants? How much groundwater has been ruined by fracking?
Don’t you dare get on a high horse now when you wouldn’t even learn to ride earlier.
jim2 commented:
(And, no, the depletion allowance for oil companies and miners is NOT a subsidy!)
Why not?
If it’s not a subsidy, what is it?
If it’s not a subsidy, then oil companies and miners won’t mind getting rid of it, right?
JJ Braccili
“For conservatives in the US, it’s ideology over common sense. All you need to look at is TX to see the problem.”
I think we can agree on that. A national grid is surely common sense.
However as we have seen in the UK and in Europe if there is no wind or sun there is no power and the net has to be spread very wide to pick up enough of either to supply a small part of the demand.
Until massive storage batteries come along-perhaps sodium ion-wind and solar will remain adjuncts and not reliable base load power. even then there are just not enough raw materials-rare earths- to supply the demand
tonyb
The intermittency problem is solvable. It just takes more wind turbines over a wider geographic area. Battery storage will play a part.
The US already has a national grid. Texas is linked to it via two DC connectors. The winter storm in question was much colder than normal for Texas and some components weren’t properly winterized. Also, Texas could have spent the money used for wind turbines on something useful, like encouraging more natural gas gen plants. The turbines did fail to deliver during that period.
That apparently don’t work. That would be typical in a conservative run state. They don’t believe in maintenance. Tax cuts and the “free market” solve everything.
JJ
“ Tax cuts and the “free market” solve everything.”
Let me amend that sentence for you.
Tax cuts and the “free market” solve almost everything.
There. Much better.
Over the last forty years we proved over and over that tax cuts solve nothing.
davidappell02 | January 25, 2022 at 12:21 pm |
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Appell – neither you or JJB have been able to comprehend that Wind in Texas shut down for a solid 9 days during the freeze,
“Wind Turbines Didn’t Cause Texas Energy Crisis,” Factcheck.org, 2/19/21
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-texas-energy-crisis/
Appell – neither you or JJB have been able to comprehend the difference between the strategic failure and the tactical failure. Everyone agrees that the last failure in string of failures was the tactical failure on the fossil fuel side.
Tax cuts have been great for me and my family, and my friends too. More? Bring it on!
JJBraccili | January 25, 2022 at 11:27 am |
“What you can’t contemplate is that intermittency is a problem that can be solved. I’ve had to deal with it when I get involved with batch operations.”
JJB – I think everyone agrees that the intermittency problem can be easily solved
The first step is designing and implementing systems which doesnt create intermittency problems instead of embracing unreliable / problem laden systems
That leaves nuclear power. You can’t build them fast enough. It’s going to have to be a mix of solar, wind, nuclear, etc.
Does a workable solution of solar and wind end your argument that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change and stay the course? You need to find a new argument because that one is a loser.
“The first step is designing and implementing systems which doesn’t create intermittency problems…”
Right!
The rational course it to build NG gen plants while we build conventional nuclear plants. Concurrently, we develop SMRs and molten salt. SMRs are just about ready for prime time. And of course fusion R&D will continue a(snails)pace.
Use whatever resources are cheap and available – geothermal, landfill gas, animal waste gas, hydro, biomass, wind and solar – while burning whatever fuel meets the needs of global communities. NG in the US – higher electricity spot prices when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. There are two types of music – country and western.
Oh when the wind done blow
and the sun done shine
and buried in a tonne of snow
and a mountain of ice…
Oh baby missing youoooo… 🤣
Until something better comes along. For me the perfect idea is the General Atomics and Framatome collaboration on a 50 MWe – helium cooled with direct Brayton cycle turbines – fast neutron nuclear reactors. These are modern machines. I would have one in my backyard. And the US alone has 5 times the energy in global oil reserves sitting around in cooling drums and as depleted uranium. The waste stream from a closed nuclear fuel cycle is 3% as fission products that are cool in 300 years.
jim2 commented:
The rational course it to build NG gen plants while we build conventional nuclear plants.
NG is a fossil fuel that warms the planet and changes the climate. How much more warming is tolerable? Fossil fuels prematurely kill 1 in 5 global citizens and change the climate for the next 100,000 years. How much longer is this acceptable? Or do you simply not care?
From everything I can tell about you you simply do not give a f.
JJBraccili: That leaves nuclear power. You can’t build them fast enough.
The US built 100 nuclear power plants in 25 years. We could do it again, if we chose to, and again and again. Standardization in design and manufacturing would help keep down costs, should they be adopted.
The US built 88 nuclear power plants total. From conception to commissioning it takes about 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. It was all the rage in the 70s until 3-mile island and the costs ballooned. I don’t know what one of those things costs today, but in the 70s the costs tripled during construction. One of the problems was that it was all new and the NRC was changing requirements all the time.
It amazing that we didn’t have problems with more of them. We had 3 or 4 reactor designs and each plant was unique. The French did it right. A utility would contract with the government, and the government would be responsible for the engineering and construction. That resulted in more uniform plants and not the eclectic mix of plants that were built here.
JJBraccili | January 26, 2022 at 12:16 pm |
“The intermittency problem is solvable. It just takes more wind turbines over a wider geographic area. Battery storage will play a part.”
JJB ‘s solution to the intermittency problem is more intermittency
Wind power exists, is useful and a resource.
Just not very good at producing constant power which is what is needed.
David Appell,
The sun is the source of the energy for Earth’s Global surface temperature.
Not Volcanoes, not ocean currents, not albedo or clouds and certainly not CO2.
The variation in Global Surface temperature can only originate from one source.
Minor fluctuations, Natural variability, only exist due to our lack of knowledge of how that heat at that time causes currents and clouds and rainfall and wind patterns to develop..
Volcanoes are an intermittent nuisance in the scheme of things.
CO2 is only a small part of a massive atmospheric ocean of GHG.
Yes if there is more of it there will be a slight background increase in the temperature that the suns energy brings.
CO2 of itself is not a heat source, it does not produce energy De Novo.
–
The insistence of all concerned in manufacturing a Radiative imbalance that literally cannot exist means creating new energy out of nothing, out of GHG.
Since this is physically impossible it means we either have to adjust our physics or adjust our concept of heat as matter in motion.
You don’t know a damn thing.
What GHGs do is recycle earth’s radiant energy. To the earth that appears as an energy source.
Here’s what happens. Solar radiation is absorbed at 240 W/m2. Let’s say the earth is in equilibrium and it is emitting 240 W/m2. GHGs are introduced and start recycling 10 W/m2 of earth’s IR as back radiation. The earth is now receiving 250 W/m2 of radiant energy and that will force the earth’s temperature to rise until it is at equilibrium again. Initially the earth is still radiating at 240 W/m2. The earth’s atmosphere absorbs 10 W/m2 for the energy recycle back radiation. 230 W/m2 leave the earth’s atmosphere. At TOA solar radiation absorbed is 240 W/m2. Earth’s IR radiation is leaving at 230 W/m2. The earth is not in energy balance and is absorbing energy. At equilibrium, at TOA, the solar radiation absorbed is 240 W/m2. At the surface of the earth, it is absorbing the solar radiation + back radiation from GHG. That is 250 W/m2. The earth is radiating 250 W/m2 at some higher temperature. The atmosphere recycles 10 W/m2 as back radiation. At TOA the earth emits 240 W/m2. The earth is in energy balance at TOA and at the surface and the temperature of the earth is higher.
Stop making science up as you go along.
“Here’s what happens. Solar radiation is absorbed at 240 W/m2. Let’s say the earth is in equilibrium and it is emitting 240 W/m2.”
What you do is averaging solar incident EM energy.
Incident EM energy cannot be considered as absorbed Heat!
The incident EM energy INTERACTS with surface. Only a small fraction is accumulated and being IR emitted at night.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Give it a rest. I already debunked your theory. You’re trying to resurrect a corpse.
“What GHGs do is recycle earth’s radiant energy. To the earth that appears as an energy source.”
JJBraccili | January 24, 2022 at 3:04 pm
“Today we can measure all things that can cause the temperature of the planet to change and fortunately there aren’t many. You have solar radiation, albedo, volcanoes, and the greenhouse effect. The only one of those that is increasing significantly is CO2. That is also what the data tells us. That doesn’t mean one of the other factors couldn’t become significant, but that’s not occurring at the moment. The other things that are discussed on this board — oceans currents, water cycle, planet rotation — either have little or no impact and I’m being generous when I say little.”
“It makes no difference that H2O supplies most of the greenhouse effect. What is driving climate is the greenhouse gas that is significantly changing. That’s CO2. As CO2 increases and drives the temperature higher, the atmosphere can hold more H2O and increase its greenhouse effect.
The idea that CO2 isn’t the cause of climate change doesn’t conform with the science or the data.”
JJbraccili, please don’t be so much afraid of a trace content in the earth’s thin atmosphere 0,04% or 400 ppm greenhouse gas CO2…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I already answered this and I’m not going to repeat myself.
JJBraccili
“Give it a rest. I already debunked your theory. You’re trying to resurrect a corpse.”
JJBraccili, you use basic physics in a flawed way. What I do is to inform the new generations of scientists and to make efforts to convince the old generations.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon cannot be debunked, because it is an observed fact – it is a PHENOMENON.
A phenomenon you may not understand, a phenomenon you may not able to explain for yourself or it is very much difficult for you to accept, but that is how the things are with physics PHENOMENA – they are there.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How so? Because it doesn’t agree with your BS theory?
How long have you been at this? News Flash! It’s not catching on. It’s not going to catch on. Find another theory.
angech wrote:
CO2 of itself is not a heat source, it does not produce energy De Novo.
A blanket isn’t a heat source either, and does not produce energy, yet you sleep under one at night. Why?
“davidappell02
A blanket isn’t a heat source either, and does not produce energy, yet you sleep under one at night. Why?”
–
The sun is the source of the energy for Earth’s Global surface temperature.
Earth’s global surface temperature is a result of how much solar irradiation reaches the earth’s surface.
–
You trivialize this with a bit of nonsense instead of discussing the science.
–
I live in Victoria Australia, not Greenland.
Generally I do not sleep under a blanket because it would be too hot with one on the bed.
When it is cold I use a blanket to help the heat my body produces continually keep me warm.
The blanket does not produce any extra energy.
Neither does CO2..
-Back radiation can only exist when there is an atmosphere capable of redirecting the radiation.
The temperature it gets to, unlike a simple surface, has to be high enough to get the radiation back to space and as such it has to exist in a higher state of excitation [or so it appears to us] as the radiation passes through or is sent back.
–
It does not manufacture more energy de Novo, all the energy present is from the sun. not made by CO2.
Not always. Venus absorbs less solar radiation from the sun than the earth does. Its temperature is 400 C higher than it should be.
angech commented:
When it is cold I use a blanket to help the heat my body produces continually keep me warm.
The blanket does not produce any extra energy.
Neither does CO2..
So if one can create extra warmth, why can’t the other?
I’ve excerpted this article in discussions at the London Times and The Australian, and encouraged people to read the blog. Many people have strong view on dangerous (or benign) warming, but few would ever have encountered anything like Climate Etc.
During the great solar minimum there will be extremes of temperature on land, both low in winter and high in summer. This will be due to changes in the ozone zone and high levels of galactic radiation.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
Continuously very high levels of galactic radiation compared to previous solar cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/G7wYpbR/Screenshot-4.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Hi Ireneusz.
I have a question for you, because you are a specialist in Earth’s global climate.
Do Earth’s Northern and Southern Hemispheres seasonal changes in temperatures affect the other Hemisphere?
Example: Do the Southern Hemisphere’s the summer high temperatures have an influence on the Northern Hemisphere’s winter?
In other words, do Hemispheres interact temperature-vise (climate-vise) with one-another?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ENSO is closely related to the ocean surface temperature around Antarctica. The low temperature in the equatorial Pacific during winter in the north affects the temperature in both hemispheres.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
In winter, the jet stream in the winter hemisphere has a strong influence on the circulation along the equator.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/01/25/1500Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-143.29,1.71,281
Thank you Ireneusz!
Christos
Now the jet stream is falling over southeastern Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/xsgbBxy/Screenshot-1.png
Yes, it was a very much heavy snow in Greece yesterday. It was snowing for 15 hours very small snowflakes. Athens is covered in 30 sm. snow right now.
We are in an emergency situation.
Today and next few days are sunny.
It will take few days the snow to melt.
For Saturday the prognosis is rain.
The UK is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on “green” energy projects, but now this. The UK consumer is completely outflanked by “green” energy problems and government spending.
Britain’s acute cost-of-living crunch will hit in April, instantly stretching household and company budgets and penalizing the poorest households, many of which have already been most impacted by Covid-19.
The squeeze is coming from all sides. U.K. consumer price growth hit a 30-year high of 5.4% in December, and is wiping out wage gains. The Bank of England is jacking up interest rates faster than the Federal Reserve. A cap on domestic energy costs is expected to rise by 50% in April, just as payroll taxes go up in a bid to repair the U.K. public finances. Brexit hasn’t come cheap, either.
The Resolution Foundation think tank says the outcome will be a “living standards catastrophe,” with a typical U.K. household, on income of 27,000 pounds after tax and housing costs, paying 600 pounds ($818) extra just on energy bills and taxes. More broadly, the Centre for Economics and Business Research forecasts a 1,980-pound rise in overall annual living costs — even before payroll taxes go up.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-k-two-months-away-050114218.html
And in the midst of all the “green” energy hype, bluster, and waste we have this for coal:
Overall coal demand is set to grow 6% in 2021, threatening net-zero goals, the International Energy Agency said Dec. 17. This could lead global coal production — of thermal and metallurgical qualities — to rise to its highest-ever level in 2022, after output failed to keep pace with 2021’s demand rebound, IEA said in its Coal 2021 report.
This year’s demand surge — leading to all-time price highs in early October for both metallurgical and thermal — was seen due to rapid economic recovery following the COVID-19-related markets slump of 2020, when coal demand was estimated to have fallen 4.4% from the previous year.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/121721-global-coal-demand-to-grow-6-in-2021-threatening-net-zero-goals-iea
European Green Energy Crisis is Crushing Metal, Silicon Production
A quadrupling of EU energy prices is crippling energy intensive industries, but the EU sees this as a reason to invest in more renewables.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/24/european-green-energy-crisis-crushing-metal-silicon-production/
Climate Alarmists, read ’em and weep….2021 State Of The Climate Report
By Tony Heller |January 25th, 2022
https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/25/2021-state-of-the-climate-report/
A number of key metrics have been promoted by the press and politicians over the past few decades as evidence of a deteriorating climate. These include sea ice, polar temperatures, forest fire burn acreage, heat waves, drought, sea level rise, coral reef health and the fate of island nations and beaches. This past year was not a good year for their narrative.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, Arctic sea ice extent finished the year at the highest level since 2003.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Green extremist energy supplier, Octopus which is backed by Al Gore, just can’t get enough tax payer dollars. Green extremists just want more and more of you money, through taxes and through higher energy bills. It will never be enough to sustain this unsustainable “green” energy graft.
(Bloomberg) — Octopus Energy Ltd. is telling customers the looming increase in household bills could be blunted by 80% if the British government allows producers to spread ballooning costs over a longer period.
The rise in U.K. energy bills could be limited to about 12 pounds ($16.19) a month, instead of 60 pounds, if suppliers could access a fund to help them bear more of the increases in wholesale costs that eventually get passed on to customers, Chief Executive Officer Greg Jackson said in an email. The statement by Octopus, the country’s fifth-biggest domestic supplier, heightens pressure on the government just weeks before a regulatory price cap is increased.
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/octopus-energy-steps-up-pressure-on-u-k-to-limit-price-burdens
jim2 commented:
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/octopus-energy-steps-up-pressure-on-u-k-to-limit-price-burdens
This article writes about a 300% surge in gas prices in the last year, but you blame higher prices on green energy.
You do this constantly in your comments, while always citing articles that are about the surge in natural gas prices, usually due to the squeeze from Russia.
You don’t even read your own articles, and you don’t apply any logic to what you post. You are irrationally obsessed with blaming green energy no matter what the facts say.
I’m writing you off as an unreliable commenter of bad intent who isn’t contributing worthwhile commentary pertaining to the facts. That means automatic filtering into my Trash folder.
More good news for the denizens of Europe …
The refurbishments at Pernis could coincide with disruption in fuels output at BP Plc’s Rotterdam plant, Europe’s second-biggest refinery, where a handful of units are out of service following a fire in late November. It also coincides with rising margins for diesel and gasoline in northwest Europe, where Pernis is located. European gasoline prices have also risen along with crude oil recently, lifting the region’s average pump price for Super 95 to 1.69 euros per liter last week.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-25/shell-is-set-to-halt-key-units-at-europe-s-biggest-refinery
Wally Broecker in a paper on his cartoon conveyor belt logo. That he elsewhere linked to the LIA.
‘My contribution lies in the idea that changes in the Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation were responsible for the abrupt and large climatic changes experienced by the northern Atlantic basin during the last glacial period.’
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/4-2_broecker.pdf
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Wally Broecker in a paper on his cartoon conveyor belt logo. That he elsewhere linked to the LIA.
‘My contribution lies in the idea that changes in the Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation were responsible for the abrupt and large climatic changes experienced by the northern Atlantic basin during the last glacial period.’
Which is why climate scientists are worried about the THC slowing down.
It varies on its own apparently.
The AMO is not unforced internal variability, it functions as a negative feedback to indirect solar forcing, with the AMO warming notably since the solar wind weakened from 1995.
It’s Australia Day 2022. This is the day we celebrate being let out of chains on boats and entering the promised land. It is a day for me to respect the Darumbal elders in Central Queensland and to drink and feast.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
It’s Australia Day 2022. This is the day we celebrate being let out of chains on boats….
You mean “….released from prison,” right?
People were transported for trifles and kept as slaves by overseers – even after they were ’emancipated’. It was a matter of clearing out the slums of England at the beginning of the industrial revolution. But the seeds of Australia’s founding freedoms were sown by Irish and Scottish intellectuals. Beef and sheep sustained a healthy and growing population. Many Australians are descended from convicts. Myself included.
Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception.
…
Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/?sh=55f810836e1c
But facts and truth are inconsistent with climate alarmist’s narrative.
You’re talking about now. I’m talking about when oil was an industry in its infancy like renewables. It was heavily subsidized.
JJBraccili | January 25, 2022 at 4:33 pm | Reply
“You’re talking about now. I’m talking about when oil was an industry in its infancy like renewables. It was heavily subsidized.”
calling a tax deduction for out of pocket cash expenditures a subsidy does violence to the english language.
The only tax deduction that could remotely be called a subsidy is percentage depletion in excess of basis. The 76 tax reform act added section 613A which substantially curbed that deduction.
What is omitted is the subsidy that the oil companies give to the government in the form of severance taxes. Severance taxes greatly exceed any benefit from the tax deduction for percentage depletion in excess of basis.
the oil industry never received direct payments from the government
Both you and Appell display complete ignorance on the subject matter. With all due respect, consult some knowledgable in the subject matter before you continue to embarrass yourself.
“calling a tax deduction for out of pocket cash expenditures a subsidy does violence to the english language.”
That’s the point. They were given a tax deduction on the basis of the value of the asset — not what they paid for it. It would be like me paying $2 for a lottery ticket and winning $10 million dollars and then allowing me to deduct 25% of the winnings, instead of my $2 out of pocket expense.
“the oil industry never received direct payments from the government ”
Whether the government sends them a direct check, or they get the money through a tax loophole, it’s still a subsidy. You’re making a distinction without a difference.
You probably think all money belongs to the government, and if you receive an Income Tax REFUND, it is actually a “subsidy.”
The misleading assessment of “Oil Depletion Allowance” excerpted from Robert Bryce’s book, “Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate” fails to include all of the costs incurred by the well owner in each of the 10 years that the well operates. The initial outlay may have been $100,000, but every year the well operates there are expenses, and some of them are substantial. In some years, the well may even be idled due to the lowering of the sale price of a barrel of oil.
The author of this article apparently assumes that once a well is drilled, no operating costs are incurred, it operates automatically like a cornucopia, and 100% of the revenue from the well is pure profit for the life of the well. The Oil Depletion Allowance provided a buffer for the risk takers who often lost everything when wells failed to produce until an ignorant peanut farmer from Georgia removed it while creating the worst economy in modern history until Senile Gropin’ Quid Pro Joe Bidet was installed as the “So Called Ruler Of The US (SCROTUS)” and on DAY ONE said, “Hold my Beer.”
Just another topic on which you have no idea what you are talking about. It is starting to look like that applies to just about everything you say.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp
The oil depletion used to apply to all oil companies. Today, it reserved for smaller companies.
Standard Oil was founded in 1870. Obviously, the oil business was already off the ground – and without government subsidies.
Standard Oil was broken up in 1911. It made money from its monopolistic behavior. The oil depletion allowance was instituted in 1913 — the same year automobiles went into to mass production. The idea was to increase oil production.
The Democratic Party pushes these myths because they know their base is made up of economic illiterates who want to believe anything that is shoveled their way. These myths, including those about Hoover, have been active for generations.
JJBraccili | January 26, 2022 at 1:53 pm |
Just another topic on which you have no idea what you are talking about. It is starting to look like that applies to just about everything you say.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp
JJB – That investopedia article as 10-15 errors and/or misrepresentations.
Since you are obviously an expert in federal and state taxation, I am sure you can point those out
You don’t even understand how the oil depletion allowance works. Yet, you feel free to critique Investopedia. I shouldn’t be surprised. You don’t know a damn thing about climate change, and you feel free to share your ignorance with us.
JJBraccili | January 26, 2022 at 7:39 pm |
“You don’t even understand how the oil depletion allowance works. Yet, you feel free to critique Investopedia.”
JJB – curious where you got the expertise to ascertain that someone doesnt know how the oil depletion allowance works, but lack the expertise to notice the multitude of errors in the Investopedia article.
Can you enlighten us
Before you enlighten us, You might want to take a quick look at US title 26, sections 56, & 57 for discussions of amt, or sections 263 & 263A for IDC , or section 611, 613 & 613A regarding cost and percentage depletion, the go over to 469 for the passive loss rules. You might also skim through subchapter K for the partnership rules, then spent a few minutes reading section 1401, 1402 et seq to learn a tad bid on SE taxation.
Of course We presume you are already the expert on the subject matter.
What do I care? Were those sections of the tax code in effect in the 1920s?
You have this obsession to somehow prove that renewables getting subsidies disqualifies them as a future source of energy. Nonsense! Not only the US government but all governments subsidize nascent industries. You think China doesn’t subsidize its renewables industry? The renewables industry is going to create a lot of jobs. Do you prefer those jobs be created here or in China? The fossil fuel industry has been shedding jobs for decades. Give me a break!
Yes, fossil fuels get subsidies to this day. I already post a link to the subsidies they get. Somehow in your warped perspective that doesn’t count. Somehow tax breaks don’t count. Give it a rest!
JJB – post some supporting evidence of the alleged subsidies.
The pro greens have numerous “studies” alleging huge fossil fuel subsidies, including some from the joint tax committe and congressional budget office which I am sure JJB will shortly post. Those studies are riddled with errors.
I already went through it.
Note the countries most heavily subsidising oil and gas. Whatever the external cost is – I wouldn’t call it a subsidy either. And whatever the cost we need energy to live. It’s not even an externality. Effects in the atmosphere of are more a commonality – in a global commons – with local and technology solutions.
‘Some analysts argue that the hidden costs of fossil fuels — such as their impacts on air pollution and global warming — are, in effect, a kind of subsidy, because polluters are not paying for the damage they cause. Last month, the International Monetary Fund calculated3 total fossil-fuel subsidies in 2020 at $5.9 trillion, or almost 7% of global gross domestic product (GDP), largely as a result of these external costs. But some disagree with this approach. “The damage caused by fossil fuels is massive, but I would not call it a subsidy,” says Johannes Urpelainen, who specializes in energy policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2
JJB – we know you already went through it. However you are so grossly “mis-educated “ on the subject you have no clue how bad those studies.
Professionals consider those studies to be jokes
JJB – you didn’t go “through” any evidence. The oil business GOT STARTED without government subsidies. Not so with the Green Extremists Nightmare wind and solar. The so-called “subsidies” you harp on were put in place well after the business was thriving. It was thriving so well that the Fed had to break it up. What a bunch of hooie you peddle here.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Professionals consider those studies to be jokes
What exactly is your professional job that makes you so qualified to immediately judge these studies?
Why are they “jokes?”
jim2 wrote:
The oil business GOT STARTED without government subsidies.
Not true. The oil business got started by freely spewing their pollution anywhere they wanted — into the land, water and sky. They paid no price for that damage whatsoever. Society paid the price.
Profits were privatized but damages were socialized. That’s capitalism in America.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
‘Some analysts argue that the hidden costs of fossil fuels — such as their impacts on air pollution and global warming — are, in effect, a kind of subsidy, because polluters are not paying for the damage they cause. Last month, the International Monetary Fund calculated3 total fossil-fuel subsidies in 2020 at $5.9 trillion, or almost 7% of global gross domestic product (GDP), largely as a result of these external costs. But some disagree with this approach. “The damage caused by fossil fuels is massive, but I would not call it a subsidy,” says Johannes Urpelainen, who specializes in energy policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.’
Nothing but assertions, with no evidence or logic presented.
Fossil fuels prematurely kill 1 in 5. Society pays for those health care costs, not fossil fuel companies. That’s a subsidy.
jim2 commented:
JJB – post some supporting evidence of the alleged subsidies.
“A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.”
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-year
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
The pro greens have numerous “studies” alleging huge fossil fuel subsidies, including some from the joint tax committe and congressional budget office which I am sure JJB will shortly post. Those studies are riddled with errors.
Such as?
‘Nothing but assertions, with no evidence or logic presented.’ DA
Normally a quote from a Nature note is regarded as a start. But the value of burning fossil fuels exceeds any impact on commonalties – storms, pollution, respiratory and heart disease, whatever – more than not burning it at this point in time.
Robert
Your 3.48.
Excellent comment. Your last paragraph says it all, For all its faults, Fossil fuel is currently the best form of energy available
As Lomborg pointed out in his book ‘False Alarm,’ when we look back we seldom fixed big problems by telling people to live with less of everything they wanted. People don’t want to go backwards, they want to progress. He cites the example of whale oil for lighting, which was the fifth biggest industry in the United States for a century until the mid 1800’s when it was supplanted by a superior, cheaper, better smelling and longer lasting product, kerosene from petroleum.
When something better than petroleum comes along, as with the successor to whale oil lighting, we will enthusiastically embrace it
However, as yet another day here dawns with little wind and no sun, the idea of relying on wind and solar as base load power is nonsensical. Here’s to their superior successor-whatever it may be.
tonyb
jim2 commented:
Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron paying a combined total of $45.2 billion
This EIA report found $4.2 B in direct federal subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas in FY2010 (http://is.gd/ajcsv3).
U.S. government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008.: $72 billion.
Source: Washington Post, Sept 25, 2009, http://is.gd/dbolp
Corn ethanol subsidies over the same period: $16.8 billion
Subsidies to traditional renewables over the same period: $12.2 billion
Source: Roger Pielke Jr blog, http://is.gd/dbosC
Global fossil fuel industry subsidies, 2008: $557 billion
Source: Financial Times, June 6, 2010, http://is.gd/dboxe
What have ANY of these GREEN SCAMMER (SOLYNDRA, ANYONE?) ever produced to earn these exorbitant subsidies?
It’s Time to End Subsidies for Renewable Energy
https://www.americaspower.org/its-time-to-end-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/
By America’s Power
April 17, 2020
Over $100 billion has already been spent on renewables subsidies.
Renewable energy resources—primarily wind and solar—have received subsidies through the tax code since 1979, most of which have occurred in the last decade. Through 2018, these subsidies amounted to more than $100 billion. This amount is far in excess of federal assistance received by other electricity sources. And for perspective, this exceeds the combined 2020 budgets for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Appell – all you have demonstrated in this last string of comments about the oil industry is that you have a serious lack of reading comprehension!
jim2 commented:
Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year.
Author Robert Bryce wrote the following about how the allowance operated in practice: “An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he’s deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000” (Spartacus Educational).
https://fascinatingpolitics.com/2020/10/04/the-oil-depletion-allowance-the-largest-tax-loophole-in-american-history/
02
So what. The depletion allowance has provided incentives for prospective investment in oil and gas and as a result the consumer has benefited in cheaper prices than they otherwise would have received. Tell the person who is scraping by that he should be willing to pay $6 or $10 or whatever a gallon to fill up his tank. The taxpayer might be subsidizing the oil and gas industry but he also benefits from the incentives to produce more fossil fuels. Until there are alternative cheap, reliable sources at scale, then you will have to just suck it up.
The tax system was not intended to be based on punitive incentives. It is intended to allow capitalism to do what it does best, produce optimal economic benefits. Going back to a top marginal tax rate of 94% might feel good if the purpose is to punish the evil rich, but what does it do for future investment and economic growth. There is a reason that all but the most economic illiterates on the left aren’t scrambling to reinstate the top rate to over 90%. They know there are disincentives to investment and capital formation.
The whiners are castigating Amazon for not paying “their fair share” of taxes. But they somehow overlook that Amazon has increased its workforce by 500,000 employees in recent years. The entire UAW Big 3 workforce is 1/3 of that. Which benefits society more, having an additional 500,000 employed households or more taxes to be wasted by big government?
The oil and gas depletion allowance and the lowered individual top marginal income tax rate have been the left’s whipping boys for generations. Whip up the anger against success, regardless of the benefits to all economic actors, seems to be the mantra that plays the best.
““An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income.”
That oilman pays $217,000 in annual income taxes on the remaining income. And his oil generates roughly $52,000 in annual federal gasoline taxes. And his efforts reduce the leverage Middle Eastern potentates and the Russian dictator have on the United States.
A man who is paying the federal government $269,000 a year for 10 years because he invested $100,000 is not being “subsidized” by the government.
Jeff 850 – you omitted two items
1) the severance tax which runs 4-9% dependending on the state.
even considering the percentage depletion in excess of basis (the only actually true subsidy) , the severance tax wipes out any benefit from the excess percentage depletion (15% deduction of gross revenue x 30% average income tax rate = approx 4-5% reduction of tax from the excess percentage depletion). Basically a net wash resulting in zero net tax benefit to the WI or RI owner.
2) State and Federal royalties. If the property is developed on state or Federal land, the royalties range from 12% to 25%. As such, the federal or state government gets the royalty payment with bearing any of the operating costs.
I left out lots of stuff. By investing the money in the US instead of elsewhere, the federal government gets to tax the makers and installers of the equipment and the incomes of their employees.
And the oilman will be hiring people to work his rig, all of whom will pay income taxes.
By turning the $100,000 that was sitting in a bank account into a thriving company with, let’s say a $400,000 payroll, he went from zero to $24,000/year in employer social security contributions.
So an investment that sat in stock and was unrealized, turned into a third of a million in annual federal revenue and David wants to say the federal government is “subsidizing” that. Because they aren’t taking more than three times what the guy invested. Annually.
Jeffnsails850, I like your replies, but I judge that the real argument revolves around the issue of tax deductibles being a subsidy having the necessary basis that the government owns all of your income. From my libertarian point of view everybody should have a tax cut and get back to owning themselves.
I had a relative who was deep, deep into the peak oil nonsense and constantly sending me information about “oil subsidies.” I made the mistake of spending an hour or two reading one of them.
All of them, of course, were designed to produce the biggest, scariest number rather than to inform. Under one section devoted to how federally funded state and local agencies subsidized oil was an especially hilarious gem: schools, fire departments, and police departments put – now sit down for this – gasoline and diesel fuel in their cars and trucks! And they pay for it!
The “subsidy” was the fact that governmental agencies use vehicles. So they added up all the gas used by government vehicles and called the big number a scary subsidy that had to be “ended.”
He defended this inclusion, of course, so I asked him if “ending all fossil fuel subsidies” means the fire truck won’t come if you call 911. Given that fueling the thing would be a forbidden subsidy.
He didn’t miss a beat- that transitioned to the next obvious demand- nationalization of oil, rationing. The fire truck isn’t a subsidy if the government seizes Exxon.
Using wind turbines again is a multiple steps backwards in terms of human development.
Humankind has exploited wind energy ever since records first began; in fact it was harnessed to propel boats along the River Nile as long ago as 5000 BC. In around 200 BC, simple windmills were used to pump water in China, while in Persia and the Middle East there were windmills with a vertical axis and reed sails designed for milling grain. In the 11th century, new ways of using wind energy spread throughout the world: settlers in the Middle East used windmills extensively for milling grain to produce foodstuffs, and the merchants and crusaders who returned from those lands brought this idea back to Europe. This allowed the inhabitants of the Netherlands to refine the windmill and adapt it to drain the lakes and marshes of the Rhine delta.
One very familiar image in Spain is the famous windmills of Campo de Criptana, which would become so well known in the 17th century thanks to the ingenious gentleman Don Quijote of La Mancha. These emblematic windmills with sails served to pump water or grind grain, and their use was widespread until well into the 19th century, With the start of the industrial revolution, the use of these windmills declined significantly, as from that point on the main sources of energy were steam engines powered by coal and electricity.
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/history-of-windpower-from-origins-to-world-war-ii/
Current temperatures in the Great Lakes region.
https://i.ibb.co/LhqjcSL/Screenshot-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/fdhbzCD/gfs-T2ma-us-1.png
“The industry that will lead this transition is, in fact, the oil and gas industry,” he says, pointing out that Santos is pursuing plans to increase investments in emissions-reduction technologies including the Moomba carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in South Australia and lower-carbon hydrogen and ammonia plants.
“We are supplying fuels and energy to most of the world’s users today, and we are used to mega-projects spending trillions of dollars globally every single year building these projects,” he says. “If someone thinks some new set of project builders is just going to arrive from somewhere else with trillions of dollars to start building some new energy infrastructure globally … they are dreaming.”
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/they-are-dreaming-why-santos-boss-kevin-gallagher-still-believes-in-oil-and-gas-20220122-p59qfd.html
JJBraccili has made a number of interventions on the topics covered here. He has magisterially dismissed those who have disagreed with him as not understanding science, and because he believes that the past has no significance for the present, he asks us to focus on the need to reduce carbon emissions in order to save the planet from a climate catastrophe. Regarding the problems of intermittent power supply of wind and solar generation he has an engineering solution: scale up the grids to connect international and even intercontinental networks of green energy distribution. What a simple proposal: let the engineers solve our problems.
Before signing off on this solution, I would urge JJBraccili to explain how a present grid as large as that of Europe, but sustained only by wind and solar power, could meet demand during periods of low supply by calling on other grids. Territories beyond Europe would have to have installed green energy capacity well beyond their normal demands. Upscaling grids also involves increasing losses of electricity in transmission over very long distances.
Clearly, the engineering solution contains its own constraints, and this before economic and political considerations are even factored in.
Very simply JJB is an expert on everything from climate science, thermal dynamic, engineering, federal tax policy, micro and macro economics.
I cant wait for Judith to post the last technology for home cooking so that JJB can express his expertise on another topic.
How about not enough wind turbines and solar panels?
Fossil fuels had technical challenges when first implemented. So did the electric grid. Guess what? Scientists and engineers figured it out. I don’t even consider intermittency a problem worthy of consideration.
Maybe, you can’t figure it out, but trust me, there are plenty of others that will.
The first computers were assembled with vacuum tubes. The term “debug” came to be because in the summertime they left the windows open to cool the computer. Insects would get into the circuitry and cause shorts. The computer had to be “debugged.”
If you were around, I’m sure you would have thrown up your hands saying computers have no future. Fortunately, scientists and engineers didn’t take that position. They’re not going to listen to you and your ridiculous arguments now.
Sure, let’s throw good money after bad and buy more intermittent wind and solar – with tax dollars and higher electric rates. What a crock you are trying to foist on us. Not to mention the extensive, complex, and hackable automation you would put in. (There is already enough attack surface on existing grids, dumb and smart.)
JJBraccili | January 26, 2022 at 12:50 pm | Reply
” I don’t even consider intermittency a problem worthy of consideration.”
JJB – that summarizies the stupidy of your idea
If you don’t think they can figure out a way around the intermittency problem, then we know why you use the moniker “the Non Climate Scientist.”
Here’s something you’re not going to like about subsides. If we end the subsides to fossil fuels, it will speed up their demise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy
If old-fashioned energy windmills and solar panels are so great, just take away all the special subsidies and give them the regular “subsidies” other like-businesses get. The oil business worked because people wanted kerosene and later gasoline. If wind and solar are needed by anyone, it will be successful without all the special treatment. No government payments to home owners to install a system and they get the going rate for electricity sold to the grid. No special treatment for wind or solar farms either, just the usual tax treatment given to like businesses. It will never happen because it’s product no consumer would buy, use, or install at a non-subsidized rate.
Since JJBraccili is, as you say, so knowledgeable in the fields of science, I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain to me why I have got my work so wrong as to estimate the climate sensitivity as 0.5degC in the paper about which I posted earlier. And the inescapable conclusion the there is not, has never been, and can never be a climate emergency due to CO2 accumulations. He can download the paper at http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 .
David Coe, thank you for the link: //www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 .
David Coe wrote:
Since JJBraccili is, as you say, so knowledgeable in the fields of science, I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain to me why I have got my work so wrong as to estimate the climate sensitivity as 0.5degC in the paper about which I posted earlier.
Why don’t you submit your work to a real, peer reviewed journal like real scientists do, then you can read the referee report (if your paper isn’t rejected wholesale) and find out.
But more likely you’ll be rejected outright.
Now this is what I would call real constructive criticism! You are certainly correct in saying that it is difficult or near impossible to get publication in certain well known journals of material that questions the “concensus”. The pal review watch keepers are very very efficient. As was pointed out in an earlier post by TEWS_Pilot our paper was initially retracted by the journal in response to objections by climate alarmists, claiming that the paper was based upon scientific errors. To their credit the journal’s editors agreed to instigate a second more rigorous review to investigate these claims. The result was that the paper was reinstated without change.
David, your case is not unusual…having them reexamine your paper and then publish it IS unusual. Dr. Tim Ball had to go to court and win against Michael Mann to make any progress, and even then, Mann chose to accept a “Contempt of Court” ruling for refusing to submit his raw data …why would he refuse to submit it for examination by experts? You decide….I never refused any requests, and in fact, I alwasy included copious notes and even photocopies of my flip pad notes so they could follow my logic.
Climate Scientists Discussed Ways To Make The 1940’s Warmth Disappear
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
The gatekeepers at “science” journals are absolutely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!“
From: Phil Jones [Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia University of CLIMATEGATE fame].
To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Dr. Michael Mann] Nature ‘trick‘ of adding in the ‘real‘ temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Michael Mann hid the post-1960 decline in the temperatures, as measured by Briffa in his paleoclimate studies using tree ring data. Mann claimed that the decline didn’t match the surface temperature record, and simply erased it.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2110d7cb6b2ae21f41e63339e4cee38d1e98b0992801f70910fe7fc130e1e673.jpg
Reviewed by who? I suspect not anyone who knew anything about climate science.
David Coe: I’m afraid your publisher has been listed as a predatory journal; see this link and the references therein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group
Also your sequence of referee reports is highly unusual, to say the least. I think you’ve been taken.
TEWS_Pilot wrote:
Michael Mann hid the post-1960 decline in the temperatures, as measured by Briffa in his paleoclimate studies using tree ring data. Mann claimed that the decline didn’t match the surface temperature record, and simply erased it.
The measured temperatures DIDN’T match the proxy data FROM CERTAIN TREES — those in far northern latitudes. It was a well-known issue called the “divergence problem.” Its context was the decline in tree growth at some high-latitude locations since 1960, an issue in climate science called the “divergence problem.” See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm for a full explanation. And you can read
“On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
Since there is an excellent surface temperature record after 1960 it makes no sense to use a few doubtful proxies at that point.
TEWS: Mann et al’s data and code have been available since 2005:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
They published in 1998, the nascent days of the Web when it was not at all common to put data and code on a Website.
TEWS wrote:
The gatekeepers at “science” journals are absolutely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow
This isn’t about stopping papers from being published, it’s about deciding what papers would be included in an IPCC report. Big difference. Obviously IPCC authors are there to use their expertise to make judgements about which published papers deserve inclusion in the IPCC reports and which don’t. That’s their job.
By the way, most refereeing is blind — the referee doesn’t know who wrote a paper. “Pal review” is a myth and is just an excuse used by authors of poorly written papers that are rejected. Instead of complaining and making excuses they ought to read the referee reports, learn from them and improve their work.
You said: “The measured temperatures DIDN’T match the proxy data FROM CERTAIN TREES — those in far northern latitudes. It was a well-known issue called the “divergence problem.” ”
So for any tree-ring proxy, how do we know that “divergence” problems didn’t occur in the past, but we just don’t know about it. If you try to resolve the problem by comparing species/site results, how do you know which is the best representative of the temperature of the site? It seems to be a slippery slope. I’m asking you because you represent yourself as having expertise in this area.
PS David Coe: Your claim of CO2 saturation is one huge error, as I pointed out earlier.
We appear to disagree. The methodology behind my work and the science supporting it is clearly set out in the paper.
David Coe: the problem with your claim of saturation is that you don’t account for the face that GHG molecules *reradiate*.
This is almost always the problem with claims of saturation. When, say, a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon from the surface, it’s put into an excited state. If it doesn’t lose that energy by collision with another air molecule, it reradiates a photon, and because the CO2 molecule is randomly oriented the emission is in a random direction. By symmetry there will be an equal amount of such photon going in all directions, so we need only consider those going up and down (because the original photons came vertically up).
Those photons going vertically can be absorbed again, the molecule then being scattered again or reradiating again. Etc. Eventually some photons at some wavelengths above a certain pressure level will even leave out the TOA.
Also, there are an enormous number of absorption lines! You chose a resolution of 0.1/cm, but that misses a lot of lines. For fun once I looked in HITRAN and found 1,406 absorption lines for CO2 between 666-668/cm. Your calculation would only have 20.
Between 540-800/cm there are 23,021 lines. Your calculation would only have about 11% of those.
Another point is that CO2 absorption dominates at wavelengths where this is very little water vapor, such as in the polar regions and in the stratosphere. You haven’t accounted for that. And some photons that would ordinarily be absorbed by water vapor will leave the atmosphere in those regions. (That’s one reason those regions are so cold!)
Please reread Pierrehumbert’s sidebar that I linked to — he explains the situation succinctly. See his textbook for more details — I believe he has a PDF at his website now, or there are PDFs elsewhere too.
sidebar on page 37 of:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Of course GHG molecules reradiate absorbed energy. They also transfer energy through molecular collisions. The reason that there has previously been such a huge range of variation in estimation of climate sensitivity is that climate scientists have been unable to untangle the complex thermodynamics of the atmosphere. However you spin it though, the atmosphere must first absorb the outgoing radiation. The question then is what happens to that absorbed energy. Some will be retained by a variety of interactions by the earth/atmosphere system, thereby increasing the earth temperature, the rest will be retransmitted through to space and must contribute to the thermal equilibrium condition at the top of the atmosphere. It is this thermal balance which determines the earth equilibrium temperature.
It s a simple calculation to determine that in order to maintain the existing mean earth temperature of 288K some 38.5% of the radiated energy from the earth must be absorbed and retained by the earth atmosphere system.(Section 1.4 of the paper). This observation enables us to calculate with some precision the individual and combined absorption effects of the GHGs leading to the result the CO2 has only contributed 3.3K towards the 33k warming required for the current 288K mean temperature. H2O contributes 29.4K while CH4 and N2O are responsible for just 0.3K combined.
I hope this helps.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that is driving climate change. If CO2 stops increasing, the earth comes to an equilibrium temperature and continues at that temperature until something else starts increasing or decreasing that can impact earth’s energy balance.
davidappell02
Forgive me, I did not comment about the fine structure of IR radiation. There are indeed thousands of individual absorption lines but because of effects such as pressure broadening most of these lines coalesce into a broad spectrum continuum particularly for complex molecules with multiple degrees of freedom such as CO2 and particularly H2O. Selecting a wavenumber resolution of 0.1 cm^-1 was a compromise between achieving a realistic answer and computational capabilities. 0.1 resolution resulted in in over 30,000 calculations for each 100m altitude elevation up to 35000m, for each GHG. I would be very happy to see someone replicate that effort using a 0.01 wavenumber resolution.
David Coe commented:
It s a simple calculation to determine that in order to maintain the existing mean earth temperature of 288K some 38.5% of the radiated energy from the earth must be absorbed and retained by the earth atmosphere system.(Section 1.4 of the paper). This observation enables us to calculate with some precision the individual and combined absorption effects of the GHGs leading to the result the CO2 has only contributed 3.3K towards the 33k warming required for the current 288K mean temperature. H2O contributes 29.4K while CH4 and N2O are responsible for just 0.3K combined.
It’s just not this simple David. One big reason why is that there are regions on Earth where this is very little water vapor, like the polar regions and the stratosphere, so the noncondensible GHGs dominate there. You haven’t taken this into account.
A couple more excerpts from Pierrehumbert (you really should read him):
“It should not be concluded that water vapor overwhelms the greenhouse effect of CO2, however. It would be more precise to say that the water vapor greenhouse effect complements that of CO2. CO2 absorbs strongly near the peak of the Planck function for Earthlike temperatures, but the water vapor absorption is nearly two orders of magnitude weaker there. Further, for Earthlike planets, water vapor condenses and therefore disappears in colder regions of the planet; it is only the long-lived CO2 greenhouse effect that can persist in cold parts of the atmosphere.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, pg 250.
==
“One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2010) p. 271
I am so glad that you raised the issue of low atmospheric H2O concentrations. Even ice has a measurable saturation vapour pressure. According to the Clausius Claperyon equation at 255K the SVP of H2O is a very significant 0.15%. Now the really interesting thing is that the H2O absorption is so strong that, at that concentration, total atmospheric absorption in the absence of any other GHGs is an impressive 60% and that would result in an equilibrium earth temperature of 280K. Yes only 8degrees lower than existing temperatures. Of course at that temperature the ice would melt and both the H2O concentration would rise along with temperature to around 285K. It would require the addition of 400ppm CO2 to bring us up to the current 288K. Not a lot of people know that – to coin a phrase from Michael Caine and a very well respected UK website.
David Coe wrote:
Since JJBraccili is, as you say, so knowledgeable in the fields of science, I wonder if he would be so kind as to explain to me why I have got my work so wrong as to estimate the climate sensitivity as 0.5degC
A better question for you is why you’re able to pinpoint climate sensitivity so precisely when full scale global climate models can’t.
Do you have an answer for that? After all, climate modelers know all about the HITRAN database just as you do.
Because full scale climate models are predicated on the concept that warming is attributed to CO2 and spend their time trying to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics. We have taken a different approach and simply calculated the IR absorption capabilities of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and H2O to determine exactly how the earths radiated energy is absorbed by the atmosphere in order to produce the 33K warming necessary to maintain the average global temperature of 288K.
David Coe commented:
Because full scale climate models are predicated on the concept that warming is attributed to CO2 and spend their time trying to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics. We have taken a different approach and simply calculated the IR absorption capabilities of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and H2O to determine exactly how the earths radiated energy is absorbed by the atmosphere in order to produce the 33K warming necessary to maintain the average global temperature of 288K.
Climate models do exactly the same thing, but with much more sophisticated physics.
BTW, climate models aren’t “predicated” on the concept that warming is due to CO2. That’s what comes out of the model’s calculation.
davidappell02
BTW, climate models aren’t “predicated” on the concept that warming is due to CO2. That’s what comes out of the model’s calculation.
That didn’t work out too well for them then did it!
David Coe commented:
>>BTW, climate models aren’t “predicated” on the concept that warming is due to CO2. That’s what comes out of the model’s calculation.<<
That didn’t work out too well for them then did it!
What do you mean?
David Coe:
Even the quickest glance at your paper shows obvious errors and lack of considerations:
1) No ice-albedo feedback. You assume no change in albedo — you take your “f” (section 1.3) to be a constant.
2) Your water vapor feedback is all wrong. Instead of the Clausius-Claperyon equation you have (section 3.5) dT proportional to dH2O where H2O is the saturated vapor pressure. That’s just bad thermo.
You write, in your conclusion, “There is indeed a positive feedback effect due to the presence of H2O, but this is limited to a multiplying effect of 1.183 to any temperature increase,” regardless of your equation 5. In fact, the Clausius-Claperyon relation shows the feedback is not linear but exponential, at 7% more water vapor per degC of warming.
3) You ignore clouds completely (section 5.1), when the cloud feedback is almost certainly positive.
4) Atmospheric CH4 strongly traps heat in its initial years/decades and then much of it leaves CO2 behind, so you can’t ignore it.
Again these are just at first glance. You should definitely have asked yourself how CO2’s climate sensitivity can possibility can possibility be 0.5 C when we’ve already had 1.1 C of warming and CO2 has only increased by 50%. Unless you have some other magical warming factor in mind. From what I can tell from reading your paper, you don’t posit any other sources of warming.
I give you credit for asking sensible questions. Let me try give sensible answers.
1 Ice albedo feedback. This may indeed be one of the contributors towards global temperatures. Our aim however was to determine the impact of atmospheric absorption on temperatures, particularly CO2 which has been fingered as the demonic gas that will destroy us all if we do not take immediate action to reduce emissions to atmosphere. We have done this by calculating the absorptive effects under current earth conditions, which includes ice cover and cloud cover. We make no attempt to predict the future impact of variations in ice cover and cloud, for the simple reason that we do not know and I suspect neither does anyone else.
2 Water vapour feedback. Variation of water vapour concentration with temperature is indeed determined from the Clausius Claperyon equation and is used in the paper to determine the saturation vapour pressure (SVP) of water vapour with altitude. This is necessary to correctly calculate the atmospheric IR absorptivity variation with altitude. Actually Clausius Claperyon is itself an approximation and in the paper we have used the more rigorous “Buck” equation. As you correctly point out this indicates a 7% increase in SVP for each 1 deg increase in temperature. That 7% figure however is misleading. It is 7% of current water concentration. i.e. if H20 concentration is say 1% (a typical average figure for the earth) it will increase to 1.07% if temperature increases by 1degC. Because of the near total saturation of the H2O absorption spectrum this increase has a minimal impact upon absorption and hence temperature.
3 Clouds. Yes we ignore the future impact of clouds and specifically point this out in the paper. See my response above in item 1.
4 Atmospheric CH4. We have certainly not ignored the impact of CH4. CH4 is often claimed to be 300 times more powerful a greenhouse gas that CO2. When we analyse the spectral data we find that not to be the case. Its absorption is limited to a very small part of the earth emitted radiation and moreover it is strongly overlapped by H2O absorption bands. We find in fact that the climate sensitivity to CH4 to be 0.06K. Of course the atmospheric concentration of CH4 is low at approximately 1.8ppm. Will it rise significantly in the future? That is debatable since it oxidises over time in the atmosphere to CO2 and H2O.
Finally you ask what is causing the current warming if it is not CO2. My answer is I do not know. That is what climate scientists are supposed to be studying.
Dasvid
You say
“Again these are just at first glance. You should definitely have asked yourself how CO2’s climate sensitivity can possibility can possibility be 0.5 C when we’ve already had 1.1 C of warming and CO2 has only increased by 50%. Unless you have some other magical warming factor in mind. From what I can tell from reading your paper, you don’t posit any other sources of warming.”
you are assuming that climate was constant when you posit we have already had 1.1C of warming. Temperatures varied considerably in the past. Phil Jones wrote a paper in 2004 admitting that natural variability was much greater than had previously been accepted.
We have had some 18 periods of warming and cooling during the Holocene. Some periods much warmer than today some much cooler. These have caused weather extremes much greater than today
If we look at those countries with long temperature records such as the UK we can see for example that we have considerably exceeded this 1.1C and indeed it was the remarkable upsurge in Temperatures from the early 1700’s, at a rate greater than today, that caused Jones to write his paper as the rapid warming ended in 1740 during the coldest winter for centuries.
This general warmth was picked up in a variety of places including Europe, The Hudson Bay company and parts of America where temperature readings were being taken and also In China As Jones wrote in a later paper
tonyb
I don’t have the time to read your paper thoroughly, but I spotted something that you got wrong. The problem is in your Figures 4 and Figures 5. It looks like you used Planck’s equation to generate earth’s radiant energy profile. You used wavelength as the independent variable. That a mistake, you should have used wavenumber.
There is anomaly in Planck’s equation. It doesn’t do the conversion of wavenumber to wavelength correctly. If you integrate using wavelength, you get the peak at a wavelength of 10 MM. If you integrate with wavenumber, you get the peak at 550 cm-1 or a wavelength of 18 MM. Here, courtesy of NASA, is ah IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy from satellite data
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d75b0d49b696ecedec244862e1d2ac47
Look at your graph and look what happens if the peak is at 18 MM. The 15 MM CO2 absorption band is now to the left of the peak where the slope is positive. Each change in temperature increases the incremental change in the energy CO2 has available to absorb. Where you have the peak the opposite in true. In fact, once the 15 MM band passes the peak and on the downside of earth’s radiant energy profile, it can no longer drive temperature change. Which is the conclusion you come to. I’m not going to go through it, but I suspect where CO2 is on the radiant energy curve will have an impact on climate sensitivity.
I had to go through the derivation of Planck’s to find the anomaly, it’s not discussed much. I did find a reference to it in Wikipedia.
“Evidently, the location of the peak of the spectral distribution for Planck’s law depends on the choice of spectral variable.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
The fact that H2O is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect is immaterial. What’s driving temperature change is the greenhouse gas that’s increasing. That’s CO2. H2O is not the driver of climate change. It’s impact increases with increasing atmospheric temperature. Increasing atmospheric temperature is being caused by increasing CO2.
You should consider revising your paper. It is obviously flawed.
Oh dear. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly when you have to resort to Wikipedia to support it. Wavenumber in units of cm^-1 is favoured by spectroscopists and most if not all spectrographic data uses this parameter. The rest of science, including the redoubtable Mr Planck, uses wavelength in micron (m*10^-6). Planck’s famous equation to determine the infra-red emissions from a black body provides the radiated energy density verses wavelength. The units for radiated energy at first sight appear a little strange. They are W/m3 not W/m2 as you might expect. This is because the calculate energy provides the emitted energy in terms of W/m2, i.e. energy emitted per unit area of surface, for each increment of wavelength in metres. Hence W/m3.
Planck’s equation provides energy data in terms of wavelength m, the spectral data from HITRAN is provided in terms of wavenumber cm-1. Which to use? In fact you can use either unit providing you are consistent. We chose to convert the HITRAN spectral data to wavelength and have integrated the Planck equation with respect to wavelength in order to calculate atmospheric absorptivity.
And yes we find that the dominant factor in atmospheric IR absorption and so called “greenhouse warming” is in fact H2O. That fact is not, as you say, immaterial. Mainly as a result of this dominance, the ability of the atmosphere to absorb more energy is severely limited. Adding more CO2 has little further impact on atmospheric absorption and hence temperature. Whatever is causing increasing temperatures, it is certainly not CO2!
That was a fine piece of “tap dancing,” but it didn’t address my point. Mostly it was irrelevant. Was that supposed to demonstrate your physics bona fides? I’m not impressed.
“Oh dear. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly when you have to resort to Wikipedia to support it.”
Was that supposed to be some kind of “put down?” That sounds desperate. The idea behind your paper isn’t new. About 3 or 4 years ago, I got into a discussion, and someone had this paper by an expert in atmospheric radiation physics. He wrote a well-respected book on the subject. He didn’t use climate sensitivity to prove his point that CO2 is benign, but his graphs looked strikingly similar to yours. I went through the paper in detail. It had a lot of advanced math that was hard to follow because he left out a few steps. That led me to Planck’s equation, where I discovered the anomaly that discredited his paper and now disproves yours.
The paper’s author published it in an obscure pay-to-publish journal out of China with an impressive title. It also turned out that the GWPF was paying the author.
I suspect the anomaly is well known among those who know something about radiative physics. Apparently, you do not. It took me a while to figure it out because I’m not a physicist.
It’s not hard to prove CO2 is not beneficial and not a cause for alarm. You can do it with the spectrograph I linked yesterday.
The first thing you notice on the spectrograph is the big hole in the earth’s radiant energy under the CO2 15 MM absorption. There’s supposed to be energy there. That energy didn’t disappear. It went somewhere, and it’s not causing anything good to happen.
Here are a few things an intellect like yours should be able to figure out from that spectrograph:
1. If the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is CO2 and only considering the 15 MM absorption band, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere would heat the planet. The radiant energy profile would get “higher,” and it would shift to the right toward larger wavenumbers. The 15 MM band would “climb” the earth’s radiant energy profile toward the peak.
2. To arrive at the peak, the CO2 15 MM absorption band must be saturated. That’s impossible. That means the CO2 15mm absorption band can only approach the peak. The peak is an equilibrium point and sets the maximum temperature the planet can achieve due to the CO2 15 MM absorption band.
3. The CO2 15 MM band is not alone. There are two “outer” CO2 absorption bands. These bands become the dominant CO2 absorption mechanism once the 15 MM band reaches the peak. These bands come into play on Venus. A spectrographic of Venus shows these bands straddling the radiant energy profile peak of Venus. That sets the temperature of Venus. The “outer” bands force the 15 MM band off the peak. Once past the peak, the 15 MM band has less and less energy to absorb. It acts as resistance to temperature change and eventually becomes benign because it has very little energy to absorb.
4. The other greenhouse gases assist CO2, which permits it to reach the peak of the earth’s radiant energy profile unsaturated and continue past the peak.
You can estimate the minimum amount of temperature rise the CO2 15 mm absorption can cause from Wien’s displacement theory. Use a start peak wavelength of 18 MM and an end wavelength of 15 MM and you get a temperature rise of 30 C. That’s not benign.
Using wavelength instead of wavenumber, you have placed the CO2 15 MM band in the wrong place in relation to the earth’s radiant peak, where it has little to no impact on the earth’s temperature. That is the basis of your conclusion, and it is wrong.
Your paper is sophisticated junk science. Whether what you did is intentional or incompetence, I do not know.
David Coe: JJBraccili is right — water vapor does not drive warming. It is a condensible gas, so you can’t put more of it into an atmosphere that’s at constant temperature. But you *can* put more CO2, CH4, N2O etc. Once those gases start warming the atmosphere, it will hold more w.v., in an amount according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, about 7% more w.v. per degC of warming.
Hence the expression “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”
David Coe: And JJ is also right about mixing arbitrarily mixing wavelengths and wavenumbers.
Wikipedia does show this very clearly — it’s the fourth line of equations in the Planck’s law article, section “The law”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#The_law
which is
B_lambda = B_nu * d(nu)/d(lambda)
so compare the first equation in that section
B(nu,T)=…
to the fifth line of equation
B_lambda(lambda,T)=…
They have very different powers of nu and lambda and different factors in the exponential.
You can’t just jump back and forth from wavenumbers and wavelengths willy nilly.
JJB and davidappellO2
Your comments are similar so to avoid repeating myself I will respond to you jointly. I must first however congratulate you both on your resilience and persistence even when wrong!
There is no error in Planck’s equation –
Spectral Radiance L = c1lambda^5/(exp(c2/lambda.T) – 1) W/m3
It is one of the fundamentals of modern physics. From that equation we can determine precisely the radiated energy from the earth. Lambda represents the wavelength measured in m. We can also from the HITRAN database calculate the absorptivity of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. HITRAN data like most spectrographic data is presented in wavenumbers which is essentially the reciprocal of wavelength. It is a simple matter however to convert the HITRAN data from wavenumber to wavelength and from there determine the transmissivity of the atmosphere to the earths radiation by integrating the Spectral Radiance modified by the atmospheric transmissivity over the waveband 3 to 100 micron, the wavelength range of radiative emissions from a body at a temperature of 288K.
In the absence of absorbing gases this results in the famous Stefans equation R = sigmaT^4 W/m2
In section 3.6 of the paper I discus the “temperature feedback” produced by the peak radiation wavelength determined from the Planck equation moving slightly to shorter wavelengths as temperature increases. This in fact produces a negative temperature feedback which offsets 30% of the positive H20 feedback reducing it from 18% of a given temperature increase to 12%. The calculation of climate sensitivity at 0.5degC includes these feedback effects.
I can assure you that after over 30years working in IR spectroscopy I know not to mix my units. Something about grandmothers and eggs. With that said I am afraid all that is left for me to say is that you are both talking gibberish.
Finally, however, I need to repeat that while mankind has no influence on atmospheric H2O concentrations, its presence and its strong IR absorption capabilities even at very low concentrations renders the IR absorbance characteristics of the other greenhouse gases inconsequential. You would need to increase CO2 levels to over 6000ppm to cause an increase in temperature of 2degC. Have you ever wondered why atmospheric CO2 levels of thousands of ppm in the distant past did not lead to a climate catastrophe?
You know you’re dealing with someone peddling junk science when they produce a word salad like you just did. When confronted with proof that their theories are pure fantasy, its distract and deflect.
You still haven’t answered my point. On your figures you show the earth’s radiant peak at 10 MM. From spectrographic satellite data, the actual radiant peak is at 18 MM. That changes everything. Your graph shows very little transmission through the CO2 15 MM absorption band. That means there is little IR left for CO2 to absorb. If you locate the peak at 18 MM, there is a lot more IR in the 15 MM band for CO2 to absorb. That should increase the climate sensitivity considerably.
I lifted this from your paper:
“A further feedback, however, is caused by a reduction in
atmospheric absorptivity as the spectral radiance of the earth’s
emitted energy increases with temperature, with peak
emissions moving slightly towards lower radiation
wavelengths. This causes a negative feedback with a
temperature multiplier of 0.9894. This results in a total
feedback multiplier of 1.124, reducing the effective CO2
climate sensitivity from 0.53 to 0.50 Kelvin.”
If the 15 MM band is positioned correctly, increases in temperature result in an increase in radiation available and your multiplier should be > 1.
David coe’s comment in response to Appell and JJB – “Have you ever wondered why atmospheric CO2 levels of thousands of ppm in the distant past did not lead to a climate catastrophe?”
Similar question – Why hasnt prior warming never set off the positive feedbacks leading to a climate catastrphe as predicted by the esteemed climate scientists
As repetitively asserted by JJB – the past doesnt matter!
I’ll say it again. The past doesn’t matter. How accurate are those ppm values? Climate skeptics lament about the accuracy of today’s temperature data, but eagerly accept any data from thousands of years ago that they can use to make a point. Hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?
While I’m here, I found a couple of interesting articles on renewable energy intermittency.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energy/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/
The last article didn’t even consider the possibility of wide area electric grids using HVDC.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Similar question – Why hasnt prior warming never set off the positive feedbacks leading to a climate catastrphe as predicted by the esteemed climate scientists
They have. Positive feedbacks always exist. Past episodes of significant climate change have led to extinctions.
There is a reason why warming doesn’t lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. You still haven’t done the basic research on that, huh?
David Coe commented:
Have you ever wondered why atmospheric CO2 levels of thousands of ppm in the distant past did not lead to a climate catastrophe?
The reason is because the Sun was dimmer in the distant past.
The Sun’s luminosity is increasing with time, by about 1% every 110 Myrs.
So back when CO2 was ~6000 ppm, 450 Myrs ago, the Sun was about 4% less luminous than today, or about 55 W/m2 at the TOA. That’s HUGE.
Lookup the “Faint young Sun paradox”
A 4% reduction in solar radiation is certainly significant. Do you have a reference for that? It might be worth noting however that following the T^4 temperature effect that 4% reduction equates to a temperature reduction of 1% or less than 3K, That is the same order of magnitude as the 1.5 to 4.5K climate sensitivity derived from climate models. Perhaps it is not so significant after all, compared with CO2 concentrations of several thousand ppm. Let me see. How many doublings is that?
JJBraccili commented:
The past doesn’t matter. How accurate are those ppm values?
That’s another good point. This widely shared cartoon of CO2 levels in the distant past
https://miro.medium.com/max/973/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif
The values come from proxies put into a model. The error bars are large. The data points in the distant past are often millions of years apart.
This graph is junk, yet certain people use it as if it’s sacred. Note they rarely if ever cite a source.
Appell man – you do realize you repetitively contracted yourself with your response to the positive feedbacks and climate catastrophe. Climate science advocates promote the belief that the positive feedbacks will cause to dangerous warming.
Appell’s comment – “They have. Positive feedbacks always exist. Past episodes of significant climate change have led to extinctions.
There is a reason why warming doesn’t lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. You still haven’t done the basic research on that, huh?”
Appell –
On multiple occassions you indicate that the positive feedbacks will cause catastrophic warming and cause extintions similar to what prior warming has done in the past.
So which one is your answer
David Coe wrote:
A 4% reduction in solar radiation is certainly significant. Do you have a reference for that?
A reference for the Sun’s changing luminosity? Not offhand — it’s basic astrophysics of Sun-like stars. Pierrehumbert gave an equation for the luminosity as a function of time in chapter 1 of his textbook, and I took the derivative and got the 1% per 110 Myrs figure. The derivative changes slowly.
This is also one reason that Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect but the Earth has not — we’re not close enough to the Sun, currently by about 0.05 AU, IIRC. But the Sun’s luminosity is increasing and in ~1.5 Byrs it will be enough for our ocean to evaporate and go into the atmosphere and Earth will then experience a runaway greenhouse effect.
David Coe commented:
Perhaps it is not so significant after all, compared with CO2 concentrations of several thousand ppm. Let me see. How many doublings is that?
Who said it wasn’t warmer then?
Who said CO2 is the only influence on climate?
On multiple occassions you indicate that the positive feedbacks will cause catastrophic warming and cause extintions similar to what prior warming has done in the past.
So which one is your answer
Define your terms.
To me
“dangerous” “catastrophic” “runaway”
Doing a sanity check on the CO2 transmission chart, here is the measured spectrum of CO2. David’s chart has a pretty long x-axis so it’s difficult to determine with precision, but his chart looks reasonable.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
The band that is causing us all the problem is all the way on the right on the NIST graph. The other two are what’s causing the high temperatures on Venus.
That’s not the problem. If you look at Mr. Coe’s graph. He shows the 15 MM CO2 to the right of earth’s radiant energy peak near the bottom. Satellite data tells us it should be to the left of the peak near the top. There is a lot more available radiant energy for CO2 to absorb at that point than where he shows it. Where he shows the CO2 15 MM absorption band, it can’t drive temperature higher anymore. In fact, when the CO2 15 MM band is on the downside of the earth’s radiant energy it can no longer drive the planet’s temperature higher by reradiation. That doesn’t mean that CO2 can drive the temperature of the earth higher because there is another effect at play that impact earth’s convective heat transfer.
All the spectrographic data uses wavenumber. The HITRAN data uses wavenumber. He could have used wavenumber when solving Planck’s equation for earth’s radiant energy profile and he would have gotten a different result. I suspect much closer to the IPCC result. He didn’t do that he chose to convert the HITRAN data to wavelength and solve Planck’s equation using wavelength. There is anomaly in Planck’s equation. That caused the peak of earth’s radiant energy curve to shift from where it should be at a wavelength of 18 MM to 10 MM and change CO2’s 15 MM band from an active player in changing earth’s temperature to a passive player. That why he came to his “conclusion.”
I didn’t get into the paper enough to know if he took into account the positive feedback from CO2s impact on H2O in the atmosphere. DA02 had some questions about it which Mr. Coe did not answer satisfactorily. That would have positive feedback and affect climate sensitivity.
So far, Mr. Coe has done a lot of arm waving and claim intellectual superiority — without evidence — as his defense. That means he doesn’t have an answer.
JJ. You do write the most amazing tripe. For the last time the Planck equation derives the spectral radiance from a black body source at temperature T. That radiance is measured in units of W/m3. That is W/m2/unit of wavelength in m. To obtain the total radiated energy in W/m2 it is necessary to integrate the spectral radiance over the total waveband in question, which in the case of the earth temperature at 288K is 3 to 100micrometers. For this reason it is necessary to converts the HITRAN spectral data against units of wavelength. If you try doing this with wavenumbers, which are essentially the reciprocal of wavelength, you will soon find yourself in an enormous pickle. The correct methodology for this is clearly explained in the text of the paper.
It is clear from your burblings that you have never undertaken this type of calculation, yet you claim to have found a weakness in the Planck equation. I am afraid that the only weakness is within your head.
You didn’t have to convert the HITRAN data to wavelength. You could have integrated Planck’s equation using wavenumber. That link I gave to the Wikipedia article on Planck’s equation lists all the variations of Planck’s equation for the various spectral variables.
Why is the HITRAN data in wavenumber if wavelength is a sacred cow?
NASA could figure it out and you couldn’t? Why didn’t they just convert all their wavenumber data to wavelength and plot that up and match it to a blackbody curve. I’ll tell you why. It would have had a radiant peak at 18 MM and not 10 MM. The blackbody temperature would have been ridiculously low.
You have the wrong location for the CO2 15 MM absorption. Where you have it there is little energy for it to absorb. Where it actually is, there is plenty of energy for it to absorb. That’s how you got your result. Am I supposed to believe you or my lying eyes? Are you claiming NASA doesn’t know how to perform a spectrograph or they are lying? That’s the only set of circumstances where you could be right. Either you’re right or they are. Which is it?
Keep tap dancing. Maybe, you’ll find a way to make it work. So far, you haven’t come close. You still haven’t addressed my point or my question.
“If you try doing this with wavenumbers, which are essentially the reciprocal of wavelength, you will soon find yourself in an enormous pickle.”
What pickle? It’s a pickle for you, because you won’t get the answer you want. Wavenumber is the reciprocal of wavelength. What should happen is you get a mirror image of earth’s radiant energy profile. What should not happen is a change in the position of the absorption bands. Can you prove otherwise?
Can I prove otherwise. Certainly.
As you point out Planck’s equations can be written in different forms depending on the spectral variable used. There are three choices wavelength, frequency or wavenumber. The spectral resolution obtained by the Planck equation is in the form W/m3 or W/m2/m (wavelength), W/m or W/m2/m-1(frequency) or W/m2/cm-1(wavenumber). A wavelength increment of 1micron is different to a frequency increment in units of m-1 which is different again from an increment in cm-1. The difference is very pronounced between wavelength and frequency and wavenumber since the last two are the reciprocal of wavelength. This results in the peak of the spectral radiance occurring at differing points in the spectrum, for the three forms of the equation. Once the spectral radiance is integrated, however, over the entire waveband in question the peak spectral energy in W/m2 is consistent whichever spectral variable is used. I realise this is difficult for a layman to understand. Wikipedia, of which you are so fond says this
“Evidently, the location of the peak of the spectral distribution or Planck’s Law depends on the choice of spectral variable”.
So our graphs displayed in our paper and Gavin Schmidt’s are completely equivalent and after integration with respect to the appropriate spectral variable, wavelength or wavenumber, will produce exactly the same result.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but this so called “anomaly” is simply a change in spectral variable and is well known to scientists. We are free to use whatever spectral variable we wish, providing we are consistent with the units.
That’s about as lame as it gets.
Schmidt’s and yours are not equivalent. Yours moves the CO2 15 mm absorption band to a completely different position where it is irrelevant and why you come to the conclusion you do. If you do a point-by-point conversion of Schmidt’s plot to wavelength with wavelength as inversely proportional to wavenumber the plot is completely different than yours because the peak will be at 18 mm. That’s the problem.
If you think those plots are equivalent, you should consider getting a new pair of glasses. Your’s aren’t working.
I am sorry that you don’t understand basic radiative physics. There’s not a lot I can do about that. But of course, there is nothing in the world that will convince you that you are ever wrong about the very many subjects that you believe you are expert on.
The latest lame response is that I don’t understand Mr. Coe’s “brillance.” I’m a lesser talent and I should be bowing before his “magnificence.”
I’m here to say the “emperor has no clothes.” What Mr. Coe is spreading around is not “brilliance.” You can tell by the smell.
Mr. Coe could end all this easily. Instead of just insisting he right. He could actually try proving it. The Wikipedia article has all the equations. All he has to do is to show how using wavelength or wavenumber produces the same results. He can’t. He continues to tap dance around the issue or pretend it doesn’t matter — it does.
Mr. Coe refuses to answer the simple question of whether he or any of his colleagues has any type of association with the GWPF or the Heartland Institute. It’s a simple yes or no question. His silence speaks for itself.
Mr. Coe claims his “paper” refutes 40 years of climate science and CO2 is harmless. Something other than CO2 is causing climate change and he has no idea what. If all that is true, why isn’t he taking his brilliant discovery to the nearest oil company. If what he claims is true, Exxon or BP of Shell, will be interested. Fame and fortune would be his. The fossil fuel industry has trillions at stake and survival. For what they’re handing Nobel prizes out for these days, he might have a shot at one. The reality is they wouldn’t give him a meeting and if they did, it would last about 10 minutes before they showed him the door.
Then he could try to publish his “paper” in a respectable journal that does rigorous peer review. He doesn’t want to do that either. I suspect he doesn’t want the embarrassment of being rejected. Even if it makes it to print, he still has to endure the slings and arrows of real climate scientists who understand the science. If I could find problems with his “work”, think what they’ll find?
“All he has to do is to show how using wavelength or wavenumber produces the same results”. That simple sentence sums it all up Mr Braccili. I don’t need to show it. It is fundamental physics.
And in fact I would be proud to be associated with GWPF or Heartland. Unfortunately for you, I am not, nor are my colleagues.
“That simple sentence sums it all up Mr Braccili. I don’t need to show it. It is fundamental physics.”
Why don’t you just say you don’t want to show it because you can’t. Face it, my point discredits that paper. Everyone who kept up with this discussion knows it.
If it was me, I would find a way to prove the point was wrong or I’d admit my mistake. I wouldn’t do a lot of arm waving and dismiss the point as unworthy of consideration. That’s you modus operandi. It’s also why that paper has no chance of getting serious consideration by the scientific community. I don’t think that was ever the point of the paper. What you are trying to do is give fodder to climate denial community. They’ll read the paper, if they can read, not recognize the sleight of hand and then claim there is a conspiracy against “science” that disproves scientific consensus on climate change.
I suspect you’re getting something for this from somebody that you won’t disclose. I hope it’s worth it.
“And in fact I would be proud to be associated with GWPF or Heartland.”
You’d fit right in.
I will try for one last time to explain the Planck equation and the “mysterious” displacement of the radiation peak when using the different units of frequency of light and wavelength.
There are two different units for expressing the radiative spectrum, frequency n, and wavelength λ. They are related by the velocity of light usually designated by c. λ = c/n
A third number “wavenumber” is essentially the reciprocal of wavelength and is thus proportional to frequency. When calculating the radiated energy using Planck’s equation it is first necessary to decide which units to use, frequency or wavelength. Either system of units will provide the same answer for total radiated energy in W/m2.
Using wavelength, the appropriate Planck equation is
Spectral Radiance L = 2hc2 λ -5/(exp(hc/k λ T) – 1) W/m3
And the energy W in W/m2 is determined by
Radiated Energy W = L· ∆λ = (2hc2 λ -5/(exp(hc/k λ T) – 1) · ∆λ W/m2 …(1)
This equation represents the energy emitted in the wavelength interval λ to λ+∆λ
Using frequency, the appropriate Planck equation is
Spectral Radiance L = 2hn3/c2(exp(hn/kT) – 1) W.s/m2
And the energy W in W/m2 is determined by
Radiated Energy W = L· ∆n = (2hn3/c2(exp(hn/kT)) – 1) · ∆n W/m2 (2)
This equation represents the energy emitted in the frequency interval n to n+∆n
These two equations 1 and 2 are clearly not the same simply because they use different units, wavelength and frequency. The waveband interval λ to λ + ∆λis different to the frequency interval n to n+∆n at any given frequency or wavelength and therefore the energy in those intervals is not the same. For this reason, the peak energy appears at different points when the two Planck equations are plotted, purely because the x axis intervals are different, one is the reciprocal of the other. Which plot is correct, you might ask? The answer is both of them. They simply represent different intervals of radiation.
When the total emitted energy is determined by integrating the two equations over the full radiation spectrum, the result is the same and results in the well-known Stefans equation
Wt = sigma. T4
Here endeth the lesson.
I don’t for one second imagine this might have penetrated your skull, but I can but hope.
I’m convinced. I’m convinced that you’re a snake oil salesman.
Where did I ever say that the area under the curve of Planck’s equation was different between plots using wavelength or wavenumber? NOWHERE! That’s not what this is about, and you know it.
You could take your plot of Planck’s equation and put the peak at any wavelength and the area under it will be the same. DUH! If you look at the area under the CO2 15 MM absorption band it will be different depending on the placement of the peak. You have to move the placement of the 15 MM band to maintain its spatial relationship with peak to maintain the area under the 15 MM band, and correctly represent the amount of energy it has to absorb. You didn’t do that, did you?
I hope this lesson in “advanced” math makes you realize that your paper belongs in the trash with the rest of the junk science. Because that’s where it’s ultimately headed.
I knew that trying to educate you would be a waste of my time. I give up. Goodbye
Mr. Coe runs away with his tale between his legs claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about because he can’t refute what I said. What I said is true.
To those of you who have been following this, what you have seen is a case study in how far climate denialists are willing twist science into a pretzel to spread disinformation and attempt to muddy the waters and cast doubt on climate science. They’re not interested in disproving climate science because they can’t. They just want to prolong the use of fossil fuels for as long as possible so that monied interests can extract as much revenue as possible before the “golden goose” is put to rest. It’s a dangerous game which Mr. Coe and his ilk are willing to play to the detriment of the rest of us.
The only reason I caught this “sleight of hand” is that I saw it before and spent the time to figure out what the “trick” was. What Mr. Coe and his colleagues have done is not new. It’s just a more sophisticated flim-flam.
David
Did you ever see the ECS calculations from Will Happer and Ricard Lindzen? I was sent private copies so don’t know what eventually got printed
tonyb
To tonyb,
No I don’t believe I have. I have referenced the paper by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020) where they calculate an ECS of around 1degC, but that paper is so complex it is quite difficult to follow. I would be interested to see those calculations if you were able to email them to coecharlesdavid@gmail.com
David
I will need to get permission which may take a little while
I am sent lots of interesting things by all sorts of people because I am discreet. Its no secret though that most climate scientists haven’t calculated the temperature change if we were to go net zero, nor that those that did were shocked by the tiny amount of change.
I think the figure for the UK was around 1/200th of a degree. The equivalent of walking up 2 steps with the theoretical drop of temperature at a higher altitude.
Still, worth spending several trillion to achieve that
tonyb
JJ
I don’t think anyone will ever measure up to being a flim flam man as well as George C. Scott did in his 1967 film the Flim Flam Man.
I’ve never quite figured out why anyone would be expressing their skepticism other than they see holes in the narrative big enough for Refrigerator Perry to walk through.
And I can’t finish commenting without thanking you for your comments. Every time I finish reading them I’m more confident than ever I picked the right side.
With your demonstrated lack of understanding of science, I’m not surprised.
JJBraccili | January 26, 2022 at 12:14 pm |
“How so? Because it doesn’t agree with your BS theory?
How long have you been at this? News Flash! It’s not catching on. It’s not going to catch on. Find another theory.”
JJBraccili, I have demonstrated when discussing with you:
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
It’s easy to measure in a heuristic way. Take the Earth’s ideal blackbody curve for its surface temperature, something like this:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Then take the radiation spectrum as it actually leaves out the TOA, also shown on that graph. The gap between those two lines is the greenhouse effect. You could do the integral numerically is you want.
Davidappello2
“It’s easy to measure in a heuristic way. Take the Earth’s ideal blackbody curve for its surface temperature, something like this:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Then take the radiation spectrum as it actually leaves out the TOA, also shown on that graph. The gap between those two lines is the greenhouse effect. You could do the integral numerically is you want.”
“Take the Earth’s ideal blackbody curve for its surface temperature…”
Davidappello2, the method I use is “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.
I consider Earth’s surface being spherical because Earth is a planet.
A planet cannot have “ideal blackbody curve for its temperature”, since planets are not blackbodies and planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
It is the basic definition of the blackbody having uniform surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The cost ignored by the “green” energy extremists is integration costs. Much above 20% unreliables starts to drive up integration costs dramatically. This is why countries with a high percentage of unreliables have higher electricity prices. The higher the penetration, the higher the rate.
Dr. Curry, Isn’t it about time for a post from planning engineer on the higher cost of electricity with more renewables?
Finally, prices under the higher renewable penetration were higher than the low renewable
penetration, driven primarily by a higher frequency of scarcity pricing conditions. Similar to
Independent System Operators (ISOs) today who assign administratively determined scarcity
1 RTS-GMLC is Reliability Test System-Grid Modernization Lab Consortium. For more information, see (Barrows
et al. 2019).
vii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at http://www.nrel.gov/publications.
prices that set prices during periods where system reserves are insufficient to meet needs, this
analysis used an exogenous price for scarcity. The many periods of scarcity in the high
renewables cases are not meant to indicate future conditions and are specific to the test system
and operating procedure assumptions used in the study; they rather emphasize the importance of
performing sensitivities to exogenously-determined scarcity prices.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74230.pdf
There may be a misunderstanding. Having read this blog for several years, I believe it is correct to say most skeptics here do believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional warming. The primary differences of opinion lie in how much warming and if it will cause a catastrophe or not.
Endangered fruit crops in Florida (frost).
https://i.ibb.co/hV1RC5n/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
It seems that if you want to know about IR absorbance, you should use IR spectroscopy. Apparently, it can measure IR absorbance. Climate scientists seem to prefer creating a model of the entire, poorly understood climate system in order to arrive at a much more speculative answer.. It is like using a model of the universe to avoid using a ruler. But then, as Pat Frank explains in his paper about models, the uncertainty becomes much greater than the warming signal that the model claims to measure.
Then we have the sustainability issues. David Coe has mentioned the climate stability, despite high CO2 concentrations in our history. This is not speculation, the evolution of life provides a detailed record showing that no temperature related catastrophe wiped out embryonic life forms in our history.
Then we have the unexplained Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and other less well known temperature excursions in our history. These are not explained by the magical CO2.
David Coe’s efforts adds to a growing body of work that shows that CO2 alarmism is not supported by scientific evidence. It is time for the scientific establishment to draw this period of poor science to a close and get on with the real job of understanding our climate.
Peter commented:
Then we have the unexplained Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and other less well known temperature excursions in our history. These are not explained by the magical CO2.
None of these periods were global. See any reconstruction of the Holocene, such as the recently published
Osman, M.B., Tierney, J.E., Zhu, J. et al. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 599, 239–244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4
Climate models certainly do include IR absorbance — amazing you could not know this.
David Coe et al’s article is rife with errors, as we’ve been pointing out. That’s why they had to publish in a predatory journal, who took them for $1,470.
02
Of course the MWP and LIA were global. Do more research. That will show dozens and dozens and dozens of papers finding conditions all over the global that were warming or cooling in concert with those periods. You are living in your own dream world. The science has moved on from what it was 20 years ago. You just don’t want to accept it.
Quit pushing the propaganda.
All journals are commercial ventures. They either make a charge for publishing and provide free open access with copyright retained by the authors or they charge for access or often both with copyright held by the publisher.. We chose a journal with open access because we want the paper to be as widely read as possible and open to criticism. That is way that science progresses.
CKid commented:
Of course the MWP and LIA were global.
Proper scientific reconstructions, like Osman et al that I liked to, and Shakun et al 2012, show that they weren’t.
Just because you have a bunch of data points doesn’t mean those periods were global. You have to access the proxies, account for their position in space and time and add everything together, which is precisely what the reconstructions do. You can’t throw up some map on the Web with a list of points and consider it equivalent science, LOL.
David, you choose a journal that’s known for publishing junk, like “The Mathematical Law of Karma” 2012. Your own refereeing experience is highly suspect, and given that even we couple of amateurs here can find major flaws seems to indicate the paper wanted your money so finally gave you the referee report you wanted.
I mean, come on — you and your co-authors came to a conclusion, in a few mere pages, with a few little calculations, radically different from thousands of professional climate scientists who have worked on this problem for decades and published thousands of papers. I know it’s fun to play around and do calculations for oneself, but don’t let it go to your head and think you’re Galileo or Feynman.
Oh dear. That’s a bit cutting. Are you losing the argument perchance?
And how he doesn’t think past proxies are any good, well … maybe except for his cherry picked study. Awesome.
jim2 wrote:
And how he doesn’t think past proxies are any good, well … maybe except for his cherry picked study. Awesome.
Proxies over the Holocene are one thing. Proxies from 450 Myrs ago are another. Like I said, that CO2 graph into the distant past is hardly ever shown with error bars. (The Holocene graphs are.) They are quite large.
And over the Holocene we have ice core data on CO2.
These are the peer reviewed studies finding conditions consistent with the MWP and/or LIA. Note they include locations in the Southern Hemisphere which means both the LIA and MWP were global events. Many authors made that part of their conclusion.
Loehle 07, Christensen 12, du Vernal 18, MAZZARELLA 18, Chang 20, Ramos 20, Praetoris 19, Wu 12, ROSENTHAL 13, HAO 20, MAKWANA 19, Wang 17, Lan 18, Hanna 18, Cahayarini 21, WIMAN 21, VERSCHUREN 20, Bracco 11, Soon 03, Esper 12, Keigwin 1996, Novello 12, Bird 11, Divine 18, Tyson 2000, du Plessis 20, KALMAN 20, Luning 19, Fletcher 12, Ilynshuk 19, BERTLER 11, Rabatell 18, Garcia 07, Rhodes 12, Bonnefille 94, Parker 18, COFFINET 18, Chen 18, Osmont 19, Gunten 09, Zhu 16, Yan 15, McGowan 18
I have to agree CKid
One of the most bizarre claims in paleo reconstruction claims is that the mwp and the LIA were not global.
To believe that, you have to believe that one high pressure zone sat over same small portion of the globe for 300+ years and a cold low pressure zone sat over the same small piece of the planet for the next 300+ years .
There far two many conflicting pieces of evidence to believe the shaft of the hockey sticks are a valid representations of the climate
So, yeah, those periods probably didn’t happen everywhere at exactly the same time. But they happened just about everywhere that proxies can be found, at different times, but clustered within a given time interval.
CKid commented:
Loehle 07, Christensen 12, du Vernal 18, MAZZARELLA 18, Chang 20, Ramos 20, Praetoris 19, Wu 12, ROSENTHAL 13, HAO 20, MAKWANA 19, Wang 17, Lan 18, Hanna 18, Cahayarini 21, WIMAN 21, VERSCHUREN 20, Bracco 11, Soon 03, Esper 12, Keigwin 1996, Novello 12, Bird 11, Divine 18, Tyson 2000, du Plessis 20, KALMAN 20, Luning 19, Fletcher 12, Ilynshuk 19, BERTLER 11, Rabatell 18, Garcia 07, Rhodes 12, Bonnefille 94, Parker 18, COFFINET 18, Chen 18, Osmont 19, Gunten 09, Zhu 16, Yan 15, McGowan 18
This list is useless.
If you can’t provide proper citations I’m not interested in discussing this with you.
Joey he non climate scientist wrote:
One of the most bizarre claims in paleo reconstruction claims is that the mwp and the LIA were not global.
To believe that, you have to believe that one high pressure zone sat over same small portion of the globe for 300+ years and a cold low pressure zone sat over the same small piece of the planet for the next 300+ years .
To believe that you have to believe that the only way a region can be extraordinarily warm or dry or cold and wet is for a high or low pressure system to continually sit over it.
You can believe the data or you can make up reasons, based on no science, not to believe it.
02
Translation. You are too lazy to read the papers. You can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance that’s infecting your thought process. Enjoy your alternate universe. As I said before, the science has passed you by.
CKid – no, the translation is that I don’t even know how to begin to look up the papers. I’m not hunting based on nothing more than a last name and year. You’re too lazy to properly cite the papers, and likely know nothing more about them than doing a cut-and-paste. If that’s all you’re going to contribute to the topic it’s not worth wasting my time on you.
02
It’s called Google. You are in denial. If you really wanted to know the state of the science you would have done that research long ago. How do you think I found those papers? I’m not going to sit here and spoon feed all of it to you. Quit hiding behind made up excuses. Let Google be your friend.
It was the same with the literature on geothermal activity in Antarctica. You were totally oblivious to the substantial number of papers on the subject and weren’t even aware of what the issues were. Why let the Bowery Boys con you?
CKid | January 27, 2022 Of course the MWP and LIA were global
davidappell02 | January 27, 2022
Proper scientific reconstructions, like Osman et al that I liked to, and Shakun et al 2012, show that they weren’t. Just because you have a bunch of data points doesn’t mean those periods were Global.
–
No winners here.
We all know what global means and it means different things to different people.
–
Motivation is a big factor in this.
–
Global might mean rampant natural variability hence no GHG effect from CO2.
–
It is highly likely that the MWP and LIA were representative of an overall global temperature anomaly.
As seen from UAH data global changes are not necessarily reproduced in both hemispheres or the different oceans or continents.
–
The first is true, second false if you wish to argue against GHG.
The first is false , second true if you want to pugs GHG theory.
CKid wrote:
How do you think I found those papers?
I suspect you found some map like this
https://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
found the list of sources and cut-and-pasted, which is all you ever do. You didn’t look at the papers at all. You have no idea if they cover the same time periods — decades, quarter of a century, century. You have no idea of the quality of the data. Neither does Joanne Nova or CO2science.org. They aren’t interested in science like that.
If you really wanted to know the state of the science you would have done that research long ago.
Already have:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
The proper way to do the science isn’t merely creating a list of proxies, it’s collating all the data and then folding it together in space and time to find patterns. There are several ways to do this mathematically, and groups like PAGES 2k have used at least 7 over the last several years, and always gotten the same result: no global LIA or MWP.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Key words: “synchronous” and “multi-decadal”
The latest such paper is, as I noted above
Osman, M.B., Tierney, J.E., Zhu, J. et al. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 599, 239–244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4
which also finds no global LIA or MWP. Have you checked to see if your proxies are included in their research? Here’s their data page — let us know:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/33112
BTW they also find no Holocene Optimum.
About Thwaites, the science attributes the melting to warm water underneath, not geothermal heat.
This is from a news article in Science magazine in Dec 2021, reporting on a presentation at the AGU meeting that same week:
“Even more worrisome is the process that has weakened the ice shelf: incursions of warm ocean water beneath the shelf, which expedition scientists detected with a robotic submersible.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/ice-shelf-holding-back-keystone-antarctic-glacier-within-years-failure
See also
Pathways and modification of warm water flowing beneath Thwaites Ice Shelf, West Antarctica, A.K. Wahlin et al, SCIENCE ADVANCES • 9 Apr 2021 • Vol 7, Issue 15 • DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd7254
Here’s an article about geothermal from August 2021 that says the role of geothermal heat under Thwaites is uncertain:
“Based on their data, the geophysicists are unable to put a figure on the extent to which the rising geothermal heat warms the bottom of the glacier. “The temperature on the underside of the glacier is dependent on a number of factors—for example whether the ground consists of compact, solid rock, or of meters of water-saturated sediment. Water conducts the rising heat very efficiently. But it can also transport heat energy away before it can reach the bottom of the glacier,” explains co-author and AWI geophysicist Dr. Karsten Gohl.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-thwaites-glacier-significant-geothermal-beneath.html
So by no means is it clear that Thwaites is cracking up due to geothermal heating, and the science has found that the likely cause is warm water coursing underneath, warm water from climate change.
Seems you’re not up on the science at all.
I had all this info ready to go before Judith’s post disappeared for some reason.
If you really wanted to know the state of the science you would have done that research long ago.
Already have:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
The proper way to do the science isn’t merely creating a list of proxies, it’s collating all the data and then folding it together in space and time to find patterns. There are several ways to do this mathematically, and groups like PAGES 2k have used at least 7 over the last several years, and always gotten the same result: no global LIA or MWP.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Key words: “synchronous” and “multi-decadal”
The latest such paper is, as I noted above
Osman, M.B., Tierney, J.E., Zhu, J. et al. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 599, 239–244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4
which also finds no global LIA or MWP. Have you checked to see if your proxies are included in their research? Here’s their data page — let us know:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/33112
BTW they also find no Holocene Optimum.
CKid wrote:
How do you think I found those papers?
I suspect you found one of those world maps that has a bunch of data points on it, like one at joannenova 12/2009 that I’m apparently not allowed to link to, found a list of sources for it somewhere and cut-and-pasted a few, which is all you ever do. You didn’t look at the papers at all. You have no idea if they cover the same time periods — decades, quarter of a century, century or how they all fit together and correlate. You have no idea of the quality of the data. Neither does Joanne Nova or CO2science. They aren’t interested in science like that.
CKid wrote:
How do you think I found those papers?
Of course you could just have the courtesy to tell us.
02 1/2
This conversation is turning more bizarre by the moment. I know you enjoy batting the ball back and forth and I know you know the literature that I’ve cited and I am sure you enjoy feigning ignorance about the science. But we’ve been on here for over a decade. What about all those newcomers who read your comments and take them seriously.
They have to be rolling their eyes and thinking to themselves “Now wait a minute. This is the guy who professes to know all that there is to know about AGW, and he is not able to even make a simple Google search for those authors. What’s wrong with this picture?”
This reminds me of the dozens of times over the last several years when I’ve linked the NOAA Tidal Gauge Graphs that showed no obvious and significant acceleration in rate of rise and you invariably accuse me of cherry picking. If you would have simply gone to NOAA and looked at all the graphs you would have known they all look the same. Various rates of rise but no obvious and significant acceleration in rate of rise.
There is one inescapable conclusion. You don’t want to face reality. Not dissimilar from the wife who knows her husband is cheating but she ignores all the signs because the truth is too painful to accept. Doing so would create disequilibrium in her sense of self esteem. Those are the same psychological dynamics involved with the Jonesians and their proselytizing to reduce the inherent cognitive dissonance. The truth is out there. The sooner you face it, the better off you will be.
CKid commented:
I know you enjoy batting the ball back and forth and I know you know the literature that I’ve cited
No, I don’t.
In fact, I don’t think *YOU* know what you’ve cited.
In fact, writing SMITH 17 isn’t even a citation. You need to go back to high school and learn again how to cite scholarly work.
Nor would citing a few papers prove anything about the MWP or LIA, for reasons I’ve already explained. The science, done properly, doesn’t show a global MWP or LIA. Don’t care what unpublished, un-peer-reviewed blogs or hack sites like CO2science say.
CKid commented:
This reminds me of the dozens of times over the last several years when I’ve linked the NOAA Tidal Gauge Graphs that showed no obvious and significant acceleration in rate of rise and you invariably accuse me of cherry picking.
LOL science isn’t done by clicking on a few data points on a graph.
If you would have simply gone to NOAA and looked at all the graphs you would have known they all look the same.
How do you know that? You don’t do science by clicking on a few links, or all of them. You have to synthesize the data. Which of course you don’t want to do or link to anyone who does. And you have to look at the quality of the data, which you also have no interest in. But scientists do:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/63/tide-gauge-records-might-underestimate-sea-level-rise
Operative word might. Have you looked at 375 graphs? If you would have then the conclusion would have been obvious.
CKid commented:
Have you looked at 375 graphs?
“Looking at graphs” isn’t how science is done, LOL OMG. Science is done by carefully analyzing data. It’s a shame anyone has to be told this.
Major fail.
The LOL is reading Appell’s motivated comments and claims about the acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. It is the largest risk of AGW and the science indicates not much is happening.
02 1/2
Talk about a major fail, how many of those distinguished scientists bought into this finding that we would have 10 feet SLR in decades. Thousands probably. And you are still taking the bait. You don’t know diddly about science. Your only expertise is in being led around by the nose by the climatariat.
You probably get your science from reading Elle magazine.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
CKid commented:
Talk about a major fail, how many of those distinguished scientists bought into this finding that we would have 10 feet SLR in decades.
I see you’re trying to change the subject.
02 1/2
No, I was right on the subject. Your link showed they are making excuses for the SLR not meeting their expectations. That was what my link was all about. Failure after failure.
In 2050 they will be making more excuses on why the Ice Sheets didn’t collapse. They will be making excuses why the temperatures showed very little warming since 2000. All the catastrophes will have turned out to be as benign as a summer breeze.
By 2075 the universities will have curriculum on why CAGW turned out to be such a dud. Right along with its strongest adherents.
Really?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/28/waikiki-hawaii-beach-climate-change-525266
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/climate-refugees-climate-change-controversy/#!
You were saying?
CKid commented:
In 2050 they will be making more excuses on why the Ice Sheets didn’t collapse. They will be making excuses why the temperatures showed very little warming since 2000. All the catastrophes will have turned out to be as benign as a summer breeze.
By 2075 the universities will have curriculum on why CAGW turned out to be such a dud. Right along with its strongest adherents.
You love to tell us what people in the future are going to think.
Oddly, they all agree with you.
It’s intellectually sad and pathetic, an admission of failure in the present.
CKid commented:
No, I was right on the subject. Your link showed they are making excuses for the SLR not meeting their expectations
You never did address my comment about all the terrible things that have happened that weren’t predicted…..
JJ
Nice try but a big whiff. The SLR is 6” per century, hardly runaway rate. Do you see an acceleration? If so, insignificant. Sorry, but Honolulu doesn’t prove anything. That rate is what has existed since mid 1800s.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
Louisiana is infamous for subsidence, in many locations at rates multiple of GMSLR. Do your homework. Neither of those examples proves anything.
You don’t know a damn thing, do you? You don’t understand how the greenhouse gas effect works. You have an excuse for everything.
https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4
I know. It’s all perfectly normal and a function of natural variability. The waters will start receding any time now.
You should consider investing in real estate in the flood prone areas in Miami. If you’re right, what you pick up for a song now, will be worth millions in a few years when climate change is proven a hoax.
CKid commented:
The SLR is 6” per century, hardly runaway rate. Do you see an acceleration? If so, insignificant.
Not true, no citations, not scientific at all. Just like everything else you claim.
JJ and Appell
I get great enjoyment from playing golf in the summer and watching NFL football now. Neither is as much fun as debating you two, though. Boys, both of you are hilarious.
Apple says my contention that Honolulu SLR is 6” per century is not true.. I provided the NOAA TIDAL GAUGE graph as my source. Appell says I didn’t provide a citation, which is exactly what the NOAA link is. Now, while I was talking about the rate at Honolulu, maybe 02 1/2 thought I was talking about GMSLR and I was wrong. Appell provided a link above that says exactly that for the 20th Century.
Appell, don’t you read the stuff in your links? Or can’t you read. If so, that explains a lot.
Come on, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
But on top of that, IPCC 6 says in Executive Summary for Chapter 9 that GMSLR was 8” for the period 1901 to 2018. That sounds very close to 6” per century.
Appell, why don’t you try reading science in scientific literature for a change, rather than Elle magazine.
JJ is no better. Instead of horsing around with 8th grade equations, you should read the actual science about sea level rise. The areas you referenced in Louisiana and Florida have subsidence problems.
Both of you need to stop getting your science from women’s magazines and political rags and do some independent Research.
One site, Honolulu, says nothing about global sea level rise.
Why even bother?
CKid commentedz;
I get great enjoyment from playing golf in the summer and watching NFL football now. Neither is as much fun as debating you two, though
So sad for you. I’d rather be playing golf, frankly. Can’t anymore though — too cold now, and a bad neck.
I hope you play golf better than you debate science. Shouldn’t be hard, frankly — double bogey golf at least?
DA
Honolulu, why bother?
I didn’t bring up Honolulu, JJ did.
Wasn’t it great fun criticizing your own link without even realizing it? Did you just read the headline in the NOAA piece without seeing what they actually said about GMSLR?
I will let both of you off the hook, it’s clear neither of you is to be trusted with a pop gun. But next time you want to lecture me about GMSLR, I guarantee I will use your link to demonstrate you don’t know what you are talking about.
Don’t complain about not being able to play golf. I’m getting close to 78 and can barely make a shoulder turn. The most fun is chunking putts, shanking chips and hitting driver and a rescue club on a 300 yard hole. Why my group even bothers is beyond me.
I rarely get into debates about sea level rise, or temperature change, or sea ice extent. It’s a waste of time. It’s hard to measure and it’s not difficult to find discrepancies. I prefer spectrographic data. It’s definitive and impossible to refute. That data confirms the greenhouse effect, and that CO2 is the cause of the current rise in global temperatures. The only thing I can’t get from it is the timeframe in which all the changes are going to occur.
I’m glad to see you put so much faith in NOAA and it’s work on sea level rise. I’m sure you’re willing to accept their expert opinion on sea level rise.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Don’t be like David Coe who decided to run away with his tail between his legs when he was confronted with criticisms of his “work.” I suspect his “work” was intended for clueless people like you to keep you believing climate change is a hoax. It was never intended for debate in the scientific community. BTW I don’t think what he did was an honest mistake. I believe it was a deliberate attempt to mislead as all junk science is.
Ah, Mr Braccili, Don’t worry I am still here. It will take a better man than you to make me runaway. I just sit here boggling at your inanities.
I was worried about you — NOT! Do you still want to keep tap dancing and telling us how smart you are, or will you finally address the questions raised about that “paper” or yours?
No. I think I will just give you something else to chew on.
I previously raised the question of why there was no historical or geological evidence to show that the earth had experienced high or runaway temperatures even when evidence exists that CO2 levels has at times been in excess of 6000ppm. With a climate sensitivity, currently estimated in AR6 to be 3degs we should expect to see evidence of temperatures rising by 12 degs or more.
Now at very low temperatures there is still a measurable Saturation Vapour Pressure of water vapour enabling the atmosphere to hold water vapour . At 255K, the temperature of the earth with no GHGs, the SVP of water vapour is 0.15%, which doesn’t sound a lot. If water is present at that temperature it will be in the form of ice, but the atmosphere will still contain up to 0.15% moisture.
Now the water vapour absorption is so strong that at 0.15% concentration it will absorb some 60% of the earths emitted radiation which will cause the earth temperature to increase to 280K only 8 deg lower than the current average temperature. (this derives from IR spectroscopy which I am delighted to know that you are so keen on) Of course at this temperature the ice will melt and the SVP will increase to its current levels increasing the IR absorption further and increasing temperatures to 285K. It will take the introduction of 400ppm of CO2 to then add the final 3K to bring us up to the current 288K.
It does not require CO2 to instigate the greenhouse effect, H2O does it all by itself! And what is even more interesting is that because of the dominance of the water vapour spectrum it is not possible for the earth temperature to increase, due to the GHG effect, more than a few degrees ( possibly 2 or 3) beyond current temperatures.
Thus previous high CO2 levels of 6000ppm or more can have had little impact on temperatures at that time. There is certainly no evidence to show that the earth has experienced high or runaway temperatures.
So what is the inevitable conclusion. Well climate science has got it wrong. The scientists have got it wrong by immersing themselves in the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics, instead of recognising what is staring them in the face.
You’ve been suckered mate!
I don’t get involved with these prehistoric temperature debates because they have zero impact on what’s happening today. I have no idea if the CO2 ppm was at 6000 ppm or higher. I have no idea what the conditions were at the time and neither does anyone else.
Let’s say somewhere in the past the ppm of CO2 was 4000 ppm 10xs what it is today, and all other conditions that impact temperature are what they are now. What happens?
The 15 mm CO2 absorption band initially is the primary driver. It will heat the planet to about 30 degree C higher than it is now. At that point it’s at the peak of the earth’s radiant energy. The next temperature change causes the 15 mm absorption band moves to the downward side of the earth’s radiant energy curve where it has less energy it can absorb. Effectively, it can’t drive the temperature of the earth higher. That job falls to the outer CO2 absorption bands, they are so far from the peak, there is very little energy for them to absorb. It’s going to take a really long time for them have significant impact on temperature. That means even though the ppm of CO2 is high, temperature is not going to change quickly. This gives the earth time to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere without runaway temperature rise.
I left out the impact of the other greenhouse and the generation of IR CO2 can absorb created from kinetic energy in the atmosphere. It gets really complex, and you need to model it to sort it all out. I will say one thing. H2O may not be as powerful a greenhouse gas as you might think. Think about earth radiant energy peak on the wavenumber plot. Absorption by greenhouse gas bands to the left of the peak have less energy to absorb as the temperature rises and those on the right have more. The amount of energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is the net of all the bands. H2O absorbs on both sides of the peak. It’s a mixed bag. It, again, requires a model to sort it all out.
As for H2O and saturation, the average atmospheric temperature will be the saturation temperature of H2O. The atmosphere will be close to saturation at that temperature. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t have clouds. The water cycle and mass transfer guarantee it. There will be variations all over the planet in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere but, overall, it will be close to saturation. The idea that H2O could drive temperature change is laughable.
I have no problem with the satellite system, as long as the level of uncertainty is recognized and the number of adjustments are taken into consideration. This paper covers some of the issues.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10712-016-9389-8.pdf
You say you haven’t debated SLR. I have for about a decade. It’s a fascinating topic and one of immense complexity. A book could be written on all the factors and approaches and methodology that have been used by the hundreds of researchers in writing their writing papers. The vast majority of studies acknowledge upfront those uncertainties. They freely admit the challenges.
The scientists aren’t the problem. It’s the media and activists who take liberties about the rate of SLR and the causality at each location. Many of those communities featured in the articles have an underlying problem of subsidence. That is almost never mentioned.
I haven’t counted them, but I assume I have bookmarked 100+ SLR studies. Some rely on the satellite data. Some rely on tidal gauges. Some rely on a combination. Those using tidal gauges use various time periods, various locations and various mathematical approaches. One study found that the SLR rate was often influenced by all the above.
While most studies find SLR around 3mm, the great debate is about the level of acceleration. There is vast difference in those findings. And that is the most important issue. I can cite a few dozen saying yes with significance and a few dozen saying none or very little. Pick your poison.
I’m not sure another 30 years will clarify the trend. We might have to wait until 2100 to do a retrospective and then they can sort out who was correct and who was not in all the papers that have been written for the last 50 years.
Coe is probably digging himself out from the storm.
See JJ, you didn’t intimidate Coe at all. My sense is that he can go toe to toe with you anytime. Mano a mano
Or maybe non-binary to non-binary.
I’ll take that challenge. Did you notice he still refuses to address the questions on the “paper” he came here to promote? He’s decided it’s better to change the subject. That’s never a good sign.
I’ll address his post when I get to it.
Your criticisms have already been addressed. Isn’t it amusing that you can find errors when the open source publication of the paper has resulted in over 7000 views and almost 2000 downloads, resulting in hundreds of emails from a variety of people with nothing but positive comments. Not a single mention of “errors”. You accuse me of deliberate deceit. Presumably that goes for my two German colleagues too, one of whom is a very well respected industrial engineer with vast experience of gas analysis, the other a Professor at Dortmund university. I suspect that they might have a very jaundiced view of your opinions.
I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I said I suspected. You’re either corrupt or incompetent. You tell me.
I have no idea of your motives in writing that. I suspect your motives because I had read a paper along similar lines by, I believe, a German author who was considered a world class expert on atmospheric radiative physics who tried to pull off the same scam. He was paid by the GWPF and wound up on their scientific advisory board. Do you or your colleagues have ties to that organization or the Heartland Institute?
“Isn’t it amusing that you can find errors when the open-source publication of the paper has resulted in over 7000 views and almost 2000 downloads, resulting in hundreds of emails from a variety of people with nothing but positive comments.”
Immaterial, and not an answer to the questions. I have a post on Quora which I call refer to as “Climate Science for Dummies.” It had 17000+ views and 400 up votes. I suspect none of your 7000 viewers has any idea of the anomaly in Planck’s equation that you exploited. I wasn’t aware of it, and it took me a while to find it.
“Presumably that goes for my two German colleagues too, one of whom is a very well respected industrial engineer with vast experience of gas analysis, the other a Professor at Dortmund university. I suspect that they might have a very jaundiced view of your opinions.”
You love to throw around credentials and imply that makes you and them infallible. It doesn’t. You know what they say: “Birds of a feather flock together” and “When you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.” There are thousands of climates scientists, scientists, and engineers that don’t agree with you. I suspect many of which have much better credentials than you or your colleagues. Then there are just about every scientific organization and technical organization. Every world government. Let’s not forget NASA and NOAA that collect a lot of the data. If you look at it that way, your chance of being right is non-existent. You probably already know that.
Thankyou JJ for this studied response. You are becoming very tiresome. It’s a good job that I have a sense of humour, although it is difficult not to laugh at the only man in the world to have “discovered” errors in the Planck equation. As a newcomer to this site, it is already clear to me that you are the site jester, along with Mr Appell perhaps. Still, I have to say that you are good entertainment value.
“Thankyou JJ for this studied response.”
Your Welcome!
“It’s a good job that I have a sense of humour, although it is difficult not to laugh at the only man in the world to have “discovered” errors in the Planck equation.”
It’s not an error in Planck’s equation — it’s a limitation. The equation doesn’t model reality perfectly. That’s nothing out of the ordinary.
I’m not the only one. There is the author of the article on Planck’s equation. and Gavin Schmidt and the boys at GISS. He’s well known with impeccable credentials and, let’s face it, you and your colleagues are not.
Here’s the reference for the IR spectrograph I used:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/
Notice on the graph the blackbody curve in red. It’s at a temperature of 294 K. The blackbody wavelength peak at that temperature is 9.9 MM. Wow! It matches your peak at 10 MM. The peak wavenumber is 550 cm-1 and that converts to a wavelength of 18 MM. Gavin Schmidt and the boys at GISS were smart enough to realize that you had to integrate Planck’s equation with wavenumber. You and your colleagues weren’t or maybe you did exactly what you wanted to support you desired conclusion.
This gets better. Take a wavelength of 10 MM and convert it to wavenumber. That’s a wavenumber of 1000 cm-1 Take another look at that actual IR spectrographic. Look at where a 1000 cm-1 wavenumber is located. It’s about 4 1/2 tics to the right of the peak. Look at the amount of energy actually flowing through the CO2 15 MM absorption band compared to the amount of energy flowing through CO2 15 MM absorption when the peak is moved 4 1/2 ticks to the right. Ii is >> greater. Think that not going to have a significant impact on climate sensitivity? Think again.
Instead of tap dancing and trying to claim intellectual superiority, address my points. Then you can tell us if your conclusions are the result of corruption or incompetence. You need to tell us if you or your colleagues have any association with the GWPF or the Heartland Institute. That’s a pretty simple question. The answer is either yes or no. That’s called full disclosure.
David Coe
> “So what is the inevitable conclusion. Well climate science has got it wrong. The scientists have got it wrong by immersing themselves in the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics, instead of recognising what is staring them in the face.”
Yes, Good point!
Rob, the acceleration of sea level rise is well documented.
Tadea Veng, Ole B. Andersen,
Consolidating sea level acceleration estimates from satellite altimetry,
Advances in Space Research, Volume 68, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 496-503,
ISSN 0273-1177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.01.016
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027311772030034X
David
You do not act as a scientist on the topic of climate change. You are simply a motivated alarmists pretending to support the scientific process.
You know there has been no significant or dangerous increase in the rate of sea level rise, but like a true zealot; you claim something dangerous is occurring. Just like your unscientific claim let the warm weather in Oregon this last summer was definitely caused by higher CO2 levels.
You are amusing but unscientific
angech | January 27, 2022 at 5:46 pm |
> “The blanket does not produce any extra energy.
Neither does CO2..
-Back radiation can only exist when there is an atmosphere capable of redirecting the radiation.
The temperature it gets to, unlike a simple surface, has to be high enough to get the radiation back to space and as such it has to exist in a higher state of excitation [or so it appears to us] as the radiation passes through or is sent back.
–
It does not manufacture more energy de Novo, all the energy present is from the sun. not made by CO2.”
JJBraccili | January 27, 2022 at 7:54 pm |
> “Not always. Venus absorbs less solar radiation from the sun than the earth does. Its temperature is 400 C higher than it should be.”
Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO₂ gas content
CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere is measured to be some 400 ppm.
400 parts per million is one part per 2.500 (1.000.000 /400 = 2.500)
So we have one molecule of CO₂ for every 2.500 molecules of air.
Or to make it even more clear: 1 /2.500 = 0,0004 or 0,04 %
Now let’s compare the 0,04% CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average.
0,04% CO₂ /1% H₂O = 0,04
or one molecule of CO₂ for every 25 molecules of H₂O in Earth’s atmosphere.
One may say there are still too many CO₂ molecules.
But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
Yeah, it’s a small number. SO WHAT??
The scientific question is, what’s the effect of that 400 ppm CO2?
Science has addressed and analyzed this question thoroughly, observationally and theoretically. The answer is that this amount of CO2 is quite significant.
Science often gives results that are unintuitive. So I wish you’d stop claiming CO2 can’t have an effect because it’s 1 in 2500 molecules. That’s unscientific. The fact is each of those molecules has a very large cross section for capture of certain wavelengths of infrared radiation.
If you throw a ball against the side of a barn, what’s the chance you hit one of the targets painted there?
Well, it depends on two factors: how many targets there are, AND how big the targets are. You can’t just look at how many targets there are and make conclusions based on that.
You know in the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, ozone’s concentration is less than 10 ppm. Maximum.
But without it we’d all be dead.
In fact life would probably never have left the sea.
So if you want to deny the importance of a trace gas, deny a mere 10 ppm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
> “Have you worked out how surface emission from Earth has deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths?”
The tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb (deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths).
Link to the graph:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb almost the 1/2 of the emitted (according to the graph) by earth’s surface IR EM energy.
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot absorb the entire amount emitted by earth’s surface at 15 μκ IR EM energy.
The two lines comparison in the graph is mistaken, because Earth is a planet and planets are not blackbodies.
A planet doesn’t have uniform surface temperature. The uniform surface temperature is basic for the blackbody definition.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I thought I went through this before.
https://www.quora.com/If-CO2-is-only-038-of-atmospheric-gases-why-does-it-have-so-much-impact-on-global-warming/answer/John-Braccili
There are other effects that I didn’t mention. The partial pressure of CO2 is irrelevant. The other molecules in the atmosphere increase atmospheric pressure which increases the molar density of CO2 which makes it more likely a photon that it can absorb strikes it. As CO2 increases and the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere increases. This enhances the CO2 impact as a greenhouse gas.
You keep pushing that planet rotation theory which is junk science. Here are problems with that theory that you refuse to address.
1. The equation you claim as new “universal law” is flawed. At 0 spin rate it predicts planetary temperature is 0 K — even if a planet is 1 ft from a star.
2. From spectrographic data we can determine the amount of energy the earth is radiating. That tell us the earth’s temperature is 255 K. From matching the radiant profile of the earth to black body profiles we determine the earth’s temperature is 288 K. The difference is due to the greenhouse effect. To warm the earth from 255 K to 288 K requires energy. You can determine the amount of this energy from spectrographic data. It is the area between earth’s actual radiant profile and the black body profile. That energy is 150 W/m2.
You claim there is no greenhouse effect, and the warming is due to planet rotation. You have no source for the 150 W/m2 necessary to warm the planet. It is impossible for planet rotation to supply that energy.
3. I went through an analysis that proved a planet stays in energy balance as it moves from one spin rate to another. The amount of energy absorbed and radiated change, but the difference remains zero. That means all that happens as you spin a planet is the surface temperatures become more uniform, but the planet’s temperature remains constant.
davidappell02
. “You know in the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, ozone’s concentration is less than 10 ppm. Maximum.
But without it we’d all be dead.
In fact life would probably never have left the sea.
So if you want to deny the importance of a trace gas, deny a mere 10 ppm.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.”
Sun does not emit radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end.
It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Well, it depends on two factors: how many targets there are, AND how big the targets are. You can’t just look at how many targets there are and make conclusions based on that.”
Also it depends on the ball.
If targets emit balls, it doesn’t necessarily mean a ball hitting a target is getting caught.
Also the size of molecule is much bigger than the size of atomic nuclei.
Also EM radiation has a duality, it is wave and it is corpuscula. When hitting atoms wave goes thru. When hitting atoms corpuscula goes thru, because the size of corpuscula is not the same as the size of the wavelength it is originated from.
Example:
The sea water is transparent to the visible light.
It is completely dark in the deep waters.
Conclusion:
It takes a thick layer of water to absorb visible light.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas commented:
Sun does not emit radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end.
Wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/G-Graaf/publication/271891094/figure/fig1/AS:295086937133058@1447365616452/Solar-spectrum-at-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-and-at-sea-level-1_W640.jpg
Christos Vournas commented:
Also it depends on the ball.
OK.
If targets emit balls, it doesn’t necessarily mean a ball hitting a target is getting caught.
The target doesn’t emit a ball until it catches one.
Also the size of molecule is much bigger than the size of atomic nuclei.
Obvious but irrelevant.
Also EM radiation has a duality, it is wave and it is corpuscula. When hitting atoms wave goes thru. When hitting atoms corpuscula goes thru, because the size of corpuscula is not the same as the size of the wavelength it is originated from.
You’re confused. Photons are absorbed with some probability if their frequency matches a molecule’s transition frequency.
davidappello2
> “Photons are absorbed with some probability if their frequency matches a molecule’s transition frequency.”
“…with some probability”
Excellent point!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s atmosphere is fairly transparent but not thin.
CO2 interacts with infrared radiation, described as absorbing it and emitting it.
At earth surface level all the absorbable infrared from the earths surface is absorbed within a relatively short distance.
None makes it back to space without some redirection.
This process is colloquially known as the Greenhouse effect.
It is observable, describable and is responsible for the surface temperature we have on the surface of a planet.
Most of the effect is due to another GHG , H2O.
Regardless, the amount of H2O and CO2 present changes the atmospheric hence surface temperature specifics for reasons not dependent on the planets spin rate.
–
I have no problem with some of your ideas of spin affecting surface temperature.
Ned Zelik and JJ might but Dr Spencer and may others assign it a role but only in terms of increasing it closer to the effective radiating temperature.
–
But like Zelic, attempting to prove that there is no GHG effect because it is all pressure ( his scenario) or all rotation ( yours) leads to a perversion of the mathematics in order to cover up the fact that atmospheres do cause surface temperature variations for physical reasons unrelated to the the one size must fit all theory.
–
Thank you angech for your respond.
angech
> “I have no problem with some of your ideas of spin affecting surface temperature.
Ned Zelik and JJ might but Dr Spencer and may others assign it a role but only in terms of increasing it closer to the effective radiating temperature.”
Angech, you described the exact situation.
angech
> “But like Zelic, attempting to prove that there is no GHG effect because it is all pressure ( his scenario) or all rotation ( yours) leads to a perversion of the mathematics in order to cover up the fact that atmospheres do cause surface temperature variations for physical reasons unrelated to the the one size must fit all theory.”
I do not say it is all rotation.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is so much stronger than Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, when estimating earth’s mean surface temperature, has a negligible impact on earth’s surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
“I do not say it is all rotation.”
–
That is putting a new spin on previous postings.
JJBraccili
> “David Coe’s is much better. His is more like a magic trick. It involves sleight of hand. He’s not going to get away with it either.”
JJbraccili, you are wrong because you are ignorant. Also you are wrong because you don’t want to learn, you don’t listen to the reason, you only talk, talk and listen only to what you say.
David Coe and I are very much right, because we came to the same right conclusion:
There is nothing to fear about the trace CO2 0,04% (400 ppm) content in earth’s thin atmosphere.
Let’s start from the beginning explaining to you about
the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
What is it you don’t understand?
Have you ever visited my site by chance?
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You and David Coe are in the same class. He just smarter and better at slinging BS than you are.
“Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
What is it you don’t understand?”
Set N=0. T is 0 K even if S approaches infinity. Explain that.
“Set N=0. T is 0 K even if S approaches infinity. Explain that.”
Equation has limitations.
0 < N < 10
…………………..
Please compare:
V = S /t ; V velocity, S distance, t time.
Set t=0, V is infinity. Explain that. (Equation has limitations).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
V is not S/t. It’s ds/dt or delta S / delta t as delta t — > 0. The equation has no limitations. You don’t know what the definition of velocity is.
You don’t get it. In you equation, as spin goes to zero, planetary temperature should approach the blackbody temperature — not zero. It gives the wrong answer. Explain that.
Don’t make up some BS like you usually try to do.
JJBraccili
> “V is not S/t. It’s ds/dt or delta S / delta t as delta t — > 0. The equation has no limitations. You don’t know what the definition of velocity is”.
Yes, ” as delta t — > 0 ” yes, it is a limitation…
You don’t get it. Equations have limitations. Example: A spacecraft makes the earth-sun distance in one minute (1). Light makes earth-sun distance in eight (8) minutes.
Does spacecraft move eight (8) times the speed of light? NO, there are limitations in velocity equation.
Don’t make up some … like you usually try to do.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The “limitation” with your equation is that it doesn’t work. Your “theory” belongs in the trash with the rest of the junk science.
angech
> “Ned Zelik and JJ might but Dr Spencer and may others assign it a role but only in terms of increasing it closer to the effective radiating temperature.”
angech, what I demonstrate in my postings is that planet mean surface temperature for most of the planets is higher than the theoretical effective radiating temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That may be true for an arithmetic average, but as I continue to point out to you, that means nothing. It has nothing to do with how much energy gets radiated into space and nothing to do with planetary temperature.
JJBraccili
> “That may be true for an arithmetic average, but as I continue to point out to you, that means nothing. It has nothing to do with how much energy gets radiated into space and nothing to do with planetary temperature.”
Thank you for your respond JJ.
I was like everyone else very much worried about the CO2 emissions our civilization “pumps” into atmosphere. In early 70s the first information for me were the acidic rains destroying Germany’s forests. I am as everyone else very sensitive to the environmental issues, After all it is our planet, it is our home we are worrying about.
I am a M sc. mechanical engineer. I was taking for granted everything Climate Science was explaining about Global Warming because of the Earth’s atmosphere Greenhouse Effect.
And why I had not to be confident in our Climate Science specialists rightness?
What I knew about the problem was from the mass media, like everyone not being a specialist in the Climate Science does. The Climate Science is associated with climatologists, the well educated in their subject people, who do the weather prognosis.
The weather prognosis has now very much powerful instruments, including atmospheric phenomena satellite monitoring etc.
Also it has the most powerful computers to do the weather modelling. And almost always the climate scientists’ the weather prognosis is very much precise and correct. We are talking about a great science here – the Climate Science.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Word salad that says nothing. What’s your point?
JJBraccili
> “That may be true for an arithmetic average, but as I continue to point out to you, that means nothing. It has nothing to do with how much energy gets radiated into space and nothing to do with planetary temperature.”
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is so much stronger than Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, when estimating earth’s mean surface temperature, has a negligible impact on earth’s surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’ve have NEVER answered any of my 3 criticisms of your “theory.” All you do is repeat the same thing over and over. Give it a rest. You can’t resuscitate this corpse by insisting it’s not dead.
Christos Vournas | January 29, 2022 angech
> “Ned Zelik and JJ might but Dr Spencer and may others assign it a role but only in terms of increasing it closer to the effective radiating temperature.”
“angech, what I demonstrate in my postings is that planet mean surface temperature for most of the planets is higher than the theoretical effective radiating temperature.”
–
No, you are not demonstrating it.
It is a well known fact.
–
You are trying to explain it using a variation of a well known fact that rotational speed increases surface temperature toward the effective radiating temperature.
–
This answer is inadequate because it is addressing only part of the problem of high surface temperatures, which are not only due to rotational speed, hence your need to modify your theory and split rotating objects into different types.
–
Similarly Ned Zelic et al use pressure as their sole modus operandi.
The same mistake due to refusal to accept that there are other factors at play.
–
When it comes to surface temperature the presence or absence of an atmosphere is vital.
This then changes the dynamics because surface temperature, as defined, depends on what level of the atmosphere the surface is in and the optical depth and constitution of that atmosphere.
A totally different concept to the effective radiation temperature.
–
So neither of your methods is addressing the real problem yet have to make adjustments to make your answers fit.
–
To be consistent, if not fair some of the GHG theorists make the same mistake in reverse.
Rotational please speed is important.
Pressure has a known direct link to temperature.
Yet a lot of GHG proponents ignore these components in their quest for the one true answer.
–
You have put up interesting concepts in your search.
The SB equation is useful but limited and cannot adequately address surface temperature variations in a non ideal perfect radiation in all directions world.
The effect of shape contour and composition is very important but not because of how they exist but how that shapes the characteristics of atmospheric direction and transmission of energy.
–
Similarly pressure changes effect the composition of the atmosphere available but without taking into account the different radiation transmission states of the different available atmospheres under pressure Zelic will also be mistaken but close in his estimates.
–
Time to meld the theories, get over the GHG hangups and move on.
I should post this over at Tallblokes as well.
Pressure is not responsible for planetary temperature. That “theory” is based on the fact that if you compress a gas the temperature rises. It is also a fact that any body above 0 K radiates energy. There is no energy source to hold the pressurized gas at the temperature due to compression. Without a source of energy, the body returns to close to absolute zero. The planetary temperature always depends on the energy balance between the planet and a star.
The only impact pressure has on planetary temperature is to increase the molar density of greenhouse gases which increases the “greenhouse effect.”
The planet’s rotation has zero impact on planetary temperature. Spinning a planet is not an energy source. All spinning a planet does is give the planet a more uniform surface temperature which will approach the radiating temperature of the planet as planet rotates faster and faster. Refer to my previous posts on this subject for proof.
JJBraccili Just so wrong
Pressure is not responsible for planetary temperature.
Despite “The relationship between pressure and temperature of a gas is stated by Gay-Lussac’s pressure temperature law. Therefore, as the pressure of a particular system goes up, the temperature of that system also goes up, and vice versa? ”
“That “theory” is based on the fact that if you compress a gas the temperature rises.
And? No responsibility?
” It is also a fact that any body above 0 K radiates energy. There is no energy source to hold the pressurized gas at the temperature due to compression.”
Brilliant. So the planet has no sun because you specify this?
” Without a source of energy, the body returns to close to absolute zero. The planetary temperature always depends on the energy balance between the planet and a star”.
But there is a source of energy in this case.
“The only impact pressure has on planetary temperature is to increase the molar density of greenhouse gases which increases the “greenhouse effect.”
The law states that the pressure and the temperature are related with or without molar GHG density.
“The planet’s rotation has zero impact on planetary temperature.”
Again because you say so rather than science.
“The planet’s rotation has zero impact on effective radiating temperature.” is a correct statement.
No doubt you will say this is what you meant despite the difference between effective radiating temperature and surface temperature being the subject of the effect of rotation.
It is a well known fact that rotational speed increases surface temperature toward the effective radiating temperature.
“Spinning a planet is not an energy source.”
A spinning planet is an energy source to a non spinning object.
You are half right.
No matter how fast a planet spins it has no energy in the spin direction unless it encounters something that the spin relates to.
“All spinning a planet does is give the planet a more uniform surface temperature which will approach the radiating temperature of the planet as planet rotates faster and faster. Refer to my previous posts on this subject for proof.”
–
Diabolical. You actually admit that spinning a planet increases the surface temperature after denying it.
Well. well, well.
“The planet’s rotation has zero impact on planetary temperature.”
You said this just before?
Once again you have the science wrong. It’s a really annoying habit.
Here’s what the Gay-Lussac’s pressure temperature law actually says:
“The pressure exerted by a gas (of a given mass and kept at a constant volume) varies directly with the absolute temperature of the gas.”
The key phrase is at constant volume. The atmosphere’s volume is not constant. It varies with temperature. Pressure is constant. Pressure is determined by the mass of the atmosphere of a planet and its gravitational pull. Temperature is determined by energy balance between a planet and a star. Volume is the slack variable that is set by temperature.
I had to look up the Gay-Lussac Law. Then I realized the last time I heard of it was in high school. It was replaced with the ideal gas law that says PV=RT and is applicable to earth’s atmosphere. P = Pressure, T = Temperature, R = the gas constant, V = specific volume. P and T are fixed, and V varies with T to satisfy the law.
I went through CV’s rotation theory and its BS. Rotation has no impact on planetary temperature. For a planet’s temperature to rise, it has to absorb energy. I went through and proved mathematically that during any change in rotation the absorbed and emitted energy change, but the net remains zero. Hence no change in planetary temperature. Planetary temperature = radiating temperature. All that happens when you rotate a planet is that the difference between the hot side and cold side temperature get less and less and approach the radiating temperature.
Here is the mathematical proof:
“When I use the symbol T. Take it to mean. T to the 4th power. Let the sun’s temp be Ts. let the hot side surface temperature of the planet be Th. Let the cold side surface temperature of the planet is Tc. k is the Stefan-Boltzmann x emissivity x area. Assume the sun irradiates half the planet so the hot side, cold side areas are the same. Start with a non-spinning planet with no atmosphere and at steady state.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted by the planet = kTc (no energy is being radiated to the cold side of the planet).
At steady state heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet. k(Ts – Th) = kTc or Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun.
Heat absorbed on the hot side is k(Ts – Tc)
Heat emitted by the planet kTh.
Since Tc = Ts – Th, make the substitution for Tc
heat absorbed by the planet = kTh
heat emitted by the planet = kTn
Heat absorbed = heat emitted. The planet will remain at steady state. Rotation doesn’t impact planetary temperature no matter how fast you rotate it. When the planet returns to steady the hot side and cold side temperatures will be identical to the value they were before rotation. Take the ultimate case where you spin the planet so fast that surface temperature is uniform. That what we assume when we calculate an average temperature for a planet by making spherical corrections. There will be no change in planetary temperature as a result.”
JJBraccili
“All spinning a planet does is give the planet a more uniform surface temperature which will approach the radiating temperature of the planet as planet rotates faster and faster. ”
See, you don’t understand it. Please visit my site. Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I understand perfectly well. I gave you 3 criticisms that you refuse to respond to. You just repeat your “theory” as if it came down from the mount on stone tablets and the universe revolves around it. It’s a curve fit of a limited set of data where you didn’t use the correct equation form.
It isn’t even good junk science. David Coe’s is much better. His is more like a magic trick. It involves sleight of hand. He’s not going to get away with it either.
Well, JJB, that’s one thing we agree on. If the Sun were somehow switched off, soon the Earth would be a ball of assorted ices composed of the gasses in the atmosphere. It’s obvious that with incoming energy, the energy contained in the atmosphere would radiate into space and not be replaced. Therefore the Earth would come into equilibrium with the surrounding space, which is very, very cold.
The gases in the atmosphere would probably liquify or freeze depending on how cold it got.
Correction: It’s obvious that WITHOUT incoming energy …
Outer space is neither hot nor cold. Only mass can have molecular kinetic energy and a temperature. It’s a perfect insulator preventing conductive and convective heat transfer. It’s a medium that allow radiation to pass through it unimpeded.
JJBraccili | January 30, 2022
“I had to look up the Gay-Lussac Law.”
??
Me too.
“‘Here’s what the Gay-Lussac’s pressure temperature law actually says:
“The pressure exerted by a gas (of a given mass and kept at a constant volume) varies directly with the absolute temperature of the gas.”
Very good.
But
“The key phrase is at constant volume.”
“The atmosphere’s volume is not constant.”
“It varies with temperature.”
–
I’m probably wrong but I would venture that the whole earth’s atmospheric volume might be more close to constant than you think
Then this.
“Pressure is constant.”
based on
“Pressure is determined by the mass of the atmosphere of a planet and its gravitational pull.”
Pressure is determined by gravity and shape and composition of the planet. Hence gravity is not the same all over and nor is air pressure.
I think that is why they call them highs and lows.
For the air pressure.
It is also dependent on wind and temperature variations
Since Gravity is variable pressure must always be variable.
Since we live on a rotisserie local temperature changes daily and again so does the pressure
You’re as bad as David Coe.
When we talk about a planet’s pressure, we are talking about average surface pressure. Minor variations don’t mean squat. Pressure varies with altitude which is more significant. If you want, we could talk about average atmospheric pressure or average atmospheric temperature or average atmospheric volume. It all leads to the same result. Pressure has nothing to do with planetary temperature.
The volume of the atmosphere is not constant. V=RT/P. V varies with T and P. Your idea that pressure is the cause of planetary temperature is nuts.
Oh look. JJs woken up. Tin hats on fella’s
Oh the irony. It burns. Literally. Beware the siren song “saving the planet.” Instead, you will impoverish yourself and your fellow man. Without further ado, the Green Extremist Nightmare continues.
The price of polluting across Europe is rising as traders bet generators will keep burning coal instead of expensive natural gas.
European Union benchmark carbon futures are up almost 6% this week, the biggest weekly gain since early January. Even with a slight dip on Friday, it now costs close to $100 for businesses in the region to put a metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/cost-of-emitting-carbon-soars-in-europe-with-u-k-hitting-record
The Green Nightmare has so many knock-on effects in Europe, it’s hard to keep track of them all. Just a reminder that Europe’s current energy crisis has been caused by favoring “green” unreliable energy sources over local development of petroleum and natural gas.
“Supply is being limited by constrained refinery runs in Europe where high natural gas prices have steeply increased operating costs for some refiners,” said Jonathan Leitch, an oil market analyst at Turner, Mason & Co. “There is also some disruption from planned and unplanned shutdowns across the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/diesel-margins-surge-around-the-world-in-constrained-market
Germany’s output is declining. The Green Extremist Nightmare factors into this.
Impatience about record price pressures is already testing policy makers at the European Central Bank, who point to a surge in energy they can’t control. Governments have stepped into the breach by offsetting higher costs for consumers to prevent a spending squeeze that may still materialize if escalating tensions at the Russia-Ukraine border send prices even higher.
Services providers and retailers expect to raise prices in the coming months, the Commission survey showed. Consumers turned more pessimistic about their future financial situation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/euro-area-outlook-darkens-with-germany-on-brink-of-recession
Yes, Germany is in decline. Her “Energewende” transition to renewable energy has been a disaster. She has chosen to close down 50% of nuclear in the last month and is committed to closing the rest at the end of this year.
Renewable energy, aka wind power was leading to industry closures and blackouts due to intermittency. The chosen solution was to greatly increase the number of wind turbines. Now when the wind is blowing, Germany has far too much electricity. It must be used, supply and demand must always balance, a concept not understood by politicians. The wholesale electricity market then has to adopt strongly negative pricing to dispose of the unwanted electricity.
When the wind does not blow, Germany has even more useless windmills doing nothing and faces power outages, disruption of industry and angry consumers. So now, Germany has an unstable energy market, an unstable grid close to collapse and the highest electricity price on the planet.
When the wind is not blowing, Germany is completely dependent on Russian Gas. This is strategic folly of the highest order, brought about by green stupidity. The sanctions against Russia may lead to the shut down of Germany.
Peter, didn’t Germany as a country choose to close down nuclear after Fukushima? Many people said at the time it could lead to problems.
davidappell02 | January 28, 2022 at 2:57 pm | Reply
“Peter, didn’t Germany as a country choose to close down nuclear after Fukushima? Many people said at the time it could lead to problems.”
Yep germany was warned – yet the greenies won which means germans lost
joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Yep germany was warned – yet the greenies won which means germans lost
“BERLIN, Nov 17 (Reuters) – Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended her decision to phase out nuclear energy, even though it has made it harder for Germany to wean its economy off fossil fuels.
“In an interview with Reuters, the outgoing chancellor also said she was opposed to any plans by the European Union to label nuclear power as “sustainable”.
“”It’s true, of course, that we now face the very ambitious and challenging task of completing the energy transition while phasing out coal and nuclear power,” said Merkel, who will step down once a new government is sworn in following an election in September.
“”But it’s also true that this will be worth it for our country if we do it right.”
“Merkel, who has led her country for 16 years, pushed for Germany to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in Japan a decade ago, a decision that most Germans agree with.”
11/17/21
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-merkel-defends-nuclear-power-exit-despite-climate-challenges-0
Applel – I presume you are acknowledging that Germans and Germany lost by the greens phasing out reliable nuclear electric generation along side with expending wind generated electric power – especially with the loss of wind over the last several months
JTNCS: I’m pointing out that more than the “greens” in Germany wanted out of nuclear power.
davidappell02 | January 28, 2022 at 6:05 pm |
JTNCS: I’m pointing out that more than the “greens” in Germany wanted out of nuclear power.
Appell – if more germans wanted to get rid of nuclear – it just means that when greens get their way , then everyone loses
Clearly a lot of Germans “got their way” on nuclear power after Fukushima, including Merkel, but for some reason you want to blame it all on the greens. Doesn’t sound justified to me.
davidappell02 | January 28, 2022 at 6:15 pm |
Clearly a lot of Germans “got their way” on nuclear power after Fukushima, including Merkel, but for some reason you want to blame it all on the greens. Doesn’t sound justified to me.”
Who else would you blame for something so short sighted
An old f**t is someone who suffers from intellectual myopia. That’s you. You see things only one way.
There are going to be missteps along the way on the road to renewables. Renewables are the future. Get used to it! Any the problems with renewables will be addressed.
You may think the problems with renewables are insurmountable. Others do not.
the non scientist wrote:
Who else would you blame for something so short sighted
The Reuters article said most Germans were in favor of getting rid of nuclear.
Including Angela Merkel, trained as a quantum chemist.
Maybe Angela Merkel thought this would transform the reactors into Heisenberg ones – there and not there.
This quote applies perfectly to Merkel. “ It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
Wind turbines can be shutdown. It happens automatically when the wind speed gets too high. It a lot more difficult with a nuclear or a conventional power plant. You can’t just turn them on or off at will.
JJB thinks this bug is a feature. ;)
Not a bug. No different than a safety valve on a vessel. Do they have those in fossil fuel power plants? Yes. Do they have automatic safety devices in nuclear power plants? Yes.
Once again, you are clueless.
Sure, but those safety features don’t turn the nuclear or gas plant off at arbitrary times for an arbitrary number of days. It’s a bug.
Neither do the safety features on wind turbines.
So you are saying when high winds shut down the wind turbine, it continues to produce electricity? Really?
That’s not what I said. I never said anything about electric generation when a wind turbine shuts down.
OK. So you have no point whatsoever. Admit it. Wind and solar farms are not the wave of the future they are made out to be. Take an honest look at grid-interconnected Europe. They are suffering. Take the hint.
As usual, you are clueless. My point was that you can shut wind turbines down if you have too much electric generation. Not so easy with a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant.
All those “problems” that you deem insurmountable are not. Unsurprisingly, you may not be able to solve them, but there are others who can and will. I already posted a couple of articles in Scientific America that explained what is going on. Currently, there are computer models that have been designed to find the best strategy for deployment of renewables. I have pointed out technology that can provide solutions. We are in a lot better shape than when fossil fuels and electrical distribution were in their infancy.
Quit being an old f**t.
Since gas plants ramp up and down to compensate for unreliables, you are obviously wrong about them not capable of being shut down. They are finely tuned instruments that load follow as needed. There are even nuclear designs that load follow. You really don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
I’m not wrong. I posted information to ClimateReason that should end this discussion and the one on intermittency.
Here’s something on the flexible operation of nuclear power plants. I doubt you’ll see it in the US because it’s not cheap.
https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/
Here’s something that details the problems with varying the output of nuclear power plants.
https://physicsworld.com/a/can-nuclear-be-used-to-balance-renewables/
Anything else?
Nobody said switching to renewables is going to be cheap, but the costs involved pale to the costs we will incur if climate change is allowed to continue unabated. This is one of those cases where economics is not an issue.
JJ Braccili
I have posted this link before which details the UK national grid figures
https://grid.iamkate.com/#:~:text=The%20National%20Grid%20is%20Great%20Britain%E2%80%99s%20electricity%20transmission,demand%20Generation%3A%20Generation%2023.57%20GW%20119.0%20%25%20
There is a section in text regarding the Balancing mechanism. Gas power stations etc ramp up and down continuously.
Today, Wind is the largest contributor. It is the first time for many weeks there has been anything beyond a gentle breeze, most days I have recorded no wind and we are a few hundred yards from the coast.
Last week wind was providing 3% of what is currently a low demand.
There are numerous graphs in the link for each hour , day, month or year, that will show the amount of power each type of energy produces.
When wind is shut down because it exceeds the upper safe limits, there is a compensatory scheme to the operators.
Our total energy generation is some 64GW. That needs to be doubled by 2030 for EV’s, Heat Pumps etc.
The difference between the 1 or 2GW that renewables were producing at times recently, (from the largest wind farms in the world) is a very long way from the some 130GW required in a few years.
That wind includes the North Sea and European connectors so covers a wide geographical area. Wind operates at some 34% efficiency off shore- much lower on shore- so needs a great many turbines to provide even the current level of power.
Until Batteries come along that can store weeks worth of energy for our 24/7 66 Million person large economy it is difficult to know where our power will come from if the wind doesn’t play ball, which happens for weeks on end.
From our previous conversation it appears the American generation system is not as sophisticated or as adaptable but is rather piecemeal. Yes, A proper National grid is surely needed and presumably is part of Biden’s infrastructure plan? Presumably solar can feature much more in the US than it can in often cloudy Britain.
I can not stress enough that my interest in fossil fuels is because I like Heat, power and civilisation. If and when a better and economic alternative is provided I will use it
tonyb
Here information on how power is generated:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/Electric%20Power%20Plant.pdf#:~:text=The%20three%20boxes%20in%20Figure%202%20represent%20the,Capacity%20not%20used%20would%20be%20ready%20in%20reserve.
Most of the power produced is base load power. That is produced from sources that provide a fixed amount of power. Any power source can be designed to be variable, but the costs are prohibitive. That’s why most power plants aren’t designed that way.
Here something else I found as I searched for information on how power plants operate:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked
Puts a different light on the BS you and others have been spreading.
That Yale article mentions a lot of factors to measure the grid, but it’s missing one of the most important: PRICE!
JJBraccili
I took the trouble to post a useful real world graphic for you,, stated the real world position with wind, agreed that the US needs a grid yet still you are rude and dismissive.
tonyb
Rude and dismissive? I posted references that disprove your assertions. You seem to think that the limitations of renewables cannot be overcome. That’s BS. A lot more was overcome in order to build a reliable fossil fuel infrastructure.
Well, JJB, I’m sure Europeans will be happy to know they aren’t living in the “real world.” That article is a joke – we have a REAL WORLD case right now in Europe. There are high electric rates, plants shutting down, and citizens there thrust into fuel poverty. Germany is having to burn the worst type of coal, lignite, to keep the lights on. This isn’t an academic exercise any longer, it’s happening now.
Whatever is happening now will be studied, the causes found, and the design of the electrical generation and distribution system will be modified to prevent a future occurrence. That’s how the real-world works. I can guarantee you; the changes will not involve going backward.
JJBraccili
> “Rude and dismissive?”
Here it is what is rude:
“That’s BS.”
Please, there are so many other ways to express your disproval of something you do not agree with. Every time I see you righting that…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I call them as I see them, and not without justification.
We are discussing issues here…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, we are. Not the manure you’re trying to spread.
I thought I recognised the name Amory Lovins one of the authors of the Yale piece. He and Shellenberger clash. The latter pro nuclear the former renewables.
“It gets worse. Many prominent environmentalists, worried that abundant nuclear power would lead to overpopulation, endorsed strong anti-human sentiments. As Shellenberger noted:
“Giving society cheap and abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun,” said Paul Ehrlich. “It’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of cheap, clean and abundant energy because of what we would do with it [emphasis original],” said Amory Lovins in 1977.”
The example cited of Germany is a very bad one. What do you think Nordstream is all about?
Germany has made an alliance with Russia and proven an unreliable ally of ours in order to get constant large supplies of Gas. He is demanding more gas from his near neighbour Holland as well.
To get power Germany is burning brown lignite. They are short of energy and know like the rest of us suffering enormous price spikes, that if there is no wind you cant generate power.
When we (in the UK) intend to produce 100 times as much wind energy as was available during the latest regular wind droughts -as shown in the National grid figures-you have to wonder how it will be produced.
Tonyb
I’m agnostic on nuclear power. The only comment I have on it is if you want it, it’s going to have to be located in uninhabited areas far from population centers. It will not be accepted otherwise.
You keep insisting that renewables are unacceptable because of intermittency. That is simply not true. That can be figured out. From what I’ve read on the subject; it’s being worked on now. It’s not going to take a scientific miracle.
What will take a scientific miracle is if we get to the point where the only solution is scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere. It is possible to scrub CO2 from the air but only on a much smaller scale than required for this problem. We couldn’t build the plants fast enough even if we tied up all our manufacturing and construction capability for decades.
Well, JJB. At least you have admitted Europe isn’t faring well with wind and solar. And you have been strident concerning your knowledge and expertise concerning the integration of renewables with grids. You should see this as a happy development. Contact the EU at once and tell them how to fix the mess “green” energy has made there.
Much to your chagrin, I’m sure they will.
JJBraccili
> “Yes, we are. Not the manure you’re trying to spread.”
JJ, you are being rude (manure you’re trying to spread) because you don’t understand “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is a lot of talk lately about censorship. Even Neil Young has had to profess that he is not in favor of it. He could have fooled me. Many now say that real science involves open discussion and an exchange of ideas etc. This is obviously true. But the censorship today has been of a very particular kind. The voices that are being muffled are a very specific group of scientists/doctors. We have for almost two years now been systematically suppressing the voices of the very people we need to hear the most. They are the clinical professors of medicine and independent doctors that have actively been treating Covid successfully all along. We are talking about many hundreds of thousands of patients throughout the world. It is these often most eminent doctors, world class physicians, who have on their own networked together to devise effective lifesaving treatments, starting from very early on in the pandemic. They have been trying to tell humanity that this disease is most treatable and when caught early rarely leads to hospitalization. What has been missing from society’s discussion of Covid has been all the brilliant and dedicated men and women doctors who were treating Covid with great results. They were left out of the discussion. Their voices were systematically stomped on with the most amazing campaign of propaganda and disinformation probably in human history. This included fraudulent studies published in prestigious medical journals to taking away of hospital privileges from our most senior and distinguished clinical professors. It was the very successful suppression of the voices humanity needed to hear most. It was precisely the opposite of what needs to happen in an enlightened society.
Hear, hear. Spot on.
Nobody is censoring anything. None of these “alternate” treatments has survived clinical trials. Monoclonal antibodies were proved to be effective to treat original covid and the delta variant and it was approved for use. It doesn’t work against omicron. Yet, some insist that it still be provided.
It’s all about the data and not what a bunch of doctors, who wouldn’t know how to perform a clinical trial, and talking heads have to say.
Onshore wind produced electricity has generous guaranteed prices, otherwise they would make a loss. Offshore wind is even more costly and depends on massive subsidies. Wind turbines would not exist without a rigged market. The reasons are obvious, – high capital cost, short life, high maintenance costs, intermittent production and low efficiency.
The connection costs are huge compared with a conventional station. Billions are being spent to cope with the uncontrollable fluctuations in supply. The grid was not designed for this useless source.
The experience in Germany shows that more turbines means a lot more problems, not less.
More turbines are less efficient because all the good locations are already taken. Also, turbine slipstreams interfere with each other and massive areas are required. Health effects and planning permission is also becoming problematic and the recycling issue for blades has not been solved.
Wind is certainly not the future. It was pushed by charlatans and seized by Greens and ignorant, desperate politicians.
CO2 IR absorption bands are saturated as discussed above and I have complete confidence in the spectral analyses of HITRAN. Many countries have huge coal reserves. I have no objection to the use of coal provided its polluting properties are brought under control. The low cost of coal can easily make 21st Century quality exhaust scrubbing effective and affordable.
I can confirm that the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive was exceptionally effective in cleaning up the emissions from coal fired power stations. The real pollutant emissions, NOX, SOX and particulates are/were reduced to very low levels. This involved the installation of very expensive emission abatement equipment. The UK which at the time was a member of the EU, promptly closed down and pulled down almost all coal fired generators shortly after achieving the abatement targets. Unbelievable!
Yes, we did, we have two coal fired power stations left, which were pressed into service when the wind died.
Tonyb
Not forgetting the environmentally friendly Drax power station, the largest thermal generator in Europe, burning North American Forests. You simply could not make it up!
“Recent research suggest that solar indirect effects could amplify an anomaly in solar insolation by a factor of up to 3-7.”
Judith: It would be interesting to see a thorough review article on this, where you evaluate arguments both for and against.
David
What we need are another ten Drax then we would be really green . .
No we don’t. I tripped up and fell down a flight of stairs working on the boiler front at Drax. Luckily I landed on my head and only broke my wrist! I got no sympathy from Drax. Their big sign at the station entrance which had said 848 days since the last site accident had to be amended the next day to 1!
Anyone up to explain reflection for me scientifically particularly in relation to reflection back in the direction of the incident beam
This breaks two rules of physics.
I can see it with those 5 metal balls on strings when the first stops then moves back in the direction it came from when the 5th ball returns and strikes.
However if a beam of light strikes an object an reflects instantaneously you have a complete reversal of force which means a shove back to stop it then a shove back to send it away .
So a force in one direction gives double the force in the other direction?
Feynman’s QED posits light can reflect in directions opposite the photons direction of travel and must do so.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/qed-the-strange-theory-of-light-and-matter-df50782b1651
Thank you Jim2.
I am still a novice working through the Feynman lectures.
The point still stands, great man or not.
It breaks the basic rules of physics.
I will give it a shot.
Thank you again.
The classical rules of physics worked in many macro-scale situations. But it failed in the somewhat-smaller-than-microscopic domain.
You have to look at the problem in terms of momentum. Conservation of momentum holds in all inertial frames. Change in momentum is caused by force. Since there is no force applied in reflection. Change in momentum is zero. Same principle explains your multiple ball on a string problem.
When you raise one ball and let it drop. The force of gravity causes the ball to accelerate and gain momentum when it strikes the other balls the momentum of the ball is transferred from ball to ball. No other force is applied to the balls, so the same momentum is transferred to each ball. When the last ball receives the momentum, it has no other balls to transfer it to. It separates from the other balls and the force of gravity lower its momentum until its velocity is zero and then the process is repeated in the opposite direction.
I pointed you in the right direction. Go figure it out.
You? Going through Feynman’s papers? You don’t even understand the basics. Take your planetary temperature post which I haven’t replied to yet — completely ridiculous.
Photons have momentum, even in classical electromagnetism, and so they can apply force to particles.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55964/do-photons-actually-generate-a-slight-kinetic-force
JJBraccili | January 30, 2022
“You have to look at the problem in terms of momentum. Conservation of momentum holds in all inertial frames. Change in momentum is caused by force. Since there is no force applied in reflection. Change in momentum is zero.”
–
It is at moments like this that sheer bliss descends on the world.
“Since there is no force applied in reflection.
Change in momentum is zero.”
You are a gem JJB.
–
angech wrote:
Conservation of momentum holds in all inertial frames. Change in momentum is caused by force.
Good Lord.
Please, just go home. And stay home. And don’t come back here ever again.
angech wrote:
Thank you Jim2.
I am still a novice working through the Feynman lectures.
Hey novice: Feynman doesn’t discuss QED in his Lectures.
Learn to shut up about what you don’t know.
Otherwise you look like an id-iot.
jim2 wrote:
Feynman’s QED posits light can reflect in directions opposite the photons direction of travel and must do so.
Please learn to shut up when you have no idea what you’re talking about. For you this includes the subject of “QED.” We’ll all be better off for it — you especially.
davidappell02 | January 27, 2022 at 11:20 am |
” water vapor does not drive warming.”
water vapor is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%,
–
Conclusion, if you consider warming to be due to a GHG effect and water vapor and clouds equate for 85% of the GHG effect then water vapor really does drive warming.
“It is a condensable gas, so you can’t put more of it into an atmosphere that’s at constant temperature”
–
That is not an argument . All gases are condensable.
If the atmosphere is not fully saturated it will continue taking up water.
The temperature of the water source, not the atmosphere, is the determinant of how much water will be put into the air.
NB The temperature of the air has nothing to do with it except that it can be eventually warmed or cooled depending on the temperature of the liquid surface. “Saturation” occurs when the evaporation rate equals the condensation rate and the air is in equilibrium with the liquid.
“Hence the expression “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”
David,
Gavin will be very cross with you
The reason Gavin and Zeke belabour water vapor as a forcing is their joke of a claim that water vapor has a limited residence in the atmosphere of only 10 days.
Please get it right for them so I can take you to task over the right wrong answer.
When the atmosphere is saturated with water it CANNOT have any more impact on temperature. The maximum amount of water in the atmosphere is fixed by atmospheric temperature. Something else has to raise the temperature of the atmosphere in order for more water to be in the atmosphere and then it can affect temperature. Water is positive feedback and can never be a driver.
DA02 is right and you, once again, are wrong. You have the science wrong, again!
You assume that the atmosphere is saturated. It never is totally saturated. Average Relative Humidities are typically 70 to 80%. What controls the RH is the field of meteorologists, weathermen. It is not true to say that atmospheric H2O cannot increase without an increase in temperature.
The point is H2O is temperature limited can do so much and no more at a fixed atmospheric temperature. Can it vary from below saturation to above saturation for short periods of time? Of course, but it is always moving toward saturation, and that can’t drive the steady state temperature of a planet higher. It needs something else to do that and then it reacts. You need to take a course in phase equilibria and heat transfer.
JJBraccili makes the same averaging mistake, again. There is not any average atmospheric temperature to refer to.
As, there is not any planet average surface radiating temperature Te.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yet, the temperature in your BS equation you refer to as Tmean and all you did was correct the radiating temperature for spin or don’t you understand that?
Thank you David for your comments of reason now and in your previous postings.
Always nice to get lots of flack.
It means one is right over the target and they do not like it.
Flak itself is interesting always loud and self promoting, attention seeking, look at me, I’m shooting at the enemy, I’m a good guy.
In reality Flak is pretty harmless, noisy, flashes of light and smoke that does nothing positive except light up the target more.
As you said earlier, good for a laugh but can become tiresome.
Mr. Coe is wrong on this subject as he is on the other subject we are discussing. He’s looking for something, anything that could be the cause of climate change other than CO2. He’s not going to find it, and neither are you.
JJBraccili | January 30, 2022 at 9:56 pm |
Mr. Coe is wrong on this subject as he is on the other subject we are discussing.
–
JJ I found this unusual paper on water vapor.
What do you think of his comments and ideas.
Is he legit or not?
Water Vapor Myths: A Brief Tutorial (copyright 1998-2020)
Author: Steven M. Babin, MD, PhD
Anyone know if this is real? Genuine?
That paper is part fact and mostly fiction. His main point is that the amount of water in the atmosphere is not dependent on atmospheric temperature. That is wrong. The good Doctor doesn’t understand the condensation process.
Water in the atmosphere has no idea it is in the vapor phase. The evaporation process separates the water molecules, and their kinetic energy keeps them apart so that intermolecular forces can no longer pull them closer together to form a liquid phase. As the temperature of the atmosphere lowers, the kinetic energy of the water molecules decreases, and the molecules draw closer together. Eventually, they get so close that the intermolecular forces draw them very close together, release energy and a liquid phase forms. The temperature at which this occurs is called the dew point or saturation temperature, and it is constant during the condensation process for a pure component.
There is a simple equation for calculating the dew point temperature. It’s yP = xPv: y is the mole fraction of water in the atmosphere. P is the pressure of the atmosphere, a constant. x is the mole fraction of water in the liquid phase. It has a value of 1 because a pure liquid phase forms. Pv is the vapor pressure of water, solely a function of atmospheric temperature. There is a maximum amount of water the air can “hold” for a given atmospheric temperature.
The liquid water has nothing to do with it, and that’s where the good Doctor makes his mistake. Before condensation starts, it doesn’t exist.
JJBraccili
“Yet, the temperature in your BS equation you refer to as Tmean and all you did was correct the radiating temperature for spin or don’t you understand that?”
Yes, it looks like – only theoretically, but planet Te is a mathematical abstraction. JJ, there is no need to be rude. You can refer to the New equation in neutral terms, or in terms of a disproval, without being rude.
No matter how much I disagree with you, I never be rude towards anything you say, or towards yourself personally, because we discuss issues here, we are concerned of the same planet Earth.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your solution that we should do nothing because CO2 is benign is both wrong and unacceptable.
JJBraccili | January 31, 2022
re
| Water Vapor Myths: A Brief Tutorial (copyright 1998-2020)
Author: Steven M. Babin, MD, PhD
Anyone know if this is real? Genuine?
–
“That paper is part fact and mostly fiction. His main point is that the amount of water in the atmosphere is not dependent on atmospheric temperature. That is wrong. The good Doctor doesn’t understand the condensation process.”
–
Thank you for your view JJB.
Anyone else care to offer an opinion on Babin?
Is JJB right?
angech: “I found this unusual paper on water vapor.
What do you think of his comments and ideas.
Is he legit or not?
Water Vapor Myths: A Brief Tutorial (copyright 1998-2020)
Author: Steven M. Babin, MD, PhD”
JJBraccili: “That paper is part fact and mostly fiction. His main point is that the amount of water in the atmosphere is not dependent on atmospheric temperature. That is wrong.”
I have a slightly different take on that paper than JJB. The paper is correct; but a key point, for most meteorological purposes, is Babin’s summary statement number 4:
“Because cloud droplet and air temperatures are nearly the same, it appears that saturation vapor pressure depends upon air temperature.”
Indeed, air temperature and cloud droplet temperature are almost always exactly the same, especially in the lower troposphere. One might even say that air temperature (quickly) determines cloud droplet temperature, so, in this sense, saturation vapor pressure does depend upon air temperature.
Babin is making a point that illuminates the basic physics, but the practical consequences are not altered from the usual statement that the amount of water vapor that air can “hold” depends on air temperature (semantics aside).
I have to laugh when someone says that how we been doing things for over a century is wrong. In terms of how processes are modeled. Phase equilibria has provided a consistent basis over the last 100 years. It’s used to model distillation columns, flash separators, etc. The principles used to model condensation are in the same vein, but simpler.
I already went through the equation used to calculate the dew point temperature. There are two calculations you can perform. You can fix dew point temperature and calculate how much water the atmosphere can contain, or you can fix the amount of water in the atmosphere and calculate the dew point temperature.
As you start condensing, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will drop and that means the dew point temperature drops. I was mistaken before when I said the dew point temperature would remain constant. How far the air temperature is below the dew point temperature determines how much water condenses. The average condensate temperature will be above the air temperature and will never be equal to the air temperature. Of course, the condensate is free to transfer heat with the atmosphere and come to an equilibrium.
The condensation process releases heat, and that can raise the temperature of the surrounding air and limit condensation. It’s a complex process with both heat and mass transfer playing a part.
JJBraccili: “I have to laugh when someone says that how we been doing things for over a century is wrong.”
Well, this is probably not worth arguing about, but clearly Babin’s point is one regarding disequilibrium conditions, wherein the temperature of the vapor phase is different from that of the liquid (or under conditions in which molecular surface forces are important). I grant that he “sensationalizes” and misleads when he says “Even today, many people believe that saturated air is holding as much water vapor as it can and that warm air holds more water vapor than cool air.” Under almost all atmospheric conditions what “many people believe” is quite true. But air can become supersaturated, a fact that is quite relevant for droplet formation and other aspects of cloud physics.
In any event, I don’t think that Babin is saying anything that implies what we have been doing for over a century is wrong, or contradicts the points you made above. As I said, for many practical purposes, the amount of water vapor that air can “hold” depends on air temperature, as you insist.
What I described is for a non-equilibrium system. That one of the reasons why I got temperature wrong. I’m used to dealing with continuous flow systems operating at equilibrium.
Of course, the atmosphere can be supersaturated for a time. That won’t last long. That doesn’t change the fact that the amount of water in the atmosphere is limited by temperature, and it is positive feedback and can never be a driver of climate change.
JJB: “…the amount of water in the atmosphere is limited by temperature, and it is positive feedback and can never be a driver of climate change.”
Agreed. G’night.
I was most surprised to read Babin’s comments that only the water temperature, not the air temperature dictated the amount of water in the atmosphere.
Not the temperature of the atmosphere itself.
Counterintuitive.
If true this is a complex and important point.
I spend a lot of time working with complex phase equilibria. It’s not true.
angech wrote:
All gases are condensable.
LOL.
Not at the temperatures seen in Earth’s atmosphere.
For crying out loud.
angech wrote:
The reason Gavin and Zeke belabour water vapor as a forcing is their joke of a claim that water vapor has a limited residence in the atmosphere of only 10 days.
Why do they say that?
Why?
And who are you?
Someone who is so uncertain, who has so little confidence in his science he’s too afraid to even sign his comments with his real name.
Pingback: Überschreitung (oder Nicht-Überschreitung) der Schwellenwerte von 1,5 und 2,0°C • Cottbuser Freiheit
Pingback: Überschreitung (oder Nicht-Überschreitung) der Schwellenwerte von 1,5 und 2,0°C – Aktuelle Nachrichten
Solar activity has increased (possible X-class flares) and SOI is increasing again.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Energy transitions are built by entrepreneurs inventing markets. It is all bang for buck – squeezing costs and milking profits – making hay while the sun shines. Which is what? 30% of the time? Low density energy – large energy storage needed at higher penetrations – land and resource intensive.
Factory fabricated nukes have got to be cheaper. Close the fuel cycle to solve the waste problem. Can’t melt down or be used in nuclear weapons. Put one in my backyard any day.
Energy transitions are not made by targets. There are countervailing objections. One that the targets are not scientifically tangible – incalculable but based on a guess of the risk of contributing to climate tipping points. Two that the practical Paris accord country commitments – confirmed in Glasgow – are what the world is working to – and not untestable temperature targets. It’s a golden calf fallacy – a falsehood adored by the populace.
Pingback: Überschreitung (oder Nicht-Überschreitung) der Schwellenwerte von 1,5 und 2,0°C - FreeSpeech.international
JJBraccili | January 30, 2022 at 4:46 pm |
“I went through CV’s rotation theory and its BS. Rotation has no impact on planetary temperature. For a planet’s temperature to rise, it has to absorb energy. I went through and proved mathematically that during any change in rotation the absorbed and emitted energy change, but the net remains zero. Hence no change in planetary temperature. Planetary temperature = radiating temperature. All that happens when you rotate a planet is that the difference between the hot side and cold side temperature get less and less and approach the radiating temperature.
Here is the mathematical proof:
“When I use the symbol T. Take it to mean. T to the 4th power. Let the sun’s temp be Ts. let the hot side surface temperature of the planet be Th. Let the cold side surface temperature of the planet is Tc. k is the Stefan-Boltzmann x emissivity x area. Assume the sun irradiates half the planet so the hot side, cold side areas are the same. Start with a non-spinning planet with no atmosphere and at steady state.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted by the planet = kTc (no energy is being radiated to the cold side of the planet).
At steady state heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet. k(Ts – Th) = kTc or Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun.
Heat absorbed on the hot side is k(Ts – Tc)
Heat emitted by the planet kTh.
Since Tc = Ts – Th, make the substitution for Tc
heat absorbed by the planet = kTh
heat emitted by the planet = kTn
Heat absorbed = heat emitted. The planet will remain at steady state. Rotation doesn’t impact planetary temperature no matter how fast you rotate it. When the planet returns to steady the hot side and cold side temperatures will be identical to the value they were before rotation. Take the ultimate case where you spin the planet so fast that surface temperature is uniform. That what we assume when we calculate an average temperature for a planet by making spherical corrections. There will be no change in planetary temperature as a result.” ”
I had to copy-paste JJBraccili’s comment here, because it is lost up there. The topic’s importance deserves a separate sub-thread and it will take some additional comments to explain how much wrong it is.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili
> “Assume the sun irradiates half the planet so the hot side, cold side areas are the same. ”
Planet is not irradiated on hot and cold side separately, while irradiated the planet rotates.
> “At steady state heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet.”
Yes…
> “Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun.”
It is an impossible suggestion. To turn the sides facing sun and stay again steady…
> “Take the ultimate case where you spin the planet so fast that surface temperature is uniform.”
It is impossible, because planet surface never comes even close to uniform temperature, no matter how fast it rotates.
Planet cannot have uniform surface temperature because planet is solar irradiated from only one direction. While rotating, the side facing sun will always be at higher temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is impossible, because planet surface never comes even close to uniform temperature, no matter how fast it rotates.
Planet cannot have uniform surface temperature because planet is solar irradiated from only one direction. While rotating, the side facing sun will always be at higher temperature.”
That’s ridiculous! The faster and faster you spin a planet, the more evenly the planet is irradiated, and the surface temperature becomes more uniform. That is a perfect example of what you do. Just make stuff up as you go along and insist that it’s right.
The only way you’re going to explain away my proof is by your usual method of making up science as you go along. Then you’ll quote something inane from your theory and refer us to your website.
We went through this already. Let’s not do it again. The second time around is not going to get better for you.
Now, let’s discuss the math’s…
JJBraccili
“When I use the symbol T. Take it to mean. T to the 4th power. Let the sun’s temp be Ts.
let the hot side surface temperature of the planet be Th.
k is the Stefan-Boltzmann x emissivity x area.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)”
–
JJ, the equation you apply:
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)
is for radiative energy transfer from a flat surface – a plate (with uniform temperature Ts) to a flat surface – a plate (with uniform temperature Th).
There is also a necessary condition the dimensions of plate (a*b) should be some orders of magnitude larger than the distance (R) between the plates.
a >>> R and b >>> R
–
When applying this necessary condition to your considerations of the planet cross-section cycle of radius (r) which is irradiated by the sun (R is the earth’s orbit radius), the distance between the two “plates” (earth and sun) should be
r >>> R
–
In our case, planet is a sphere which is irradiated by a point source.
For the solar irradiated planet the radius (r) is much-much smaller than the distance from the sun.
r <<<<<<<<<<<<<< … <<<<<<< R
r =6000 km vs R =150.000.000 km
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ts is not the temperature of the sun. It is the temperature of the energy source. It is the effective solar radiating temperature. The solar irradiance varies with the inverse of the square of the distance from the sun. If you used the sun’s temperature, you would get a ridiculous answer. You calculate it from the hot side and cold side temperature and assuming the earth is in energy balance. If the hot and cold side temperatures are correct, then the total heat transferred absorbed and emitted should be 240 W/m2.
In other words, the source is relatively close to the earth. We are using average temperatures that take into account the spherical nature of the earth.
Try again!
Christos calculates the wrong Earth temperature. The surface may be where we live by and large – but emissions are from an atmosphere loaded up with greenhouse gases. There are IR emissions from the surface to the stratosphere. In between there is convection. So really – his bastard child of Stefan and Boltzmann blackbody emission temperature is not nearly up to the task.
JJ always misses that a mathematical ‘proof’ of a priori assumptions is a whirligig only empirical science can extract us from.
.
CV’s equation is for a planet without an atmosphere. His equation says that the current temperature of the planet of 288 K is caused entirely by spin and therefore greenhouse gases have no effect on planetary temperature.
My proof involves radiating temperatures. What it shows is that rotating a planet does not impact the energy balance and cannot cause a change in planetary temperature. In it I move from one state to another. Energy is a state function. That means the final result is independent of path. I have no idea what you comment about it means.
JJ assumes but again has no empirical evidence. And energy in the Earth system is so far beyond him as to be incredible.
‘We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example. We also find regular structures on much smaller scales, like the ripples in the windblown sand, the intricate structure of animal coats, the beautiful pattern of mollusks or even in the propagation of electrical signals in the heart muscle.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
There are two major paths to changing the energy balance of the planet. Emission and reflection. In the absence of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions – largely the past 40 years – both evolved dynamically in response to internal, physical mechanisms. They still does.
Another RIE word salad that says nothing and means nothing. The story of his life.
BTW there is another way to effect earth’s energy balance. It’s called solar irradiance — the most important factor. You missed it. Why am I not surprised?
Unless there is observation and analysis there is no science. What is observed is that solar variability is an insufficient cause of past or present climate change. The IPCC says as much in its forcing informatics. The alternative is what Judith calls indirect solar effects. Internal effects that change albedo and/or planetary surface temperature and amplify the solar signal.
e.g. http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
And just now – searching for Goode and Pallet 2007 – I found a new project Earthshine update. Confirming CERES. How exciting.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
Just what is changing in the climate system?
Grasping at straws. Why is it that all these “discoveries” never amount to anything? Natural variability cannot be the cause of climate change. NASA seen nothing but natural variability in albedo — no trend.
If any of this BS had any merit, why is the fossil fuel industry silent? They sponsored junk science for decades as part of a disinformation campaign. If there was actual proof that CO2 was benign, why wouldn’t they be part of a major PR campaign to get the truth out? They must be part of the cabal trying to put the fossil fuel companies out of business.
The usual tendentious nonsense. Much of the warming of the past few decades emerged from internal dynamics. The ‘trend’ in albedo is some 0.5 W/m2 in Earthshine and larger in CERES.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/b53025af-1889-4deb-80a4-3a6b88985771/grl62955-fig-0003-m.png
‘Earthshine annual mean albedo anomalies 1998–2017 expressed as reflected flux in W/m2. The error bars are shown as a shaded gray area and the dashed black line shows a linear fit to the Earthshine annual reflected energy flux anomalies. The CERES annual albedo anomalies 2001–2019, also expressed in W/m2 are shown in blue. A linear fit to the CERES data (2001–2019) is shown with a blue dashed line.’
The paper you’re touting as evidence of whatever was published in 2007. Once again here the NASA data on albedo from 2000 – 2011:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
The graph of albedo shows pretty much no change over 11 years.
Who to believe you and some unknown source that I never heard of, or NASA? That’s obvious and it’s not you. Explain why your source should be believed or put a sock in it.
It’s a 2021 paper and the CERES data shown is from 2001 to 2019. Earthshine agrees with NASA on declining albedo is the headline. Both should be believed as they are founded in patient and exacting observation.
NASA claims that albedo is not declining.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
“In the early 2000s, after the first few years of Terra-CERES measurements, it appeared that Earth’s albedo was declining, a phenomenon that was widely reported in scientific journals and on NASA Earth Observatory. But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.”
I can’t find any reference that says NASA has changed its position.
The claim in the paper is that albedo decreased 0.5 W/m2 over 20 years. We can calculate how that impact planetary temperature change from the S-B equation. Currently the earth is emitting 390 W/m2 at a temperature of 288 K. At 390.5 W/m2 the temperature would be 288.092 K or a temperature change of 0.092 K.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/
The planetary increased by 0.4 K over the last 20 years. The albedo change was responsible for 23% of that. That’s not enough to claim the change in albedo is the cause of climate change.
We also don’t know how much of the albedo change is due to cloud cover and how much is due to melting ice.
Cloud cover change in the eastern Pacific Ocean was a large component of 21st century warming. The science is there – it’s JJ’s ignorance of it that’s the problem.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/66fc7cde-9556-48e4-b224-1d827f4e9805/grl62546-fig-0001-m.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
The only thing that article did was confirm the accepted value for radiative forcing.
He did talk about shifting ocean surface temperatures claiming that increased IR emitted. It also decreases IR emitted which should balance it out. Let’s say it was true that changing ocean temperature due to currents impacted radiative forcing. That wouldn’t last for long. If you radiated more energy than the planet is absorbing from the sun and greenhouse gases, the planet’s temperature would fall till it came into balance. Same thing if ocean currents caused less IR to be radiated. Moving energy around on the surface of the planet cannot create or destroy energy.
If you don’t believe what I just said, show me how ocean currents create or destroy energy. It’s time to put up or shut up because I’m sick and tired of discussing ocean currents, non-existent albedo changes, and prehistoric climate change. If that’s all you have, you have nothing.
I am not debating unquantified hypotheticals with of all people the dissembling, derogatory, disingenuous and delusional JJ. None, zero, zilch of JJ’s narratives are quantified. It comes from his having an underwhelmingly sufficient grasp of practicality any topic but climate science specifically. Relying instead on bombast, cant and hand waving at a few graphics. That are themselves a decade out of date. He ignores half the CERES data FFS and then crafts a narrative around it.
A large part of the warming of the past forty years was internal variability. And therefore warming from greenhouse gas increases is proportionately less than the total. So not as potent a climate impact – even without the mad exaggerations – as some claim. It’s about half of recent warming. In the period of most emissions. It just doesn’t add up to 2.0 or even 1.5 degrees C warming from greenhouse gas emissions anytime soon. Variability by the way that occurs at many scales – including the millennial modern climate optimum.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
I keep stressing observation and analysis as the foundation of science. In a system so complex that speculation supported by conjecture is as worthless as that sounds. JJ just doesn’t get how science is meant to work.
“I am not debating unquantified hypotheticals with of all people the dissembling, derogatory, disingenuous and delusional JJ. None, zero, zilch of JJ’s narratives are quantified.”
There is no debate going on. The climate science debate ended over a quarter century ago. What’s going on now is a debate over pseudo-science propagated by fossil fuel interests promoted by scientists/grifters who figured out how to make money by selling their souls. Their goal is not to refute climate science but to delay anything being done about it as long as possible. So far, they’ve succeeded beyond anything they could have hoped for.
I gave RIE “quantifiables” that he chooses to ignore because it doesn’t support his narrative. NASA refutes that albedo is changing significantly. Even if the claim is true, the earth is absorbing only 0.5 W/m2 of increased solar radiation. That only accounts for about 25% max of the observed changes in planetary temperatures over 20 years, and even that, only if the impact of the 0.5 W/m2 is totally realized — it’s probably not. We have no idea how much of that is due to reduced cloud cover or melting ice. The latter being positive feedback from the impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Earthshine is not a direct measurement of albedo. It involves measuring the amount of shortwave radiation being reflected off the dark side of the moon. I looked through that paper and nowhere does it discuss how much of the SW radiation from the earth is absorbed by the moon. The moon is not a mirror and has a much lower albedo than the earth. Another problem they fail to mention is that the intensity of the reflected radiation will be greatly attenuated because of the distance it has to travel to and from the moon. Intensity varies with the square of distance.
RIE fails to mention that the gray area on the plot he provided is the error range in the data. That doesn’t give one much confidence in their conclusions.
The only way to determine albedo accurately is with an array of CubeSat satellites circling the globe. At this point, NASA doesn’t seem to think that is necessary. That means they don’t see decreasing albedo as a problem that CERES can’t detect. RIE is once again making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now it’s time for RIE to show how natural variation can cause the temperature of the planet to rise. That means detailing a mechanism where it causes the energy of the earth to increase. We already know how CO2 accomplishes it. Without that, RIE’s narrative is just a word salad of incoherent gibberish.
Freshly downloaded from NASA. CERES shows warming in shortwave and cooling in longwave. Largely as a result of reduced cloud cover in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/ceres-sw.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/ceres-lw.png
A lot different than that other plot you were blathering on about.
“Largely as a result of reduced cloud cover in the eastern Pacific Ocean.”
Says you and the others that have bought into the natural variation BS.
I went out and searched for what could be the cause of declining albedo. Two items came up. Reduced aerosols in the atmosphere and declining ice mass. Nothing about natural variation. That make it a fringe theory at past or outright junk science.
Now I’ll explain why the natural variation theory is BS. If increasing ocean surface temperature is the reason why cloud cover is decreasing where does the energy come from that causes ocean surface temperature to rise? If you don’t believe in the CO2 theory, then the energy must come from the ocean somewhere else on the planet. That means the surface temperature in the other part of the world is less. Then the question becomes why doesn’t that area have less cloud cover offsetting the increase somewhere else?
The other possibility is that the increase in energy causing surface temperature in a geographic area to rise is not coming from another part of the earth but from another energy source. What could that be? The only possibility is rising CO2 in the atmosphere. That would make the natural variation theory just positive feedback for the CO2 effect.
Unless you have another source of energy, it’s time to put the natural variation theory to rest.
The plot is from NASA and is the same data as is compared to Earthshine in Goode et al 2021.
Changing sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean feed into low level cloud cover and modulates the energy budget of the planet. It is seen in the CERES and in Earthshine data – a reduction in global albedo – letting more energy in – in the period of observation. And if JJ doesn’t understand how and why sea surface temperature changes in the eastern Pacific…
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sst_anomaly_amsre_2008105.jpg
Norman Loeb heads the NASA CERES team. Here’s yet more from the team.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
JJ is a 10 minute internet expert who finds that there is no internal variability. It’s a pathetically ignorant and inadequate effort.
If you look at the NASA SW plot you see little variation between 2000 – 2011. Your earthshine plot does.
“JJ is a 10 minute internet expert who finds that there is no internal variability.”
Once again you put words in my mouth — an annoying habit of yours. What I said is that internal variability is not driving climate change. The quote you cite doesn’t refute what I said. Again, you put words in someone’s mouth to make one of your nonsensical points. Did he say it CAUSES climate change? No, he didn’t. Isn’t that what you’re claiming? That CO2 is not impacting climate?
I never said that there aren’t fluctuations in earth’s energy balance. Solar radiation fluctuates all the time and has some minor impact, but it is not driving climate change. What matter is what driving it. It’s not internal variability — unless you can come up with a continuous increasing energy source from internal variability. So far, you haven’t. You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Earthshine data is consistent with CERES.
‘The dimming of the Earth can also be seen in terms of how much more solar energy is being captured by Earth’s climate system. Once this significant additional solar energy is in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, it may contribute to global warming, as the extra sunlight is of the same magnitude as the total anthropogenic climate forcing over the last two decades.’
https://news.agu.org/press-release/earth-is-dimming-due-to-climate-change/
Both show that internal variability added to recent warming.
“Earthshine data is consistent with CERES.”
No, it isn’t.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
No sign of it at all between 2000 and 2020.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
No sign of it at all between 1880 and 1960. Yet, you claim that is driving climate change. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Once again you use that article on earthshine. The gray area shows the uncertainty in the earthshine measurements. Something else of yours that doesn’t pass the laugh test.
It is measured in 2 very different ways. And I suspect that JJ doesn’t understand what is implied by confidence limits?
https://news.agu.org/files/2021/09/MicrosoftTeams-image.jpg
Measurements of albedo from purpose built platforms are available for the past couple of decades. Although ISCCP and ERBE data from the 1970’s did show this.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
Observations that have been since confirmed by COADS surface observations of clouds and other parameters. There is nothing equivocal about it. They were looking for clouds in the wrong place.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
Large Pacific Ocean variability can be traced back millennia. The dynamic itself may be as old as the shoaling of the isthmus of Panama – that leads to larger climate variability.
e.g. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-the-isthmus-of-panama-put-ice-in-the-arctic/
It matters not at all what changes the ocean heat content – more energy entering the oceans with less cloud cover – or increased atmospheric temperature slowing heat loss. It is in evidence that both were at work over the past 40 years of accelerated emissions.
You still don’t get it. Internal variability cannot cause climate change. Not unless you have a mechanism that makes it a source of energy. If it has any impact, it is being driven by CO2 raising the temperature of the ocean. That makes it positive feedback — not a source of climate change. That’s why no one in the climate science community is worried about it other than it may mean the models may be underpredicting the time frame for climate change.
Although ocean warming may result in a cloud effect feedback the change is modest when compared to sea surface temperature variability in the eastern Pacific.
This is very much mainstream science that JJ – like so much else – is not across.
How many times do I have to say this? It can’t drive climate change. Think about it. Climate change requires a continuous source of energy that is increasing. Taking energy from one part of the planet and moving it to another is not a source of energy. The part of the planet where the energy is taken from now has a deficit. What happens there? The ocean is cooler.
The only thing oceans and weather can do is amplify the effect of CO2 warming the planet. They can’t warm the planet because they cannot create energy. It’s similar to water vapor in the atmosphere. It responds to climate change; it cannot cause it.
‘As the climate system responds to warming, changes in clouds, water vapor, surface albedo and temperature further alter EEI. These properties also respond to internal variations in the climate system occurring over a range of timescales, causing additional EEI variability.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Internal variability caused some 50% of warming seen in the last 40 years.
“Internal variability caused some 50% of warming seen in the last 40 years.”
So what? Water vapor is responsible for most of the 33 C rise in the earth’s temperature but it’s not a driver of climate change. It’s positive feedback for CO2’s greenhouse effect. Internal variability is the same thing.
I was going to go through the papers on this subject, but somebody has already done the work for me. Luckily, I came across the rebuttal to this internal variability BS before I got too involved.
https://skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm
Roy Spencer is behind this nonsense. Why am I not surprised? He claims some unknown source is behind internal variability and the changing albedo. This is another of what I call “Energy Fairy” theories.
Hopefully, this puts an end to this nonsense, and we won’t have to put up with the graphs and weather reports. That will save everyone a lot of time.
Water vapor is responsible for most of the 33 C rise in the earth’s temperature but it’s not a driver of climate change. It’s positive feedback for CO2’s greenhouse effect.
Some people, meaning you Mr. Braccilli, never give up even when losing. It is however good to see that we agree on one fact. “Water vapor is responsible for most of the 33 C rise in the earth’s temperature”. Absolutely correct. Where you are wrong is that water vapour is by far the strongest GHG, i.e. absorber of the earth’s radiated energy. It does this all by itself. It does not have to rely on feedback effects. They are minimal. And of course CO2 in this warming race, comes a poor second to water vapour, contributing less than 10% of the total warming to date, with vey little potential for further warming. I am afraid that you need to look elsewhere for your warming.
I thought you left after the last beating you got. Here to try again?
Water vapor is temperature limited. It cannot drive climate change. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere and it condenses. What kind of university did you attend that they didn’t teach you that? Apparently, they never taught you that yP = Pvp for water vapor in the atmosphere. Where P is atmospheric pressure; y is the mole fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere; Pvp is the vapor pressure of water a function of only atmospheric temperature.
What? You didn’t know that in the upper troposphere there is a negligible amount of water and in the lower troposphere it make up about 4%. What happened? It couldn’t be because temperature drops with altitude, could it? Of course not, because in your world that can’t possibly be true.
Increasing CO2 drives the temperature of the atmosphere higher allowing it to hold more water vapor. Water vapor is positive feedback and not a forcing. CO2 is in the driver seat. Water vapor is just a passenger.
Increasing CO2 drives the temperature of the atmosphere higher allowing it to hold more water vapor. Water vapor is positive feedback and not a forcing. CO2 is in the driver seat. Water vapor is just a passenger.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. I suggest that this time you read the paper. I’ll provide the link for you again. http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
You will see that the methodology is outlined in full. And please don’t show your ignorance by claiming yet again that the choice of units for spectral radiance changes the results. They do not!
That’s the paper I already discredited. It has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Let me say it one last time. The SATELLITE DATA shows the peak of earth’s radiant energy curve at 18 MM — not 10 MM. That means there is more energy flowing through the 15 MM absorption band than you show. That’s why you come to the conclusions you do. It has nothing to do with whether or not the TOTAL radiant energy from Planck’s equation is the same regardless of spectral variable. That’s not in dispute.
From what I can tell, your paper has gained no traction in the scientific community nor the fossil fuel industry. I told you this was tried before by someone much better at it than you are, and it didn’t work for him either.
Let me say it one last time. The SATELLITE DATA shows the peak of earth’s radiant energy curve at 18 MM — not 10 MM. That means there is more energy flowing through the 15 MM absorption band than you show.
This is getting very tiresome. Satellite data is measuring radiated energy in W/m2. The units of spectral radiance which is calculated by Planck’s equation are W/m3. When integrated with respect to wavelength it results in the radiated energy in W/m2 as measured by satellite detectors. I have chosen to plot spectral radiance in W/m3. If I was to plot the data after integration it would show radiated energy as per the satellite data in W/m2 and the plots would then be identical.
I am afraid that you are barking up the wrong tree,
Look at the satellite data graph. It’s using spectral irradiance. The units of energy are W/m2 cm-1. It’s the same thing. The difference between your data and the satellite data is a constant conversion factor.
Look at it this way. Whatever band is closest to the peak has the most energy to absorb. In your case it’s 15 mm – 10 mm = 5 mm. From the satellite data it’s 18 MM – 15 MM = 3 MM.
Try again!
The satellite data you are referring to has units of W/m2/cm-1. That is energy per unit area per wavenumber. The is very different to plotting spectral radiance in W/m3 which is energy per unit area per wavelength. Integrate both system of units, the first with respect to wavenumber, the second with respect to wavelength, and you will achieve the same answer in W/m2.
For the total radiant energy, you will, but you won’t get the same answer the 15 mm band because Planck’s equation moved it farther from the peak and on the downside of the radiant energy profile where it is ineffective. That’s why you came to the conclusion you did.
Go do the sums yourself. But I’m guessing that maths isn’t your strong point.
I went through this several years ago. I have zero interest in correcting your mistakes. I know that your paper is head to the trash bin along with the rest of the junk science. No one in the scientific community is going to take that paper seriously. I doubt what you wrote was intended for that audience.
The change in TSI is insufficient to cause climate change past or present. The IPCC says as much. We infer then that there are amplifying mechanisms internal to the Earth system.
Here’s something that explains why, what and when.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
Chief
Interesting paper.
JJB cites one of the most anti science websites on the planet -Skeptical science.
bastion of misinformation and censorship
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I guess WUWT is the source of all truth in climate science. LOL!!
Okay, then tell us what the energy source is that causes internal variability to drive climate change. Roy Spencer has no answers. He believes in the Energy Fairy. If there was an energy source that big, we’d know about it.
Let’s continue
JJBraccli
“…Let the cold side surface temperature of the planet is Tc.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted by the planet kTc.
At steady state heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet. k(Ts – Th) = kTc or Tc = Ts – Th
Since Tc = Ts – Th, make the substitution for Tc
heat absorbed by the planet = kTh
heat emitted by the planet = kTh
–
JJBraccili, what you assume is that planet absorbs SW solar energy at the day time and emits IR energy at the night time.
It is not happening like this…
Planet surface IR EM energy emission most intensively occurs at the daytime hours.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m doing no such thing. The hot side absorbs and emits radiant energy and the cold side just emits radiant energy. That happens all day long.
Try Again!
JJBraccili
“That means detailing a mechanism where it causes the energy of the earth to increase. We already know how CO2 accomplishes it. “How 0,04% CO2 content in Earth’s thin atmosphere warms Earth’s surface? CO2 is only 400 ppm in atmosphere (400 parts per million, it is 1 part per 2500)
How can 1 part warm 2500 parts?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“JJBraccili | January 31, 2022 at 7:44 pm |
CV’s equation is for a planet without an atmosphere. His equation says that the current temperature of the planet of 288 K is caused entirely by spin and therefore greenhouse gases have no effect on planetary temperature.”
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon – in short “Rotational Warming” states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) product’s sixteenth root.
The planet mean surface temperature New equation I propose is:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
It is obvious that the current temperature of the planet of 288K the New equation calculates is not entirely caused by spin.
Of course, greenhouse gases do not have effect on planetary temperature. The effect is so small it cannot be detected!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I already went through this a couple of times. Because you choose to ignore what I said is not my problem — it’s yours.
> “Photons are absorbed with some probability if their frequency matches a molecule’s transition frequency.”
“…with some probability”
Excellent point!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJ, I remember you saying “planet rotational spin doesn’t affect planet average temperature”.
It would be true for Orphan planets. (Orphan planet is a planet not having a mother star to orbit).
Orphan planet is not solar energy irradiated, therefore it has a surface temperature because of its own internal heat sources.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Two orphan planets may have the same average surface temperature, but the more differentiated surface temperatures orphan planet has (in accordance with Stephan-Boltzmann emission law nonlinearity) the greater amount of IR outgoing radiative energy the orphan planet emits.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planet Mars black-body temperature (effective temperature) Te misfortunate coincidence.
–
We have calculated the Corrected Effective Temperature for Mars Te.correct.mars = 174 K
But let’s see what happened when the Effective Temperature of Mars was not yet corrected. Te.mars = 209,8 K https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
–
Tsat. mean.mars = 210 K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)
We have here planet Mars mean temperature measured by satellites:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
We have the Mars black-body temperature
Te = 209,8 K
These temperatures the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and the black-body temperature Te.mars = 209,8 K are almost identical.
These two very important for planet Mars temperatures are almost identical, but it is a coincident.
–
It is a coincident, but with very important consequences.
Let’s explain:
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K measured by satellites is almost equal with Te.mars = 209,8 K
When measuring by satellites the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and calculating Mars black-body temperature Te.mars. = 209,8 K scientist were led to mistaken conclusions.
–
First they concluded that the planet’s effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal, which is wrong.
Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have an average surface temperature equal to the black-body temperature (effective temperature), Te.earth = 255 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html)
–
Then they compared the Te.earth = 255 K with the measured by satellites Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
The difference of 288 K – 255 K = Δ33 oC was then attributed to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.
–
Now we have the Mars Corrected Effective Temperature
Te.correct.mars = 174 K.
The fact that the Corrected Effective Temperature of Mars is Te.correct.mars = 174 K, which is not even close to the satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K debunks the above syllogism that the planet the calculated black-body temperature Te (effective temperature) is equal to the planet without atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
–
The above wrong syllogism happened because of the wrongly estimated Mars black-body temperature.
It was calculated assuming planet absorbing incoming solar energy as a disk. We know now that planet absorbs the incoming solar energy as a sphere, and not as a disk.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #489 – Watts Up With That?
“It is impossible, because planet surface never comes even close to uniform temperature, no matter how fast it rotates.
Planet cannot have uniform surface temperature because planet is solar irradiated from only one direction. While rotating, the side facing sun will always be at higher temperature.”
–
I have not wanted to make this point because I like the concept of the super fast spinning plant being evenly irradiated on all sides.
Where it falls down is not because of Christos’ point above but due to the sphericity of the earth surface.
This means that under conditions of uniform radiation the intensity of the energy in per square meter is less the further out from the centre you go.
Ergo the surface is not evenly illuminated , as it is a band with a hotter centre.
–
JJB is right otherwise the temperature approaches the effective radiating temperature.
And off course the effective radiating temperature never changes.
Christos assumes that increasing the spin increases the effective radiating temperature to his hypothetical global surface temperature while at the same time maintaining that it does not exist.
An interesting but flawed concept.
When we were talking about this, we were talking about the average temperature of hot side vs the cold side. The averaging process takes into account the spherical nature of the planet. Notice in my proof, I use an average hot and cold side temperature.
The average temperature of the hot side should approach the average temperature of the cold side as the planet rotates faster and faster.
JJB
Sorry , couldn’t resist.
Will try not to be so mean spirited in future.
–
Apropos this whole mess.
Considering only real non spherical planets and only the concept of energy from the sun in and out , not the background space radiation, volcanoes internal heat etc.
–
The effective radiating temperature is agreeable to everyone.
It can be calculated on sun energy in and total surface area exposed fitted to a sphere of the same radius.
–
I think everyone is unanimous on this figure and it’s range depending on distance at the time from the heat source, intensity of the heat source and the albedo the planet displays.
Arguments to its being uneven or unreal due to being uneven are washed out by consideration of energy in equals energy out.
It does not depend on the rotation of the planet concerned as this does not effect the energy in and out.
–
The we have a divergence of opinion based on differing definitions.
The effective radiating temperature is defined for a sphere at a TOA combining both the illuminated and non illuminated halves.
As I found out the hard way trying to find a TOA on the dark side ( does not exactly exist).
A planet with no atmosphere is said to have the surface as the TOA but as mentioned this is not correct on the dark side, what is correct? Is that the surface is used as the effective TOA when combining both sides.
{Can a TOA be under the surface on a non rotating planet?}.
–
The surface temperature of the planet when not rotating is lower than when rotating.
The maths demands that the temperature, not the energy of the two half’s has to be added and divided by 2 .
Due to T4 temperature rises less on a continually heated spot per energy used than when the spot has less energy in it due to rotation
Total Surface temp in an airless planet increases with rotation towards the effective radiation temperature..
–
This should also be true with caveats for an atmospheric planet, the main one being whether the radiation can ever reach the surface.
The second being the GHG effect of any atmosphere.
Which most of us believe in.
–
CV does ignore the atmosphere thus missing this component of atmospheric surface warming.
As does NZ.
CV compensates with a theory of rotation that exceeds the effective radiating temperature to explain surface temperatures being above this level.
NZ uses pressure equations in a similar way betraying the underlying physics to squeeze the GHG effect out of pressure,
When the pressure is a response to the GH effect of that particular atmosphere.
Have a good day
One day I might nail a good response ones for everyone.
“Sorry , couldn’t resist.
Will try not to be so mean spirited in future.”
It’s not a problem. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t take that stuff personally. If you dish it out, you have to be willing to accept it.
You’re way overthinking this. If I were to define TOA, I would define it as a point far enough removed from earth so that the atmosphere has little or no impact on the energy balance. If the earth had no atmosphere, you could leave TOA where it is right now and be just fine.
The average surface temperature of the planet is equal to the radiating temperature of the planet and the planetary temperature, which doesn’t change whether the planet is rotating or not. That’s what my “proof” was about.
For the millionth time, the average surface temperature is not equal to the arithmetic average of the hot side and cold side temperatures. You have to use the T4 relationship to weight the temperatures because what is important is the amount of energy being radiated.
Pressure has zero impact on planetary temperature.
FWIW – The planet very evidently does not have a uniform temperature. Christos implicitly assumes a mechanism that retains more heat in the atmosphere with faster rotation. JJ assumes there isn’t one. Neither hypothesis is worth the prattle.
As I previously said, CV’s equation is for a planet without an atmosphere.
In my proof, it doesn’t matter whether there is an atmosphere or not. the proof looks at radiating temperatures on the surface of the planet. What happens or doesn’t happen at TOA or in the atmosphere is immaterial.
What not worth a prattle is an analysis by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
What not worth a prattle is an analysis by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
Oooh
Oooh
Oooh.
–
The irony
Is so deep it burns
I know exactly what I’m talking about. You, on the other hand — not so much.
angech
“CV compensates with a theory of rotation that exceeds the effective radiating temperature to explain surface temperatures being above this level.”
Thank you for your interest in my work.
Here it is what I have also to say.
1). The faster rotating planet has a different surface temperature distribution. Thus, for the same amount of solar energy transformed into HEAT and accumulated in inner layers, the faster rotating planet has a higher average surface temperature.
2). The not reflected portion of the incident SW EM energy is NOT ENTIRELY transformed into HEAT.
3). The faster rotating planet is able to transform into HEAT and accumulate in inner layers LARGER amounts of the incident on surface solar energy, than a slow rotating planet.
Important Notice:
When the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states about the (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root, not only the planet rotational spin N is involved, but also the planet average surface SPECIFIC HEAT cp.
–
The “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
“Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“3). The faster rotating planet is able to transform into HEAT and accumulate in inner layers LARGER amounts of the incident on surface solar energy, than a slow rotating planet.”
–
Just saying this does not make it so.
The only difference the rate of rotation makes is that the incident on surface solar energy now spreads out more uniformly over the total surface area .
You forget that the energy in equals the energy out hence there can be no energy accumulation.
Consider a time footage strip of the world surface illumination
Whether[still] it goes into one intense central area of the band with 2 outer black quarters or [rotating quickly] a less intense band with more spread to the edges the same energy that goes in has to come out.
There is no accumulation of extra energy.
–
Whether you add in a factor and call it specific heat, NZ does something else with pressure you are both just adding the GHG effect in without acknowledging it.
angech
“Just saying this does not make it so.”
Thank you angech for your respond. I will explain every aspect, because it is important.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
“You forget that the energy in equals the energy out hence there can be no energy accumulation…
…There is no accumulation of extra energy.”
I know that, the energy sun provides, after reflection (specular and diffuse) I call it “the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy”.
“the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy” is the “energy in”.
And
The planet “entire surface area IR EM energy emission” is the “energy out”.
And
energy in = energy out
or
the total not reflected portion = total IR emission…
Do we both agree on that?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
“…. Total Surface temp in an airless planet increases with rotation towards the effective radiation temperature..
–
This should also be true with caveats for an atmospheric planet, the main one being whether the radiation can ever reach the surface.
The second being the GHG effect of any atmosphere.
Which most of us believe in.
–
CV does ignore the atmosphere thus missing this component of atmospheric surface warming.
As does NZ.
CV compensates with a theory of rotation that exceeds the effective radiating temperature to explain surface temperatures being above this level.”
Effective radiating temperature for Earth Te=255K (or 210K corrected by my estimation)
Earth’s mean surface temperature Tmean=288K. The 33C difference is attributed to GHE.
Earth’s surface cannot be considered having uniform surface temperature, not even close. That leads us to the though that planet’s rotation has not increased the surface temperature towards the 255K, and the greenhouse effect (I don’t think there is any, but for the sake of discussion) we should address then to a much higher than 33C difference caused by atmospheric GHE…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
> “CV compensates with a theory of rotation that exceeds the effective radiating temperature to explain surface temperatures being above this level.”
That is right.
–
About the Effective radiating temperature being a mathematical abstraction:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
here the
energy in =(1-a)S = (not reflected portion) (W)
or
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
here the
energy in corrected = Φ(1-a)S = (corrected not reflected portion) (W)
–
Te or Te.correct uses the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law
J = σT⁴
S-B emission law is about Heat TRANSFORMATION into IR EM energy. S-B emission law doesn’t state wise-versa, it doesn’t say the process can be seen backwards.
–
When solving for T it obtains T = (J/σ)¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Effective radiating temperature = [(not reflected portion /planet surface area) /σ]¹∕ ⁴ (Κ)
–
Effective radiating temperature is calculated by an equation which is based on assumption the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy is entirely TRANSFORMED into HEAT.
It seems so much obvious it naturally happens that way (entirely transformed into heat) that it is have been
overlooked that it is an assumption.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do we both agree on that? Yes
–
Effective radiating temperature for Earth Te=255K (or 210K corrected by my estimation)
–
What??
–
No calculations chosen by you, please.
An effective radiating temperature is the effective radiating temperature.
Lets agree 255 K for earth.
–
You cannot, after using 255 K everywhere else in your comments decide that it might be whatever you think.
–
Either you use standard definitions when discussing science or you do not discuss science.
–
Where do you get to decide, rather than the earth and the sun, what the effective radiating temperature is?
–
If your theory will not work with standard definitions, what use is it?
Thank you angech for your respond.
Shall I continue?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas | February 2, 2022 at 3:16 am |
Thank you angech for your respond.Shall I continue?
–
Why not?
You are very polite unlike ….some.
I have no beef with you putting up ideas.
I can agree or disagree,
it makes little difference to most people.
–
I do think you should reconsider ideas using 4th root powers twice.
In opposition they wipe out. In unison they are just too large or small for anyone to ever worry about.
One of those little mathematical quirks most people do not notice.
Your ideas tie in with some others on this subject but are too extreme once you go down the path of trying to get surface temperatures above the effective radiating temperature by using rotation.
Lucia pointed out that a feedback should never exceed the initial force in general, a valid point for physics.
Hence you can round the temperature up to an ideal blackbody [whether you believe in it or not] but you cannot exceed it.
When surface temperatures go above effective emission temperatures there have to be other mechanisms at work.
Not related.
Whether these are GHG effects, layer effects etc they are outside the scope of your theory and have to be added to it, not concocted.
Thank you again, angech.
It is very important discussing with you my findings. The exchange of thoughts on a very important issues.
It will take some hours for me to write a comment. It is 11:36 a.m. in Athens Greece where I am situated.
What time it is in Australia now. I think it is late evening, maybe more.
I wish you good night. Till tomorrow then.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
Get some sleep
Do not know how you and some of the others can keep so up to date 11.56 pm here in Australia.
Don’t fuss about my comments
angech
“I do think you should reconsider ideas using 4th root powers twice.
In opposition they wipe out. In unison they are just too large or small for anyone to ever worry about.
One of those little mathematical quirks most people do not notice.”
The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power when planet mean surface temperatures comparison ratios with the coefficients is compared.
Please visit my site at the page “Earth/Mars 288K/210K”
The entire thread there is devoted to the planets’ mean surface temperatures comparison. And every time for the compared planets’ the (N*cp) in sixteenth root is necessarily present.
Earth/Mars 288K/210K
Earth/Europa 288K/102K
Mars/Moon 210K/220K
Mercury/Moon 340K/220K
Mercury/Mars 340K/210K
Calisto/Io 134K/110K
Io/Enceladus 110K/75K
Jupiter/Saturn 165/134K
Jupiter/Neptune 165/72K
I would like your opinion on that.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922
CV
angech I would like your opinion on The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power
–
“I do think you should reconsider ideas using 4th root powers twice.
In opposition they wipe out. In unison they are just too large or small for anyone to ever worry about.”
says it all.
You do not want to listen.
angech
“In opposition they wipe out. In unison they are just too large or small for anyone to ever worry about.”
I know that, but that is how it appears happening out there. I have not other way to demonstrate it.
The Rotational Warming is observed happening, and the relation is (N*cp) in sixteenth root.
Have you anything else to suggest?
You: ““I do think you should reconsider ideas using 4th root powers twice.”
What shall I do, if it is there? I am listening. And what do you think I maybe don’t understand?
Do you insist on:
“Hence you can round the temperature up to an ideal blackbody [whether you believe in it or not] but you cannot exceed it.
When surface temperatures go above effective emission temperatures there have to be other mechanisms at work.”?
What to change, if it is there happening?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas | February 3, 2022 at 1:30 am |
You: ““I do think you should reconsider ideas using 4th root powers twice.” “In opposition they wipe out. In unison they are just too large or small for anyone to ever worry about.”
I know that, What shall I do, if it is there?
You answer your own question They do not help.
Some Rotational Warming is observed happening, Fine,
There are equations close to what you are using to help explain the phenomenon.
What shall I do,
Tie them into the GHG effect and help compute better surface level temperatures.
The relation is (N*cp) in sixteenth root. No, No No.
No such relationship can exist, see above where you agreed.
Have you anything else to suggest?
Do you insist on:
“Hence you can round the temperature up to an ideal blackbody [whether you believe in it or not] but you cannot exceed it.
When surface temperatures go above effective emission temperatures there have to be other mechanisms at work.”?
What to change, if it is there happening?
Difficult.
Surface Temperature of an atmospheric planet can be a quagmire.
Surface temperature of a non atmospheric planet is much easier as the global surface temperature in general will be lower than effective emission temperature at rest and increase towards but never quite reach it as its spin rate increases.
Planets with an atmosphere or ocean create layers of complexity for energy to get in and out and could theoretically prevent a surface from ever receiving solar energy in the first place.
If the planet indeed has a surface.
Certain truisms hold.
Energy in has to equal energy out..
At the TOA the loss of energy is due to the incoming energy finally having clear passage out.
GHG raise the height of the TOA not because of greater energy retention but because of longer pathways or pipe lines for the energy to get out.’The TOA can be considered to be the end of the pipeline.
Note that the pipeline or energy packet itself cannot be any hotter or contain more energy. The energy is not being stored or constrained merely taking a longer pathway to exit.
People confuse this with a longer pathway equals a longer time in atmospheric residence.
Light does not behave that way.
Time and length , like energy and mass, can shrink or expand to fit both together.
angech, thank you for your answer. I have to think and then I will respond.
Good night.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech,
the planet theoretical effective radiative temperature’s formula doesn’t consider planet rotating. The formula is for planet with uniform surface temperature, and it is for planet with uniform surface irradiance.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
The Te cannot be some kind of a theoretical limitation for planets and moons without-atmosphere the mean surface temperatures not to exceed their theoretical Te calculated temperature.
Planets and moons do not have uniform surface temperature; and they do not have uniform surface irradiance either.
Consequently, the
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is not capable to describe the real planets’ and moons’ the mean surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There has been 3 years of warming in 40 years. Look at UAH satellite temperature graph. The 3 years of warming are 1987, 1998 and 2015 all caused by very strong el ninos. The warming is not independent of these el ninos, the warming is dependant on the el ninos. Each time there has been a warming el nino there is a following temperature hiatus. We are in a hiatus now. A very strong el nino is not a guarantee. The last hiatus was 17 years, how long will this hiatus be or will it turn into cooling, nobody actually knows. It is all caused by sunlight, clouds and wind which warms the oceans and then the oceans expels the heat warming the atmosphere and it all happens in the tropics. Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in this natural process. They are obsessed with their belief that the planet was in balance before the industrial age, they are wrong.
Where did your analysis come from?
Here’s temperature data from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165/
No correlation between CO2 and temperature change? Really?
http://snr.unl.edu/images/research/projects/climateimpacts/CO2TemperatureChanges.png
BTW el Nino or la Nina’s cannot cause climate change. They impact weather — not climate. Maybe, you would like to revise your analysis? It sucks!
Coupled ocean and atmosphere fluid dynamics lead to alternate warming and cooling of the eastern Pacific Ocean. It changes the global energy balance on decadal scales. An irregular shift between warmer or cooler states.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pacific-gyres.png
There’s a sola signal in there – working on the polar annular modes driving currents and winds along the Californian and Peruvian coasts. More (less) current flow displaces more (less) of the warm mixed layer resulting in more (less) deep ocean upwelling nearer the equator.
Some 5000 years BP the sun transitioned from lower lower to higher activity. Seen as higher to lower levels of cosmogenic isotopes.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
It could be a coincidence although there are many sun and climate correspondence. But the state of the Pacific shifted from cooler to warmer conditions some 5000 years ago. This dried out the Sahel changing it from grassland to desert.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/moy-2002.png
Are we due for a cool shift with a less active sun?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/
Thermometer data is always presented in same way as your link. It is always presented so it seems there is a continual warming. There isn’t.
Looking at the satellite data the hiatus between 1998 and 2015/16 is obvious and well known. It is also clear that the warming is in another hiatus since the 2016 el nino. How long will this current hiatus last?
It is clear that the planet has had one year of warming this century.
How did CO2 cause only one year of warming this century?
If the current temperature hiatus lasts the same amount of time as the 1998 to 2015 hiatus, we might see a warming year in 2033 or we might not. Nobody actually knows.
Cheers
NM & J2
There is a big problem with your graphs. They are of atmospheric data. When they determine global temperature, they use land and ocean data. That’s because the earth’s surface heats the atmosphere — not vice-versa. You get bigger swings and less reliability because the density of the atmosphere and the specific heat of the atmosphere are << then the values for the land and the oceans. That means small changes in energy results in large changes in temperature. The temperature of the atmosphere drops quickly with altitude. In other words, it's not representative of global temperatures.
Even with all that your data shows a warming trend.
The NASA data I use is from land and ocean data. Here's data from Berkely Earth. They do the best job with temperature data.
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/
I wouldn't put too much stock into what Roy Spencer has to say about anything concerning climate change.
This is just not true. All the data sets are the same, some data sets are a bit warmer or cooler than others but they all show the same global temperature movements. The satellites measure the atmosphere above the land and oceans and all data sets are measurements of atmospheric temperature.
Again the the graph in the Berkeley report is deliberately set up to look like the planet is warming all the time and highly correlated to CO2, it is deceitful.
That’s not true. When you see temperature charts of the atmosphere or the United States, that is selective. The data may be accurate but not representative of planetary temperature. The land and the oceans are what absorb bulk of the energy from the sun. That’s where energy is building up and that’s the temperature you have to measure to ascertain the buildup of energy on the planet which drives climate change. The atmosphere is being heated by the earth – not vice versa. It is just follows what the earth is doing.
Even that graph you used shows a long-term rise in temperature. Saying that for some period of time the data shows no warming is not a valid argument when the overall data shows a temperature rise.
They do not doctor the data.
“The Land” does not absorb any energy. Any short wave radiation (sunlight) hitting “the land” is then radiated back into the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation and or long wave radiation.
The climate change theory is about CO2 in the atmosphere and how CO2 reduces the amount of energy radiating out of Earths atmosphere into space and then causing the atmosphere to warm because of the reduction of the amount of energy radiating back into space. It is all about atmospheric warming. All global temperature data sets are approximately the same.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and long wave radiation which warms the atmosphere. It is a green house gas. It is all about atmospheric temperature.
The ocean absorbs sunlight (short wave radiation). Infrared radiation and long wave radiation do not penetrate the ocean deep enough to have any impact on the ocean temperature.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
The above link is a cross section of the pacific ocean, it shows how the pacific ocean temperature is changing during the latest la nina. The anomalously warm water in this chart is caused by the latest la nina. The water has been warmed by short wave radiation (sunlight). It is totally natural. The next phase of ENSO is likely to be neutral.
So the pacific ocean absorb energy from sunlight not Infrared or longwave radiation. The oceans then expels the energy in the form of evaporation and precipitation. La nina is predominately an absorber of solar energy and el nino is predominantly an expeller of this energy absorbed by the la nina as well as solar energy absorbed during the el nino. This is why the planets atmosphere tends to cool during a la nina and warm during an el nino.
A very strong el nino can not happen without there being either a very strong la nina or a series of moderately strong la ninas proceeding it. The la nina charges up the pacifiic ocean with warm water heated by solar energy, short wave radiation and this gives the following el nino the energy to heat the planet.
This recent la nino has not been strong enough to cause a very strong el nino and its even doubtful that there will be a following el nino, it is more likely to be neutral ENSO conditions.
So the current global temperature hiatus will continue until there is a la nina strong enough to charge up the pacific ocean and result in a very strong el nino.
This whole process is ignored because of the belief that the planet was in balance before the industrial age.
You have the science wrong.
The “land” does indeed absorb energy. It absorbs the solar radiation and back radiation from greenhouse gases that isn’t reflected. That radiation is converted to molecular kinetic energy. The kinetic energy converts to IR radiation with a wavelength distribution in accordance with Planck’s theory. Only a small fraction of the earth’s radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases warms the atmosphere. The bulk of it get reradiated. Atmospheric warming in the troposphere is primarily by convective heat transfer from the earth’s surface.
The greenhouse effect is all about reradiation and has little to do with atmospheric warming.
I don’t know where you got the rest of it, but it’s pure science fiction and wishful thing. El Nino and La Nina have zero impact on climate change. They affect weather patterns. They don’t warm the planet. Moving energy from one place to another on the planet cannot cause the planet to warm.
The oceans absorb radiant energy just like the land does. Solids behave like blackbodies. Liquids can, but gases can’t. In the case of water, the molecules are held closer together because of hydrogen bonding than a liquid of similar molecular weight. Water absorbs radiant energy over a very wide band of wavelengths. Any radiation that would pass through the water would be absorbed in the ocean bed. For all practical purposes, water behaves like a blackbody. That means all the radiation it absorbs becomes molecular kinetic energy which raises the temperature of the oceans.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Go to the Columbia temperature report. Go down part of this page on the right side there is a small graph showing the global temperature from 2000. It has monthly, 12 monthly, 60 month and 132 month averages. Compare this to the UAH temperature graph. They are essentially the same, there are differences but they are minor. The monthly and yearly averages are in good agreement. UAH has monthly and 13 month averages.
They both show that there was a warming hiatus after 1998 el nino and then warming with the 2016 el nino and now we are back in a temperature hiatus.
All the global temperature data sets are the same. It is clear an obvious. I don’t know why you think that data sets are different or where you got that idea but it is wrong. Any argument between data sets is about minor detail or that one set is warming too much or not enough but they all give the same general picture of the global temperature.
If they’re all doing atmospheric temperature analysis, they’re all getting the data from the same place — NASA. Why shouldn’t they match? That means nothing.
The thing that matters is the earth’s temperature — not atmospheric temperature. The atmosphere doesn’t drive the earth’s temperature.
You’re drinking too much of the Roy Spencer Kool-aide. Try a different brand.
I have established that the global temperature data sets are the same with small variations.
My point has been that the planet only warms during very strong el ninos.
ENSO is not in balance. Nature is never in balance. There is constant change even if very slow.
The global temperature data sets all show that the planet only warms during a very strong el nino, this is followed by a period of temperature hiatus. The planet was in a temperature hiatus between 1998 and 2015. This hiatus was well known. We have been in another temperature hiatus since 2016.
You need to look at the monthly and yearly graphs to see this happening. The 60 month and 132 month graphs are useless and more about propaganda.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
I have not got my point of view from Dr spencer. My understanding of Spencer’s view is that he has said that the planet is warming because of human activity but at the low end of what the IPCC says the planet is warming. That is Spencer says 1.5 C for a doubling CO2. The IPCC says a range between 1.5 and 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2.
I only used the UAH global temperature data graph because it is the easiest global temperature data set graph to access that is on a monthly time scale. In other words it shows the detail. 60 month and 132 month graphs mask the detail.
Yes it seems simplistic that ENSO could be causing the planet to warm but ENSO is anything but simple. The whole process of the Pacific ocean moving between neutral, la nina and el nino conditions is complex. As well as how the heat generated from ENSO is transported around the globe heating each ocean and continent.
ENSO has only been able to be properly studied since the satellite era and was not understood when the CO2 global warming theory was developed in the late 1970’s.
Watch the monthly global temperature data set graphs and see if there is any significant warming prior to another very strong el nino and there is no guarantee that there will be another very strong el nino any time soon. The energy that drives ENSO is short wave radiation (sun light).
I will leave you be.
I hope you are well
I will not annoy you with my view again
Cheers
“I have established that the global temperature data sets are the same with small variations.”
So what? The same can be said for surface temperatures.
“My point has been that the planet only warms during very strong el ninos.”
You need energy to warm a planet. El ninos do not produce energy.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/
Look at the graph between 1880 and 1960. Temperature tracks solar radiation. Where is the evidence of el ninos? Did they decide to take a vacation? If that’s so, what happened after 1960 to cause them to wake up? It sure isn’t solar radiation, that’s been in decline.
“ENSO is not in balance. Nature is never in balance. There is constant change even if very slow.”
Doesn’t matter ENSO cannot create energy. The planet’s temperature can only rise if the energy on the planet is rising.
“The global temperature data sets all show that the planet only warms during a very strong el nino, this is followed by a period of temperature hiatus. The planet was in a temperature hiatus between 1998 and 2015. This hiatus was well known. We have been in another temperature hiatus since 2016.”
You keep on insisting that atmospheric temperature is planetary temperature. It is not. The warming of the oceans from the greenhouse effect is what is causing super el ninos. El ninos cannot warm the oceans or the planet. The increased frequency and intensity are due to climate change — not the cause of it.
“As well as how the heat generated from ENSO is transported around the globe heating each ocean and continent.”
There is no heat generated from ENSO. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. You have it all backward.
I must admit your ideas are indeed novel. They are also wrong.
We have 40 years of sat data. You don’t need any “analysis” to see the highest temperature over that time was in 2016.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980
I don’t live in the ground or in the ocean. I live in the air. It IS the air temperature I care about. If heat goes into the ocean, it does not cause much rise in temperature of the ocean. So, yes, it’s the air temperature what’s in question. The rest of it doesn’t matter.
“I don’t live in the ground or in the ocean. I live in the air.”
Really? I always thought you were a “space cadet”. that proves it.
Tell me when you take a turkey out of the oven and want to know if it is done, do you stick the thermometer in the turkey or hold the thermometer above it?
The atmosphere doesn’t contain much energy. The planet does. The buildup in energy is occurring on the planet. That why you measure the temperature of the planet and not the atmosphere to assess the energy buildup on the planet.
I prefer the sat measurements because they sample the air more thoroughly. Land/ocean measurements are fraught with problems, such as sparse measurements at sea.
Also, the UAH and RSS series presented in the chart are measurements of the LOWER troposphere. It has much better coverage than the hit or miss ship thermometers or possibly poorly sited and maintained weather station ones.
Really?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Christy and Spencer made a claim in the 1990s that the atmosphere was cooling based on satellite data. That paper was savaged by the climate science community. The data has been revised upward many times since as they correct their many errors in methodology.
Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.
One problem with the RSS data is it relies on a reanalysis product that incorporates surface temperature measurements. It is therefore “impure.”
This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
jim2,
Thank you for your very interesting posts full of very interesting information.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
jim2,
would you please not to use so much italic – letters appear too small in size on my screen…
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJB – I am not interested in the total energy balance. I am only interested in the question of lower stratospheric warming. Will such warming cause a catastrophe? No, it likely will not.
Who do you think you’re kidding?
Let’s face it. The only thing you’re interested in is whatever you think proves whatever I*D*I*O*T*I*C point you’re trying to make. Anything outside of that is irrelevant to you. That’s why you’re wrong most of the time.
Christos Vournas: jim2,
would you please not to use so much italic
Jim2, fwiw, I can read them fine, and I like your use of them. You have put up informative posts. Thank you.
Matthew R Marler | February 2, 2022 at 12:20 pm |
“Christos Vournas: jim2,
would you please not to use so much italic
Jim2, fwiw, I can read them fine, and I like your use of them. You have put up informative posts. Thank you.”
jim2, if Matthew likes italic, I will copy-paste your posts then to the LEAVE A REPLY and read them there, then I will cancel reply. The problem with italic solved!
Thank you jim2!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I use italics to quote from other sources – not my words.
A 2017 article from the Guardian? Really? Well, it must be true in that case!!
That’s your comment?
The UAH data has been revised upward so many times it deserves a place in the dictionary as an example of the word unreliable.
UAH have refined their algorithms as problems have been discovered. UAH have also found problems with RSS and alerted that group. Your efforts to spread FUD here are too transparent. You need to up your game.
JJ
You have checked all the boxes of what every leftwing extremist says about AGW. From Big Oil to Heartland to Spencer. It’s almost as if you all spent summer camp at the same reeducation institution. Did they require you wear headphones while you sleep so you all have the same message?
No originality at all. The tragic thing is the brainwashing sessions never included the actual science.
I deal in real science. What you deal in is bad science fiction. You would know real science if it came up and bit you in the a$$.
You deal in BS, JJB.
I deal in actual science. You don’t understand it and that’s one of your problems. You buy into the snake oil guys like Coe are selling.
JJB – you are clueless.
You’re wrong on just about everything. There is a very high probability that you’re wrong about that too.
You’re the one who keeps whining about what the “greenies” are doing to the economy. Here’s something that may interest you about “greenflation.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/02/greenflation-prices-inflation-climate-change-coffee-lumber/621456/
With your severe case of intellectual myopia, you probably won’t get the point.
You need to get out of the green unicorn bubble, JJB.
Increased demand for single-family housing, much of it driven by the coronavirus pandemic, has housing starts up 30% year over year, according to the U.S. Census. That is part of the issue on the demand side. There has also been a surge in home remodeling, as people sit at home longer and put money they would have spent on going out or traveling into their houses and properties.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/10/lumber-prices-skyrocket-pushing-up-housing-costs.html
Supply has nothing to do with it? Where did you get your degree in economics? Out of a Cracker Jack box?
LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – The most devastating frost in decades in top coffee producer Brazil and record freight costs sparked by COVID-19 causing massive shipping logjams are expected to push retail prices to multi-year highs in the coming weeks.
A hike in coffee prices will further raise the cost of a basket of shopping following increases for other items such as bread, vegetable oils and sugar. The United Nations food agency’s index of world food prices for July showed a year-on-year rise of 31% at a time when many consumers are struggling financially due to the pandemic.
The worst cold snap in Brazil since 1994 sent the price of green coffee beans to the highest level in almost seven years and is expected to pass through to consumers when they purchase roasted beans or ground coffee in supermarkets. read more
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/retail-coffee-prices-climb-frost-freight-costs-bite-2021-08-06/
You don’t realize it, but you just made my point.
Face it. You’re suffering from a severe case of intellectual myopia.
You really need to get rid of that Atlantic subscription.
The lack of lumber available in stores is less to do with a shortage of trees or, even lumber production. What is driving the increase in lumber prices are recent convergence of Canadian lumber tariffs, increase in demand for home remodeling and building of homes brought on by the pandemic, and hiccups in supply related to transportation.
At the beginning of the pandemic demand for lumber was slightly down and mill inventories were down, but in the spring of last year we saw people move on home improvement projects, purchase a home or build a new home, causing an increase in demand for lumber.
https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/05/lumber-shortage/
The destruction of forests had nothing to do with it? Really?
This is only the beginning. It’s going to get a lot worse from here.
JJB – first of all, you consider any weather event to be extraordinary and due to global warming when you don’t even have past records to know if it’s true or not.
As far as coffee goes, Brazil has had frost and drought events before your precious global warming meme was even a glint in some id ee ots eye.
902 (Late July/early August) Devastating F*
1918 (June 24-26) Severe F*
1942 (Late June/early July) Severe F*
1943 Moderate F*
1953 (July 4-5) Severe F*
1955 (July 30-August 1) Severe slight F
http://www.coffeeresearch.org/market/frosthistory.htm
Here’s a point to ponder. Climate change is going to get worse and worse. Whenever we finally get around to stop using fossil fuels, the planet’s temperature will continue to rise for decades, and it will take decades to see a significant reduction. In other words, we are going to have to deal with the destruction and havoc for a long time. Put that in your economics.
I don’t know how much climate change is impacting current events, but saying it happened before means this is some sort of random event, and don’t worry, it will only happen once in a while is whistling past the graveyard.
JJ
The world is melting. Other than being able to fly, what has really changed in the last 120 years?
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AlpineGlaciersDisappearing_shadow.png
You need to get out more.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2021-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historical
JJ
My wife goes shopping for shoes. I go shopping for trends. I can’t find any. Do you know of any sales on trends? Certainly not here.
https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
“My wife goes shopping for shoes. I go shopping for trends. I can’t find any. Do you know of any sales on trends? Certainly not here.”
So, your analysis of climate change is tied to your fashion sense? You must go walking around looking like a freak show.
Here’s a trend you missed.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/are-extremes-becoming-more-frequent-graph.jpg
You need to look at more than one type of extreme weather event. Intellectual myopia is rampant on this site.
Well, actually now that I’m up at this ungodly hour, I do see a trend. The good Viscount Monckton has written what is becoming a seemingly monthly event, his article on “The Pause”. It’s reached 7 years, 3 months. Vegas is taking bets on how long it can last.
Some go up and some go down. Did you weight and add them all up? With your math skills, that could be your problem. Did you rely on your keen fashion sense to come up with your “analysis”?
Deaths from 100 years ago are way down.
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
Early warning systems are better, and medicine has improved, hence less deaths. You can’t figure that out? LOL!!
Reminds me of how forest fires area burned in US is down from 100 years ago.
http://2hiwrx1aljcd3ryc7x1vkkah.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/US-Forest-area-burned-1926-2017.png
You are really bad at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States
The rapid decrease in area burned was the result of the policy of the government to suppress all fires and better equipment. It looks to me that area burned is on the rise since the 1990s even with modern techniques of fighting forest fires.
As I said a million times, you have to take into account all types of events globally over a long period of time to see the impact of climate change.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Some 5000 years BP the sun transitioned from lower lower to higher activity. Seen as higher to lower levels of cosmogenic isotopes.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
LOL
(Sad)
Neil McLachlan wrote:
Again the the graph in the Berkeley report is deliberately set up to look like the planet is warming all the time and highly correlated to CO2, it is deceitful.
Ohhhhhhh really?
How does it do that, please tell us.
Neil McLachlan wrote:
Looking at the satellite data the hiatus between 1998 and 2015/16 is obvious and well known.
This is the very definition of cherry-picking: choosing the beginning and ending dates for no other reason than to give the conclusion you want.
jim2 wrote:
I don’t live in the ground or in the ocean. I live in the air. It IS the air temperature I care about. If heat goes into the ocean, it does not cause much rise in temperature of the ocean. So, yes, it’s the air temperature what’s in question. The rest of it doesn’t matter.
Wrong. Naive. Ignorant. Foolish.
> 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. So it’s by far the best indicator of the enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet doesn’t care where YOU live. Nor is TEMPERATURE a good indicator, which you’d know if you knew any physics. Which clearly you do not.
DA – WRONG! The oceans are huge and while they will warm, the temperature change will be ever so slight. And the small amount of extra energy will be mixed into the oceans over many years. The impact is minuscule.
So, yes, the only question for me is the impact on air temperature and more broadly, climate.
“The oceans are huge and while they will warm, the temperature change will be ever so slight. And the small amount of extra energy will be mixed into the oceans over many years. The impact is minuscule.”
I guess the “extra energy” just disappears? LOL!!
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LandOcean2017.png
Impact doesn’t look minuscule to me. Blue curve is ocean temp. If follows the same pattern as global temperatures. Tracks solar radiation before 1960 and then starts to track CO2 ppm.
https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/area14mp/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg
That energy didn’t disappear. By far, as expected, the energy driving climate change is being stored in the oceans. What happens in the atmosphere is insignificant. That’s why all your arguments based on atmospheric temperature are BS.
Any other “pearls of wisdom” you’d like to share?
Yes, there is extra energy. So what? That will be in addition to the warming already occurring since the LIA. (Oh, I forgot, you are a LIA denier.)
At any rate, it won’t matter in the big picture. The C in CAGW is much less certain than the W.
Past climate conditions have ZERO impact on the present. What’s so hard to understand about that?
“Yes, there is extra energy. So what? That will be in addition to the warming already occurring since the LIA.”
The “warming” just occurs? LOL!!
What doesn’t matter is the atmospheric temperatures you claim are important. The significant “warming” is occurring in the oceans, but you claim that’s not important.
Once again you prove my point. The only data you claim is valid is data that confirms your inane points. Anything else is insignificant — all evidence to the contrary. That’s why your crusade against CAGW is doomed to fail.
You’re nothing more than an old f–t with nothing to do but shout at the rain.
I have a new definition for zero-point energy. It is the inverse of JJB’s pompassity.
JJ Braccili
During the LIA ocean temperatures were substantially lower than the present. Glaciers advanced substantially after being in recession to a greater extent than today from the Roman warm period.
We have evidence of this from many sources and know that China, North America and other areas also suffered a much colder than normal period on an intermittent basis for several hundred years.
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/#:~:text=During%20the%20height%20of%20the%20Little%20Ice%20Age,prolonged%2C%20reducing%20the%20growing%20season%20by%20several%20weeks.
As you say, ocean temperature has a large impact. If ocean temperatures were substantially lower, then it follows they will warm up when the world starts to warm up. Generally it is thought that the world started getting consistently warmer -after the LIA-around 1820 but with a few warmer periods prior to this also.
We know the Arctic melted substantially back around 1816 for 30 years-as reported by whalers which prompted a Royal society scientific expedition there. It happened again from 1912 until 1940. The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg from a melting glacier.
So you may deny history as much as you want but the events of the past does have a bearing on today.
tonyb
The earth just doesn’t “warm up”. There has to be an energy imbalance for that to occur. I don’t care how “cold” the planet gets, unless something causes an energy imbalance, it will stay cold indefinitely.
The events of the past have zero impact on what’s going on right now. It doesn’t matter what happened yesterday, never mind thousands of years ago. Something could happen in the next 10 minutes that displaces CO2 as the driver of climate change. Planetary temperature will start the process of tracking that instead of CO2.
Tony – for JJB, the past doesn’t exist. It’s like the movie “50 First Dates” or “Memento.” He wakes up every day and everything is brand new to him. Milankovitch cycles don’t exist for him, and talk of glaciation might as well be talk about vanilla ice cream. It’s sad, really.
JJBraccili
“The land and the oceans are what absorb bulk of the energy from the sun. That’s where energy is building up and that’s the temperature you have to measure to ascertain the buildup of energy on the planet which drives climate change. The atmosphere is being heated by the earth – not vice versa. It is just follows what the earth is doing.”
I agree very much!
JJBraccili
“Tell me when you take a turkey out of the oven and want to know if it is done, do you stick the thermometer in the turkey or hold the thermometer above it?”
Very good example!
JJBraccili
“The atmosphere doesn’t contain much energy. The planet does. The buildup in energy is occurring on the planet. That why you measure the temperature of the planet and not the atmosphere to assess the energy buildup on the planet.”
Yes!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
02
Still having problems reading graphs? Dollar Tree has a great price on reading glasses. Although they raised the price from $1 to $1.25 recently so they they might be out of your price range. The Vig is not too exorbitant these days.
CKid wrote:
Deaths from 100 years ago are way down.
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
Which means what?
Neil McLachlan wrote:
There has been 3 years of warming in 40 years.>
Neil…do better.
Don’t choose to look foolish.
Neil McLachlan wrote:
They both show that there was a warming hiatus after 1998 el nino and then warming with the 2016 el nino and now we are back in a temperature hiatus.
All the global temperature data sets are the same.
You are so wrong. Foolishly wrong.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
You have shown a 132 month average temperature graph. This type of graph hides the detail. Look at monthly temperature graphs and 12 month graph.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
On the Columbia page, if you scroll down on the right there is a small graph showing monthly average, 12 month average, 60 month average and 132 month average graphs.
Monthly and 12 monthly graphs show the detail, the 60 month and 132 month graphs deliberately hide the detail. They give the impression that there is continual warming there isn’t continual warming.
The hiatus between 1998 and 2015 is obvious and indisputable.
The 132 month average graphs are published to deceive you.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
Look at the graph from 2000 to the end of 2021.
It is clear that there was no warming between 1998 and 2015. Also it clearly shows that we are in a temperature hiatus again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2022_v6.jpg
If you look at the UAH data, it is even more obvious.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Ts_variousMeans.pdf
Here finally worked out a way to present the graphs.
You can see clearly on the graph on the right the temperature hiatus prior to 2015 and then the current temperature hiatus beginning 2016.
Russia is lovin’ them some “green” energy!
(Bloomberg) Russia’s natural gas production is forecast by the International Energy Agency to rise to a record high this year, even as Europe struggles with its worst energy crisis in decades.The country’s output and exports have been closely scrutinized by traders and European policymakers as gas prices in the region climbed to unprecedented levels in the winter, contributing to inflation and a cost-of-living crisis. Gazprom PJSC’s capped deliveries have partly been blamed, including by the IEA, for the crisis.
Russia is set to pump 763 billion cubic meters of gas this year, the IEA said in its quarterly report on Monday. That would be the highest annual output in over 30 years, based on governmental statistics.
https://energynow.ca/2022/01/russias-gas-production-set-for-record-high-in-2022-iea-says/
Them liberal lloonies are killin’, just killin’ the oil business.
Oil had its biggest January gain in at least 30 years as robust demand outpaced fresh supply.
The global benchmark settled above $91 a barrel, posting a 17% gain this month. The combination of booming demand, scratchy supply and dwindling stockpiles has helped crude soar this month, with top banks and oil companies saying prices may soon pass $100 a barrel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-30/oil-punches-higher-at-the-week-s-open-on-demand-outlook-ukraine
See jim2 lie again. What are “liberals” doing to the oil business? He can’t say.
It’s gratifying to see that Europe will get that nasty natural gas under control, FINALLY!
The outlook shows how hard the energy crisis has hit Europe. Benchmark gas prices tripled last year, prompting utilities to switch to dirtier-burning coal and some industrial producers to cut their use of the fuel. Gas demand in the region is forecast to plunge 4.5% after gaining 5.5% last year, the agency said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-31/global-gas-demand-growth-hit-by-europe-s-energy-crisis-iea-says
The total capital cost of
electrification is herein estimated, using 2020 data, at US$433 trillion, or 20
times the U.S.A. 2019 gross domestic product.
https://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cost-of-Net-Zero-Electrification-of-the-USA-1.pdf
Suddenly the world shifts back to nuclear
With an energy crisis hitting the Northern Hemisphere and China streaking ahead, an atomic renaissance is brewing.
The UK is putting more into new nuclear power. France has flipped from shrinking nukes to growing them. The Netherlands had changed its tune. The EU has quietly drafted rules allowing nuclear power to count as “green”.
There are 443 Nuclear Power plants in the world. Another 54 plants are under construction, and more than a third of those are in China. Right now China has about half the capacity of the USA, but within five or ten years China will be the largest nuclear power in the world.
The Green energy experiment is failing to produce cheap reliable energy.
Australia has one third of the world’s known uranium, but has no nuclear power. Why don’t the Coalition do something a tiny bit brave and do what 32 other countries already do.
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/02/suddenly-the-world-shifts-back-to-nuclear/
I don’t think D.W. Griffith could have come up with a more anticipated train wreck than what is playing out in slow motion in the energy arena.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth38433/m1/1/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/01/uk-gas-production-could-plunge-75-by-2030-with-no-new-investment/
I’m making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . I’ve not ever imagined like it could tgb even achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try…Explore updated guidance by reaching following website…. http://cash46.tk/
Push off.
I’m making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . I’ve not ever imagined like it could MCd even achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try…Explore updated guidance by reaching following website…. http://cash46.tk/
Thanks JJB
Global Temperature Report for 2021
Posted on January 12, 2022 by Robert Rohde
We conclude that 2021 was nominally the sixth warmest year on Earth since 1850.
The last seven years have included all seven of the warmest years observed in the instrumental record.
Year-to-year rankings are likely to reflect short-term natural variability.
While not a record warm year overall, 8.3% of the Earth’s surface did
have a record warm annual average locally in 2021.
By chance, these areas coincided with a number of major population centers.
Airports no doubt.
angech wrote:
Global Temperature Report for 2021
Posted on January 12, 2022 by Robert Rohde
Link??
I would think that giving a link would be the least anyone would do.
I provided the link for that. It’s from Berkley Earth.
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/
angech wrote:
While not a record warm year overall, 8.3% of the Earth’s surface did
have a record warm annual average locally in 2021.
By chance, these areas coincided with a number of major population centers.
What’s the proof of this?
A drop is a drop.
Would need a second La Nina of substance to help which is looking unlikely sadly.
At least some people listen to me :) The EU is attempting to take a rational energy path after suffering at the hands of green extremists. If the green extremists kill this initiative, the pain will get much, much worse for the EU.
(Bloomberg) — The European Union unveiled how it plans to label investments in some gas and nuclear projects as sustainable, a move that has divided member states as the energy transition collides with political reality. The European Commission on Wednesday announced technical amendments to its draft green-label criteria and proposed strengthening disclosure rules to ensure more transparency for
Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/eu-to-unveil-controversial-green-label-plan-for-gas-and-nuclear
Copyright © BloombergQuint
Well, yes this is an industry trade group, so there’s that. But the energy crunch is happening right in front of our eyes, so I tend to believe this.
Ukraine tensions and Europe’s energy crisis show the UK needs new offshore gas fields to protect its energy supplies
Warnings of Europe-wide gas shortages, linked to Russia’s threatened invasion of Ukraine, have reinforced the need to maintain the UK’s present and future offshore gas supplies, said OGUK, which represents the UK offshore energy industry.
https://oguk.org.uk/how-does-the-uk-get-its-gas/
A climate alarmist speaks.
Nuclear Power Is More Important Than Ever
Retiring nuclear plants early was a bad idea. Failing to invest in new ones would be disastrous.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-02/nuclear-power-is-essential-in-fighting-climate-change
I’m the wrong person to talk to about nuclear power. I’m agnostic.
JJB the UAH is out .
Bad news. It is still way too high .
Nonetheless the CO2 effect was totally hidden this month.
I checked 375 tidal gauges and the CO2 effect seems to have been hidden for the last 100 years. Must be in somebody’s pocket.
JJ
Read it and weep. This is such fun.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html
You checked 375 tidal gauges? Exactly how did you “check” them? Please specify your methodology, in detail.
02
I want to thank you again for providing that link from NOAA that reinforced my contention that SLR had risen 6” in a century. I can always count on you to score an own goal. I appreciate it l
Here’s some patient science and common sense analysis of Earthshine consilience with CERES. A 20 year decline in Earth albedo. Just what is causing climate to change?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
Good article. So, why is the Pacific warmer? Will it continue to get warmer? Did they see a difference in earth shine when La Nina went into effect? The Pacific surface temperature went down, so if their theory is correct, Earthshine should have gone up.
Green extremist energy policy is hurting people right now! Not decades into the future. NOW! It’s time to reject these id ee ot tic wind and solar projects and build out natural gas infrastructure and nuclear.
(Bloomberg) — Ian Ecclestone tries whatever he can think of to lower his energy bills. He turns off the heat in his Birkenhead house on weekdays, takes “navy showers” with sporadic bursts of hot water and microwaves his meals at work.
It’s still not going to make much difference come April. Ecclestone likely will be among 4 million more people shoved into “energy poverty” when the U.K. regulator raises its cap on the amount suppliers can charge customers. Bills are expected to jump by almost half, propelled by runaway costs for natural gas, and the toll will be significant: 1 in 10 people in the U.K. may not be able to afford consistent heat and electricity.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-big-gas-squeeze-drag-112135313.html
“Energy bills are set to rise drastically in the U.K. after the country’s energy regulator announced its cap on prices would rise by over 50% in April.”
Here it comes. This is just the tip of the spear. I love the thought of paying $500 a month for electricity. Only a matter of time.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/uk-energy-bills-to-rise-by-over-50percent-in-april-as-ofgem-announces-hike.html
“More Than 70,000 Texans Are Without Power Due To A Winter Storm, Despite Gov. Greg Abbott’s Promise That ‘The Lights Will Stay On’”
UpRoxx, 2/3/22
https://uproxx.com/viral/greg-abbott-texas-loses-power-again/
The Sun warms the planet. Clouds affect albedo, and reflect sunlight. Anything that affects clouds has the potential to affect climate.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View
Visiting this web page >>> http://Www.GOWORK24.com
Robert I. Ellison | February 3, 2022 at 1:29 am |
Unless there is observation and analysis there is no science. What is observed is that solar variability is an insufficient cause of past or present climate change. The IPCC says as much in its forcing informatics. The alternative is what Judith calls indirect solar effects. Internal effects that change albedo and/or planetary surface temperature and amplify the solar signal.
Robert I. Ellison | February 3, 2022 at 1:52 pm |
The usual tendentious nonsense. Much of the warming of the past few decades emerged from internal dynamics. The ‘trend’ in albedo is some 0.5 W/m2 in Earthshine and larger in CERES..
Warming emerging from internal dynamics.
An illusion, albeit a good one.
A bit like a snowflake forming spontaneously in hell..
Or a pot of cold porridge on the stove suddenly springing to life on its own and bubbling away.
Or spontaneous combustion.
Perhaps CO2 molecules have little stoves inside them and every now and again produce a new photon of energy that did not exist before.
The hyperbole is to demonstrate a simple fact.
Warming does emerge from internal dynamics.
Of molecules producing new photons.
Called a heat source or a sun.
Take all the currents in the world, all the winds, all the pressure differentials and precipitation. Thousand year old currents coming to the surface and what do you have?
Precisely nothing in new energy generation.
A caveat, for nitpickers, we are talking about the effect of the sun and its consequences only, not volcanoes or other seperate heat sources of new or internal energy
Hence solar variability is the main and sufficient cause of natural climate change.
What is missing is an ability to step back and look at thermodynamic flow that is occurring and appreciate the true heat flows, not the minutiae of which side of the world, time of the year and whether you are upside down or not..
Solar variability can cause climate change, but not always. Venus absorbs less solar energy than the earth does. It has a temperature that is 400 K higher than it should be for a planet with its relative position to the sun. Solar variability in not the cause.
Changes in albedo or IR emissions does not require the creation of new energy to change the global energy budget. Focus on the data and you may just get somewhere interesting one day.
The bulk of the discussions on climate science is backward focussed. Looking at past events to determine future events . Focused on the when and why rather than the now and future.
Not much wrong with that.
Past performance can be a good indicator of future direction.
It has a fatal flaw in that the present can change and the future will change because of current and yet to come events not reliant on past defined and fixed outcomes.
Energy production is an exercise in evolution or change over time.
Climate is what happens as the energy passes through the planet the climate is occurring on.
Basically climate is what happens to the volatile components of the surface of a planet due to the energy it is receiving from its energy sources.
For a rock in space this is solely external.
For a planet other internal sources can exist.
Solar variability is experienced every day and over the course of every year.
Whether the global temperate changes hence climate changes can easily be attributed to the effects of solar variability alone.
This is not to dispute the effects of other heat sources, when they occur.
But if no asteroids, suns going nova, Yellowstone’s erupting then climate change is not due to natural variabilty de novo.
All albedo changes, current and wind effects etc are all old reactions to the previous heat input. Totally understandable and predictable. Not new heat sources. Not capable of making temperatures hotter. Temperatures became hotter because more heat was put into the system
In the past.
Not doing anything but cooling down .
angech wrote:
It has a fatal flaw in that the present can change
{eye roll}
davidappell02 Thanks David
“angech wrote:It has a fatal flaw in that the present can change
{eye roll}”
–
Learning Italian has been a real eye opener in terms of understanding language construction and meaning, and time.
–
Past, present and future are not purely static terms despite your assertions.
–
The scientific answer to your eye roll would be to mention Schrodinger.
–
I assume you are bright enough to understand the context and implications but….
if not, you only have to ask politely and I will explain it to you.
–
{eye roll}.
THE LATEST ON NATURAL GAS FROM KERRY: Climate envoy John Kerry asserted yesterday the commodity is a “bridge fuel” that can help nations on their path to net-zero emissions — a notion rejected by many climate hawks, and one that’s motivating some EU member states to threaten suit against the European Commission for proposing to treat gas as such.
“Gas can be helpful in this transition,” Kerry said at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event previewing next year’s COP27 climate change conference. “Gas is going to be important to the transition.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/daily-on-energy-kerrys-latest-stance-on-natural-gas-its-a-bridge-fuel
That’s right. Burning natural gas still emits carbon. Far too much of it.
‘Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Some 5000 years BP the sun transitioned from lower to higher activity. Seen as higher to lower levels of cosmogenic isotopes.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
LOL
(Sad) DA
It’s not clear what his deeply seated problems are. But if we focus on observations and not polemic the answer to a puzzle may emerge.
‘9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings’ – https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967
RIE: The problem is you looked at a graph of gross resolution and made a wild conclusion without looking at the underlying data whatsoever. Just like you always do.
You can’t calculate your way out of a paper bag.
The data is on on cosmic ray intensity as measured by cosmogenic isotope production. Observations are made patiently and analysed carefully. It seems a bit churlish to reject the science on the basis of what amounts to complete twaddle.
I compared it with the Moy et al Pacific Ocean state proxy. In which spectral analysis shows a tipping point at some 5000 years BP.
I still have no clue what he imagines the problem might be – but I am mightily bored by the ongoing superficiality, ignorance and rudeness from both him and JJ.
“ We conclude that calibration of basal melt on past ice discharge combined with model selection makes projections of Antarctic ice discharge (more) consistent with observations over the past four decades. Moreover, calibration of basal melt on past ice discharge results in lower basal melt sensitivities and thus lower projections of Antarctica’s sea level contribution than estimates of previous multi-model studies.”
https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-348/
“ We provide a new and more accurate estimate of the intra-mission bias, which leads to a much reduced GMSL acceleration over the whole record. Hence, the conundrum of an uncertain GMSL acceleration from altimetry is still unsolved, in spite of recent opposite claims, and in contrast to the expected effect of ocean warming and continental freshwater fluxes.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
“ In overall, TPI represents the low frequency internal variability slightly better than PDO for sea level variation in Fremantle. Although the estimated trends do not change significantly, the estimated accelerations varies for the three models. The accelerations estimated from the first and second models are statistically insignificant, 0.006 ± 0.012 mm yr−2 and 0.01 ± 0.01 mm yr−2, respectively, while this figure for the third model is 0.018 ± 0.011 mm yr−2. The outcome exemplifies the importance of modelling low frequency internal variability in acceleration estimations for sea level rise in regional scale.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.664947/full
“ Here, we quantify global-mean relative sea-level rise to be 2.6 mm yr−1 over the past two decades. However, as coastal inhabitants are preferentially located in subsiding locations, they experience an average relative sea-level rise up to four times faster at 7.8 to 9.9 mm yr−1. These results indicate that the impacts and adaptation needs are much higher than reported global sea-level rise measurements suggest. In particular, human-induced subsidence in and surrounding coastal cities can be rapidly reduced with appropriate policy for groundwater utilization and drainage. Such policy would offer substantial and rapid benefits to reduce growth of coastal flood exposure due to relative sea-level rise.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00993-z
“ Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is stillhardly detectable.”
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/787/2012/cp-8-787-2012.html
“ In summary, analysis of change in the land area of islands perched on 221 atolls, using satellite imagery, produced answers to the research questions posed in this paper. First, the study shows a large increase the area of atoll islands, with 61.74 km2 of land added between 2000 and 2017. s, results show that most changes in atoll land area have taken place in the Maldivian archipelago and on atolls in the South China Sea. Of the 61.74 km2 of land area increase observed in the study, 54.07 km2”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305421000059
“ While Greenland ice sheet melt has been linked with accelerating sea-level rise in recentyears, the period of accelerated sea-level rise from the 1950s to the 1970s10 as well as thecurrent period coinciding with a declining AMO indicates that multi-decadal fluctuations in ocean circulation play a key role. In this framework, sea-level rise along the US eastcoast becomes entwined with the climate impacts of the AMO.”
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/510937/1/mccarthy_manuscript_post_print.pdf
“ This study presents a comprehensive review of the Land subsidence (LS) cases, as a worldwide environmental, geological, and global geohazard concern. Here, 290 case studies around the world mostly conducted in large metropolitan cities (e.g. Bangkok, Beijing, California, Houston, Mexico City, Shanghai, Jakarta, and Tokyo) in 41 countries were collected…….It is shown that the coastal plains and river deltaic regions are of high-frequent subsided areas around the world (~47% of 290 study areas). The spaceborne monitoring of LS is the more prevalent technique (~ 38% of total cases) compared to the ground-investigation (e.g. geological surveying, leveling, GPS, and modeling). Human-induced LS cases are 76.92% of all the LS cases around the world and groundwater extraction contributes 59.75% of these cases.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012602
“No scientific consensus has been reached yet as to how a possible acceleration could be separated from intrinsic climate variability in sea level records. This has led to an intensive debate on its existence and, if absent, also on the general validity of current future projections. Here we shed light on the controversial discussion from a methodological point of view. To do so, we provide a comprehensive review of trend methods used in the community so far. This resulted in an overview of 30 methods, each having its individual mathematical formulation, flexibilities, and characteristics. We illustrate that varying trend approaches may lead to contradictory acceleration-deceleration inferences”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC010716
The purpose of the series of comments about SLR is to demonstrate the complexities, uncertainties and differences in estimating the rate and rates of acceleration.
This paper covers the uncertainties of thermosteric and halosteric components.
“ By varying both the data sets and noise models, the global mean steric sea-level trend and uncertainty can vary from 0.69 to 2.40 and 0.02 to 1.56 mm/year, respectively, for 1993–2017. This range is even larger on regional scales, reaching up to 30 mm/year. Our results show that a first-order autoregressive model is the most appropriate choice to describe the residual behavior of the ensemble mean of all data sets for the global mean steric sea-level change over the last 25 years, which consequently leads to the most representative uncertainty. Using the ensemble mean and the first-order autoregressive noise model, we find a global mean steric sea-level change of 1.36 ± 0.10 mm/year for 1993–2017 and 1.08 ± 0.07 mm/year for 2005–2015.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JC016551
Imo sea level rise is not as complicated as you make it globally. Sea level has been rising for close to a thousand years at very close to the current rate. Over the last 30 years during the satellite era there has been virtually no appreciable increase in the rate of rise. of sea-level. At any particular location changes in land height dwarf the change in sea level from a practical perspective
https://www.cfact.org/2022/02/04/electric-power-reforms-gain-ground-in-virginia/
What the whole world needs. Steering away from renewable madness.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain …that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started JHg doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site…..…. http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
Robert I. Ellison | February 3, 2022 at 2:17 am |
The change in TSI is insufficient to cause climate change past or present. The IPCC says as much. We infer then that there are amplifying mechanisms internal to the Earth system.
Here’s something that explains why, what and when.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
–
Have not read it (yet)
–
Bemused.
–
I assume you are using sarcasm.
Both in mentioning the IPCC
Then agreeing with their argument and the paper
–
Can a change in TSI cause climate change?
Yes or no.
–
If so the whole of your and the IPCC goes out the window.
–
Natural variability, sans earth heat input sources, read volcanoes etc
Cannot exist
The energy in is the energy out
The temperature fluctuations at any locally defined point are just that points current energy share of the whole kit bag.
‘A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
A decrease in reflected SW increases energy entering the system – where 90% is stored as heat in the oceans.
Angech’s ruminations on terminology seem more of a rabbit hole by the day.
Angech’s ruminations-
‘A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux.
–
I agree with you entirely.
What bit of what caused the decrease in low cloud cover are you having a problem with?
–
You see the change in cloud cover, which does effect solar irradiation significantly, has a prior driver.
The sun.
The energy from the sun.
Caused the clouds to form.
Caused the decrease.-
–
The energy changes come first.
Have to.
All responses from that are due to the original causation.
You know that.
What causes a change in cloud cover in the eastern Pacific is closed cell, Rayleigh-Bénard convection. To remind you – Rayleigh-Bénard convection is type of convection found in a fluid heated from below by a planar surface. Like the ocean heating the atmosphere. A picture is worth much more than a 1000 words expended in vain on CE. .
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific#:~:text=Closed%2Dcell%20clouds%20look%20similar,leaving%20the%20centers%20cloud%2Dfree.
Convection cells are bistable – closed cells rain out to leave open cells – and nonlinear – raining out happens more frequently over warmer ocean surfaces.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
The proximate cause of changes in domain albedo is evolving patterns of spatiotemporal chaotic warm and cool states in the tropical and subtropical Pacific Ocean. Positing that the primal cause of everything is the sun is a truism but neglects far more interesting nonlinear Earth system dynamics.
Positing that the primal cause of everything is the sun is a truism
Thank you for that kind endorsement [of sorts], RIE .
–
So is the IPCC “The change in TSI is insufficient to cause climate change past or present.”
–
Still your fallback position?
–
TSI at the TOA on a plane level to the earth midpoint 1 AU
is the energy source for the earth [all those %$# caveats about about not taking into account internal sources].
You have a better knowledge than most on the TSI and how it is calculated.
Earthshine is an enigma with a lot of problems in calculation.
Nonetheless a valuable backup correlation source rather than a primary use source.
–
First point.
We should know the correct TSI and have an accurate record of this
from the satellite coverage hopefully dating back at least 40 years.
All that is needed is a receptor pointed at the sun.
Lots of smart solar people here.
Javier and his bete noir.
So what do those records show?
–
Second point.
Ceres is rubbish.Even though you seem to be promoting it.
Worse than Moonshine.
Why you ask?
Because it is not and never has been pure observations.
Separating out reflected energy and emitted energy is not an easy task.
Roy Spencer has made comment on the inadequacy of the satellite systems when there is cloud cover
Damning comments on how poor it is.
Ceres uses algorithms, earth based supplements and temperature observations and has known bias in these measurement s purporting to show CO2 enhancement when it may or may not be there.
Due to this it shows a fictitious energy imbalance at the TOA.
–
Third point
All the models used to show why warming changes due to cloud cover, CO2 , Thousand year old currents bringing warmth or cold to the surface [this argument in itself is enough to show how lost we are].
Yes there are clouds, El Ninos , La Ninas A, currents deep and shallow popping up all over the place.
Yet all the energy that went in a thousand years ago, 2 years ago or last week also went out a thousand years ago, 2 years ago or last week.
–
Think about it logically or scientifically.
There is no battery.
A current only carries the energy allowed to be be in it by what the water and air around it have already let go to space.
The whole darn lot is in balance.
–
Yes albedo changes. as a result of the temperature input from the sun being redistributed and causing those albedo effects.
Less sun in?
More sun in?
No relevance as they are only gates for the energy from the sun.
There is no new energy from albedo.
evolving patterns of spatiotemporal chaotic warm and cool states in the tropical and subtropical Pacific Ocean.
Come from how much sun gets in and then decides hoiw much more sun can come in.
–
The change in TSI is insufficient to cause climate change past or present. The IPCC says as much.
–
As I said, How do you know the IPCC is wrong?
They make a statement.
How do you know they are really wrong?
They give it a 97%
credibility rating.
–
Can I sell you the Sydney Harbour Bridge?
Solar irradiance is at the bottom of the graphic.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/fig8-17-2/
Robert I. Ellison | February 6, 2022 at 1:50 am |
Solar irradiance is at the bottom of the graphic.
Typical cart before the horse.
Solar irradiance, the prime source, and the changes it induces in everything else.
Given no credence.
H20 not even listed as a GHG of major importance because “it is not considered a forcing”.
CO2 , minor GHG, major status.
Greater than anything else.
Because….
Go IPCC.
That the sun is relatively stable in output is the point in considering its role in climate change. Other things are changing – CO2 concentrations in a variable – of the chaotic kind – climate.
On a lighter note for trivia buffs
Juan Garcia provides great updates at Arctic Sea Ice Forum.
As does Gerontocreat.
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
February 5th, 2022: 13,906,765 km2, an increase of 37,201 km2.
the significance of this level is that the March 2017 record low maximum was 13.88 million km2,
–
So, today , with 41 days to go the Arctic Sea Ice JAXA is officially not the lowest on record.
It is currently the 3rd lowest.
Last year it went above this and then did a precipitous drop so noe mus never count an Arctic Sea Ice chicken until it hatches.
Another 60,000sq K would take it to 5th lowest and 100,000 would take it to 14,000,000 sq K.
–
Irene does a good job with updates on the cold weather.
ENSO is not currently looking good. for more cold.
Let’s hope we get to 14,000,000 and then see if it can go any higher.
–
My interst here is that every global warmist I know says Arctic Sea Ice and I have to shut up.
‘What mechanism changed the Earth from glacial 20,000 years ago to interglacial 10,000 years ago?
Why did the average temperature rise from 9C to 14C?
The modern interpretation of Milankovitch’s work is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65N latitude in Summer to melt the snow. Without the snow albedo drops and enough heat is retained to keep it warm.
A glacial period starts when too little heat reaches 65N in Summer to melt the snow. Over years the snow builds up into ice sheets and the increased ice albedo keeps it cold.”
What really happens is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65 SOUTH latitude in Southern Hemisphere Summer to accumulate the solar energy in the oceanic waters.
In our times the South Hemisphere’s summer COINCIDES with the earth’s PERIHELION.
That is why Earth is in a WARMING TREND PHASE now.
Milankovitch had calculated his cycle in high preciseness. Milankovitch Cycle should be read REVERSED.
Please visit:
The Reversed Cycle
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
Milankovitch Reverse
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444467896
Pingback: Energiepreisexplosion ist Folge grüner Politik in Europa und Deutschland
This thread might have been a better place to post my comment about climate’s past decade, which is at
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/25/managing-personal-covid-risk/#comment-971423
The main point was that the hiatus ended around 2012, contrary to expectations in 2014.
As for 1.5 C or 2.0 C, my two cents are that reducing mining of fossil fuels when the switch to renewables makes it practical is a better target than anything to do with temperature.
Naturally those with a vested interest in fossil fuels will argue that no such thing should be done.
Hi VP, nice to see you still drop by once in a while.
If you examine the energy crisis in Europe, you will find we all have a vested interest in fossil fuels. Just ask Putin.
A fellow blogger at WUWT tried to redefine the First Law
after I claimed energy in equals energy out saying
“Nobody remotely knowledgeable about basic thermodynamics would assert this.”
I thought some people do.
M. Bahrami ENSC 388 (F09) 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Closed Systems 1 The First Law of Thermodynamics: Closed Systems [Whoever]
The first law of thermodynamics can be simply stated as follows: during an interaction.between a system and its surroundings, the amount of energy gained by the system must be exactly equal to the amount of energy lost by the surroundings.
– Secondly you are aware of one of the definitions of a TOA
Energy in =energy out or are you denying a TOA exists at all?
-Thirdly as I said unless you bother to explain the First law properly
Like this.
“I simply expressed the most basic statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics (in differential form).”
You have taken one small part of the definition and chucked your own notions in.
Hence you have added a component called work which only exists in certain prescribed situations and certainly does not describe the full First Law of Thermodynamics.
– Hence “The other [idea is] that physics absolutely dictates that the outgoing energy must equal the in-going energy.” is a truism.
Otherwise physics will not work.
–
“So if you have 100 watts of input to a system, and 90 watts of output, the energy of the system is increasing at the rate of 10 watts (10 Joules/sec).”
–
And when, as in reality you have100 watts output?
Explain how the system taking in 100 watts is not compelled to put 100 watts out? [No batteries or heat storage devices in a bit of rock, remember?
No work engines] All bodies do and must radiate any heat they do not make themselves.
–
But then,
“You do believe that you can heat a pot of water on your stove, don’t you? That the power into the pot does not have to equal the power out?”
–
This is not an argument.
It is not even a good analogy.
Nobody remotely knowledgeable about basic thermodynamics would assert this.*
Take Earth.
You claim that you can heat the earth with power in.
You do believe the earth does not have to put this power out paraphrasing your pot comment. You believe the power in does not have to equal the power out. In an arbitrary way that is the power out is always less than what goes in. So what do you end up with after a billion years of the sun doing this to the earth?. A planet hotter than the sun.
.-
Going back to the teapot.
Turn the stove off.
Does the energy stay in the teapot for you?
No.
How did it know how to leave?
The first law perhaps.
–
Now the 64 million question.
What is keeping the water hot?
Note it is not the heat that went into the teapot as that already left almost as soon as it went in.
Strange but true as Ripley would say.
What is the source of the energy making the teapot and water appear hot, Ed?
And by implication almost everyone else here.
You are not alone in believing the water is hot because of the energy the stove put into it although it has already gone.
So can you heat a pot of water on the stove? and what is keeping it hot.
“The first law of thermodynamics can be simply stated as follows: during an interaction between a system and its surroundings, the amount of energy gained by the system must be exactly equal to the amount of energy lost by the surroundings.
– Secondly you are aware of one of the definitions of a TOA
Energy in =energy out or are you denying a TOA exists at all?”
Your statement of the first law of thermodynamics is correct. The blogger is correct. You, as usual, are wrong.
You don’t understand the difference between system and surroundings. In case of the earth, the system is the earth and its atmosphere. The surroundings is the rest of the universe. All your statement of first law of thermodynamics says is that the energy gained by the earth must be equal to the energy lost by the surroundings. That does not mean that at TOA energy in must always equal energy out.
Let’s say that at TOA there is an energy imbalance of 1 W/M2. Energy in does not equal energy out. The energy of the earth increases by 1 W/m2 for as long as the imbalance persists. That 1 W/m2 comes from the surroundings. The system + surroundings is in energy balance even though the earth system is not, and the surroundings is not.
That is why people like you should not be claiming expertise in thermodynamics. Many like you make the same mistake with second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
“Let’s say that at TOA there is an energy imbalance of 1 W/M2. Energy in does not equal energy out. The energy of the earth increases by 1 W/m2 for as long as the imbalance persists. That 1 W/m2 comes from the surroundings. The system + surroundings is in energy balance even though the earth system is not, and the surroundings is not.”
–
JJ, “The energy of the earth increases by 1 W/m2 for as long as the imbalance persists. ”
Doesn’t earth respond by getting warmer and being able to adjusting the energy out so it gets balanced again?
Doesn’t earth “take care” for the [energy in =energy out] equality to be always there?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth has inertia to temperature change (mCp). It doesn’t happen instantaneously. If the imbalance persists, it doesn’t happen until what is causing the imbalance abates.
Every spot on planet surface experiences a constant and at every instant an energy imbalance phenomenon because of the planet’s axial rotation (the diurnal cycle). Every spot’s solar irradiance at every instant differs from the previous instant.
–
While I do not deny there is a thermal inertia on planet surface,
would you like to describe the mechanism of how the ” inertia to temperature change (mCp)” [your choice of words] occurs?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks
JJBraccili | February 14, 2022 at 11:36 am | Reply
Your statement of the first law of thermodynamics is correct.
You don’t understand the difference between system and surroundings. In case of the earth, the system is the earth and its atmosphere. The surroundings is the rest of the universe.
–
So an open or Tamino system JJ?
All your statement of first law of thermodynamics says is that the energy gained by the earth must be equal to the energy lost by the surroundings.
–
Not my statement but it sounds right
That does not mean that at TOA energy in must always equal energy out.
OK let’s top right there JJ.
A TOA by definition is where energy in must equal energy out.
I defy anyone to give a definition otherwise.
Not just you, anyone.
Let’s say that at TOA there is an energy imbalance of 1 W/M2.
Why?
At TOA there cannot be an energy imbalance.
Energy in does not equal energy out.
Yet you also said,
Your statement of the first law of thermodynamics is correct.
The energy of the earth increases by 1 W/m2 for as long as the imbalance persists.
What imbalance ?
If I put 1W in I get 1W out
If I put 2 W in I get 2, not 1 out.
If I put 1000 W/m2 in I get a 1000 out.
It’s not rocket science
Once the input changes the output automatically changes.
That 1 W/m2 comes from the surroundings.
I think you stated an imbalance of 1 W/m2 without specifying the cause.
Increase or decrease of energy by sun or clouds for instance.
Perhaps you meant by an increase in GHG.
The argument was about an increase in forcing from an increase in energy in.
If you increase the energy in you increase the energy out.
If you increase the GHG the energy coming in and going out is till the same , always.
There is no extra 1W/m2 of new energy coming from the surroundings.
There is no new energy.
Ergo
The system + surroundings is in energy balance even though the earth system is not, and the surroundings is not.
“A TOA by definition is where energy in must equal energy out.
I defy anyone to give a definition otherwise.
Not just you, anyone.”
Here another of your problems. It’s not a definition. The First Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t say energy in = energy out. It says if energy in is not equal to energy out, energy of the system changes. It’s pretty simple.
The mathematical statement of the First Law is the CHANGE in energy of the system equals the net heat flow into the system + the net work done on the system. Since no work can be done on or by a vacuum, the equation for the earth system becomes the change in energy of the earth equals the radiant energy in – the radiant energy out. If the energy in equals the energy out at all times, the earth’s energy can’t change, and neither can its temperature.
The rest of your post only proves how muddled you mind is. You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s pathetic.
Ah, I missed this
JJBraccili’s The fourth Law of Thermodynamics
Earth has inertia to temperature change (mCp). It doesn’t happen instantaneously. If the imbalance persists, it doesn’t happen until what is causing the imbalance abates
Inertia
I have just been hit by a big chunk of 1 W/2 energy increase.
What will I do ?
I will just sit here for a while and think about it before I react.
A new mysterious addition to the energy equals equations.
It may have escaped your notice but energy hitting a molecule is a different
Thing to a fly hitting a bulldozer.
It is the molecule that receives , moves faster and emits the energy, presumably slowing down.
The increase in temp (of the molecule ) is instantaneous as is the decrease in motion.
Really?
Put a pot of water at room temperature on a stove and turn the burner on the stove to put maximum heat to the pot — more than sufficient to boil the water. What happens? Does the water in the pot start to boil immediately? Put a thermometer in the pot. What happens? It starts to rise from room temperature until, eventually, it gets to boiling temperature and then it starts to boil. we can even write an equation that models the process.
(mCp) dT/dt = heat in – heat out.
m = mass of water
Cp = specific heat
T= temperature
t = time
The water has inertia to temperature change (mcp). As you start to heat the water its temperature rises because of the imbalance between heat in and heat out. Eventually it gets to boiling temperature. Heat in will only equals heat out when heat lost by convection from the pot and vaporization of water are the same as heat in.
The Fourth Law of Thermodynamics is don’t listen to an imbecile’s thoughts on thermodynamics.
If oceans are warming then energy in is greater than energy out. Because of the -3.2 W/m2/K Planck feedback the system will tend to energy equilibrium at TOA – IR and SW – in a complex dynamical system that exhibits multiple equilibria.
e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f
Pingback: ClimateGate.NL:ㅤEnergieprijzen exploderen door ‘groenflatie’ – My WordPress Site
Pingback: Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C thresholds - News7g