Week in review – climate edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past weeks

We find that ocean warming and ice shelf melting respond to long-term changes in the atmosphere – specifically the Southern Hemisphere westerly winds. [link]

The magic and mystery of turbulence [link]

Interpreting extreme climate impacts from large ensemble simulations – are they unseen or unrealistic? [link]

Past world economic production constrains current energy demands [link]

Problems with datasets used to estimate trends in extreme rainfall [link]

Could ‘lost crops’ help us adapt to climate change? [link]

Role of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in driving US temperature predictability [link]

The Greenland ice sheet is melting from the inside out, as well as the outside in.[link]

Earth’s melting glaciers contain less ice than scientists thought [link]

The Lancet: mortality from non optimal temperatures.  With warming, the largest decline in overall excess death ratio occurred in South-eastern Asia, whereas excess death ratio fluctuated in Southern Asia and Europe. [link]

We provide new estimates of the interannual variability in supraglacial lake areas and volumes around the entire East Antarctic Ice Sheet. [link]

Arctic glaciers and ice caps through the Holocene [link]

Overview article on atmospheric rivers [link]

Millions of historical monthly rainfall observations taken in the UK and Ireland rescued by citizen scientists [link]

What was the Carrington event? [link]

Where did the water from Mars’ ancient rivers and lakes go? [link]

“Surface ocean warming and acidification driven by rapid carbon release precedes Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum” [link]

“… the CO2 airborne fraction has decreased by 0.014 ± 0.010 decade−1 since 1959. This suggests that the combined land–ocean sink has been able to grow at least as fast as anthropogenic emissions” [link]

links between coastal marine and terrestrial #heatwaves around Australia. [link]

Transient sea level response to external forcing [link]

Tropical methane emissions explain large fraction of recent global increase [link]

Ancient El Ninos reveals limits to future climate projections [link]

The potential for soil carbon storage in croplands to mitigate global warming is much smaller than previously suggested, [link]

Comparison of Holocene temperature reconstructions based on GISP2 ice cores [link]

Net carbon uptake has kept pace with increasing CO2 emissions [link]

permafrost peatlands in Europe and Western Siberia will soon surpass a climatic tipping point under scenarios of moderate-to-high warming. go.nature.com/3JgzAVi

Discrepancies in changes in precipitation characterization over the US [link]

Good article on cloud seeding [link]

Technology and policy

Its time for rooftop solar to compete with other renewables [link]

India kept extreme poverty below 1% despite pandemic [link]

The green U.S. supply chain rules set to unspool and rattle the global economy [link]

Storage requirements in a 100% renewable electricity system: extreme events and interannual variability [link]

America’s approach to energy security is broken [link]

Extracting rare earth elements from waste with a flash of heat [link]

Green energy goes greener with a way to recycle solar panels [link]

Why a waterless cleaning method for solar panels could be a major breakthrough for clean energy: [link]

Research showed that human activities posed the biggest threats to coastlines with seagrasses, savannas, or coral reefs. Coastlines with deserts, forests, and salt marshes fared a little better. [link]

The 1.5 degree goal is all but dead [link]

The farmer’s climate change adaptation challenge in least developed countries escholarship.org/content/qt5b55

Germany’s energy fiasco [link]

How to create the U.S. arsenal of energy: a roadmap for energy security [link]

Debunking energy demand [link]

Surging electric bills threaten California climate goals [link]

Let them eat carbon: Entrenching poverty by limiting fossil fuel investment won’t solve climate change, [link]

Questioning the expanding use of croplands for biofuels [link]

Disruptions to supplies of hydrogen and helium have led to cancellation of routine weather balloon launches [link]

We can’t wait for speculative tech to save us from climate change [link]

How not to interpret the emissions scenarios in the IPCC report [link]

These energy innovations could transform how we mitigate climate change [link]

Drivers of increased crop production [link]

Wind project developer charged in deaths of golden eagles [link]

Carbon Brief summary of AR6 WGIII report [link]

UK doubles down on nuclear power despite fierce opposition [link]

A new method for recycling plastics [link]

Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict [link]

Forests help reduce global warming in more ways than one [link]

“This article explores the various impacts on economic growth in the IPCC scenarios that limit the average global temperature increase in 2100 to 1.5oC. It finds that the impacts are generally small and that in no case is ‘degrowth’ required.” [link]

Life in the world’s hottest city [link]

SwissRe: update on global catastrophe losses (no trend since 1990) [link]

The Left’s climate playbook is already outdated [link]

Oceans + carbon removal: It’s complicated [link]

Replacing conventional irrigation with the efficient irrigation can lead to double benefits: improved water savings and reduced moist heat stress! For details, see our recent paper in Earth’s Future (AGU): agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

The case for cold climate heat pumps [link]

Wind and solar proponent’s arithmetic problem [link]

New type of UV light makes indoor air as safe as outdoors for airborne virus [link]

Climate change is spurring a movement to build storm proof homes [link]

‘Climate smart’ policies could increase southern Africa’s crops by up to 500% [link]

About science and scientists

Free speech: a history from Socrates to social media [link]

New research has revealed fascinating details about the #evolution of humans living in Europe during the #Neolithic Revolution and the notable physiological changes they experienced in a short period of time. https://ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/evolution-of-europeans-0016620

Dinosaur wars: the nastiest feud in science [link]

Cocooning philosophers in academia: nostalgia for the ‘bad’ old days [link]

Against scientific gatekeeping [link]

What happens in our brains when we change our minds [link]

What happens when the scientists disagree? Scientific dissent should be engaged with, not suppressed [link[

Fascinating history of climate science in Russia [link]

Myside bias, rational thinking and intelligence [link]

Dissident philosophers [link]

The future is vast: longtermism’s perspective on humanity’s past, present, future [link]

Climate clues from the past prompt a new look at history [link]

The philosopher redefining equality [link]

639 responses to “Week in review – climate edition

  1. I think the link for “ Storage requirements in a 100% renewable electricity system: extreme events and interannual variability” should be https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8

  2. And perhaps the intended link for “ Fascinating history of climate science in Russia” is this one https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03315-0.

  3. So now that I have solved energy and environment policy. I thought I’d try solving climate. Temperature in the troposphere have been rising at 0.155 C/decade (UAH) to 0.213 C/decade (RSS) for the past 40 years. There’s a handy Cowtan and Way calculator at ScepticalScience.

    https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    I’m thinkin’ that we are still in the post 1976/77 warm Pacific mode and the pause was a blip.

    • Well my take is that the pause starting in ~2000 is still underway, with the 2015-2019 period being a subdecadal blip.

      • So I thought. I’m reconsidering. A warm period of 23 years is nigglingly short – 40 approaches canonical. And as we have guessed at over the decades: warming is about 50/50 AGW and global dynamical change.

        ‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        Surface pressure at the poles fluctuates. My guess is that it will episodically shift to mean cooler atmospheric temps and higher surface pressure this century as the sun dims a little. How many wilds cards in that? I am expecting cooler eastern Pacific surface conditions over the next few centuries – as history repeats – and as wavier polar cyclones spin up oceanic gyres in the north and south – and upwelling with it’s fizzy CO2 and rich nutrients nearer the equator.

        Answering the perennial question of has climate shifted again should be fun. I may be some time.

      • You are correct, Judy. The shift from the warm regime to the cool regime can be traced to the 1997-98 boreal winter season, and it hasn’t shifted back yet.

        The most likely time for the next shift to a warm regime should be around the year 2030 ± 3.

        The latest shifts have taken place c. 1925, 1945, 1976, and 1997. They affect the global climate and the ecology of the oceans enormously, yet it is not in the IPCC reports or in the models.

      • There are decadal blips in Pacific multidecadal variability. As usual with Javier I see no point in his dogmatic assertions and ridiculous pretentions to exactitude.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png

    • joe - the non climate scientists

      RIE – I wouldnt trust anything from skeptical science. Both the “AGW activist” websites and the lukewarm websites get things wrong, Skeptical science is egregous with what they get wrong,

      Any comment that points out errors is treated as blashemy. For example SkS ran article on the melting of west antarctica glaicer. I posted a comment with links to the studies on the geothermal activity – almost immediately there were posts claiming the geothermal activity was a non factor in the west antarctica melting and I was also called a denier even pointing out that I was getting my information for denier organizations funded by the fossil fuel industry.

      point being – skeptical science long ago ceased being a credible science based website

    • You haven’t seen the real pause yet. Relevant trends already peaked and are decreasing. The hypothesis of significant AGW should not survive 30 years of no warming (by ~2030-35), especially if combined with increasing Arctic ice and other climatic indices on the cooler side. I hope human CO2 emissions do not collapse and spoil the experiment.
      https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:180/mean:144/mean:108/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/mean:192/mean:144/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/mean:240/mean:180/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/mean:288/mean:216/derivative/scale:1200

    • Tsonis, Swanson et al. identified shift circa 2000. Stadium wave warming period that began in 1976 ended around 2000, we have been in multi-decadal ocean driven cooling period since then. We need another 20 yrs to make sure we are understanding this correctly.

    • So they did – and remarkable as that work was – quantifying with a network model synchronization and distancing of 4 NH climate indices – there may be some wiggle room.

    • Based on what looks like a very steady rise in tropospheric temperature. No obvious trajectory change at the pause.

      Satellites – ERBE and CERES – show global albedo declining. With that being a large natural climate variability resulting from ocean and atmospheric patterns. On which AGW is superimposed.

  4. On upland dartmoor there as an ice making facility outdoors. That was closed in 1889 due to warmer winters, which we can trace back 30 years. So it could be argued we have had a steadily rising temperature for 150 years or more with numerous pauses

  5. I just posted some data comparisons with Manabe’s early climate change model predictions here:

    https://climateobs.substack.com/p/2022-past-climate-change-predictions

    Manabe made these predictions at a time when observational data sets were still in their infancy and did not exhibit present trends, making the successes more remarkable.

    The confirmatory include:
    Stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming
    Arctic warming greater than Equatorial warming
    Maximal wintertime Arctic warming and little seasonality at low latitudes
    Arctic sea ice area and thickness decrease

    The disconfirmatory include:
    Antarctic cooling
    Antarctic sea ice increase

    Indeterminate:
    Snowmelt season arrives earlier
    and the moisture assessments

  6. Past world economic production constrains current energy demands [link]

    As espoused in the article, we are on a linear ladder of escalating CO2 emissions. Rightly, with wind and sun as low energy density sources, making up the energy needs for growth requires alternatives such as nuclear. The speed of nuclear’s initiation alters yet again the trajectory of when catastrophe will occur.

    In the mean time, projects are: we are all doomed. We eventually will have to pay the Piper.

    “Eventually, of course, the interwoven networks of civilization will unravel and emissions will decline, whether it is through depletion of resources, environmentally forced decay or—as demonstrated recently—pandemics. But the cuts will have to be deep, continuous, and cumulative to overcome the tremendous accumulated growth we have sustained up to this point.”

    • Yes, the pandemic gave great hope didn’t it…
      No one noticed that in 1929-1931 human CO2 output had diminished by 30% with no alteration in the rise of CO2.

      Undeterred, Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny, unaware of that, expressed his disappointment that “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry [~10% drop in output] might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.”
      The facts are that CO2 at this time, at these levels, in not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2.

  7. Angela Le Mare

    Thank you once again for your impressive research.

  8. Bill Fabrizio

    Thanks, Judith, for the Dr Katie Spalding piece on turbulence.

    • UK-Weather Lass

      Echo that from me. One of the most interesting pieces that had me thinking about turbulence not only on Earth but in space. Fascinating especially when Blair Johnson reduces turbulence to the difference between us suffocating from CO2 or breathing fresh air. A welcome tipping point perhaps.

  9. Pingback: Review of the week - climate edition - News7g

  10. You might enjoy my latest analysis:
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/04/08/the-dread-1-5-degree-target-is-dead/

    Also this from Menton:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/06/reality-cannot-penetrate-into-the-fantasy-world-of-climate-campaigners/

    Global CO2 emissions have steadily increased by 50% in the last 20 years. This upward trend is not about to change, so the silly 1.5 degrees-by-model target is truly dead.

    Now what?

    • “New York Governor Kathy Hochul will soon release a budget that likely will include a plan to make New York the first state to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in new construction, according to Food & Water Watch and other environmental groups. . . . In her State of the State address in January, Hochul committed to “zero on-site greenhouse gas emissions for new construction no later than 2027.”

      The emphasis in bold is mine.
      in new construction – Now what?
      The prices of old constructions will rise, and there will be much less new constructions then.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Wanna bet? Please don’t confuse correlation with causation.

  11. “The case for cold climate heat pumps” article didn’t make any case for cold climate heat pumps. It just pointed out how people who want to profit from installing the heat pumps need to cooperate.

    As an owner of air heat pumps in Tucson, AZ, for 41years, I’m interested in how they’re going to work in cold New York state and the north, since they have trouble heating a home down here when the temperature gets down to 20F. This article didn’t discuss heat pump capability at all, or make a case for their use.

    • European scandinavian countries have been using heat pumps in cold climates for decades. Modern units are performing much better than older technology. You need “clean” electricity to run them, though, and a backup stove for those times when temps go really down and the heat pump can’t take it alone.

      • Dave Andrews

        The UK has c.300,000 Low Voltage (LV) substations and c.1 million feeders with about 450,000kms of buried cables . About 80% of these networks are built for ‘lighting plus’ (c. 1.2kW loads) and not the 7kW EV and 9kW heat pump loads of net zero.

        It was estimated some time back that upgrading these networks would cost some £60 billion and involve digging up almost the entire non motorway road network in the country.

        I would be surprised if the UK were the only country to have this problem.

      • Dave Andrews not sure it remains a problem if in the future you regard these feeds as doing 24hour p.d. trickle charging to decentralised storage (e.g. Redox flow). In NZ our transmission provider (Transpower) now includes in its scenarios for future load a scenario where this operating principle evolves. Only the last kms or two need reinforcing..

  12. Matthew R Marler

    Dr Curry, thank you again for these articles.

  13. From https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04376-4

    “Our results, however, indicate that the CO2 airborne fraction has decreased by 0.014 ± 0.010 decade−1”

    Another way of properly stating this is, “the CO2 airborne fraction has decreased by 0.01 ± 100%.” Not what I would call high-precision work.

    • “Not what I would call high-precision work.”

      Even a 100% error bar on MEASURED DATA is better than a 1% error bar on MODELLED DATA.
      I’ll take the former over the latter ANY DAY.

  14. As a freshman sixty years ago I was not unfamiliar with gender and racial disparities when my social science professors spoke about the problem in academia and society in general. I was very familiar with the issue nearly fifty years ago when I was part of an effort to change the organizational culture by promoting diversity in the workplace.

    You can imagine my shock when reading the experiences of the professor in the link “The philosopher redefining equality”. She related her encounter with less than stellar attitudes about racial and gender equality within her workplace. And this was at the bastion of liberal values in the Western World, the University of Michigan.

    Is it any wonder that Americans are tired of being lectured about how they need to be more Woke and to embrace inclusivity when those doing the lecturing, not just in Academe, but also in Hollywood and the media, don’t have their own house in order.

    In case anyone thinks it’s a challenge of yesteryear, here is a recent study pointing out universities need some introspection and tidying up their own halls of enlightenment.

    “ Women are overrepresented in nontenure track roles, are underrepresented among full professors and senior leadership, and receive lower pay across all ranks compared to men counterparts (1). These data tell an even more dire story for women from racial and/or ethnic minority groups.”

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abq0430

    • Speaking of inequality, Forbes says there are 2,668 billionaires in the world.

      “ America still leads the world, with 735 billionaires worth a collective $4.7 trillion, including Elon Musk, who tops the World’s Billionaires list for the first time. China (including Macau and Hong Kong) remains number two, with 607 billionaires worth a collective $2.3 trillion.”

      I remember when there were only 2 billionaires in the world, J. Paul Getty and John D. MacArthur.

      Mao must be turning over in his grave knowing there are 607 billionaires in China. Dust off the Red Guard garb.

      https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

  15. Regarding US precipitation:

    ” In fact, depending on the source of data, there exist opposing trends and patterns of change in precipitation characteristics.”

    The problem seems far worse with global data sets, particularly ocean assessments dependent upon satellite calibrations.

    This is frustrating because of the assumptions of precipitation change with global warming. It doesn’t appear as if precipitation measurement is ready for prime time.

    This leaves discussion of precipitation change in the ignorance and superstition category.

  16. With regard to: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg1025

    “The biogeochemical and environmental responses included ocean warming, deoxygenation, ocean acidification, …”

    This illustrates one of the problems created by woke climatologists insisting on using the pejorative term “ocean acidification.” It introduces ambiguity when the goal for scientific writing should be clarity. Did the oceans actually become acidic (pH<7)? Or, as is usual, remain alkaline with just a lowering of the pH. Were the authors even thinking, it suggests that they are more concerned about advancing an agenda, rather than advancing science.

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      Clyde – My question on the ocean “acidfication” is how accurate is the measurement – (ignore the agenda driven term “acidfication”) .

      My understanding is the “Global” ocean ph has dropped by approx 0.1 on the ph scale. Note – the use of Global average”. Yet , the ph varies considerably by the location, often by as much as 0.3 ph within a few hundred miles. Further the ph level varies considerably by the la nina and the el nino effect. Variation due to elnino and la nina are so much so, that wide portions of the equatorial latitudes arent even used in the “global” computation.

      • It’s not bloody likely anyone has measured enough points in the ocean to state this as a fact.

      • UK-Weather Lass

        “It’s not bloody likely anyone has measured enough points in the ocean to state this as a fact.”

        I doubt anyone actually has any idea what ‘enough points’ may mean in the context of a global figure either.

      • Dave Andrews

        I believe it is also the case that on a daily basis fish, crabs and other marine life move from near the surface to depths where the ph is about half a ph higher and then at night when the surface ph is higher move back. Yet we get studies worrying about tiny changes in ph over a century!

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David andrews – good point on ph level variation by depth.

        several sources point to 0.1-0.2 ph in just the first 100m.

      • Clyde Spencer

        As with temperature, the diurnal variations are much larger than the variations in annual average temperature and pH.

    • “The biogeochemical and environmental responses included ocean warming, deoxygenation, ocean acidification, …”

      So it does from first principles. And the data improves constantly.

      https://biogeochemical-argo.org/measured-variables-ph.php

      pH is a logarithmic measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of an aqueous solution – more hydrogen ions is more acidic. You can repeat this sceptic ocean acidification meme all you like. It is incorrect and pettifogging quibbling that has gotten very old.

      • Clyde Spencer

        It is logically and grammatically incorrect to say that something has acquired more of a nonexistent property. The oceans are NOT acidic. They meet the chemical definition of being alkaline.

        The pH scale is a spectrum of abundant to rare hydronium ions. When there are equal numbers of hydronium and hydroxyl ions, the solution is essentially non-reactive and is appropriately called “neutral.” When there are more hydronium ions than hydroxyl ions, the solution reacts with other chemicals differently than for the inverse situation. It is an important chemical distinction that some fail to understand.

        Furthermore, in a strongly buffered solution based on (bi)carbonate buffering, the behavior is different than for a simple acid-base reaction.

        I still assert that those who insist on using the term “ocean acidification” are just muddying the waters for political reasons.

      • pH = −log [H+]

        If there are more hydrogen ions – the solution is correctly seen as more acidic.

        CO2 dissolved in oceans forms carbonic acid which then dissociates to hydrogen and bicarbonate ions. Increased acidity reduces oversaturated aragonite and calcite molecules – oversaturated in response to the presence of magnesium and other ions in seawater. The process doesn’t start at pH 7.0 and below. We are changing the chemical equilibria of oceans by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

        https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/75b6ebc9-6044-44dc-9b7d-6fb234747ca7/lol210069-fig-0003-m.png
        https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lol2.10069

      • Clyde Spencer

        “If there are more hydrogen ions – the solution is correctly seen as more acidic”

        By your definition, all water-based solutions would be acidic, just varying in degree. That is absolutely false. The reason the terms “acid” and “alkali” exist is because the two substances have different properties. Your remarks are characteristic of someone with a superficial understanding of chemistry — probably self-educated.

        What is important is the ratio of hydronium to hydroxyl ions. Because the dissociation constant inversely constrains the concentration of the two key components, a convenient procedure is to deal with just one — hydronium. However, an aqueous solution is not defined as being acidic unless the pH is less than 7.

        Your position is as illogical as saying that ice 50 deg C below the freezing point becomes more liquid as it warms.

        You obviously know so little that you don’t know what you don’t know. Words are important, unless your name is Humpty Dumpty.

        I have said nothing about aragonite. Fresh distilled water, pH 7, will dissolve almost anything, given enough time. What is at issue is the proper use of scientific terms to communicate principles and processes. There is no place for politics.

        http://forestchemistry.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/1/4/26143465/ph-oh-scale_orig.png

      • You have obviously had this discussion many times over how many years. I don’t. It is just so trivial an objection.

      • Increased dissolved CO2 in seawater increases the concentration of carbonic acid and changes chemical equilibria. I gave you a very brief technical overview of processes. But you choose to come back with word salad and insults.

        My professional expertise over decades is biogeochemical cycling. I doubt that you know what that is and I find your attitude objectional.

      • The ocean, according to measurements which are by nature spotty, is alkaline all the way down. The mixed surface layer pH may have increased by 0.1 units. We don’t have a good history and good sampling of the mixed layer pH, so this is speculative at best. But nevertheless, I suppose we could just pump deep water up and mix it with the surface if pH actually got too high.

      • Seawater is more basic than acidic. Not relevant. From first chemical and physical principles -seawater is more acidic than it used to be. Clive’s idea that water above or below pH 7 are different substances is nuts.

        Ocean acidification – scientific nomenclature is based on agreed and defined usage and we know what is meant by ocean acidification – may result in under saturation of aragonite in the Southern Ocean by 2100. This has implications for global trophic networks.

        We could always sequester carbon in soils and transition to low carbon energy in the interim. Decades of quibbling about nomenclature is both inconsequential and nuts.

      • So, Robert believes acids and bases posses the same chemical properties. I guess he snoozed through his chem classes.

      • Clyde Spencer

        Speaking of objectionable: “It is incorrect and pettifogging quibbling that has gotten very old.”

        I won an award in high school for being the best chemistry student. I went on to teach college-level chemistry and geology for years. I have probably forgotten more than you ever learned. What you call “word salad” is my attempt to explain to you why your position is not only wrong, but illogical, in a manner that you might actually comprehend.

        Having an MS in geology, I certainly know what geochemistry is. Is “biogeochemical cycling” analogous to being a sanitation engineer?

        It is not trivial to allow a debate opponent to set the rules for debate and to use their non-standard definitions as pivotal arguments. It is in the same category as asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife.

        The point I initially made, and have attempted to reinforce against your objections, is that when terms are used that actually obfuscate the subject, rather than clarify, then it is working against the goals of science. I can’t have respect for someone who can’t understand that clarity and preciseness in communication is important, and is willing to accept political manipulations out of a lack of interest.

        Let me re-state my complaint: When “acidification” is referred to without specifying what the end-point of the change is, it creates ambiguity. It is poor science! “Sweets for the sweet.”

      • Clyde – as I’m sure you remember, the left used the term “acid rain” to scare people back in the 70’s. Using the word “acid” to scare people is old hat for them.

      • Acids and bases have been understood for only a few hundred years, so I think chemists have it down by now.

        t was not until the time of Antoine Lavoisier (26 August 1743 – 8 May 1794), a brilliant French chemist who attempted to classify elements and understand the nature of heat, that a more systematic study of acids and bases took place. At this time, chemists began to define bases as substances that could neutralize acids to form water and a salt. In 1776, influenced by studies into the properties of gases, Lavoisier tried to isolate the compound in acids responsible for their unique properties. Incorrectly, he proposed that a substance called oxygen was responsible, but his observations led to further studies. The British scientist, Humphrey Davy (1778-1829), better known for his studies into gases, tested the theories of Lavoisier and discovered that oxygen was not the element responsible for the properties of acids. Many acids did not contain oxygen, so he proposed that something else must be responsible. During the Age of Enlightenment, scholars from many different countries contributed to the explosion in scientific endeavor, and the study of acids was no different. In Germany, Justus Frieherr von Liebig (1803-1873), another innovative chemist, instead isolated hydrogen as the element responsible, reasoning that it was the only element common to all acids. The Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), was the next chemist to study acids and bases, proposing that acids and bases gained their properties because of the action of ions in the solution.

        https://explorable.com/acids-and-bases

      • Jim and Clive are utterly off the beaten track. What we are changing is the concentration of carbonic acid in seawater.

        ‘Le Chatelier’s principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium shifts to counteract the change to reestablish an equilibrium. If a chemical reaction is at equilibrium and experiences a change in pressure, temperature, or concentration of products or reactants, the equilibrium shifts in the opposite direction to offset the change. This page covers changes to the position of equilibrium due to such changes and discusses briefly why catalysts have no effect on the equilibrium position.’ https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Equilibria/Le_Chateliers_Principle#:~:text=Le%20Ch%C3%A2telier's%20principle%20states%20that,change%20to%20reestablish%20an%20equilibrium.

      • And yet the ocean is in fact alkaline, and will remain so for thousands of years, if not until the End of the Earth.

      • And that dead horse Jim’s flogging is still a pettifogging quibble.

      • Matthew R Marler

        jim2 | April 13, 2022 at 9:47 pm |
        And yet the ocean is in fact alkaline, and will remain so for thousands of years, if not until the End of the Earth.

        Robert I. Ellison | April 13, 2022 at 10:20 pm |
        And that dead horse Jim’s flogging is still a pettifogging quibble.

        Neither a dead horse nor a pettifogging quibble. There are authorities who claim that a doubling of CO2 concentration will make the ocean capable of dissolving chalk. A mere decline of 0.3 of pH is not their message.

      • The increase in hydrogen ions in solution drives equilibrium chemical reaction in the direction of dissolving calcium carbonate. It’s just basic chemistry. Work it out for yourself.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: The increase in hydrogen ions in solution drives equilibrium chemical reaction in the direction of dissolving calcium carbonate. It’s just basic chemistry. Work it out for yourself.

        Starting with an approximate ocean pH of 7.8, a better word for the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration would be “neutralization” instead of “acidification”.

      • I think I will go with Le Chatelier’s principle and focus on the relevant chemical reactions.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/ocean-chem-3-012.webp

      • Clyde Spencer is right. pH 7 exists for a reason. Above is basic, below is acidic. If it goes from pH 8.4 to 8.3 it is extremely misleading to refer to it as more acidic although that could be pedantically defended. We say it has become less basic.
        The fact that a solution contains a hydrogen ion does not make it acidic.

      • It matters not a whit what Jim calls it. Elevated atmospheric CO2 increases carbonic acid concentrations in the oceans. The stronger the acid the weaker the conjugate base.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: It matters not a whit what Jim calls it. Elevated atmospheric CO2 increases carbonic acid concentrations in the oceans.

        There are a number of ways to say essentially the same thing:

        1. Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration changes ocean mean pH from approximately 7.8 to approximately 7.5.

        2 Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration slightly reduces the alkalinity of the ocean.

        3. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration slightly neutralizes the alkalinity of the oceans.

        4. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration acidifies the ocean.

        #4 is by far the most common in the “warning” literature, and the most susceptible to being misinterpreted as producing an actually acidic ocean.

      • Skeptic memes do not change the most relevant chemical reactions.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/ocean-chem-3-012.webp

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: I think I will go with Le Chatelier’s principle and focus on the relevant chemical reactions.

        Le Chatelier’s principle assumes an equilibrium — a stable equilibrium and not the sort of unstable equilibrium associated with mathematical catastrophes and abrupt climate changes? Will the equilibrium assumed for Le Chatelier’s principle end and permit an abrupt climate change resulting from accumulation of CO2? Is there some way that we shall be able to tell?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: https://www.vc3chem.com/lessons.html

        Avoiding the unwanted implications of assuming equilibrium and going with Le Chatelier’s principle?

        Seawater is more basic than acidic. Not relevant.

        How absurd. The “catastrophic” warning is that extra CO2 in the atmosphere makes the ocean too acidic for healthy animal and plant life.

      • Le Chatelier’s is about 2 way chemical reactions. The equilibrium shifts to the right or left of the chemical reaction equation with changes in the concentration of reactants. The arrows in the equation show that.

        God only knows what Matthew imagines the ‘unwanted implications’ are.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: My professional expertise over decades is biogeochemical cycling. I doubt that you know what that is and I find your attitude objectional.

        Ha ha ha ha ha.

        Nonsense, inanities, and contradictions from a self-proclaimed expert who doesn’t understand the accurate and pertinent comments of others.

      • I doubt Matthew has come across the term before. His understanding of Earth sciences is negligible.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: I doubt Matthew has come across the term before.

        “[T]he” term, eh? Perhaps you mean “Le Chetalier’s principle”, which I learned in high school — and which does not hint at whether “ocean acidification” or “ocean pH neutralization” is the better “term” for public policy discussions.

      • BIOGWOCHEMICAL CYCLNG – and if he understood Le Chatelier’s principle he night understand how irrelevant the acid/base meme is to ocean chemistry. –

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      Clyde – a further question on Ocean ph level changes

      Supposedly, the ph level in the ocean has decreased by approx 0.1 – that is a decrease of 26% (assuming the math is correct on the logarithmic scale. If the absorbtion of co2 is the driver of that drop in ph, it would seem that the absorbsion of co2 in the ocean is signifcantly faster than the growth of atmospheric co2 in order to have large of an effect on ocean ph levels. possibly 10x the rate of absorbtion than the atmospheric increase

      Any insight?

      • First of all, the odds of having a solid historical history of ocean pH are zero. Second, the odds of having a good grip on what it is now are close to zero. Third, it doesn’t apply to the entire ocean, just the top, mixed layer. So, no, no insight.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        jim – my question was more directly related to the quanity of co2 that needs to be absorbed to change the ocean ph level by the reported/claimed 0.1 ph. My back of the envelop computation is that the absorbtion needs to be 4x-10x greater than the increase in atmospheric co2 increase inorder to affect the ocean ph by the claimed level of change.

        The issues associated the measurement of ph is a separate issue, which for purposes of this question are less important

      • Matthew R Marler

        Joe, the non climate scientist: My back of the envelop computation is that the absorbtion needs to be 4x-10x greater than the increase in atmospheric co2 increase inorder to affect the ocean ph by the claimed level of change.

        How do you get that? If Ocean and atmospheric CO2 partial pressures are in equilibrium now, if atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, and if a new equilibrium is achieved, the new pH will be smaller by 0.3 (log of 2 to the base 10.) If we can not assume anything about equilibrium (and I think we can’t), then the calculations are not well defined.

  17. The Green Energy Extremists want us to sacrifice our comfort and enjoyment of life, such as it is, for nebulous, ill-defined global warming mitigation, which they fantasize to bring bad results. All the while, more CO2 is a good thing.

    “It’s crazy that people in the Westfjords need to heat their houses with oil when electricity supply goes down,” Audur Onnu Magnusdottir, general manager of environmental association Landvernd, said in an interview. “The big international companies are prioritized. This shows how flawed our priorities are.”

    What she wants to see going forward is more focus on where energy is spent and reducing consumption.

    “We cannot be pressured by polluters of the world to sacrifice our nature,” Magnusdottir said, referring to plans to increase land use on power production, even for renewable energy.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-10/geothermal-powerhouse-iceland-struggles-with-lack-of-electricity

  18. “Surface ocean warming and acidification driven by rapid carbon release precedes Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum”

    Trenberth famously claimed the heat was hiding deep, deep, deep in the oceans totally contemptuous of our powers of detection as the explanation for why we can’t find the heat that global warming models tell us must be there…

  19. I have a climate question to entertain.

    A friend of mine asked about “the wet get wetter and the dry get drier”.

    I have considered this before, but I also just finished reading the book Propaganda in which propagandists use cliches to further their points. “The wet get wetter and the dry get drier” sounds like a cliche more than a principle, and very close to “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, which of course nothing to do with climate.

    Do you know a physical basis for this statement?

    • The “dry gets drier, wet gets wetter” (DGDWGW) paradigm is widely accepted in global moisture change. However, Greve et al.1 have declared that this paradigm has been overestimated.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18018

      The physical basis is that with warming the global water cycle goes into overdrive. This causes increased precipitation were it precipitates and increased evapotranspiration where it doesn’t.

      As usual they only find half of half of what they were expecting.

      • Thanks for the link.

        From long ago, even a quadrupling of CO2 wasn’t modeled to have a large impact:

        https://climatewatcher.webs.com/ManabePrecipEvap.png

      • And I understand that the net of precipitation/evaporation is important, but I can’t escape the precipitation side.

        Since global warming can accommodate global absolute humidity increase, to the extent that precipitation is constrained by precipitable water, then “Everywhere gets more precipitation” would seem a more defensible slogan.

      • Interesting. I live in a country where it does seem dry has gotten drier (Chile), in a very dramatic fashion, but it may just as well reverse in the coming years. To live through such a drought is not easy, and to take long-term decisions based on something that *could* change (a massive deployment of desal plants, cloud seeding, water reciclying, etc) is even harder, more so in a non rich country like mine.

      • Wet, dry, cold, hot – it doesn’t matter. It’s all due to CO2. It’s amazing and sad how the Green Energy Extremists have bastardized carbon, the element of life!

      • Matthew R Marler

        Javier: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18018

        Thank you for the link

      • Eddie – “From long ago, even a quadrupling of CO2 wasn’t modeled to have a large impact: https://climatewatcher.webs.com/ManabePrecipEvap.png

        That’s because Manabe https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1620078 was aware of the exponential decline of the GHG effect of CO2, first noticed by Arrhenius and currently ignored by most devotees. He say logarithmic decay without specifying the base 2 of the logarithm. So the next doubling of CO2 to 800 will increase CO2’s ghg effect by less than 2%, and the next doubling even less. Luckily, the beneficial effects of CO2 on agriculture and plantlife are linear.

        Reassuringly, the output of IR from the land will increase at the 4th power of the increase in land temperature, and the increased evaporation from the 71% sea-cover will carry 2257 J/gm up to the upper troposphere where vapor will condense and release that heat to be transported further.

        An increase from 288K to 289K will increase land temperature by 0.3% and outgoing IR by 1.3%.

      • I think this might be the earlier study.

        https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9401.pdf

        And the latter one doesn’t resemble Jim’s stream of consciousness climate piffle at all.

        https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/zela20/2019/zela20.v071.i01/16000870.2019.1620078/20191127/images/large/zela_a_1620078_f0009_b.jpeg

        ‘When concentration of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, temperature increases not only at Earth’s surface but also in the troposphere, whereas it decreases in the stratosphere. Meanwhile, the global mean rates of both precipitation and evaporation increase, accelerating the water cycle of our planet.

        Although temperature increases almost everywhere at Earth’s surface, the warming tends to be larger over continents than over oceans. In the Northern Hemisphere, it usually increases with increasing latitude, whereas it fails to do so in the Southern Hemisphere. The geographical distributions of both precipitation and evaporation also change, profoundly affecting the distribution of water availability over continents. For example, precipitation usually increases in water-rich regions, increasing river discharge and frequency of floods. In contrast, soil moisture usually decreases in the subtropics and other water-poor regions that are relatively dry, increasing the frequency of drought. It is encouraging that the simulated climate changes described above are broadly consistent with observation.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1620078

        I’d take it with a grain of salt and substitute data for models.

        e.g. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

    • It’s taking the exception that proves the rule and try make it the rule. The reality is everything generally gets wetter, with some small exceptions.

      https://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml

      https://phys.org/news/2018-01-discrepancies-satellite-global-storage.html

      • Yes, the global and near ubiquitous increase of vegetative cover would appear to be the best indirect measure of impact.

        Another problem with the slogan is that by far the driest areas ( as defined by evaporation and precipitation ) are the ocean basins.

        So we’re confronted with the oceans get drier.

        https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/erai_EP_clim_2d_am.png

        What one may conjure when confronted with “the dry get drier” is thoughts of land deserts. Very little of land based surface has a negative balance – evaporation goes to zero in the driest deserts.

        To be sure, evaporation is a function of temperature.
        But it is also a function of wind speed, humidity, sunshine ( modulated by
        cloud cover ), stability, and existing liquid water to evaporate.

        Manabe did observe that models indicated global increased precipitation, global increased evaporation, increased high latitude runoff and regional seasonal decreases of soil moisture.

        Unfortunately, by Manabe’s estimation, none of the moisture variables are sufficient to validate or invalidate the model tendencies. Global precipitation estimates differ in sign, evaporation is not directly measured, and neither is soil moisture or even the soil characteristics.

        But the early models of Manabe indicated that changes would not be large, even for a quadrupling of CO2:
        https://climatewatcher.webs.com/ManabePrecipEvap.png

        Regionally, inter-annual precipitation variation such as ENSO may be on the order of 100%, significantly dwarfing the few percent variation of P-E from CO2.

    • What’s more important is empirical results.

      ‘As a result of technological advances in monitoring atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, as well as in data management and processing, several databases have become freely available. These can be exploited in revisiting the global hydrological cycle with the aim, on the one hand, to better quantify it and, on the other hand, to test the established climatological hypotheses according to which the hydrological cycle should be intensifying because of global warming. By processing the information from gridded ground observations, satellite data and reanalyses, it turns out that the established hypotheses are not confirmed. Instead of monotonic trends, there appear fluctuations from intensification to deintensification, and vice versa, with deintensification prevailing in the 21st century.’ https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

  20. I am branching out into fertiliser. Animal and mineral ordure.
    Some would say it’s my natural milieu. Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) being the big 3. Nitrogen can be fixed from the atmosphere by plants or applied as ammonia either organic or derived from natural gas. Phosphate and potash are rock minerals.

    Food demand is expected to double by 2050. As a younger cohort in Asia, Oceania and Africa continue to push out babies, as dietary deficiencies are overcome and as more meat is eaten. The many fruits of economic growth and development. All this takes nutrients from soils and in nature there is a strict accounting. What is taken must be returned to sustainably retain soil fertility, infiltration and water holding capacities and agricultural productivity.

    Nutrients are released from rock as it evolves into soil. On geologic timescales. Living soils – full of life and organic carbon – kick along the process – they are our most valuable agricultural resource. But farmers need to add NPK for short rotation food crops. We need to make more of these. Given low cost nuclear heat and power we can make ammonia.* Rock minerals can be mechanically and chemically refined given a good rock source and a low cost producer.

    Fertiliser prices are through the roof. Feral money prices. That’s not good for anyone.

    * Ammonia is touted as an energy carrier. An ammonia fuel cell power source would offer intriguing possibilities.

    e.g. – https://www.cleantech.com/green-ammonia-potential-as-an-energy-carrier-and-beyond/#:~:text=Ammonia%20has%20nine%20times%20the,starting%20to%20gain%20traction%20globally. – https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ta/d0ta08810b

  21. The “storage requirements for 100% renewable …” link goes to “Future-proofing wheat for hotter, drier climates”

  22. The link for “Dissident philosophers” is broken.

  23. An ammonia fuel cell takes to the oceans in an EU funded conversion of a ship to use a hot process ammonia fuel cell. Ammonia is heated to very high temps and what remains is hydrogen and nitrogen. The hydrogen is fed to a fuel cell to produce electricity for the motors.

    https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2021/march-2021/worlds-first-hightemperature-ammonia-powered-fuel-cell-for-shipping.html

    Cool fuel cells are fed ammonia without reforming – an advantage – but where is the technology?

    e.g. https://research.csiro.au/hydrogenfsp/our-research/projects/244-2/

    Ammonia can be burned in ICE.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/04/20220406-wartsila.html

    Ammonia is a toxic gas at atmospheric temperatures and pressures – it is heavier than air and spreads in a deadly cloud.

    ‘Ammonia can be dissolved in water to give a solution with a solubility limit of approximately 35 wt% that does not require any specialised storage equipment and can simply be stored in a glass bottle.23 Ammonia can be compressed into the liquid state at a pressure of 8 bar and temperature of 20 °C, which is much easier than that of hydrogen. It is deemed corrosive by nature, with the ability to cause dehydration, severe skin burns, frostbite and eye damage.79 On inhalation, ammonia can cause lung damage or respiratory failure at vapour concentrations of 1700 ppm and can also lead to fatality if inhaled at excessively high concentrations of 5000 ppm.3 The use of ammonia may therefore be monitored under safety regulations and the toxicity issue can be addressed with appropriate practice. Ammonia can be stored as a solid in metal–amine complexes such as copper, zinc and their alloys to alleviate the corrosive properties.80 It can also be stored in compounds such as urea, which is a non-toxic solid, to overcome the issue of toxicity associated with liquid and gaseous ammonia.23 Storing in the solid form also allows for ease of transportation and avoids leakage.3 These solids can then emit ammonia upon heating or exposure to a vacuum. Further to this, unlike that of hydrogen, the smell of ammonia is easily detected at concentrations as low as 1 ppm due to its sharp and irritating odour.81’ https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ta/d0ta08810b

    • When you breathe in ammonia vapor, your diaphragm “freezes.” Very uncomfortable, from experience. Hydrogen, hydrogen connected to nitrogen, hydrogen connected to carbon – the last one is the best one.

    • That’s not a fuel, it’s an energy storage system because we don’t have ammonia wells.

      Ammonia prices have surged to over $1,600 per metric tonne. With 18.8 MJ/kg for ammonia and 45 MJ/kg for oil, ammonia is 5 times more expensive than fuel oil on a $/energy basis.

      • Surging prices for fertiliser was the point. We need to make more of it more cheaply. From something other than natural gas. That’s the goal of a major stand of international research. And you can naysay with simple numbers and simpler ideas?

        Ammonia can be used in fuel cells or burned directly in ICE. In my books – that makes it a fuel. The energy source is of course hydrogen – simply recoverable from green ammonia. The ocean going fuel cell does that by preheating ammonia to drive off nitrogen.

        ‘But in the most relevant case of hydrogen, ΔG is 113 MJ/kg if water vapor is produced, and 118 MJ/kg if liquid water is produced, both being less than the lower heat of combustion (120 MJ/kg).[18]’

  24. Doring and Leuenberger (2022), Comparison of Holocene temperature reconstructions based on GISP2 multiple-gas-isotope measurements.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379121004819

    Figures 4 and 6 show Greenland has been cooling for the past 4,000–6,000 years.

    Figure 4:
    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379121004819-gr4.jpg

    Figure 6:
    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379121004819-gr6.jpg

    Therefore, no valid reason to be concerned about warming from current temperatures.

    • Thanks for the link. This is a fresh Holocene T-anomaly for comparing with similar for Vostok and Kilimanjaro. Precisely correlates chronologically (past examples for Gisp2 were about 1100yrs out of step). Global effects.
      The ‘spikes’ correlate time-wise at both polar and with equatorial. They are abrupt changes, which can be correlated to known historical events.
      The culprit is certain planetary alignments, with abrupt effect, a matter of weeks or days.
      The warming trend is for ‘cooler’, but the spikes in +\-T-an can cause havoc to agriculture.

  25. Geoff Sherrington

    I try to read each of the links that Judith provides. This time, starting from the top, the first sentence in the plain Abstract is “Ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is one of the fastest growing contributions to sea level rise.” It was my understanding that sea level rise has been essentially constant since reliable tide gauges began. It is therefore not possible for ice loss from the WAIS to be increasing unless another contributor to sea levels is decreasing. No candidates spring to mind. Conclusion – the paper is based on a false premise.
    Link 2, about turbulence, starts “By the time Werner Heisenberg was in his 70s, there wasn’t much he didn’t know.” This cannot possibly be proven correct. We are encouraged to continue, with the help of a short movie of a cup of coffee with added whitener. Nowhere in the whole essay is there any suggestion of what helpfully could be researched next. The prose is at school level, but then children have to start somewhere.
    Link 3, about large ensemble climate models, starts “Large-ensemble climate model simulations can provide deeper understanding of the characteristics and causes of extreme events than historical observations, due to their larger sample size.” Nowhere is the uncertain “can” developed into a positive “do”. But then, we can skip down to link 5 to read about errors in rainfall estimates caused by failure to correct historic records based on 24 hour readings/data. I found this an excellent, mathematical paper that utilizes that rare commodity named “common sense” that might provide some answers to my displeasure about the links 1, 2 and 3. Those 3 links, like many that follow, are so badly distorted by uncritical acceptance of the climate change story that many are rendered worthless.
    Thank you, Judith, for your regular lists, despite they way that they cry out for a return to hard, critical, unemotional, classical science without bedtime stories attached. Geoff S

    • Oceans are rising in the millimetre range. Data on water mass movement comes from GRACE2 and is exquisitely precise.

      Turbulence is the foundation of climate science. It is a fluid flow problem in a system governed by Navie-Stokes PDE. We do need to dig deeper than a pop. sci. article.

      e.g. http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/jcm/turbulence_course_notes/turbulent_flows.pdf

      It is easy to reject science on some spurious point or other. But that doesn’t leave us wiser.
      .

      • Curious George

        “Turbulence is the foundation of climate science.” It should be. Unfortunately, it is intractable. They somehow “parametrize” it, a black art.

      • Models use conservation of momentum across grid boundaries. But at any rate models are not anywhere near the totality of climate science. And they improve by leaps and bounds.

  26. Frigid Nordic Temperatures Drive Electricity Prices Higher

    Nordic power extends gain as cold weather forecast to persist
    Region’s hydro reservoirs need spring snow melt to fill up

    A wave of cold weather pushed up power prices in the Nordics, while rates elsewhere in Europe declined.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/frigid-nordic-temperatures-drive-electricity-prices-higher

  27. This article linked by Dr. C. – “https://www.drilledpodcast.com/debunking-demand-ipcc-mitigation-report-part-1/” – is mainly just a breathless bundle of BS. While it is presented as shiny and new, it’s actually just the same ole Green Energy Extremists ideas, primarily that the middle and lower classes have limited and centrally controlled transportation, higher energy bills, controlled and centralized electricity via the “smart” (not) grid, etc. All this while people in government, the IPCC, and the rich drink champagne, eat caviar, are chauffeured around, and fly around the world at a whim. It’s truly us vs them, and we need to vote them out at every opportunity – and vote in those who have common sense and are for the common people living a full and exciting and free life.

  28. United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al-Mazrouei summed up the industry’s change in fortune at a conference in Dubai last month. “Oil producers felt unwanted in COP26, felt like we were in a corner,” he said. “Now, we’re like superheroes.”

    The U.K. banned oil companies from sponsorship deals at the gathering in Glasgow last November, saying that their net-zero targets weren’t credible. It was a victory for green campaigners who had criticized Poland for allowing coal companies to plaster their branding all over the COPs it hosted in 2013 and 2018. The decision also struck a nerve with oil executives, including Shell Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden, who complained about not feeling welcome ahead of the talks last year.

    It’s unlikely the industry will face the same resistance this year. Egypt, which will oversee COP27 in the resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh this November, has historically aligned itself with a group of developing countries that’s resisted pressure to do more to cut emissions. It’s argued that African countries shouldn’t be deprived the opportunity to exploit their oil and gas reserves, and stressed that the priority of this year’s meeting should focus on getting rich countries to pay more to help them transition to clean energy.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/war-gives-oil-producers-greater-clout-at-cop27

  29. The Atlantic says dinosaurs are “the nastiest feud in science.”

    Meanwhile the actual nastiest feuds in science are:
    lockdowns and masks
    the political claim that biological males are physically no different from women.
    The political claim that you can heat Boston with rooftop solar in February.
    The political claim that it is bigotry to believe morbid obesity has any health implications (google “fat activist”)
    The political claim that right and wrong answers in math and physics are white, western, capitalist imperialism.
    The political claim that demanding orthodoxy in all of the above will have no impact on trust in medical, scientific, or academic institutions.

  30. Family farms in Wales are at risk from “greenwashing” schemes where big companies outbid local people to buy land to plant trees to offset corporate emissions, MPs have warned.

    A growing number of farms in Wales are being bought by companies to generate carbon credits. The Commons Welsh affairs committee said it opposed “any attempts to ‘game the system’ by investing in viable farming land purely to offset carbon emissions accrued by companies elsewhere”.

    It said that tree-planting schemes were essential to tackle climate change but “were never intended to be exploited to the detriment of businesses or future generations of farmers”.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greenwashing-threatens-welsh-farms-3nxd8pp7b

  31. “Could ‘lost crops’ help us adapt to climate change?”

    Pointless without an understanding of the solar forcing of ENSO regimes, and which happen while they are only thinking about a human emissions influence on ENSO.

  32. Democrats tore into oil company executives for high gasoline prices at a hearing Wednesday of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, while Republicans used the event to try to pin the blame on President Joe Biden’s green energy push.

    The hearings are congressional Democrats’ latest attempt to shield themselves from voters’ anger over the surge in pump prices to record highs above $4.33 a gallon last month after Russia invaded Ukraine. That jump has fed inflation, driving up prices for food, heating and other staples in recent months.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/06/democrats-republicans-oil-industry-gas-prices-00023381

  33. Texas is seeking underwriters for a $3.4 billion bond deal to bail out natural gas utilities stung by huge financial losses after the deadly February 2021 winter storm.

    The deal could be the biggest municipal-bond sale in Texas in at least two decades, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It comes after the GOP-led state legislature enacted a law punishing some Wall Street banks for their gun policies.

    The Texas Natural Gas Securitization Financing Corp., a public entity established by the Texas Public Finance Authority in 2021, is charged with selling the debt after last year’s freeze killed hundreds and paralyzed the state for days. The sheer size of the offering promises a windfall of fees to whichever banks ultimately land the contract.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/texas-seeks-mega-deal-underwriter-as-laws-oust-wall-street-banks?srnd=premium

  34. It is a solid proof of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    “Here’s another question. Suppose Mars was at Earth’s orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?”

    The answer to this question will illustrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon complete rightness!

    The measured Mars’ mean surface temperature at the actual Mars’ distance from sun R.mars = 1,524AU is Tmean.1,524AU =210K

    R = 1AU is the Earth’s orbit distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)

    Let’s apply the inverse square law
    (1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32

    Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has Let’s calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law 4 power. When estimating the emission temperature the 4th root of the emission intensity should be applied.

    Thus, by analogue, Mars at the earth’s orbit being irradiated 2,32 times higher, should have (2,32)¹∕ ⁴ times higher the mean surface temperature, than on its actual orbit of R.mars=1,524AU, but with the same rotational spin…

    Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot/day.
    Thus:
    (2,32)¹∕ ⁴= 1,23416
    And:
    Tmean.mars.1AU = 1,23416*Tmean.mars.1,524AU = = 1,23416*210K = 259,17K or rounded 259K

    Conclusion:
    Mars at earth’s orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.

    When comparing with the measured moon’s, because Moon also orbits sun at earth’s distance, and Moon having a lower than Mars Albedo (a.moon =0,11; a.mars =0,250), thus Moon at earth’s orbit being more intensively irradiated Moon/Mars = (1-0,11)So /(1-0,250)So = 0,89/0,75 = 1,187 times Moon is more intensively irradiated, and the measured Tmean.moon =220K

    It is a solid proof of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. The higher Mars’ average surface temperature at Earth’s orbit than Moon’s, the 259K vs 220K, and the huge and undisputable difference of 259K -220K =Δ39C can be explained only by the Mars’ rotational spin being 28,783 times faster than that of Moon’s.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  35. A study of Covid response by state ranks Florida 6th in the nation in performance, New York 49th.
    Texas 25th, California 47th.
    Dead last is New Jersey.

    The study ranks school loss, economic loss and mortality. The Wall Street Journal summarizes the part Josh won’t like:
    “The study ranks Florida 28th in mortality, in the middle of the pack and about the same as California, which ranks 27th despite its far more stringent lockdowns and school closures. But Florida ranks third for least education loss and 13th in economic performance. California ranks 47th overall because its shutdowns crushed the economy (40th) and in-person school (50th)”

    Parenthesis in original.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928

  36. It makes much more sense to just chuck corn in an incinerator to produce energy than to transport and process it.

    If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

  37. Global warming shuts down schools!

    PORTLAND, Ore. (KPTV) – Snow has fallen around the Portland metro area Monday morning, leading to power outages and prompting many school districts to start late or cancel school.

    Snow showers began pushing their way across western Washington and northwest Oregon overnight.

    This snowfall has broken records. Previously, the latest snow happened at Portland International Airport on March 25, 1965, and the latest measurable snow in downtown Portland was April 1, 1935.

    https://www.kptv.com/2022/04/11/record-setting-april-snowfall-leads-school-closures-delays/

  38. ‘Jack Dorsey tweeted a link to a tokenized version of the first tweet ever, in which he wrote: “just setting up my twttr.” The NFT version of the first-ever tweet sold for more than $2.9 million.4’ https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211

    I can see what’s happening I just don’t know why.

  39. Carbon sequestration in grazing and cropping land needs 21st century land and water management to retain carbon in soils. It’s the management practices that make the difference.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/soil-c-sequestration.png

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “There is the potential for this storm to bring record snowfall for the month of April to cities such as Bismarck and Grand Forks, North Dakota. A record-setting, late-season snowstorm in 1966 unloaded up to 2 feet of snow to these areas, and similar totals are expected from this week’s storm, making it likely this will rank as “one of the worst storms in recent history,” AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Adam Douty said.”
    https://i.ibb.co/Yby28JC/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f036.png

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling, which means the continuation of La Niña.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

  42. Germany’s Green Energy Extremist Unicorn “design” crashes into pieces as it flies headlong into the solid wall of reality. Unfortunately, they want only to build LNG terminals, not actually produce locally source fossil fuels which is the best of all options.

    Germany, which gets some 50% of its gas from Russia, is fast-tracking the construction of two LNG terminals.
    Natural Gas Runs Through Ukraine

    Source: The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

    Note: Only the portion of pipelines that run through Ukraine are displayed on the map

    The U.S., Qatar and Nigeria are all being courted for LNG, but there are also moves afoot closer to home in the eastern Mediterranean.

    Frans Timmermans, the EU’s climate chief, was in Egypt on Sunday to discuss possible LNG supplies. Greece, Israel and Cyprus said yesterday they were looking at creating a joint LNG facility.

    Investment in all that fossil fuel infrastructure at a time of climate crisis is unpalatable to many, even if some LNG terminals can one day be retrofitted to handle green hydrogen.

    But in the short-term, there’s no way around it.

    As Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck — a Green — concedes, political reality means getting your hands dirty.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-04-12/europe-races-to-end-its-russia-gas-addiction

  43. More of Europe’s energy “design” is coming to fruition. Lucky them!

    Northwest European coal futures rose to the highest in more than a month as curbs on imports from Russia tighten the market.

    The European Union, U.K. and Japan plan to phase out imports of the fuel to try to cut off a source of revenue for Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine. But that leaves utilities needing to source the fuel from other countries in a market that was already short on supply, likely resulting in higher energy prices for consumers already facing the specter of surging inflation.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-12/european-coal-reaches-one-month-high-as-russia-supply-curbs-bite

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Winter temperatures in the western and northern US.
    A major snowstorm in North Dakota and Montana.
    https://i.ibb.co/h7R8Hhq/Screenshot-1.png

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski

    High SOI values again.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

  46. Interesting
    From Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    “The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[8] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[9] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[10] However, the term “greenhouse” was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[11][12]”

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  47. The solution …

    Greg Wrightstone, the Managing Director of the CO2 Coalition, has a new blog post describing the sadly underdeveloped super-giant natural gas fields along the U.S. East Coast. The combination of the Marcellus and Utica Shale reservoirs have more recoverable gas than any other gas field in the world, except for South Pars/North Dome in Qatar and Iran. With government restrictions removed we could easily replace all the gas current purchased from Russia by the rest of the world and have plenty more for our own consumption.

    Mr. Wrightstone has years of experience studying the Marcellus and Utica shales, he knows what he is talking about. He is also the author of the best-selling book, Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/12/americas-huge-natural-gas-reserves/

    • America has some 6000 years of natural gas supply at current demand. At current prices – now that the US has joined the global gas market – economically recoverable reserves will increase substantially. What it is a solution to I don’t know.

      The crunch comes when gas competes with new nuclear. Arguing for a smooth transition to lower cost energy makes more sense.

  48. I am working on a theory that the climate war is the latest manifestation of western economic conflicts between left and right. It’s not about science at all.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2022/04/13/the-chicago-boys-v-salvatore-allende-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara/

  49. The oil age will end – and if we plan correctly it will be before oil and gas run out. Insane asset speculation is a nail in the coffin. A Putin rush of blood to the head doesn’t help. Some things can’t be planned for.

    https://group.met.com/media/fhla4bbb/fossil-fuels-3.jpg
    https://group.met.com/en/mind-the-fyouture/mindthefyouture/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out

    • However, we can rely on fossil fuels for many years to come as sane alternative energy sources are developed. SMRs among them.

      • Global energy demand will be 350% of that currently by 2100. So how many years will fossil fuels last? Sanity is accepting reality and developing cheaper alternatives before we need them.

      • I don’t trust that projection to be correct. Whether or not it is, sanity entails providing reliable, abundant, and cheap energy now. We don’t have the unicorn energy sources now, so we can’t use them, even if Green Energy Extremists want to.

      • It’s a high economic growth scenario. You got a problem with high economic growth?

        https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg

        I am however bored with your dog whistles – extremists and unicorns are just partisan rhetoric that do not add to a rational discussion of energy.

        Nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, wind and solar and biomass can all provide cost competitive electricity and have a place in a diversified energy system. Believe it or not.

      • RIE said: “Nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, wind and solar and biomass can all provide …”

        Maybe they can, but the aren’t. That is the point you chose to ignore.

      • I’m pretty sure there is a limit on deployment of these other technologies – but costs have declined substantially. I’m as surprised as anyone.

        https://www.irena.org/costs/Power-Generation-Costs

        Whereas costs for coal and gas power are only going to rise.

      • Nuclear has to be the backbone of future energy supplies. Costs can be halved with standard designs, efficient regulation and an experienced workforce (MIT 2018). New factory built nukes will be even better.

        https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

      • but costs have declined substantially

        Thrashing a dead horse.
        Costs of wind and solar are irrelevant.
        They are useless energy sources for a grid.
        Above a certain percentage – already attained in Germany – adding more gives little or no further usable energy.

        Don’t believe me? Try it somewhere.

      • It works well enough – and is by no means the biggest impost on Australian electricity prices. Wind and solar is balanced by hydro and biomass. The hydro capacity factor is some 12% – biomass not much better. And there is always much more expensive peaking gas generation needed for those extreme high temperature days.

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Australian_Electricity_Generation%2C_by_type%2C_2017.png/1599px-Australian_Electricity_Generation%2C_by_type%2C_2017.png

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes of “expensive peaking gas generation needed for those extreme high temperature days”.
        Needs to be put in context.
        Most of Australia’s population is in the 6 State capitals. They use most of the electricity.
        Those extreme high temperature days have been with us since record keeping began, in most cases. Not getting hotter, not getting more frequent.
        Like, increased electricity costs are hard to link to more hotter days needing cooling.
        Life was so much simpler, with electricity cheaper and more reliable before about 2005, when stupid engineering like wind and solar was encouraged by governments chasing votes from ignorant, bitter, green activists.
        Geoff S
        http://www.geoffstuff.com/sixcity2022.xlsx

      • The rare extremes occur occur every few years – and the power system needs to meet demand in those periods. In Australia they are hot days and the air conditioning bill can be steep. The bigger impost on cost was a doubling of natural gas prices and gold plated cost plus contracts for infrastructure.

        Rare extremes heat waves may have increased in duration and intensity.

        https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/25852018/1-626w_1_2.jpg

        As one might anticipate in a warmer continent – if one were not bitter and ignorant.

      • Fossil fuels can easily cope with a warmer climate, no matter the cause. Wind won’t help with a heat wave because those are high pressure cells with calm winds.

      • It is well understood on the US east coast that winds will be light and variable for most of July and August from Boston to at least Jacksonville. That means Boston, New York City, all of New Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, Washington DC, the east of Virginia, NC, SC, and GA.
        In a wind/solar world, they will have little to no air conditioning or the ability to charge their EVs during peak heat and humidity. For most of two months.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        im2 | April 14, 2022 at 8:19 am |
        Fossil fuels can easily cope with a warmer climate, no matter the cause. Wind won’t help with a heat wave because those are high pressure cells with calm winds.””

        But But but – Willy says we can just build a global grid !

      • Solar may be more useful on hot, sunny days. But the way to get to net zero is with nuclear as the backbone of energy systems.

  50. We have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states: Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.

    The discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.

    Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.

    What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures. We call it “The Planets’ Surface Temperatures Comparison Method“.

    A faster rotating planet accumulates much more solar energy, than a slower rotating one.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  51. Green Energy Extremists are always blathering on about the “negative externalities” of CO2 emissions, but they ignore the negative externalities of their own policies. Germany implemented those polices and now a big NE is slaughter in Ukraine, because if they had developed fossil fuel supplies locally, rather than pour money into the black hole of wind and solar, they wouldn’t be financing Russia’s war.

    Germany was warned it could face a 220 billion-euro ($240 billion) hit to output over the next two years in the event of an immediate interruption in Russian energy supplies over the war in Ukraine.

    Economic institutes advising the government in Berlin said Wednesday in a joint forecast that a full halt in Russian natural gas imports would result in a “sharp recession.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/german-economic-institutes-cut-growth-outlook-on-war-impact

  52. BRUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) -OPEC told the European Union on Monday that current and future sanctions on Russia could create one of the worst ever oil supply shocks and it would be impossible to replace those volumes, and signalled it would not pump more.

    European Union officials held talks in Vienna with representatives of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries amid calls for the group to increase output and as the EU considers potential sanctions on Russian oil.

    “We could potentially see the loss of more than 7 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian oil and other liquids exports, resulting from current and future sanctions or other voluntary actions,” OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said, according to a copy of his speech seen by Reuters.

    “Considering the current demand outlook, it would be nearly impossible to replace a loss in volumes of this magnitude.”

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-meets-opec-amid-calls-101406072.html

  53. Even if every American cut energy use by 50%, that won’t improve the lives of those in poverty one iota. How about all the smarty pants spend their time trying to find ways to help those in poverty, and stop trying to cut our quality of life?

    The link between more energy and better quality of life is established. Globally, around 759 million people lived without electricity and 2.6 billion without clean cooking fuel in 2019, according to the World Bank. That comes at an enormous human cost. Around 4 million people die each year from conditions caused by indoor air pollution from cooking fires, according to the World Health Organization. Access to electricity is critical for providing medical services and powering modern economies.

    But this study measured when those benefits plateau. Scientists looked at nine benchmarks for a long, healthy life, based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals: access to electricity, air quality, food supply, Gini coefficient (which measures wealth inequality), happiness, infant mortality, life expectancy, prosperity and sanitation. All but air quality peaked and began leveling off at or below 75 gigajoules a year.

    Researchers also found that there is already enough energy used to get everyone on the planet over that threshold, if it were shared equally. Based on current global energy consumption, there are 79 gigajoules used for each person on the planet.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/04/12/1092045712/how-much-energy-powers-a-good-life-less-than-youre-using-says-a-new-report

    • Portland Oregon has just experienced its first April snowfall ever in its records. But hey, it’s only weather. We don’t point to hot days in June as evidence for AGW do we?

  54. ‘While electricity only represents 22% of the EU’s final energy consumption, electrification of sectors like transport and heating – and power-to-x fuels like hydrogen – means cleaning up the power sector will be crucial to meet net-zero targets.’ https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/live-eu-electricity-generation-map

    With wind and solar being about 10% of the 22% and all low carbon sources contributing some 75% of the 22% yesterday. Just think of the money not going to Russia. Transitioning 100% of energy consumption is going to need a lot more nuclear generation.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Bitter cold to persist in wake of massive blizzard in north-central US.
    https://cms.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/RFThursAm12Apr.jpg?w=632

  56. UK doubles down on nuclear power despite fierce opposition

    The shrill opponent of nuclear in this article is quango chief Dr Paul Dortman.
    That sounds suspiciously German.
    Ever wondered why Germanic nations are particularly antinuclear?

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2022/04/09/why-is-germany-anti-nuclear/

  57. One more feather in the Cap of Futility. The US could stop using all fossil fuels today and it won’t change one thing CO2-wise. China, India, Russia, and the rest of the third world will take up any slack we leave.

    The article mentions lurching. The only thing lurching is the Green Energy Extremists who don’t care who suffers from their heartless policies that will impoverish all but the very wealthy.

    As the planet lurches toward catastrophic levels of warming, China’s biggest banks have been ratcheting up their financing of the dirtiest fossil fuel of all: coal.

    Chinese lenders have helped coal companies raise about $10 billion selling bonds so far this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s more than double the $3.8 billion raised in the same period of 2021 and marks one of the busiest starts to a year since the Paris climate accord was struck in 2015.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/china-s-banks-are-the-last-big-lenders-to-fossil-fuel-coal-companies

  58. Greta Kelley’s opposition to the asteroid hypothesis for the end Cretaceous extinction is blinkered and wrong, and increasingly out of date as in the last few years a wealth of new detailed fossil data has revealed the precise anatomy of ecosystem destruction and recovery after the event.

    Just this year dinosaur remains have been found with vitrious spherules coming from the meteor itself.

    South American fossil strata immediately across the event show a fern dominated ecosystem as expected after major disruption, followed by legumes, followed by shrubs and eventually trees.

    Kelley focuses on foraminifera and their apparent gradual decline starting before the end of the Cretaceous. Well that is well known, the same happened with coccolithophores for the same reason – cooling at the end of the Cretaceous. Those calcareous plankton thrive optimally in warm seas and the current cold global temperature is way below optimum for them. These organisms at the warm optimum of the Cretaceous formed the white cliffs of Dover.

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/11/coccolithophores-calcified-plankton-who-like-it-hot-and-hate-our-ice-age-cold/

  59. Why I am Not a Climate Sceptic – lolz

    In my books – the first casualty of the climate war was science in our internet expanded public arena. In the science world – science is as imperfect and vital as ever. And then truth flew out the window. What appears more often than not is deductive reasoning with little to zilch quantitative validation – the latter only appears in scientific literature. Newton warned us about that. Not science in other words. The culture war drags on. Informed by historic currents in the zeitgeist and powered by memes on the internet – it boils down who is in control – the State or Joe Blow everyman? The economic culture conflict has now subsided to a melee between democratic socialists and the Chicago Boys and friends – progressives and conservatives. Like Hayek I am neither. I believe in democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty. I have my money on business, landowners and economic freedom fighters – to solve climate change and a host of global problems this century.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2022/04/13/the-chicago-boys-v-salvatore-allende-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara/

  60. I was calling Clyde Clive – sorry about that.

    Speaking of objectionable: “It is incorrect and pettifogging quibbling that has gotten very old.”

    I still assert that those who insist on using the term “ocean acidification” are just muddying the waters for political reasons.

    Your remarks are characteristic of someone with a superficial understanding of chemistry — probably self-educated.

    You obviously know so little that you don’t know what you don’t know. Words are important, unless your name is Humpty Dumpty.

    I can’t have respect for someone who can’t understand that clarity and preciseness in communication is important, and is willing to accept political manipulations out of a lack of interest.

    Having an MS in geology, I certainly know what geochemistry is. Is “biogeochemical cycling” analogous to being a sanitation engineer?

    Let me re-state my complaint: When “acidification” is referred to without specifying what the end-point of the change is, it creates ambiguity. It is poor science! “Sweets for the sweet.” Clyde

    Scientific nomenclature has agreed definitions. What matters is the science. We know what ocean acidification is. Increased dissolved CO2 in oceans change chemical equilibria reducing concentrations of soluble calcium carbonate – aragonite and calcite – needed for shell building. We could argue about nomenclature until the cows come home – and Clyde does his little song and dance every time the term pops up – it doesn’t change the reality of ocean chemistry.

    https://i0.wp.com/timescavengers.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ocean-chem-4-011.jpg

    https://i0.wp.com/timescavengers.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ocean-chem-6-011.jpg

    I am a civil engineer who specialised in hydrology. I have a masters in environmental science and my specialisation is in nutrient cycling in rivers, estuaries and oceans.

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Frost warning.
    The upper low remains over North Dakota. Strong winds, especially in the southern part of the state. Very cold air is coming in from the northwest. Hazardous conditions.

  62. UK-Weather Lass

    A video about the UK’s response to SARS-CoV-2 which is really pertinent to all Government spending on interventions which are unwise and based only upon virtue signalling. The warnings from entrepreneur Lee Johnson are bleak …

    https://www.thenewera.uk/p/luke-johnson-on-tne?s=r

    • This is perhaps the most important comment in a long time. The same social structure is at play in the “climate change industry”

    • This is perhaps the most important comment in this long list. The same social political structure is at work in the “Climate Change Industry”

    • Good video. Thanks.

      I thought the map of Florida behind him was apt.

  63. Ocean acidification pseudoscience fails the Cambrian test.
    In the Cambrian atmospheric CO2 was 5-10,000 ppm.
    All phyla of calcified organisms, sessile and free-swimming, evolved and thrived.

    But now, increasing CO2 from 300 to 500 ppm is supposed to cause corals and bryozoans to go plink plink fizz?

    No one making any such claim has any remotest connection to the real world.

    Hint: dim sun won’t help you.
    “It was all so long ago” won’t help you.
    Rate of change won’t help you.
    Any other ideas?

    • Oh Phil – science says that aragonite might be under saturated in the Southern Ocean by 2100. Calcium carbonate is one of the most common substances on Earth. Coastal zones would see calcium carbonate dissociate to calcite or aragonite.

      But the chemistry speaks for itself. Dissolved CO2 drives chemical reactions to make more carbonic acid. Carbonic acid reacts with dissolved calcium driving precipitation and dissolution of calcium carbonate. Living organisms utilise dissolved calcium carbonates to make shells. Biological and chemical facts.

      And you wave your hands at the Cambrian Period as if it’s relevant to something or other?

      • RIE displays his ignorance – calcite IS CALCIUM CARBONATE.

        Chemical Properties of Calcite
        Hide
        Formula:
        CaCO3

        https://www.mindat.org/min-859.html

        And so it aragonite:

        aragonite, widespread mineral, the stable form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) at high pressures.

        https://www.britannica.com/science/aragonite

        More shoddy science from the climate peanut gallery. Shells are actively maintained by the animal, and most of those animals are mobile. They will modify their environment biologically or simply move to a different area.

      • Also, some shelled ocean creatures coat their shell with an organic film that inhibits dissolution.

      • Calcite is a form of dissolved calcium carbonate – aragonite is the other. As I said. Jim is a 10 minute blogoscience expert.

        You do understand that this experiment can and has been done at many different scales many times?

      • If you click on the calcite link, you clearly will see it is a solid. Dissolved CaCO3 isn’t any kind of mineral. You seem to be faking a lot in this discussion.

      • Calcite and aragonite ions are the soluble forms. They exist in the water column in chemical equilibrium with solid CaCO3 where they are used to form shells.

        The real science of OA is evolving rapidly.

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.584445/full

        I would prefer not to continue the global experiment beyond what is absolutely unavoidable.

      • RIE has no idea what he’s talking about. Imposter!

      • SMH

        CaCO3( s ) + CO2( g ) + H2O( l ) → Ca(HCO3)2( aq )

      • RIE said: “Coastal zones would see calcium carbonate dissociate to calcite or aragonite. ”

        That is full and total bull manure. Now he tries to change the subject!! Obviously chemistry and geology are not his strong suits!

      • I have spent 40 years on biogeochemical cycling. Jim spent 10 minutes on the internet confirming his bias. I have provided this link previously in relation to my role of ‘sanitation engineer’.

        ‘biogeochemical cycle, any of the natural pathways by which essential elements of living matter are circulated. The term biogeochemical is a contraction that refers to the consideration of the biological, geological, and chemical aspects of each cycle.’ https://www.britannica.com/science/biogeochemical-cycle

        https://cdn.britannica.com/19/114419-050-F6658A82/carbon-cycle.jpg

        Decades ago I spent weeks assimilating a study of carbon in Chesapeake Bay. They had a 14 compartment conceptual carbon model. Right at the end they said they needed man more compartments. It’s a complex field that Jim reduces to memes and insults.

      • CaCO3( s ) + CO2( g ) + H2O( l ) → Ca(HCO3)2( aq )

        S is solid – g is gas – l is liquid and aq is an aqueous solution. Where there is solid calcium carbonate – in shallow coastal ones – either as calcite or aragonite polymorphs – in the presence of dissolved carbon dioxide in water – there is a reaction and the formation of calcium carbonate ions in an aqueous solution. Calcium carbonate ions are supersaturated in seawater. Whether this is sufficient to offset reduced supersaturation in coastal areas is a question. Reduced supersaturation in open water is a different problem. The effects of OA will show up first in the Southern Ocean transforming important ecologies and disrupting global trophic networks (op. cit.).

        Regardless of Jim’s ignorance, arrogance and scrambles to defend his fossil fuel bias. Bizarrely misplaced bias it seems to me – as most of the solution to OA and TP is an orderly transition to nuclear power.

      • I happen to be a chemist, RIE. That’s why I caught the detail of your errors. It stands out like a sore thumb.

      • “Coastal zones would see calcium carbonate dissociate to calcite or aragonite.” Jim quoted

        Correction – calcium carbonate in solid form dissolves to calcium carbonate ions – either of the calcium carbonate polymorphs depending on the source material- in aqueous solution.

        CaCO3( s ) + CO2( g ) + H2O( l ) → Ca(HCO3)2( aq )

        Oh wait – I have already expanded on that. He claims to be a chemist now – how does he not know about reaction kinetics?

      • I could give you the benefit of a doubt and put forward that maybe you made a mental misstep and misused the word “dissociate.”

      • This ain’t rocket science, Elliot.

      • ‘dissociation, in chemistry, the breaking up of a compound into simpler constituents that are usually capable of recombining under other conditions.’ Britannica

        Should I use the equivalent term dissolve instead? But then calcite and aragonite are only solid minerals aye Jim?

        There is no doubt that Jim invents quibbles to preserve his bias.

      • I can’t believe you are still trying to defend that nonsense statement. Calcium carbonate, a solid, most assuredly will not “dissociate” into calcite or aragonite. You are just digging your hole deeper. Maybe you should look up dissociate in a chemistry context.

      • Posted this to the wrong conversation. Here it is in the right place …

        Here you claimed to be a hydrologist. https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

        Now you claim to be something else. Maybe you are just a poser.

      • For God’s sake Jim – I have an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and a masters in environmental science. Hydrology is the basis for studying nutrient and pollutant movement.

      • Jim dissembles – calcium carbonate dissolves in the presence of carbonic acid in solution. It is such a fake pettifogging quibble to divert attention the hugely more serious science of OA.

        CaCO3 + H2CO3 = Ca+2 + 2HCO3-

        He is quibbling about terminology – incorrectly in my opinion.

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.584445/full

        Read it Jim – or are you afraid to learn something?

      • You didn’t say anything about a solution. I’ve had enough of your dodges. Just fess up.

      • It’s right there in the chemical reaction equation.

      • It’s puzzling as the entire discussion – on my part – was on chemical kinetics in seawater.

  64. Congressional champions of affordable energy and American prosperity should start planning now to unplug America from the growth-chilling anti-energy Paris Agreement. A convenient way to frame the key arguments is through a sense of Congress resolution. What follows is a template for such an effort.

    Expressing the Sense of Congress on the Paris Agreement

    Whereas the Paris Agreement is a global framework for pressuring U.S. policy makers and companies to achieve NetZero emissions by 2050;

    Whereas achieving NetZero by imposing a carbon tax—the most efficient emission-reduction policy according to many economists—would annually cost $4.4 trillion or 11.9 percent of GDP or $11,300 per person by 2050, according to a recent study in Nature;

    Whereas the NetZero agenda entails geopolitical risks, making America more dependent on Russia and OPEC for hydrocarbons and on China for the energy transition minerals used to produce advanced batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels;

    Whereas participation in the Paris Agreement makes U.S. energy policy less accountable to voters and more beholden to foreign leaders, multilateral bureaucrats, and politically unaccountable non-governmental organizations;

    https://cei.org/blog/time-for-a-sensible-sense-of-congress-resolution-on-the-paris-agreement/

  65. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The upper low from South Dakota has moved minimally east and will let in very cold air from the northwest, with strong winds. Perceptible temperatures will be very low. Could be a threat to livestock.
    https://i.ibb.co/KL2Bvj3/Screenshot-2.png

  66. Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
    Earth’s /Moon’s example

    Earth is on average warmer 68°C than Moon.

    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation spin
    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.

    Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.

    Earth also has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr*oC – its soil is a dry regolith).

    Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.

    Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) = 155,42

    If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.

    As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.

    Let’s compare the Earth’s and Moon’s (for equal average Albedo) the mean surface temperatures:
    Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
    and the Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root:
    [ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 = (155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709

    The results (1,3714) and (1,3709) are almost identical!
    It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:

    Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.

    The 4th root powers twice
    The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power phenomenon when planet mean surface temperatures comparison ratios with the coefficients is compared.
    Please also visit the page “Earth/Mars 288K/210K”
    Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922

    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.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Snow totals top 40 inches as April blizzard blasts northern US
    Hundreds of miles of roads were shut down, ranchers and their animals faced brutal conditions — and will see more tough weather ahead. Meanwhile, snowdrifts in some spots were estimated to be higher than 10 feet in some places.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/april-blizzard-hits-north-dakota-and-montana/1172294?utm_campaign=AccuWeather&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3e_wN2szqj3I2YiqiUZQUET43KmscviiMkxls7w98Cd3EM8dWlrWrJ2b0

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Snow and frost will bring severe conditions to the northern US. Snowfall continues in North Dakota and will move over the Great Lakes overnight.
    https://i.ibb.co/7kgbP0h/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f036.png

  69. Geoff Sherrington

    Robert Ellison,

    Given the eminence of your background, do you perhaps feel a duty to comment upon the hydrology aspects in this paper from Judith’s list?
    ……………………..
    Surface ocean warming and acidification driven by rapid carbon release precedes Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg1025
    “Geologically abrupt [<10 thousand years (ka)] carbon perturbations, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago), are useful natural experiments to examine the Earth system’s response to rapid carbon invasion (1, 2).”
    ………………………
    My background as a geochemist object to the several times that the authors more or less write “These are the data we found and promote, but they really are not good enough for the task”. Somewhere among the trendy word salad like “rapid carbon invasion” there might be a useful observation or measurement, but it is not easily discernable.
    Again, my faith in the current crop of academics to do hard, ground breaking research is weakened. Do you feel the same way? Geoff S

    • Eminence? 🤣 No one has ever accused me of that. Handsome and charming maybe.

      Tapio Schneider says something interesting about the PETM. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels some 56 million years ago have very big uncertainties. About the level we might reach in 2100 under high economic growth. As you might know – I am super in favour of high economic growth. What Professor Schneider said was that CO2 levels were not sufficient to end in crocodiles in the Artic Circle. He is currently working on incorporating AI, machine learning and big data in climate models – initialised decadal scale modelling is the future of climate models. Schneider suggests – based on an eddy resolving scale model using explicit equations of state – that there was another feedback in play.

      Philosophically it is less hypothesis testing than a more uncertain synthesis and analysis that produces interesting insights and fruitful lines of enquiry. The added uncertainty requires that we take ourselves less seriously in a world of Earth sciences lacking much in the way of precise data.

      ‘Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The center of the low is now over central Ontario. The front of this low is pulling very cold air from the north to North Dakota.

  71. A rare display of common sense over climate fantasy.

    The group on Wednesday released model legislation aimed at stopping public pensions from making investments focused on environmental, social and governance factors, commonly called ESG, by mandating that investment decisions be evaluated solely according to financial criteria.

    “Environmental, social, corporate governance, or other similarly oriented considerations are pecuniary factors only if they present economic risks or opportunities,” reads the template, which also demands detailed justification if an investment is made based on an ESG consideration.

    “Every state employee should have full faith and confidence that their retirement funds are being invested for maximum growth and not being used to promote a political agenda,” Lee Schalk, ALEC’s vice president of policy, said in a statement from the group that says it’s dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/conservative-group-pushes-laws-to-block-pensions-esg-efforts

    • ‘BlackRock’s assets under management (AUM) surged 21.2% from a year earlier to $9.46 trillion from $7.81 trillion. And what’s encouraging is that while $1.15 trillion of this increase was due to equity market appreciation, another $455 billion was because investors put their money into the company’s funds. This signals that its reputation as the top asset manager in the world remains intact.’ fool.com/investing/2021/10/26/is-blackrock-stock-a-buy-right-now/

      A 14% year on year return over a long time is not bad. In Australia individuals can choose their superannuation fund. Comparative returns are published by the tax office. Or one can self manage.
      Leave it to the market and leave your ideology at the door.

  72. Bow to reality – or suffer the consequences …

    U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak asked the Bank of England to support the government’s new energy strategy, including investment in North Sea oil and gas projects.

    In a letter to BOE Governor Andrew Bailey, Sunak said the bank’s Financial Policy Committee should “have regard” to the strategy and its plans for “investment in transitional hydrocarbons like gas” as it manages risks in the U.K. financial system. Similar letters were sent to two financial regulators: the BOE’s Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-07/u-k-s-sunak-tells-boe-to-help-oil-gas-projects-in-energy-push

    • ‘Energy is the lifeblood of the global economy. From heating our homes to powering our factories, everything we do depends on a reliable flow of affordable energy.

      So as the global economy reopened in the aftermath of the pandemic, the sudden surge in demand for everything from new cars to foreign holidays drove a massive spike in demand for oil and gas, dramatically increasing the price of these essential fuels.

      This has been compounded by Russia’s abhorrent and illegal invasion of Ukraine. As we are part of a global market, the price we pay for gas is set internationally. And President Putin has used this against us by restricting the supply of Russian gas to the European market, further pushing up prices. The vital sanctions imposed by the UK and its allies to support the Ukrainian people will also inevitably have an adverse effect on all economies. As a result of all these factors, European gas prices soared by more than 200 per cent last year and coal prices increased by more than 100 per cent. This record rise in global energy prices has led to an unavoidable increase in the cost of living in the UK, as we use gas both to generate electricity, and to heat the majority of our 28 million homes.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1067835/british-energy-security-strategy-web.pdf

      The devil is in the detail – but most people want to see an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. The basis of that is much more nuclear energy – as the UK strategy says. Nothing has changed and why Jim does a song and about that is a mystery.

      • What “most people” want depends on how you ask the question. If you ask them if they want to stop climate change, most people will say yes. If you ask them how much they are willing to spend, it’s less than $10 per month – which means “most people” will virtue signal about climate change, but don’t really want to do anything of note about it.

      • Most people will be much better of after a nuclear transition. Some of it is about negating oil and gas price volatility – and minimising geopolitical risk.

        And yet every time I say in passing that most people want an orderly transition we see the what they are prepared to pay meme. As if it’s relevant.

      • When you say “most people” want to see an orderly transition away from fossil fuels, you are wrong. They don’t want to pay for it, therefore they don’t really want it. This is nothing but unabashed spin from you.

      • It’s Time to Get the Politics Out of Energy Policy as New Polling Show Voters Overwhelmingly Support All-of-the-Above – https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above

        I know you don’t get it Jim – but energy innovation increases productivity and wealth. And is politically sensible.

      • Every time you get caught spinning, you start obfuscating. Others can read and decide for themselves.

      • And just hat would it be that I am spinning and obfuscating Jim? The American Petroleum Institute commissioned poll discussed by conservative lobbyists ConservAmerica. Makes you uncomfortable Jim? That’s not spin or obfuscation. It’s your cognitive dissonance kicking in.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes “The devil is in the detail – but most people want to see an orderly transition away from fossil fuels.”
        Most people have no deep understanding of the costs, the engineering feasibility, the long-term consequences of such a choice,
        They are mostly joining in trendy groupthink, which is their right, but not the basis for a proper decision. That is, what ordinary folk think needs to be determined – for democracy – in real terms, not terms affected by propaganda.
        I have a personal preference for a nuclear energy future that was gained from decades of working in a part of the nuclear industry, which requires a deeper understanding than average – and also in the coal industry, ditto. Likewise, when it comes to automobiles, I have a preference for big sedans powered by 300 hp V8 petrol engines. But, current social direction says I must change to an electric vehicle about which I have no detailed knowledge. never driven one. The similarity is that those pushing future energy types and autos are seldom educated to choose on meaningful parameters. The main reasons I like a large powerful car are because I am 6ft 4in tall with long legs, like the sounds and crave power. Are these in the equations about reasons to switch to electric cars – because another person orders so?
        The tension between democracy and socialism is causing messy problems, but marching through it all is a great deal of personal ignorance. Geoff S

      • Geoff underestimates the capacities and common sense of the broad middle ground – and overestimates his own. The latter is limited to personal anecdotes, self aggrandizement and perennial complaints that science is not as rigorous as in the good ole days.

        The NIO ET7 is a big roadster, has 648 HP and does 0-60 mph in 3.9s. While not yet practical for Queensland outback roads – Daisy is buying a second hand 2.7l turbo diesel Ford Territory – I like NIO so much I have a few shares. Geoff doesn’t know nearly as much as he thinks he does.

        The bit I don’t understand is how denigrating 75% of the population is an election winner in a robust democracy. We are having an election at the moment. Unlike America it’s Tweedledum and Tweedle-dee. The two sides are indistinguishable – and neither side owes anything to Geoff’s overweening assumption of superiority.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EpT3YO6dgs

    • ‘Advanced nuclear technologies represent a dramatic evolution from conventional reactors in terms of safety and non-proliferation, and the cost estimates from some advanced reactor companies – if they are shown to be accurate – suggest that these technologies could revolutionize the way we think about the cost, availability, and environmental consequences of energy generation.’ https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx#:~:text=For%20nuclear%20power%20(2200%20MWe,of%20%2460%20to%20%24143%2FMWh.

      That’s what I want to pay for my ‘virtue signalling’.

  73. Help!

    I’m looking for slogans related to climate change.

    On the ‘al@rmist’ side, I’ve got:
    ‘Existential threat to humanity’, ‘Global crisis’, ‘Extinction rebellion’, and
    ‘Number one issue facing this country’

    On the ‘denigher’ side, I’ve got:
    ‘Greatest hoax ever perpetrated’

    I’m kinda drawing blanks now – can you add to this list?

  74. Making LCOE a legal issue. About time!

    Virginia agency challenges Dominion’s offshore wind deception
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/04/15/virginia-agency-challenges-dominions-offshore-wind-deception/

    The beginning: “I earlier wrote about the deep deception in Dominion Energy’s proposal to build a huge 2,600 MW offshore wind (OSW) system in Virginia. With 175 massive 800 foot tall generators, it is by far the biggest OSW project ever attempted in America. A true monster. See my https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/11/dominions-deception-hits-new-high-with-offshore-wind/.

    Happily, the Virginia electric power regulator, the State Corporation Commission (SCC), has now expressed serious concerns with the project. Some of these concerns are along the lines of my article.

    At issue is something called LCOE, which stands for “levelized cost of electricity.” At its simplest LCOE is the life cycle cost of a generator system divided by the amount of juice it will generate over that life. It is usually given in dollars per megawatt-hours (dollars/MWh). Note that the life cycle here runs from design, procurement and construction through O&M and repair, as well as the life ending decommissioning and disposal. For an unbuilt system this is clearly something of a guess, but as with most engineering cost estimates it is worth guessing.

    As I pointed out in my prior article, Virginia law turns the LCOE for this monster wind project into an important legal threshold. If it is less that $125/MWh then the project is approved by law. If more, then it has to be approved by the SCC as in the public interest, especially that of the ratepayers who will have to pay the billions it will cost.

    Dominion came in with a preposterously low LCOE. In response SCC staff have now filed a lengthy critique that questions Dominion’s estimate. They even say that the best guess (of course they do not call it that) might exceed the threshold value. This is a very big deal because the SCC might assert control over approving this ridiculous project or it might not. That is the next big issue, still to come. The three person SCC only has two members at this time and if they split they might not even be able to decide. The project approval wheel is definitely in spin.”

    Lots more analysis in the article. Please share it.

    • Yes, it’s really past time that lying stops about LCOE. RE LCOE never includes backup energy sources for when the wind don’t blow or the Sun don’t shine.

      I’m amused when Green Energy Extremists tout RE supplied 93% of energy. If you read a bit further, that was true for a given date and a specific time. The rest of the time, backup generation made up for the rest of the slack.

      • David Wojick

        That is just what the agency staff critique says. They want the project LCOE to include the cost of intermittency. Batteries, backup, curtailing reliable generators to make room for wind juice, curtailing the wind when need is low, etc. it is a brilliant analysis.

        This could be a great precedent, but the Commission has to accept the staff arguments for intermittent LCOE, at least some of the bigger arguments. They just might do that because the green law stripped them of approval power, which is their mission, if the LCOE is small. So they might want a big LCOE. The proper definition of LCOE for intermittents might even wind up in Court.

  75. ‘A further economic aspect is the system cost of making the supply from any source meet actual demand from the grid. The system cost is minimal with dispatchable sources such as nuclear, but becomes a factor for intermittent renewables whose output depends on occasional wind or solar inputs. If the share of such renewables increases above a nominal proportion of the total then system costs escalate significantly and readily exceed the actual generation cost from those sources. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx#:~:text=For%20nuclear%20power%20(2200%20MWe,of%20%2460%20to%20%24143%2FMWh.

    The ‘nominal proportion’ in the US is some 15%.

    e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/value-electricity.png

    Dominion energy is nowhere near that penetration.

    https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/7/6/42116756-1499338113041014.png

    The midpoint of offshore wind LCOE is according to the 2021 Lazard unsubsidized analysis: $83. This is right in the middle of Dominion’s project LCOE of $80-87/MWh.

    ‘Staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission are questioning the assumptions Dominion Energy used in estimating the full cost of developing 2.6 GW of offshore wind, according to testimony filed on Friday…

    “Offshore wind’s zero fuel cost and transformational economic development and jobs benefits are needed now more than ever,” Jeremy Slayton, Dominion spokesperson, said.

    The utility also pointed out that the parties intervening in the docket, who can see redacted figures and estimates under a non-disclosure agreement, had not opposed approval of the project.

    “We are pleased all parties to the case have focused on ways to have the best possible project and none have opposed it,” Slayton said.’ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/virginia-scc-staff-questions-dominion-energys-offshore-wind-cost-assumptio/621959/

    The Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project has a capacity factor of 43%. Like all energy sources – it has down time that needs to be catered for. With the worst option being gas peaking generation that is required to meet peak demand.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom.com/297/files/20214/Capacity+Factor+by+Energy+Source+in+2020.png

    ‘The pilot project also informed a more accurate estimate for what it will cost to install CVOW, Blue said. When CVOW was announced in September 2019, initial pre-engineering and pre-proposal estimated costs were approximately $8 billion. “Since that time, through the process of detailed engineering and most importantly, through competitive solicitations for all components and services, we’ve now developed a detailed budget of approximately $10 billion,” he said.’ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/virginia-scc-staff-questions-dominion-energys-offshore-wind-cost-assumptio/621959/

    I add 40% to cost estimates in the initial phase and then boast that I have reduced costs with great engineering. The problem here is not Dominion Energy – a fine company with good growth potential. They have their hands tied.

    ‘However, in December, the Virginia Department of Energy published a report on modeling decarbonization, concluding that an expansion of commercial and residential solar would be cheaper than meeting the state’s offshore wind and energy storage targets.

    “Eliminating the capacity targets for expanded offshore wind and for electricity storage, and allowing deployment of these resources to be guided by investor decisions about how to meet the RPS and RGGI requirements cost-effectively will likely save money for ratepayers,” the report said.

    According to Virginia Department of Energy modeling, the offshore wind and energy storage targets could exceed the least-cost strategy by $250 million per year by 2035, and $450 million by 2040.’ op. cit.

    • And here’s the heavily redacted testimony –

      https://scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/6×4%2401!.PDF

      The bottom line is that some scenarios considered by the Virginia State Corporation Commission – and those are redacted – take the LCOE of the wind project above 1.4 times the LCOE of a simple cycle combustion turbine. Being below $125/MWh is required to meet the statutory presumption of reasonableness and prudence. That is the only sticking point.

      ‘If the Commission approves the Project, Staff proposes a performance guarantee for the commission’s consideration to mitigate the Project’s risks to ratepayers. As discussed further in my testimony, the Commission may also wish to impose similar protections for ratepayers as it directed in Case No. PUE-2007-00066, to address potential cost overruns.’

      The company may argue the point. The SCC may impose a performance guarantee. There is a statutory requirement for offshore wind and storage and if private enterprise can be made the carry the risk – so much the better.
      But to excoriate the company as David Wojick is doing adds insult to injury.

  76. Earth is on average warmer 68°C than Moon.

    Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth (Moon’s Albedo a =0,11 vs Earth’s Albedo a =0,306).

    The average surface temperature difference of 68°C can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Oceans store energy and the atmosphere slows it’s escape. Those factors aren’t worth a thought?

    • The first scientific problem is that you fail to show why a ‘new physics’ is needed. You assert that the atmosphere is thin and therefore cannot influence climate. You don’t understand the old physics and simply assume that it’s broken.

      You them invent new and unproven physical constants to use in a formula that is not applicable to planets with oceans and atmosphere. This called making the elephants trunk wiggle.

      • “You assert that the atmosphere is thin and therefore cannot influence climate. ”

        No, first thing happened is that I suddenly realized the CO2 0,04% content in atmosphere is very small. Than I learned it is called a trace gas content.
        I couldn’t accept that a trace gas could possibly cause any rise to the global temperature.

        “You them invent new and unproven physical constants to use in a formula that is not applicable to planets with oceans and atmosphere. ”
        I am not. Everything I have discovered I have described and demonstrated in my site.
        The task of my research was to evaluate the Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect on the global temperature. I was very much surprised when discovering there is almost none.
        Only then, I came with the conclusion “”You assert that the atmosphere is thin and therefore cannot influence climate. ”

        Robert, I didn’t invent anything. What happened is that I have discovered New physics which are yet unknown to the scientists.
        There is some refusal to accept the New findings, but it is a healthy respond, and I am not discouraged.

        When the New discoveries where accomplished (February 15, 2019) I had that thought “What now?”
        I clearly saw the difficulties I had to overcome to make the findings understood and accepted.
        On the other hand, what was the sense of discovering something so important and keeping it for myself.
        It was then I started my efforts to make the findings known.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • ‘The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.’

        Yeah right.

      • Robert, I know it is the most difficult part to accept. But it is very important. Φ =0,47 for the smooth surface planets and moons:
        1). Mercury
        2). Earth
        3). Moon
        4). Mars
        5). Europa
        6). Ganymede

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • You equate drag in a fluid with sunshine on a planet. This is blogoscience by analogy. I think you will not find a place in the canon of physical laws despite your single minded conviction.

        And repeating the same nonsense multiple times in every post distracts from consideration of serious science. It is just rude.

      • Comparison of results the planet’s Te calculated by the Incomplete Equation:
        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        the planet’s mean surface temperature Tmean calculated by the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

        and the planet’s Tsat.mean measured by satellites:

        To be honest with you, at the beginning, I got by surprise myself with these results. You see, I was searching for a mathematical approach…

        We have collected the results now:
        Te.incompl Tmean Tsat.mean
        Mercury 439,6 K 325,83 K 340 Κ
        Earth 255 K 287,74 K 288 K
        Moon 270,4 Κ 223,35 Κ 220 Κ
        Mars 209,91 K 213,21 K 210 K

        the calculated with Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation and the measured by satellites are almost the same, very much alike.

        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        is incomplete because it is based only on two parameters:
        1. On the average solar flux S W/m² on the top of a planet’s atmosphere and
        2. The planet’s average albedo a.

        The planet’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation has to include all the planet surface major properties and all the characteristic parameters.
        3. The planet’s axial spin N rotations/day.
        4. The thermal property of the surface (the specific heat cp).
        5. The planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ ( the spherical shape and the surface roughness coefficient).

        Altogether these parameters are combined in the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation:

        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The S-B law does not apply to planets with liquid oceans and an atmosphere – planet Earth being the only one we know of that does have liquid oceans and an atmosphere.

  77. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The strong temperature drop of the Peruvian Current promises to strengthen La Niña.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

  78. In a feeble attempt to buoy abyssal favorable ratings, President PuddinHead is putting up some Federal Land for oil leases. But in reality, he’s just making it less profitable for them to use the leases. What a loser he is. He is kowtowing to the Green Energy Extremists to the detriment of us all.

    President Joe Biden’s administration is dramatically curtailing U.S. public land available for new oil and gas development as it restarts leasing with new environmental protections.

    The shift is part of a Bureau of Land Management plan to resume selling drilling rights on government-managed federal lands concentrated in the western U.S. When the government holds those auctions, expected later this year, roughly 80% less land will be available for oil and gas leasing, the Interior Department said.

    Energy companies also will be forced to pay higher royalties for the oil and gas they extract from the newly leased land.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-15/biden-shrinks-u-s-land-open-for-new-oil-and-gas-drilling

    • “In the United States, 90% of onshore oil production takes place on land that isn’t owned by the federal government. And of the remaining 10% that occurs on federal land, the oil and gas industry has millions of acres leased,” Biden said. “They have 9,000 permits to drill now. They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year. They have 9,000 permits to drill onshore that are already approved.”

      Biden said that the companies are not using these permits to drill. “These are the facts. We should be honest about the facts.” https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/biden-9000-unused-oil-drill-permits/

      ‘Manages public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural, and historical resources. The BLM’s mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield.’ https://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/newsroom/files/acronyms.pdf

      Yes – we should be honest about the facts.

  79. Nothing in global fuel supply and demand fundamentals has dramatically changed. The US is on track to record production.

    https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press493.php

    ‘Professional traders and hedgers dominate the energy futures markets, with industry players taking positions to offset physical exposure while hedge funds speculate on long- and short-term direction. Retail traders and investors exert less influence here than in more emotional markets, like precious metals or high beta growth stocks.

    Retail’s influence rises when crude oil trends sharply, attracting capital from small players who are drawn into these markets by front-page headlines and table-pounding talking heads. The subsequent waves of greed and fear can intensify underlying trend momentum, contributing to historic climaxes and collapses that print exceptionally high volume.’ https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100515/learn-how-trade-crude-oil-5-steps.asp

    Greed and fear are market fundamentals when riding bull markets.

  80. This is least problematic geoengineering.

  81. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A sharp drop in temperatures in the northeastern US.

  82. ‘The Roosevelt Conservation Caucus for the 117th Congress is led by Co-Chairs Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Reps. Brian Mast (R-Florida.) and Buddy Carter (R-Georgia). Vice Chairs are Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Capito (R-West Virginia) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan). The caucus applies right-of-center solutions to a litany of challenges, including clean air and water, next-generation affordable and lower-emission energy sources, wildlife conservation, and access to public lands and waters. These policies stress markets-based approaches, private property rights, smart regulation, and cooperative federalism in lieu of top-down and centralized planning.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/caucus

    I get vilified incessantly for not believing blogoscience developed in sceptic. echo chambers. Or for saying things that don’t accord with sceptic memes. By memes I mean any unquantified and unsupported notion reiterated endlessly – rinse and repeat – that is the SOP of some. And then these precious little snowflakes whine if I am brusque and impatient in return. I read science – and not climate blogs. Far too many on sceptic blogs reject Earth system science entirely. And it is not as if they are anything but fringe extremists going down in a heap. I like Judith’s sociological experiment – even if she is less forthright on some things than she should be – but the rinse and repeat is wearing very thin.

    • To manage inflation government needs to get their fiscal act together. In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic growth and stability. Economic growth and stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.

      Government has a role in fostering fundamental science and innovation. Such as Joe Biden is doing with advanced nuclear. Innovation increases productivity and wealth. A few billions oils the wheels of technological progress. A government’s role is not to rock the boat. The rest can be left to business.

      Business responds to demand by increasing supply. At least that’s the theory. Do you have another one? Business is gearing up massively to increase supply of everything from cobalt to potash. I look for producers with a massive reserve and low costs. Unlike coal, oil and gas – these are not running out anytime soon – and they are easily valuable enough to recycle. The pressure on supplies comes from economic and population growth.

      STOCKHEAD – https://stockhead.com.au/ – is a favourite of mine. They give me leads to follow. And they have a sense of humour.

      ‘Being old-fashioned in my investment thesis, I would have most of my clients sitting in cash and chasing assets that have an inflation link in their potential returns.

      However, I think I may have got the last three months timing wrong. I can imagine a long line of clients outside my office coming in one at a time to give me a Will Smith slap because of their performance.

      In which case I think I would just pretend to stay in a coma, until things actually do what they are meant to do.’ https://stockhead.com.au/the-secret-broker/the-secret-broker-wake-me-up-when-its-all-over/

      What a quandary. In the longer term there is value in low cost miners and refiners. And Daisy advises me to double down on winners. But what I really want is some Snowflake. With the irrational enthusiasm for Kubernetes cloud computing – shared by your source – somewhat in abeyance – now might be a time to buy.

    • President PuddinHead is doing everything he can think of to make our lives more expensive, less comfortable, and less exciting. Energy is the biggie here because it is a component in the price of everything else. If he cared about our well-being, he would be doing everything in his power to make it easy on the fossil fuel industry – instead, he does just the opposite.

    • This is a price spike not inflation.

      • You are right. Inflation happens with too much money in the economy from government going into debt or printing money. That’s the old economics. New economics are all about printing money. Then you have to print more and more of it to keep up with hyper inflation of 1000’s of percent. Then we end up with digital wheelbarrows full of digital currency.

      • A Somali flashback to 1930’s Germany and 1960’s Chile – inter alia. It is literally a socialist plot.

        https://twitter.com/tommytrenchard/status/1015231904537247744

      • Bill Fabrizio

        The article says ‘making inflation worse’. It’s not saying it is inflation.

      • For those who think it’s a price spike and not inflation I hope they haven’t swallowed the “Putin did it to us” BS.

        The annualized inflation rate tripled a year ago and has been increasing since. Inflation was with us well before Putin invaded Ukraine.

        https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

        When the Federal Reserve increases its balance sheet

        https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm

        and the monetary base increases

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE

        and Federal Government spending goes up by 50% over trend, funny things begin to happen.

        Those actions aren’t taken with impunity. Volcker pushed up the Fed Funds rate to 20% to step on the neck of inflation.

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

        We have a long way to go to reach that number.

        As Bette Davis said, “Fasten your seatbelt, it’s going to be a bumpy rise.”

      • `A price spike is a market signal to increase production. Inflation is the result of undisciplined government spending or keeping interest rates too low for too long. An asset bubble was inevitable and predictable. The US has recently stopped ‘quantitative easing’ and is raising interest rates. Sustained fiscal discipline is a better idea.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote:
        and the monetary base increases
        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE

        “The Monetary Base is Irrelevant”
        Slate, 8/3/12
        http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/the_monetary_base_is_irrelevant.html

      • David Appell

        Better than an economic crash during the early stages of the pandemic when everything had to shut down. Then you’d all be whining about that. Because you’re all the experts.

        Remember the first two stimulus payments came under Trump.

      • Appell

        Besides being a 10 year old article that is not addressing the current economic conditions and besides being in an economic illiterate leftwing extremist magazine and besides not saying it was irrelevant to inflation, since it never mentioned inflation, the article said nothing. You didn’t make any point at all and you didn’t disprove the original point which is a basic tenet of economics, when you have a money supply that is growing faster than what the economic activity can produce, ceteris paribus, you have inflation.

        Appell, it’s going around the campfire that Las Vegas has an over/under line of betting on how many years before you throw in the towel and concede that we don’t have a Gretaesque type situation and there is no apocalyptic climate crisis. The data, month by month, year by year, decade by decade, is bearing this out. So you can put away that security Teddy Bear and sleep easy.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE “Government has a role in fostering fundamental science and innovation.”
      I worked at a time when Industry and private enterprise did most of the research. Government agencies were engaged when, for example, there was a need for equipment of techniques that were best performed once on behalf of industry. I can remember one expensive government mass spectrometer doing a better job than each company owning one, underused. Likewise, some aerial survey land mapping was best done by concentrated aircraft programs, rather than each company buying survey aircraft.
      We have swung so far the other way that it is now time to examine again where the balance point should be.
      Do not lose sight of the impetus that the profit motive for companies can be more successful than the 9to5 of government work with little personal reward or accountability. Geoff S

      • It is the 21st century. It is much more about reducing the risk to companies who are developing billion dollar first of a kind technologies. On top of funding pure research by academics. Typically a scatter gun approach. Who can pick winners. It is much more a time to invest modest amounts in future technologies because that’s where the future wealth is. Wealth sorely needed in the 21st century.

        https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-reactor-demonstration-program

        So how did you like the NIO ET7 EV? A full second faster from 0-100 km than the Holden Commodore SS 6L V8. You do know that ICE cannot keep up with EV’s?

    • Bill Fabrizio wrote:
      Well, maybe not happy for long as Green Mandates will heat up inflation.

      What mandates?

  83. There are many countries with vast amounts of fossil fuels deposits (coal, oil, natural gas).
    Why shouldn’t they use their national wealth?

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • This is what’s left at current production rates.

      https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left

      This is what energy demand looks like under optimum economic growth scenarios. Fossil fuels will be available for decades not centuries.

      https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg

      Fossil fuels are expensive to produce – in the US it is some $70/barrel on average. So they have to get at least $70/barrel just to break even. And getting more expensive all the time.

      But why on God’s green Earth – another cliché bites the dust – do you imagine that I am at all interested in controlling the means of production. Such a thing is contrary to every principle I hold dear. You are not a dirty socialist are you?

      There is both a climate science and economic case for a rapid transition to low carbon, cheap and abundant energy sources. Believe it or not. And I am not about to rinse and repeat that argument. Once that happens this decade the transition will happen in a flash.

      ‘Creative destruction refers to the incessant product and process innovation mechanism by which new production units replace outdated ones. It was coined by Joseph Schumpeter (1942), who considered it ‘the essential fact about capitalism’.

      Stick to the Christos planetary rotisserie effect. You know you could do the experiment? You need a heat source, a variable speed rotating sphere and an IR temperature gun.

      https://www.ebay.com/itm/352907939035

      • “Fossil fuels are expensive to produce – in the US it is some $70/barrel on average.”

        Yes, but there is abundant and cheap coal in the US and everywhere else in the world.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • ‘In the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 Reference case, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that U.S. coal prices will generally increase each year through 2050, based largely on assumptions for the coal and electricity markets and industrial sector demand.’

        Your economics is as feeble as your blogoscience.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        The breakeven point depends on where you’re drilling. New wells are $48 – $69, existing wells are $23 – $33 … per barrel. The Permian Basin, the most productive area in the USA, is $50 – $54 new, $28 – $35 existing.

        https://www.statista.com/statistics/748207/breakeven-prices-for-us-oil-producers-by-oilfield/

      • A slip of the tongue. The marginal cost of oil production in the US is about $70.

      • “U.S. coal prices will generally increase each year through 2050”
        but still will be cheaper and abundant. In Australia and elsewhere in the world the coal prices will be even less…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. Energy innovation – e.g. factory built fast neutron reactors – builds wealth while enabling a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

      • There is no choice but to innovate or perish. And we do want to limit CO2 emissions for sound scientific reasons.

      • “Stick to the Christos planetary rotisserie effect. You know you could do the experiment? You need a heat source, a variable speed rotating sphere and an IR temperature gun.”

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • “And we do want to limit CO2 emissions for sound scientific reasons.”

        Who is this ‘we’?

        Developing nations want to increase CO2 emissions, and for sound economic reasons.

        And we in the present probably don’t want to limit CO2 emissions, for sound scientific reasons, because the warming to date and for some time in the future, not to mention the enhanced photosynthesis, is a net positive.

        And, of course, we in the US, as with many other developed nations, have decreased CO2 emissions, which continue to decrease both in national and per capita terms.

        So, perhaps our descendants (future we) at some future date would want to limit CO2 emissions, but think of all the actual problems we have to deal with now, including the demographic cliff.

      • The dominant scientific paradigm is that we are changing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that is changing climate and biology in unpredictable ways and tipping points are ubiquitous in the Earth system.

        That’s quite likely what your children think now Eddie. We want access to cheap and abundant energy – preferably low carbon. New nuclear is the obvious alternative for the backbone of future energy supplies. It is cheaper now and only getting cheaper.

      • We better not try to lower CO2 – we might trigger a tipping point!

      • Reducing the rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases through energy substitution and better land and water management is about the best we can do. This reduces the risk of abrupt climate change but doesn’t of course eliminate it. But cheaper energy through technological innovation and better stewardship of God’s green Earth has its own rewards.

      • NO, RIE! Trying to effect any change might push us over the edge! Best to play it safe and preserve the status quo!!

      • Better not risk one eyed fanatics.

      • No, seriously. Since the good ole days when CO2 was barely enough to keep our plants alive, other climate factors may have changed, and not to the good!! Increasing CO2 may be the only thing balancing these nefarious factors – and keeping US ALL ALIVE!!!! You just never KNOW!

      • We are talking replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy. OMG we are all going to die.

      • There are billions of dollars being put to development of advanced nuclear technologies. Your going to stop that with a delusional ‘new physics’? What total madness.

      • OMG, we won’t let you die…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • So you don’t object to nuclear power? That’s something I suppose.

      • Right the opposite, I support the nuclear power. And the coal, and the natural gas. Oil is very good for transport and chemistry.
        And I like the renewables very much too.
        And I want the energy cheap.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • It is of course possible to synthesise hydrocarbons. It starts with breaking the hydrogen and oxygen bonds of water molecules. Providing an endless supply of fertiliser, transport fuels and chemical feedstocks for products of all kinds well beyond the next couple of decades.

      • Once there were not atmospheric oxygen on Earth. Could fish live on the oxygen from the H2O molecules dissipation?

      • Christos – If you have a question it is worth researching an answer. It may take 40 years.

      • I hope in twenty years the Planet Rotational Warming will be taught in schools.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The triumph of hope over experience.

      • The dominant scientific paradigm is that we are changing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that is changing climate and biology in unpredictable ways and tipping points are ubiquitous in the Earth system.

        Well, dominant paradigms are not testable hypotheses, but more likely widely held dogma and propaganda.

        Peterson is fond of saying: “People don’t have ideas, ideas have people.”

        We are changing GHGs – check.
        GHGs tend to change the global mean temperature – check.

        But it’s not so clear that GHGs are “changing the climate” in significant ways.

        What climate is actually dependent on global mean temperature?
        GMT certainly doesn’t appear in the equations of motion.

        Very important factors to climate, including earth’s spheroidal shape, the orbital parameters (though slowly changing), gravity, orography, and geography, will remain very nearly constant for the next century.

        Seasonality, the distribution of clouds, precipitation, cold/heat are largely unchanged.

        “climate and biology in unpredictable ways”???

        Climate may not be predictable even with zero imposed forcing changes! Certainly, we don’t have scientific proof of any general circulation model being accurate. And given the wide range of results from IPCC array, there’s little reason for confidence in any of them.

        Global mean temperature increase is predictable.
        How to reconcile that with useless GCMs?

        CO2 forcing does impose a direct surplus to the net energy balance imagined as an accounting shell around the tropopause.
        And the forcing from CO2 is not so much interactive with other terms of the net balance.

        So, it is the directness and the simplicity of radiative forcing that makes global mean temperature predictable.

        Now consider another aspect of climate – seasonality.

        Seasonality results from spheroidal earth. High latitudes have high seasonality because of the large difference between summer and winter energy balance. Conversely, low latitudes have low seasonality.

        This is a direct and simple forcing of seasonality that CO2 will not change, because CO2 will not change the spheroidal shape of earth.

        The popular mania about “climate change” obscures the reality of others aspects of “climate constancy”.

        Now, there may be some secondary effects of increased GMT which, though not as direct as CO2 effecting RF, could have some change.

        Among those would be increase precipitation. Were increased GMT to increase precipitable water, increased precipitation would seem likely. Unfortunately, global precipitation data sets contradict one another even on the global trend, so it appears that idea is even now not yet verifiable.

        Even were precipitation and evaporation to increase, that effect would appear to be marginal – even for a quadrupling of CO2 which would appear very unlikely to occur.

        So it seems to me that aspects are more predictable
        a.) the more direct the effects
        b.) the fewer the other factors involved, and
        c.) without non-linear combining effect of the term of interest

        Global warming (GMT) rates high on these measures.
        Many other presumed climate change phenomenon
        (such as drought, flood, tropical cyclones, fires, severe storms) do not, and indeed, are contradicted by observations.

        Now, arctic sea ice decline would appear to be something indirectly, but still a second order effect. Increased GMT means the atmosphere is more efficient at transporting heat ( probably both sensible and latent ). This heat directly applies to melting.

        But also consider what increased atmospheric efficiency of transport means. It means fewer extremes and lowered kinetic energy because the atmosphere is more effective at resolving temperature extremes by motion and that less motion is necessary to resolve imbalances.

        Biology has responded in a very predictable (and predicted) way:

        “An increase of the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise the intensity of vegetable life and the intensity of the inorganic chemical reactions threefold.”

        Svante Arrhenius (1896)
        https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

        Satellite observations indicate a nearly uniform increase of land vegetation and a noisier, but still present increase of oceanic phytoplankton. Since animal life tends to coincide with plant life, these observations mean increased CO2 has increased life on earth, amusingly at odds with those megalomaniacally saving the planet.

      • The dominant scientific paradigm is one that Judith agrees with. I have tested that. The rest of your comment is rinse and sceptic blogoscience. There is no point in endlessly rehashing these perennial talking points.

        What I say is that a transition to new nuclear is inevitable and better land and water management is happening globally.

      • Even as Biden’s China solar tariffs are crushing the solar industry I think extending nuclear power plants lifespan will avoid more pollution than wind and solar will during the next few years.

        The Biden administration is launching a $6 billion effort to save financially distressed nuclear plants in the United States. The $6 billion allocation is the largest-ever federal investment aimed at saving aging U.S. commercial nuclear reactors.
        https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-seeks-applications-bids-6-billion-civil-nuclear-credit-program

    • Christos Vournas wrote:
      There are many countries with vast amounts of fossil fuels deposits (coal, oil, natural gas).
      Why shouldn’t they use their national wealth?

      Because it will dangerously heat the Earth and destroy their own ecosystems and, hence, economies.

      What part of that is difficult to understand?

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The 30-day SOI is now at its highest since early year. La Niña is strengthening and will affect summer weather in the Northern Hemisphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/6yfpT5f/Screenshot-2.png

  85. Ireneusz Palmowski

    April’s winter of the century in the northern United States.
    Snowstorms in the states of Oregon and Washington.
    Snow drifts of several meter in North Dakota (there will be more snow). Snowstorms in the Great Lakes region and northeastern US. Strong winds and very low perceptible temperatures (freezing) in the Great Plains.

  86. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Will this winter weather finally end in North America?
    https://i.ibb.co/g6f2GGP/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png

  87. South Africa listened to the Green Energy Extremists and now face over 100 black out daze. Gotta wonder if the “powers” that be there will get a clue or not. Unfortunately, the odds of the latter are large.

    For this reason, and a looming energy crisis, nuclear energy’s popularity has escalated exponentially, with recent pledges from Europe and the UK to significantly expand their nuclear energy capacity. Consequently, South Africa may lose its priority ranking amongst the global Nuclear Energy Vendors if it continues postponing its nuclear build programs. Fortunately, South Africa does have two shovel-ready sites to start construction on, which could just keep us in the game. But we need to move decisively and swiftly and give our intensive energy users the opportunity to access stable clean energy and retain their export markets with compliant low-carbon products.

    Although the development and construction of nuclear energy need forward-thinking and planning, once you have it, you have access to the most reliable, clean, and affordable “always-on” base-load electricity for 80 years. Long-term sustainable careers are another plus. The lack of forward-thinking and planning has put us firmly in the grips of an expensive 2GWe Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (RMI4P), with little or no ownership after 20 years. Had “Nuclear One” happened in 2008, we would have had about 5,000MW of clean baseload electricity connected to the grid, producing 40TWh per year (over 20% of South Africa’s electricity consumption) and loadshedding would have been mitigated or terminated.

    https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/generation/op-ed-how-just-is-south-africas-energy-transition/

  88. Tentative 100 days of load shedding ahead as Eskom battles infrastructure challenges

    https://energycentral.com/news/tentative-100-days-load-shedding-ahead-eskom-battles-infrastructure-challenges

  89. More pure goodness brought to you by the Green Energy Extremists!

    Britain’s biggest energy suppliers are warning of a huge increase in the number of customers falling behind on paying their bills as households struggle with soaring costs for gas and electricity.

    The amount of money owed by customers is expected to be 50% higher by year’s end, Michael Lewis, chief executive officer of the U.K. arm of E.ON SE, told lawmakers Tuesday. The U.K.’s cap on energy prices surged to a record on April 1 for 22 million people, and it’s predicted to increase again later this year. That could put 40% of the population in fuel poverty, Lewis said.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/u-k-energy-bosses-warn-of-steep-increase-in-customers-debt

  90. A new strategic minerals report from conservative lobbyists ConservAmerica.

    ‘The clean energy future relies on minerals that must be extracted and refined in processing facilities. American minerals – just like American energy – are more cleanly and safely produced than in many other countries. In
    order to demonstrate that superior environmental and labor performance, industry should work with other stakeholders to evaluate voluntary programs
    that disclose, certify and promote the use of minerals produced under these higher standards…

    Minerals are processed into metals, chemicals, fertilizer, construction supplies, glass, etc. (Figure 3). Without exception, every single economic sector relies on minerals. Every computer, phone, car, plane, battery,
    plastic or steel appliance, electric or conventional engine, artificial joint or prosthetic limb, digital camera or high-definition television is built from minerals.’

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0c9cc5b4fb470001e12e6d/t/622a1d250cc6526f5950b16e/1646927142692/CA_critical_minerals_wp_04.pdf

  91. Perovskite solar cells at 1/15th the cost of silicon cells.

  92. Biden fiddles away our future while Ukraine burns …

    U.S. natural gas is on a tear. Prices have almost doubled this year to the highest since the shale revolution more than a decade ago, driving up energy costs and helping fuel the fastest inflation in 40 years.

    Yet the gas market, once considered a yawn among traders because of its predictability, could be setting the stage for a even wilder rally over the next few months, triggering bets on prices that would have seemed unimaginably high just a few months ago.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/u-s-natural-gas-prices-are-fueling-inflation-and-there-s-no-relief-in-sight

  93. ‘EIA projected that dry gas production will rise to 97.41 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2022 and 100.86 bcfd in 2023 from a record 93.57 bcfd in 2021.’ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-natgas-output-demand-rise-2022-eia-2022-04-12/

  94. Oh! Here’s a booming business that President PuddinHead can kill off!

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has set off a global scramble for diesel, prompting buyers around the world to snap up massive volumes of fuel from the U.S. Gulf Coast despite high prices.

    Waterborne diesel exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast rose to 1.3 million barrels per day so far this month, on track to reach the highest monthly level since January 2016, when oil analytics firm Vortexa began tracking this data. U.S. government data show a similar spike, with weekly national diesel exports surging to 1.74 million barrels per day in early April, the highest since June, 2018.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/u-s-gulf-coast-diesel-exports-soar-amid-wartime-global-shortage

  95. The US petroleum industry needs $100/barrel to make the necessary investments in new supply – they say. With costs of accessing new resources escalating and old field depletion – future booms and busts can only intensify.

    • Wrong, not even close. Anyone with the internet, interest, and a little time can slice that one 9 ways to Sunday.

    • The US petroleum industry needs President PuddinHead and the rest of the Federal government to simply get out of the way. They will then thrive.

    • I have high speed internet, I’ve been interested for decades and I spend most of my day researching all sorts of things. It all seemed reasonable and balanced to me. There are economic fundamentals way beyond partisan rhetoric.

      https://voltaoil.com/what-makes-up-retail-price-for-gasoline/

    • As the video points out, President PuddinHead needs to deregulate the oil and gas industry, for example, go back to the lease terms as they existed under Trump. Investors don’t want to invest in the oil industry due to regulation headwinds and the fact the Dimowits and Green Energy Extremists are trying to kill the fossil fuel industry. Always do your own research rather than blindly trust what anyone says here.

    • Your PuddinHead is tedious, juvenile and disrespectful. It’s a game 10 year olds play and think it’s hilarious. You may play your little partisan games but it casts doubt on your judgement and objectivity. I linked the particular video because it summed it up the issues well.

      What they said was that the industry – on the basis of listening to the industry – needs $100/barrel to justify investments in new supply. With the prospect now of record production of fossil fuels as they chase high returns. Other suppliers have lower costs. It’s a rock and a hard place.

      • On reflection I think 10 year olds may be more mature than that.

      • Biden is a PuddinHead

      • I get it. You are a card carrying Republican preaching to the peanut gallery. How many votes do you think that will get you?

      • If you were honest about it, RIE, you would admit P. Biden is a PuddinHead. The problem is that Camel Lah is even worse. I think she is VP as a “poison pill” against anyone or group who would want to impeach or otherwise remove PuddinHead. Even Jimmy Carter shines like a Supernova compared to these two! If you can’t see that, then it is you what has the political problem.

      • Chief
        Once again, you are wrong.

        I am a registered independent and find Biden’s policies indefensible.

      • On American politics I am generally agnostic. But going with ‘3 time loser’ Trump in 2024 might be a backward step. I’d suggest – and it’s none of my business – that you go with someone a little smarter. It doesn’t change the energy fundamentals.

      • Oh – and disagreeing with me doesn’t make me wrong. It makes you wrong.

      • Trump was razor sharp, and probably still is. There are two aspects of interest to him. First is his personality: he is rude, too spontaneous, insensitive, aggressive, and obnoxious. Some of those can be good points if he is defending you, yours, your traditions, or your way of life. On the other hand were his actions as President. > 90% of actions were wonderful. He stood up for the best of the US. He was the champion of the common man, spitting in the eye of the political and business “elites.” Good for the oil field, manufacturing, and business in general; he tried to bring more businesses to the US what had previously planted roots overseas. We now see just how bad it is to rely on enemies to produce essential items. Trump was so right about so many things.

        However, at this time, I would rather not see him run for President. There are others would be a better choice.

      • He’ll be too busy with snowballing legal challenges and financial problems.

      • Yep, Trump’s “snowballing legal challenges and financial problems” are courtesy of Dimowit lawfare. They are relentless. This is the real danger to democracy.

      • I suspect that the threat to democracy is demagogues refusing to accept election results.

        Fire and smoke? We will see once the legal process runs it’s course.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-2022-lawsuit-court-case-timeline-2022-1#november-6

  96. The Climate Science consensus is that average global temperature increase primarily results from water vapor increase as a feedback from temperature increase from CO2 increase. A comparison (simple to do) reveals that measured WV increase is 40 to 178% more than the maximum that is possible from the temperature increase from all forcings and feedbacks. The range depends on which agency’s average global temperature data is used. The measured WV increase can explain all of the planet warming attributable to human activity. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

    • Using RSS TLT data and assuming the 7%/K figure is reasonably accurate – I get an increase in water vapor of 1.5%/decade.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/rrs-tlt.png

      • Dan Pangburn

        Apparently you did 0.213 * 7% =1.49 ≈ 1.5% per decade.
        This ignores the T variation over the period of interest which results in the wrong answer.
        The correct method is to calculate month by month using the input for a month equal to the output of the previous month. This is shown at Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and graphed along with the measured WV at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UAUJSeS94TE6c8uU8qYTFPJZnqghktmL/view?usp=sharing The measured WV trend is 34% more than that calculated from just RSS TLT.
        The correct calculation of WV increase from T increase is 0.0311491/28.8 * 10 = 0.0109 = 1.09%/decade

      • Well no. The 7% increase is per K. The temperature rise in the lower troposphere over 4 decades is 0.85K. So the increase in water vapour is 5.9%. Divide by 4 decades and it is 1.48%/decade.

      • Or let’s throw in some dimensional analysis.

        0.213 (k/decade) x 7 (%/K) = 1.48 (%/decade)

      • There is a very good reason for not using surface temperature.

      • Dan Pangburn

        RIE: You are making the same mistake. The way you are doing it the path followed by T would not make any difference. By your method, you would get the same answer whether all T occurred immediately or all at the end of the period. Common sense tells us that is wrong. What if T went up to Tmax at mid period and then ramped down to the starting temperature at the end. By your method, there would be no WV increase. Elapsed time at temperature and the average T for that time increment must be taken into account. The method described at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com does that to the extent that data is available.

      • The 7%/K is a calculation based on the water holding capacity of the atmosphere at different temperatures. It is the expected increase in water holding capacity.

        The temperature rise in the RSS TLT data is some 0.85K. I assume that the discrepancy arises from your use of SAT. The SAT is sensible heat at 2m. Sensible heat at the surface is an incomplete characterisation of atmospheric energy content.

      • Dan Pangburn

        RIE: I used the data reported as GISS v4 reported at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt which is not significantly different from what you used so that is not the source of the discrepancy.
        It is misleading to say “The 7%/K is a calculation based on the water holding capacity of the atmosphere at different temperatures.” The atmosphere, on average, is not saturated. WV varies with the saturation vapor pressure of the liquid water which depends only on its T. (the rate of evaporation depends on things including vapor pressure deficit and wind). The correct value is less than 7% and, as described in Section 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com , is equal to the slope of the saturation pressure vs temperature curve divided by the temperature at that point.
        The discrepancy results because you are not accounting for the T increase at previous time increments. If you want to take the entire period in one step then you should use the average T for the entire period. So if you assume a linear increase rate you would need to use T/2 and you would get a crude approximation. Better to break the total period into increments and use the average T for each increment to calculate the WV change for that increment. The total WV change would be the sum of these. The data are provided at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt in monthly increments which I used.

      • The discrepancy is between GISSTemp surface temperature and RSS lower tropospheric temperature. Surface sensible heat is not the full picture of atmospheric energy content.

        ‘Observational studies, as well as numerical models, show that water vapour in the atmosphere closely follows temperature in agreement with the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. That means that an increase in temperature by 1°C in the lower troposphere implies an increase in the vertical profile of water vapour by 6–7%.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38752#:~:text=The%20Clausius%2DClapeyron%20relationship%20predicts,Celsius%20rise%20in%20temperature2.

      • Dan Pangburn

        RIE,
        I have done the analysis using all 5 of the reported average global temperatures; UAH, GISS, HadCRUT5, RSS, and NOAA. They all conclude that water vapor is higher than possible from just planet warming. Any discrepency between GISSTemp surface temperature and RSS lower tropospheric temperature will not change that conclusion.
        The Clausius-Clapeyron relates the volume change and enthalpy change resulting from phase change at saturation. Anything else is an approximation and might be mistakenly called a Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
        “Observational studies, as well as numerical models, show that water vapor in the atmosphere closely follows temperature in agreement with the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.” is wrong. Numerical studies done correctly show that measured WV exceeds that calculated from temperature increase by from 34 to 178% depending which reported T data is used.
        The message is not getting through. As I stated above “The discrepancy results because you are not accounting for the T increase at previous time increments.” It is sort of like the difference between simple interest and compound interest. The Nature article is correct about the 7% or so but it has to be distributed over the entire time period.

    • There are major difference between RSS and UAH – the surface series should not be used in this context but there are major differences there as well.

      I assume that specific humidity increases proportionately to the increase in saturation water content at a higher temperature. Which is the basis for the 7%/K expectation – in which only the end points matter – i.e the net rise in temperature over a period.

      And I assume that the water content of the atmosphere rises with temperature and not with irrigation – other than transiently near the surface. I assume the water content is determined by ambient conditions in the atmosphere. We know there is aquifer depletion – quite accurately – by about 300km^3 a year (Koutsoyiannis 2018). But it is a tiny proportion of precipitation and evaporation. I assume it all ends up in oceans.

      https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/hess-24-3899-2020-f14-web.png
      https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

      Your ‘proof’ otherwise depends solely on the accuracy of the temperature records compared to inevitable uncertainties in the satellite water vapour series. I don’t don’t think it flies.

      • Dan Pangburn

        RIE,
        Response to your comments:
        “There are major difference between RSS and UAH – the surface series should not be used in this context but there are major differences there as well.” I have made the calculations of WV using reported average global T for all of the reporting agencies. They all show substantially less WV than measured.
        “I assume that specific humidity increases proportionately to the increase in saturation water content at a higher temperature.” Specific humidity increases proportionately to the increase in saturation vapor pressure of the liquid surface water (up to the limit of saturation in the atmosphere).
        “7%/K”. The correct calculation is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure curve divided by pressure at that T. See Sect 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
        “in which only the end points matter – i.e the net rise in temperature over a period.” This is absolutely wrong. The temperature increase has to be distributed over the time period to account for the WV change resulting from T change along the way. What if the end T was the same as the starting T?
        “And I assume that the water content of the atmosphere rises with temperature and not with irrigation – other than transiently near the surface.” Do the math, correctly. WV is measured and has been increasing substantially faster than POSSIBLE from just temperature increase. Where the extra WV comes from is not the point. A separate study, Sect 6 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com discovered that about 90% of the WV increase caused by humanity is from irrigation. This is in agreement with a previous assessment at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001WR000355
        “I assume the water content is determined by ambient conditions in the atmosphere.” The atmosphere only controls the upper limit of WV. This occurs when the partial pressure of the WV reaches the saturation vapor pressure of liquid water at the local T. (Some real world refinements on this are discussed at http://www.cas.manchester.ac.uk/resactivities/cloudphysics/background/ice/ )
        “it is a tiny proportion of precipitation” True. In Sect 6 I calculated only about 0.08% but some of the folks, e.g. India, using pumped irrigation, are at risk of running out of water.
        “Your ‘proof’ otherwise depends solely on the accuracy of the temperature records compared to inevitable uncertainties in the satellite water vapour series.” True, but what else is there? I checked all reported temperature data sets and they showed measured WV from 34 to 178% more than calculated from just T increase. NASA/RSS claims a RMS accuracy of 1 kg/m^2 (about 3%).
        “I don’t don’t think it flies.” Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

      • And no – I can’t be bothered going around in circles endlessly.

  97. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
    Tmean.earth

    So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
    Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    Conclusions:
    The planet mean surface temperature equation
    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
    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

  98. ‘Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006
    using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft.’ http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=5AB17E40965F4846ABAB9DBD909ABDBF?doi=10.1.1.131.3867&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  99. ‘Lateritic nickel ores formed by intensive tropical weathering of olivine-rich ultramafic rocks such as dunite, peridotite and komatiite and their serpentinized derivatives, serpentinite which consist largely of the magnesium silicate serpentine and contains approx. 0.3% nickel. This initial nickel content is strongly enriched in the course of lateritization. Two kinds of lateritic nickel ore have to be distinguished: limonite types and silicate types.[1]

    Limonite type laterites (or oxide type) are highly enriched in iron due to very strong leaching of magnesium and silica. They consist largely of goethite and contain 1-2% nickel incorporated in goethite. Absence of the limonite zone in the ore deposits is due to erosion.

    Silicate type (or saprolite type) nickel ore formed beneath the limonite zone. It contains generally 1.5-2.5% nickel and consists largely of Mg-depleted serpentine in which nickel is incorporated. In pockets and fissures of the serpentinite rock green garnierite can be present in minor quantities, but with high nickel contents – mostly 20-40%. It is bound in newly formed phyllosilicate minerals. All the nickel in the silicate zone is leached downwards (absolute nickel concentration) from the overlying goethite zone.’ Wikipedia

    Intriguingly – the tiny French territory of New Caledonia may hold a quarter of the world’s nickel supply. Nickel has been mined there since soon after colonization. The surface limonite type laterite has little commercial value – until now. It has been set aside and left there creating environmental problems. Queensland Pacific Metals has recently signed a binding agreement with French company Société Le Nickel to supply nickel laterite to their proposed refining facility near Townsville Australia. A development application was submitted in February. It goes without saying that their ESG credentials are impeccable. PGM have some game changing technology.

    https://qpmetals.com.au/tech-project/dni-process/

    I nearly took a position in PGM this morning – but went with the patent holder instead on balance. PGM is my watchlist. Both may be ‘rule of 50’ companies.

    ‘Sustainability is an evolution of the term ‘green’. It challenges us to look deeper and take action. Sustainability is the next level of respect for natural resources. It’s about replenishing, restoring, and taking responsibility for everything we do in order to nurture our planet so life as a whole can flourish.

    We’re advocates of conscious capitalism – having a purpose beyond profit. That’s why we’re leading the revolution in sustainable metal extraction in a way that actively cares for the environment whilst still being economically sound.’ https://www.altiliumgroup.com/sustainability/

    Improve the lot of people in New Caledonia and make a buck. Conscious capitalism works.

  100. Pingback: Merivirrat toimivat tasaavasti | Roskasaitti

  101. ‘Regenerate America™ is an unprecedented grassroots campaign to ensure support for regenerative agriculture in the 2023 Farm Bill and beyond. Regenerate America™ is designed to unite citizens, farmers, ranchers, landowners, non-profits, and companies around the idea that soil is our common ground and that our future is dependent on the actions that we take today. With new excitement for soil health on both sides of the aisle, now is the time to build massive political will to create change in our food system. Together, we can do this.’

    https://regenerateamerica.com

  102. Climate alarmism posing as science education for children
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/04/21/climate-alarmism-posing-as-science-education-for-children/

    The beginning: “The new and so-called Next Generation Science Standards are now law for about a third of American children. They say what will be taught in each grade from first grade through high school. At least 20 states have adopted them. See https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx for a map.

    Traditional standards still govern in the other States. These generally mandate that climate science will be taught in high school Earth Science courses. Earth Science is an optional course, not a requirement, and even then climate is a minor topic.

    In stark contrast the Next Gen standards are alarmist to the core. They mandate that climate be taught in middle school science, which everyone takes. The topic is emphasized, with alarmism a central feature. This means lots of climate modeling, even though these students have had relatively little prior science. They cannot possibly evaluate the models they are forced to use.

    Implementing Next Gen requires developing lesson plans that say what will be taught in each one hour class, often including how it will be taught. Writing these lesson plans for every topic, in every grade, is a huge ongoing effort.

    Next Gen has just approved a big climate science unit and it is very bad. It starts with newspaper accounts of floods and droughts, blames them on our CO2 and methane emissions, then ends with community action. And this is for 7th graders, who are typically around 13 years old and know very little hard science. This is pure alarmism presented to children as science. It is purely shameful.

    The developer is OpenSciEd, where open means their products are free for schools to use. Who pays is an interesting question. The title is “OpenSciEd Unit 7.6: How Do Changes in Earth’s System Impact Our Communities and What Can We Do About It?” Get it? Changes cause impact requiring community action. The standard alarmist formula, action not science.

    You can find the junk here: https://www.openscied.org/instructional-materials/7-6-earths-resources-human-impact/

    They even have a neat trick in their advertising. They claim the students “figure out” all this alarmism, saying this: “This unit on Earth’s resources and human impact begins with students observing news stories and headlines of drought and flood events across the United States. Students figure out that these drought and flood events are not normal and that both kinds of events seem to be related to rising temperatures.”
    Also:
    “Students figure out that the rising temperatures are caused by an imbalance in Earth’s carbon system, resulting in a variety of problems in different communities. The unit ends with students evaluating different kinds of solutions to these problems and how they are implemented in communities.”

    A lot of student figuring, right? They must think a lot. Wrong! This is pure indoctrination.”

    There is more in the article including a revealing lesson list. Please share it.

    We need a campaign to block the adoption of these horrific lessons.

    Note that I have a Climate Change Debate Education site with lots of skeptical materials, including links to about 350 videos by leading skeptics.
    See http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/

    I also have a fundraiser for this education effort at
    https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
    We have been relatively inactive but are now gearing up to fight this indoctrination. Donations are most welcome. You can donate anonymously.

    • It all depends on what you believe is established fact. You could say that they are indoctrinating the student with Newton’s laws of motion. Maybe there are those who don’t believe that F = m a? Their views should be represented also?

      • There’s very little dispute about gravity, because it’s testable by everyone’s everyday life experience.

        Climate change, however, making UN-tested claims about what will happen a hundred years in the future, is very disputable because it’s not testable, and so, not so much science.

        Now, some aspects, such as global mean temperature, are subject to thought experiment, -AND- the last half century of records.

        So, to the extent that past is prolog, we can use the past as a guide.

        With that guide, we get:
        global warming – yes.
        disaster – no.

      • Curious George

        “Maybe there are those who don’t believe that F = m a? Their views should be represented also?”
        That’s what the Next Generation Science Standards are for.

      • David Wojick

        Donald, are you claiming that F = ma and climate alarmism are of comparable certainty? Plus that community activisim should be part of 7th grade science? It sounds like you are, in which case I feel no need to reply.

      • Many climate science papers, like one of the recent “hockey stick” ones, incorporate climate model output into the results. Climate model output is not scientific proof. Any paper incorporating climate model output into its results calculations are not scientific proof either.

    • ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ James McWilliams

      There is little doubt about climate change. There is about the future – contrarian or alarmist thought experiments notwithstanding. The Earth system changes perpetually as Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics. Superimposed on this sensitive dependence to initial conditions are human changes to the system that can drive abrupt and unwelcome climate shifts.

      Meanwhile back at the ranch.

      https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/updates-on-developments-small-modular-reactor-technologies

      • Yep, you lefties better stop messin’ with CO2. Reduce it and you could trigger a tipping point! Better think twice!

      • I’m a hard nosed economic rationalist. But Jim objects to nuclear power and regenerating American farmland. Noted.

      • David Wojick

        Robert you say “There is little doubt about climate change.” I find that simply ridiculous. There is in fact deep debate, as this blog nicely shows.

      • I have seen here a lot of naïve contrarian blogosciene. None of it is worth the candle.

    • David

      “ This unit on Earth’s resources and human impact begins with students observing news stories and headlines of drought and flood events across the United States. Students figure out that these drought and flood events are not normal and that both kinds of events seem to be related to rising temperatures.”

      Being in grades 5-12 doesn’t have to be a prerequisite to be snowed by newspaper accounts. There are plenty of PhDs who seem to think that such statements are adequate evidence to conclude that those events aren’t normal. It continues to boggle my mind that well educated persons can be snowed with those exact kinds of accounts.. In fact, there are many studies inferring just the opposite.

      I’m all for indoctrination. The kind of indoctrination that hammers home the absolute necessity of critical thinking skills. A society fully equipped with critical thinking skills will see through the absurdity of those newspaper accounts and the climate science that draws conclusions from the flimsiest evidence.

  103. Tweet from former Federal Drug Administration’s Commissioner showing backup of ships in Shanghai port.

    https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1516161345661591558

  104. Donald, you say “It all depends on what you believe is established fact.”

    If you mean it is okay for those who decide what to teach in 20 States to ignore the debate and teach alarmism then I disagree completely. My article is a call to action to stop them from doing exactly that.

    As the discussions here make perfectly clear, alarmism is not established fact. That some people wrongly believe it is does not give them the right to force children to learn it.

    • ‘By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self-similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst.’ Mandelbrot and Harries (1968)

      Some call Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics alarmist. Or have you forgotten Oroville so soon?

      • David Wojick

        Robert, as usual your reply has nothing to do with what you are replying to. Truly tiresome.

      • What is truly tiresome David is going around in circles for decades. We need economic, environmental and political progress. Naïve contrarian blogoscience is a dead end.

    • Radiative physics and Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics. Which bit doesn’t have oodles of empirical verification?

  105. When the refuse hits the twirly bits, it will be every man (country) for himself.

    The government has been called on to take measures — both by the public on social media and in the parliament. Among others, former energy minister Sylvi Listhaug of the populist Progress Party this week proposed to limit foreign sales.

    “It’s not acceptable that Norwegian power consumers should pay the price for Germany’s naive energy policy,” she said in a parliament session, referring to Germany’s historical dependence on Russian energy that is now backfiring.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-22/norway-seeks-talks-with-eu-on-power-exports-as-prices-surge

  106. Ireneusz Palmowski

    This winter season looks to be an exceptionally snowy one in North America, and that’s not the end of the snowfall.
    https://i.ibb.co/4j2bH8f/na-swe.png

  107. ‘Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the EU has sought to reduce its Russian gas imports by two-thirds.

    Norway’s gas exports are however squeezed by production capacities, already churning at maximum levels, and the distribution system via pipelines.

    Norway’s sole liquified natural gas (LNG) unit, which makes it possible to deliver gas by ship in liquid form, was damaged in a fire in September 2020.

    Located in Hammerfest in northern Norway, it will be back in service by mid-May, according to its operator, energy giant Equinor, making it possible to then increase export volumes.

    According to Equinor, adjusting the production licences at the Oseberg field will make it possible to export an additional 1 billion cubic metres up to September 30th, when maintenance work is scheduled to be conducted.

    The Heidrun field will meanwhile be able to increase its deliveries by 0.4 million cubic metres in the full year 2022.

    Equinor said that “1.4 billion cubic metres of gas meets the gas demands of around 1.4 million European homes during a year”.

    The Troll field has meanwhile been authorised to increase its production by up to 1 billion cubic metres in the event of loss of production from other fields.

    To take advantage of the record-breaking high gas prices lately, Equinor had already obtained an adjustment on the production permits for Oseberg and Troll last year.’ https://www.thelocal.no/20220316/can-norway-help-europe-reduce-reliance-on-russian-gas/

  108. There are climate science fundamentals.

    https://www.vc3chem.com/lessons.html

  109. ‘Yep, you lefties better stop messin’ with CO2. Reduce it and you could trigger a tipping point! Better think twice!’ Jim2

    ‘Also Euclid’s Elements.’ George

    “Facetious comes from a Latin word that means “jest.” A facetious comment is a joking comment—often inappropriate. Think of a jester or joker making a funny face at you, and remember the first part of facetious.’ https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wc/when-is-a-comment-facetious-and-when-is-it-sarcastic/

    I don’t mind wit if it is actually funny. Facetiousness for it’s own sake is tedious. The purpose is puerile discombobulation.

  110. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Extremely high 30-day SOI index.
    https://i.ibb.co/FzSNn8Z/Screenshot-2.png

  111. Assumptions and scientific facts.

    The Earth’s Greenhouse Warming Theory is based on scientific insights, but those scientific insights are very much mistaken.
    Those scientific insights seemed so obvious, that no one had seen they were simply assumptions.
    Assumptions so seemingly and intuitively right, those assumptions have been taken as granted, and on those assumptions the entire Greenhouse Warming Theory was based…

    But unfortunately those assumptions, which were not considered as assumptions, but as solid scientific facts had been very much mistaken.

    Those mistaken assumptions are:

    1). The planet surface absorbs the entire not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s EM energy. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assumption).

    Due to its sphericity, a smooth surface planet has a strong specular reflection, which is not covered by the satellite measured planet average surface Albedo “a”.

    2). The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vise-versa. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assumption).

    Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !

    The T = ( J /σ )¹∕ ⁴ is a mistake !

    Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !

    The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.

    Let’s see:
    The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:

    J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)

    The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:

    T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”.

    Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.

    After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…

    The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function

    J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).

    But the
    T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2)

    as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.

    That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
    Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

    as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  112. MODTRAN data on atmospheric spectral transmittance and radiance evolved from US Air Force radar experiments in the 1960’s. This is a higher resolution version – HITRAN. MODTRAN has a simple demonstration web app – in which greenhouse gas effects are modelled using measurements taken over the depth of the atmosphere over nearly six decades.

    http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home

    ‘The MODTRAN® [1] [2] (MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission) computer code is used worldwide by research scientists in government agencies, commercial organizations, and educational institutions for the prediction and analysis of optical measurements through the atmosphere. MODTRAN was developed and continues to be maintained through a longstanding collaboration between Spectral Sciences, Inc. (SSI) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The code is embedded in many operational and research sensor and data processing systems, particularly those involving the removal of atmospheric effects, commonly referred to as atmospheric correction, in remotely sensed multi- and hyperspectral imaging (MSI and HSI).

    The MODTRAN software computes line-of-sight (LOS) atmospheric spectral transmittances and radiances over the ultraviolet through long wavelength infrared spectral regime (0 – 50,000 cm-1; > 0.2 μm). The radiation transport (RT) physics within MODTRAN provides accurate and fast methods for modeling stratified, horizontally homogeneous atmospheres. The core of the MODTRAN RT is an atmospheric “narrow band model” algorithm. The atmosphere is modeled via constituent vertical profiles, both molecular and particulate, defined either using built-in models or by user-specified radiosonde or climatology data. The band model provides resolution as fine as 0.2 cm-1 from its 0.1 cm-1 band model. MODTRAN solves the radiative transfer equation including the effects of molecular and particulate absorption/emission and scattering, surface reflections and emission, solar/lunar illumination, and spherical refraction.’ http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_about

    • Go to the U of Chicago MODTRAN and simply alter the water vapor in the atmosphere and you will discover CO2 is irrelevant. Change the settings to looking up, and you will see that there isn’t even a CO2 signature until you get high enough to precipitate out all the H20. Also, go to Spectralcalc and plug in 15 micron peak range 12 to 18 micron and -80C. 15 Micron is what CO2 emits. Ice emits warmer higher energy 11 Micron LWIR. CO2 radiation won’t even melt ice.

      • So you accept radiative physics – unlike Christos. That’s a start.. Although I am concerned about why you think ice should melt at -80C. And wonder why ‘looking up’ is relevant. But yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the troposphere is temperature dependent.

      • Robert Ellison Says: “Although I am concerned about why you think ice should melt at -80C. ”

        You don’t seem to understand radiative physics. Wavelengths are associated with temperatures. Ice emits 11-12 Micron which is consistent with 0C, CO2 emits 15 Micron which is consistent with -80C. Radiation from CO2 won’t even melt ice, let alone warm a room.

  113. I think I’ve figured out a way to debunk all this CO2 causes warming nonsense. It is claimed that CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 410 ppm has caused warming of almost 1 degree C OF THE VAST OCEANS. The chart shows warming of over 1 degree C between 1910 and 2017. Water has the highest specific heat of all common molecules. CO2 is extremely cheap and easy to produce. If higher concentrations of CO2 can cause warming, why aren’t we warming homes and pools using CO2 insulation? Why aren’t CO2 cylinders exploding from the accumulation of heat? Atmospheric CO2 is 0.0004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    Bubble wrap of 0.4% CO2 could warm water by 10 Degree C if the linear relationship exists that they claim.

    Basically, if anything they claim about CO2 is true, our energy problem is solved because all you would need to do is insulate things in CO2 to warm the surroundings. No engineer I know of has considered this a viable solution and they could make trillions.

  114. Robert I. Ellison has 171 out of 431 comments currently. So 40% of the comments are his. Can you say “wild-eyed zealot?”

  115. A recent tweet

    “ The Associated Press
    @AP
    ·
    5m
    Twitter says it will no longer allow advertisers on its site who deny the scientific consensus on climate change, echoing a policy already in place at Google.”

    What does it mean “deny the scientific consensus”?

    What % of warming from CO2 do you have to accept? What level of future SLR do you have to support? What will be interpreted as “misinformation”

    Does that mean you can’t reference peer reviewed studies which partially or wholly contradict the consensus. What is the consensus about past droughts, SLR, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, Arctic warming, AMO, PDO, IPO, AO, ENSO, MWP, LIA, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Thermohaline changes, subsidence, OHC, etc, etc etc?

    Orwell would have a field day.

    • Because the IPCC worked so hard to achieve a consensus before releasing their reports? LOL

      The IPCC is political body supporting a politically driven ideology. The politics of disinformation drove the change in framing the issue as climate change vs. global warming. Guess what–the climate ALWAYS has been changing and ALWAYS will be changing.

      Humans can easily adapt. Don’t punish those alive today for an obscure fear of what may occur far into the future.

      • A man died from self immolation yesterday purportedly to bring attention to the global warming “crisis”. A fair reading of all the evidence should lead any reasonable person to conclude there is no crisis. There could be a long term problem if no action is taken but an imminent crisis is a creation of activist climate clowns and a complicit press.

        When all those who push this manufactured crisis read such stories I wonder what goes through their minds. Is there the slightest tinge of guilt that they have created a narrative that could have led to this death? Should society view them as an accessory to his demise? Had this gentleman been privy to all the facts, not just those that are selected for promotion by IPCC, and embellished by accomplices to present exaggerated scenarios, would he have had a more balanced view.

        I’m sure this death, which is a result of gross exaggeration of a problem, won’t be the last.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10748385/Pictured-Climate-activist-50-died-lighting-fire-Supreme-Court.html

    • The ‘consensus’ is that CO2 is a radiatively active in the atmosphere. A scientific paradigm is that AGW is superimposed on spatiotemporal chaos in the Earth system in which small changes initiate abrupt climate shifts.

      “A small forcing can cause a small [climate] change or a huge one.”
      — National Academy of Sciences, 2002.

      Quoted here – https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

      The complexities are fascinating but not relevant to the concerns of the vast majority. The economic, environmental and politically pragmatic policy response is energy innovation and revitalising global farmlands and ecosystems.

  116. On this over at ATTP
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 23, 2022 at 2:56 pm
    “So, in a sense, this continued warming is due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation, but this doesn’t mean that this wasn’t caused by the initial increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It doesn’t somehow contradict what we expect from the Greenhouse effect.

    No.
    There is a continued reliance on the concept of storage of energy ( solar radiation) when an atmosphere becomes warmer.
    Even though we all know that the energy in equals the energy out.
    If this is not true all our physics does not work.

    I cannot explain the finer points of the phenomenon, yet.
    Two examples to show the problem
    When one applies heat, energy, sunlight momentarily to any object in space.
    Hence not on earth and not in an atmosphere what actually happens?

    We would all agree that the energy goes in and exits as quickly as possible.
    The energy is not retained to keep the object at a higher temperature for centuries, decades. Years , seconds or milliseconds.

    This is the basis of all thermodynamics.
    The problem is that the object does appear to “heat up” and the heat down .
    It does not go suddenly hot and then suddenly cold when the light iOS switched on and off.
    .-
    This however is not a problem of the thermodynamics, just a failure on our part to adequately describe what is actually happening in the proper terms.

    angech says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 23, 2022 at 3:03 pm
    CO2 exists, as does a much larger GHG in the form of water vapor.
    Back radiation exists and can be detected properly.
    The GHG effect exists hence the surface is warmer.

    All this is gospel.
    But the thought processes of everyone seem to stop there.
    There is no extra energy from the sun.
    24 hour input is 24 hour output.
    GHG cannot make the surface any warmer than they already make the surface warm by dint of the back radiation effect.
    They do not make new energy.
    A point worth repeating.
    Therefore there is no store of energy keeping the lights on or making the surface any warmer than it already is.
    angech says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 23, 2022 at 3:20 pm
    This then causes an unsolvable problem for the energy diagram everyone relies on.
    It is just wrong.
    I have tried to explain this in other posts here and at JC.

    The proof of the concepts for it being wrong are obvious to anyone who accepts that there is no new energy being created .
    Energy back radiates half the time.
    Using a global concept and the a local concept for the height of the TOA is a laugh though, is it not.
    Just because temperature drops quite quickly with height is no excuse for extrapolating a local condition ie a height rise of 300 meters for the radiation level would increase the temperature by 2 degrees.
    Is a poor way of describing a TOA which on the dark side is below the surface and at the equator is a lot further out than any close to the surface RPH lapse rate could possibly emulate.

    • Where the atmosphere meets space – all energy is electromagnetic. Incoming from the Sun and outgoing from reflected light and emitted heat. At most times incoming and outgoing energy at the top of atmosphere (TOA) are not equal and Earth warms or cools – mostly in the oceans that are by far the largest planetary heat store. Conservation of energy gives the first differential global energy equation.

      The equation can be written as the change in heat in oceans is approximately equal to energy in less energy out at TOA.

      Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout

  117. Topological synchronization of chaotic systems
    https://phys.org/news/2022-04-topological-synchronization-chaotic.html

    “…the emergence of the stable fractals is the key element that gives chaotic systems the ability to synchronize. They showed that as chaotic systems are being coupled, the fractal structures start to assimilate each other causing the systems to synchronize.”

    Now we’re getting somewhere. It’s literal. It’s not just some math formulas.

    Draw airflow arrows around a normal lift generating wing. Now draw them in the middle of a stall.

    The normally lifting wing brings order to chaos. A laminar airflow. We create a lift vector using a thrust vector.

    Now for the climate. Lake ice. On a calm cold night we go from open water to the whole lake being covered in ice. Ice crystals form on one part of the lake and hours laters are on another distant spot as well.

    But the climate. The oceans. The oceans can be stalled or transporting. They can do upwelling and downwelling and horizontal transport. It’s flow. This cubic centimeter is going somewhere with all its friends or it’s chaotic.

  118. This paper discussed is about the math of Rössler oscillations – a system of three nonlinear ordinary differential equations. A system akin to the Lorenz equations. The nonlinear equations of flow in the Earth system is the Navier-Stokes equation in 3 dimensions.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvwC9oAXAA0dJF3?format=jpg

    Where we do find in practice that turbulent flow – by far the most common – is fractal.

    “Big whirls have little whirls,
    That feed on their velocity;
    And little whirls have lesser whirls,
    And so on to viscosity.”

    ― Lewis Fry Richardson

    • Is the Hadley Cell circulation fractal? Does the cell demonstrate synchronization? Say the cell has 4 quadrants. 1 quadrant starts circulating from full stop. That then pushes the next quadrant to start.

  119. People who mocked Trump may live long enough to eat their words along with a good bit of crow and maybe a prison canary.

    Durham and his staff are preparing to try heavyweight Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann in about three weeks. Plainly, their focus is broader than just the one alleged false statement to the FBI on which Sussmann has been indicted. Durham’s charging documents and court submissions strongly intimate that the Hillary campaign is the fons et origo of the Trump/Russia “collusion” farce that dizzied the country and hamstrung a presidency for two years.

    The theory is straightforward: The Clinton campaign, working through its lawyers at Perkins Coie and its “oppo” gourmands at Fusion GPS, ginned up a smear that the Republican presidential nominee and his campaign were Vladimir Putin’s own little KGB cell attempting to take control of the United States government. The Clinton campaign not only peddled this narrative to the media-Democrat complex, which dutifully hyped it; Team Clinton also had operatives, such as Sussmann (a former Justice Department cybersecurity specialist and man-about-Washington), exploit their deep government ties to project the collusion story onto the radar of national-security agencies. This enabled the campaign to claim that concerns about Trump’s nefarious Russia relationship had blossomed into a criminal investigation.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/durhams-investigation-is-finally-getting-interesting/

    • Believe it when I see it.
      Will probably fry three small fish and close shop. Wish I was wrong and Durham had some real power and ethics.

  120. ‘catastrophe theory, in mathematics, a set of methods used to study and classify the ways in which a system can undergo sudden large changes in behaviour as one or more of the variables that control it are changed continuously…’ https://www.britannica.com/science/catastrophe-theory-mathematics

    But of course catastrophe theory is a religion.

    “A small forcing can cause a small [climate] change or a huge one.”
    — National Academy of Sciences, 2002.

  121. A home grown Greta. Young people are worried about their future. That’s not going to change. Even if they are told they are wrong by contrarians. This girl is right about so much. What they need is a reimagined future.

    youtube.com/c/OpenSciEdAccount/featured

    • It desperately needs some reality. The Henry Hub gas price is US$6.47 – the Japanese spot is US$18.03. As is the nature of supply and demand – producers everywhere – other than Russia – are ramping up supply to take advantage of high prices. There are some 50 years of global gas reserves at current energy demand. Demand is growing by some 1.4%/year.

      The US is putting $6B into extending the life of existing nuclear plants – and more billions into new nuclear. Ramping up nuclear generation is the way to go – and the sooner the better. That’s the only way to get to net zero. As the video above says – nuclear is at the core of China’s energy strategy.

  122. Judah Cohen is always interesting. But does he perpetuate a jet stream myth. Jet streams form in the upper troposphere between atmospheric circulation cells. The polar vortex extends from the surface to the stratosphere. It’s track shifts with changes in polar and subpolar surface pressure taking the polar jet stream with it. Or am I just being pedantic.

  123. I posted a video above on regenerating American farmland and the 2023 farm bill. Not a murmur from the peanut gallery. It is disappointing that you don’t have the backs of your farmers. Are you so caught up in your obsessive crap science that you cannot see what’s important? I despair of any sense or sensibility.

    • RIE: “We need economic, environmental and political progress.”
      “I posted a video above on regenerating American farmland and the 2023 farm bill. Not a murmur from the peanut gallery.”

      You posted two examples of emotive brand voice, not science, RIE, I think your enthusiasm comes mostly as a result of brand messaging; after all, who could argue against “across the fruited plains”, or grandma’s apple pie. Brand voice is a methodology to get emotive sales. You can probably thank Ben & Jerry, and Bill Gates for spearheading the brand metrics in these examples.

      I love rich soil too BTW, who doesn’t. I’m all for better education to improve soil conditions. But education dealing with the science and practice of best land use doesn’t require the amount of dollars that’s in the proposed farm bill, even if adding a few related peripheral programs to the mix.

      Big farming produces most of the food these days, small family farms continue to diminish each year in the U.S.; yearly losses of about 14k the last time I looked, mostly buy outs (Bill Gates is doing a lot of the buying out). The farm bill that you’re enthusiastically promoting is nearly a trillion dollar bill; it dictates what we eat, no less.

      It sounds like you perused the U.S. 2023 farm bill thoroughly; you’re too smart to be lulled into a branding program. The farm bill is hundreds of pages; it’s a batch. Perhaps you can you dig out the elusive parts about enriching soil? Such would serve as foundational fodder for the science discussion you seek.

      So what does the near 1 trillion 2023 farm bill buy? Let’s dig under the weeds and look at a bit of dirt. I find a lot about centralizing government and redistribution of wealth instead of empowering states: grants, federal loans, expanding broadband in rural areas, energy, subsidies for food, food stamps, export subsidies, international food aid, tribal benefits, rural economic growth programs, socially disadvantaged programs, housing; brass knuckle EPA empowerment (along with an army of unelected officials), biofuel. Essentially, more, more, more centralized empowerment of government; also known as economic, environmental and political progress by some. The way I see it, if it doesn’t require big government cash flow, and power, it’s just useless dirt. Many more devilish details lay under the turf, though they’re usually hard to dig out in the legalese of centralized control.

      To reiterate, yes I’m all for healthier soil, but promoting and publishing best practice guidelines doesn’t quite do it for central planners, there’s not enough money, or power in it; if education alone worked there’s no way to get a the windfall of “other” trappings; it’s gotta be a package deal. Sensibility is a relative word, give me more soil, and less dirt, that’s my sensibility. Sadly, Ben & Jerry, Bill and ilk, know how to wield their ringing endorsement, it’s not so much about soil; but you know the political dirt is well tilled.

    • It is about refocusing existing bipartisan programs to more productive and less agro-socialist spending.

      ‘Within the Farm Bill, which is the largest piece of agricultural legislation in the country, conservation programs receive only 7 percent of total bill
      spending.59 These important programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), provide funding to farmers to offset the cost of practices that improve soil health and water quality and help farmers be more resilient to climate while becoming part of the climate solution.’

      https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/regenerative-agriculture-farm-policy-21st-century-report.pdf

      • jungletrunks

        “It is about refocusing existing bipartisan programs to more productive and less agro-socialist spending.”

        I can appreciate bipartisanship, but the word is ripe for gaming.

        I don’t know much about Aussie politics, but if you were a U.S. citizen, your above statement alone means you couldn’t possibly support the 2023 farm bill as it stands. Though there are certainly programs outside the farm bill that are good programs, worthy of support.

        Bipartisanship is a political selling point, it’s a valuable tool in political sales jargon. If the promoters of such a bill have just one GOP congressperson as a supporter; or one who only supports just part of the bill; using this example, such will be couched as bipartisan by the media.

        Politics in the U.S. is all about euphemistic phrasing. Bills in the U.S., especially if they’re from the Left, will pile on everything that’s on their world view wish list. Such a bill is usually wrapped in altruistic, benevolent labels expressed as helping humankind; trickery used for promotional soundbites. The talking heads behind such bills will call anyone who opposes it either a racist (is there anything that’s not racist?), or an anti Earth Day radical, per this example. That’s the way the game is played.

      • Piffle as the enemy of the good sums it up.

      • jungletrunks

        To piffle, relatively speaking, sums up politics. Pick your good; if it’s Marxism then the 2023 farm bill, among other bills, would be a good non piffling remedy for the globes salvation.

      • Yet more piffle from JT.

        ‘On this Earth Day, Congressman Brian Mast, R-Florida 18th District, offers a positive message on the importance of conservation and working toward commonsense policies to support clean air and clean water. Rep. Mast is a co-chair of the House Congressional Roosevelt Conservation Caucus. The bicameral Roosevelt Conservation Caucus is committed to advancing pro-market policies that protect the environment and conserve America’s treasures for future generations.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/earth-day

      • jungletrunks

        Now we’re talking piffle, yours, not the congressman’s message. Relate this to the farm bills trappings, Robert. But more, expound upon the farm bills merits for soil, just the line items I detailed, to keep it simple.

      • Writing these line items for the new bill is what the lobbying is intended to influence.
        US farm bills have 12 ‘titles’. The nutrition title being by far the most costly.

        https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/100385/chart_1_450px.png?v=9347.8

        https://frac.org/blog/the-road-to-the-2023-farm-bill

        Title II is conservation.

        https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12024#:~:text=The%20conservation%20title%20of%20a,conserving%20practices%20on%20private%20land.

        JT can be relied on to maintain a level of stupendous incomprehension, confusion and obfuscation. .

      • jungletrunks

        “Writing these line items for the new bill is what the lobbying is intended to influence.
        US farm bills have 12 ‘titles’. The nutrition title being by far the most costly.”

        You didn’t answer the question, though of course you don’t have to quantify what it is you see in the farm bill, I suspect yours is mostly platitudinal enthusiasm.

        But you’re not making an argument here, not that I intended have one to begin with other than stating that supporting the farm bill had little to do with great soil, the