by Dr. Joachim Dengler
This post is the second of two extracts from the paper Improvements and Extension of the Linear Carbon Sink Model.
Introduction – The linear carbon sink model has a limitation
The relation between CO2 Emission and resulting concentration of the last 65 years can be best understood with a simple top-down model, where the net sink effect, which is the difference between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration growth, is modelled with a linear function of atmospheric CO2 concentration as shown in Figure 1. It is important to note, that the net sink effect represents in fact the sum of all absorptions – oceanic, land plants, and phytoplankton — reduced by the natural emissions.
Figure 1. The measured yearly sampled time series of anthropogenic emissions and yearly CO2 concentration growth. Both effects are measured in or have been converted to ppm in order to guarantee comparability. Their difference is the growing carbon sink effect, modelled linearly by 0.018*C – 5.2 ppm, where C represents the CO2 concentration time series.
The interpretation of the model is that the proportionality factor of the linear relation is a sum of the unknown proportionality factors of all contributing absorption processes, such as photosynthesis of land plants, photosynthesis of phytoplankton, and the physical ocean absorption. It has been shown, that all these processes are approximately linear functions of atmospheric CO2 concentration, justifying that their proportionality factors can be added up. The constant of the linear model is interpreted as the natural emissions. Implicitly this assumes that natural emissions are considered to being approximately constant.
Extension of the Linear Sink Model
While the proportionality between absorption and concentration is physically very well founded, the assumption of constant natural emissions appears arbitrary. Effectively, this assumed constant contains the sum of all emissions except the explicit anthropogenic ones, but also all sinks that are balanced during the year. Therefore, it is enlightening to calculate the estimated natural emissions from the measured data and the linear carbon sink model as the residual after modelling the absorption as proportional to concentration. This is shown in Figure 2. The mean value of the estimated natural emissions results in the constant model term. Slight smoothing results in a periodic curve. Roy Spencer has attributed these fluctuations to El Niño.
Questions arise: why and how are sources or sinks dependent on El Niño? Why are these short-term temperature dependencies apparent, but long-term global temperature trends do not appear to have any correspondence in the model? Furthermore, it is not obvious whether the fluctuations are attributable to the absorptions or to the natural emissions. In order to find out more, we need to introduce temperature dependence into the model.
Figure 2. Residual natural emissions of linear sink model, their mean value, and the temporarily smoothed residual natural emissions. All are measured in ppm.
CO2 Concentration is a Proxy for Temperature
Why can the undeniable long term temperature trend not be seen in the simple linear model, which clearly shows short term temperature dependencies? Why is there no trend in the estimated natural emissions, which is implied by Henry’s law for the ocean sinks and emissions as well as by the temperature dependence of photosynthesis?
The answer has to do with the fact that CO2 concentration and global average temperature anomaly are highly correlated. We make no claim of causality nor any other dependence between CO2 concentration and temperature, in either direction, but just recognize their strong correlation for the last 65 years.
We can interpret the global temperature anomaly as the sum of a linear function of CO2 concentration and a zero mean residual temperature without trend. This is displayed in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Temperature anomaly time series, measured in °, its linear model 0.0083 °/ppm*C – 2.72° from the CO2 concentration time series C, and the zero mean, no trend residual temperature (in order not to confuse anomalies with actual standardized temperature, the anomaly measurement unit is written here as ° instead of °C).
Consequences of the CO2 Temperature Proxy
The actual temperature is the sum of the modelled Temperature and the residual Temperature. Due to the fact, therefore, that the linear carbon sink model depends on CO2 concentration, the dependence on that part of the temperature, which is a linear function of CO2 concentration, is attributed to CO2 concentration.
In the case of temperature dependence, therefore we can only expect to see the dependence on the residual temperature, which is zero mean and has no trend. This corresponds to Roy Spencer’s observation that much of the short-term carbon sink variability is explained by El Niño, which is closely related to the residual global temperature. Nevertheless, this is an actual temperature dependency, hidden by the collinearity of CO2 concentration and temperature, but reconstructable by means of the measurable effect of the residual temperature.
Figure 4 shows that the residual global (sea surface) temperature does indeed explain much of the short term variability of the measurable sink effect. The smoothed sink residual is now mostly close to 0, with exception of the time around the Pinatubo eruption (after 1990), which is the most dominant not-accounted-for signal after application of the model extended by temperature.
The coefficient for the effect on the yearly sink from temperature is -2.9 ppm/°. This is quite large, considering, that the total yearly sink effect, which includes both concentration and temperature is currently 0.018*(420-280) ppm = 2.5 ppm. It also implies, that increasing temperature reduces the sink effect, which means, that increasing temperatures either reduce natural absorptions or increase natural emissions (or both).
Before drawing false conclusions, it must be stated, that the temperature effect on the carbon sink is cancelled by the increasing sink effect from concentration, for the time while temperature and concentration are correlated as they have been during the last 65 years.
Figure 4. Improved modelling of measured sink effects by including residual sea surface temperature time series in the sink model in addition to CO2 concentration time series. The smoothed residual is further evaluated for identifying contingent events such as the consequences of the Pinatubo outbreak after 1990, which caused a temporary boost in photosynthesis. its actual sink effect is taken from the residual value, masked over the time where the smoothed residual exceeds the noise threshold.
When the temperature effect on sinks is so large and negative, we are forced to assume, that the concentration-related assumed “true” annual absorption rate is 4.36%, thus considerably more than the 1.83% of the simple linear model. (The exact calculations are in the original paper). The higher absorption is compensated by temperature-dependent emissions, the annual base level of which (13.6 ppm) is also much larger than the 5.2 ppm of the simple linear model. This extended model therefore reflects both the downwelling absorption in cold oceans as well as the upwelling emission in the warm oceans.
An important question is whether we have any indication that this rather high absorption rate can be justified by measurements. Due to the nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s, which stopped in 1963, we have a close-to-ideal identifiable carbon emission pulse that has been thoroughly investigated for more than 40 years. The resulting decreasing atmospheric 14𝐶-concentration shows, over a 30-year time period, that the contributing absorption sink processes exhibit an undistorted exponential decay of a first order linear differential equation. The decay time of the resulting concentration curve has been determined to be 15 years, implying a yearly downwelling rate of 1/15≈6.7%. Although a small part (<0.5%/year) of the 14𝐶 concentration reduction in the atmosphere is due to the dilution effect of concentration increase through anthropogenic emissions, this indeed confirms that a yearly absorption rate of 4.36% is plausible.
Reconstruction of CO2 concentration from the sink model
The model reconstruction of the concentration time series is now using a sink term containing temperature as well as concentration ((equation (18) in the paper).
The reconstruction is done by computing the modelled concentration growth from the difference of anthropogenic emissions and the modelled sink effect. From an initially known concentration value at the beginning of the time series all following concentration values are recursively computed using the modelled concentration growth. This evaluation is shown for the reconstruction in Figure 5.
The reconstruction only deviates around 1990 due to the missing sink contribution from the Pinatubo eruption, but follows the shape of the measured concentration curve precisely. This is an indication that the model using concentration and temperature is better suited to reconstruct the CO2 concentration than the simple sink model using only concentration. For compensating the deviations after 1990, the sink effect due to Pinatubo must be considered. It is introduced as a negative emission signal, i.e., an additional sink pulse into the recursive modelling (violet graph in Figure 4).
Figure 5. Reconstruction of measured CO2 concentration, measured with ppm, by extended sink model including dependency on CO2 concentration time series and sea surface temperature time series. Note that after 1990 the measured concentration decreases by a fixed amount caused by the Pinatubo eruption.
This reduces the deviations of the model from the measured concentration significantly according to the green graph in Figure 5. And the understanding of the processes shaping concentration is enhanced. Nevertheless, the model overestimates the CO2 concentration slightly after 2005. It looks that if natural sinks have a trend at all, it must be a trend to increase the sink effect in recent years rather than saturation.
Consequences of the Temperature Dependent Model
The concentration-dependent absorption parameter is now in fact more than twice as large as the original absorption parameter of the temperature independent model, and increasing temperature increases natural emissions. When temperature correlates with CO2 concentration, the two trends cancel each other out, and the total sink effect appears to be invariant with respect to temperature.
The extended model becomes relevant when temperature and CO2 concentration diverge.
If temperature rises faster than according to the described CO2 proxy relation, then we can expect a reduced sink effect, while with temperatures below the expected value of the CO2 proxy the sink effect will increase. We are therefore interested in situations, where there were no anthropogenic emissions as a contributing factor to CO2 concentration.
A Computational Model for the Vostok Ice Core Data
The Vostok ice core data provide a more than 400,000-year view into climate history, with several cycles between ice ages and warm periods.
Most researchers agree that CO2 data are lagging temperature data by several centuries. One difficulty arises from the necessity that CO2 is measured in gas bubbles, whereas temperature is determined from a deuterium proxy in the ice. Therefore, there is a different way of determining the age for the two parameters — for CO2, there is a “gas age”, whereas the temperature series is assigned an “ice age”. There are estimates of how much older the “ice age” is in comparison to the gas age. But there is uncertainty, so we expect the need to tune the time shift between the two time series.
In 2005, several teams made attempts to provide models of the Vostok data. There was no clear final result. There was not even full agreement about the causality question between temperature and CO2 concentration, although seven of the eight teams preferred temperature to be the cause of CO2 concentration changes, rather than the other way round.
It is difficult to assess the quality of their CO2 reconstruction from the provided figures, and no statistical quality assessment is given. From the description, it can be assumed that only the team proposing CO2 to be the cause of temperature changes used a similar model to the one used for investigating the current climate.
Preprocessing the Vostok Data Sets
In order to perform model-based computations with the two data sets, the original data must be converted into equally sampled data sets. This is done by means of linear interpolation. The sampling interval is chosen as 100 years, which is approximately the sampling interval of the temperature data set. Apart from this, the data sets must be reversed, and the sign of the time axis must be set to negative values. The two re-sampled data sets are shown superimposed in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Resampled Vostok temperature anomalies time series, measured in °, and CO2 concentration time series data, measured in ppm.
Data Model
Due to the good modelling quality of the temperature-dependent sink model for current emissions, concentration, and temperature data, we will use the same model based on CO2 mass balance, and the possible linear dependence of CO2 growth on CO2 concentration and temperature, but obviously without any anthropogenic emissions. Also, the time unit is no longer a single year, but a century.
After estimating the three parameters, which are predicting the sink effect, concentration dependence, temperature dependence and a constant by means of ordinary least squares, the modelled CO2 data are recursively reconstructed by means of this model.
Reconstructed CO2 Data from Temperature
The standard deviation of the difference between the measured and the reconstructed CO2 concentration data measures the quality of the reconstruction. This standard deviation is minimized, when the temperature data is shifted 1450–1500 years to the past as displayed in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Measured model error as a function of time shift between earlier Vostok temperature time series and the later Vostok CO2 time series.
The corresponding estimated model results in a carbon sink effect of 1.3% of the concentration per century and a natural emission increase of 0.18 ppm per century from a 1 degree temperature increase. These are very small effects. Nevertheless, the reconstruction of CO2 data from the temperature-extended sink model looks quite remarkable, as displayed in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Reconstruction of Vostok CO2 concentration time series from temperature time series by means extended linear model.
The quality of reconstruction and the clear time-shift based error minimum are quite strong arguments for temperature changes being the cause of CO2 concentration changes rather than the other way round. But even today ice core data are used to motivate high CO2 sensitivity of 5 degrees or more.
Even if we tentatively accept CO2 being causal for temperature changes, the ice core argument has a big problem. Fact is, that the CO2 concentration range of the ice core data is between 200 ppm and 280 ppm, i.e. the factor between the maximum and the minimum is approximately 1.4. It is also a fact that since before the industrialization when concentration was 280 and today with a concentration of 420 ppm the factor is 1.5, and the temperature change is approximately 1.2 degrees. It is inconceivable therefore that such extreme temperature changes as between the ice ages were caused by such small CO2 concentration changes. The high sensitivity argument based on ice cores is therefore disqualified.
Conclusions
The apparent inconsistency between the sensitivity of the sink effects to short term temperature variations but invariance with respect to temperature trends has been resolved by identifying the collinearity between temperature trends and CO2 concentration. During the last 65 years the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration has been very high. Consequently, all temperature trend dependence has been attributed to CO2 concentration in the original linear model. By evaluating the measured data with a model, where the residual temperature is added, the actual temperature dependence can be measured. By this procedure, the model is extended to become truly temperature-dependent. Further research is needed to validate the results of the extended model with other measurements.
The temperature-enhanced model also reproduces nicely the CO2 concentrations of the Vostok ice core data series. As a side effect, this confirms that in paleo-climate data series, temperature leads CO2 concentration.
With recent data, where there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, the temperature trend dependence is balanced; therefore, we have to accept that currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration, while temperature effectively only adds some zero-mean variability.
The Earth is not a runaway Hot World and getting hotter because, ‘absorption parameter is now in fact more than twice as large as the original absorption parameter of the temperature independent model.’ In other words, the world getting greener is a good thing.
Global warming alarmists’ prediction of desertification as a result of modernity’s CO2 releases into the atmosphere is a Leftist ‘wet dream’ of Western academia that never happened.
‘The theoretical framework results in excellent agreement with real-world data on carbon dioxide concentration. The atmosphere appears to behave as a linear reservoir in terms of the atmospheric CO2, whose exchange is clearly dominated by the biosphere processes, with human emissions playing a minor role… in contrast to the results of complex climate models, which are shown to be inconsistent with reality… mean residence time of atmospheric CO2 is about four years, and the mean response time is smaller than that, thus contradicting the mainstream estimates, which suggest times of hundreds or thousands of years, or even longer.’ ~Demetris Koutsoyiannis, ‘Refined Reservoir Routing (RRR) and Its Application to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Balance,’ 26Aug24
where there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, the temperature trend dependence is balanced; therefore, we have to accept that currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration,
NO, We Do Not Have To Accept That Correlation is Causation!
Correlation over a short term when there are many examples that the correlations were not the same, there were anti correlations and lags in correlations.
NO, We Do Not Have To Accept That Correlation is Causation!!!!!
Even the short-term correlation is suspect as I have shown on WUWT. During the 2020 COVID shutdowns, the decline in anthropogenic emissions got as high as 14-18% in April. Yet, there is no obvious difference in the shape or peak of the seasonal ramp-up phase from either the previous or subsequent year at a monthly resolution.
Right! The alarmists fail to recognize that the CO2 steady trend upward since 1840 has been associated with multi-year stretches of declining global temperatures. And that global CO2 now is close to the lowest in the last 500 million years – 8,000 ppm at that time, 4,ooo ppm at the start of the late-Ordovician Ice Age, 1800 ppm for the dinosaurs.
Indeed, the natural experiments have been done: During the depression years 1929-1931, when human CO2 production declined 30%, CO2 continued its languid rise unchanged.
Fluctuations in our ~4% addition annually to the atmospheric contributions have not made the slightest difference in the languid rise of CO2 over the last 180 years. Our contribution began to be measurable in 1880, while the escape from the LIA – followed by a gradual rise in CO2 level – began before 1840. We note no effect on CO2 rise for 1929-1931 and for 2020, despite our decreases in output (30% in 1929-1931 and perhaps 17% of a much higher production in 2020). That latter greatly disappointed Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny who, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment: “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry (that 17% drop in output) might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.”
Cerveny is also seemingly unaware of the exponential decline in CO2’s GHG effect, discovered by Arrhenius, and the math is now correct. The next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by around 2%. Also no effect from WWII and postwar production. Its insignificance is clear in the exponential decay of the GHG effect of CO2, 50% in the first 20 ppm, first discovered by Arrhenius, and now the math is correct. The next doubling of CO2 to 800 will increase its GHG effect, in theory, by less than 3% (MODTRAN at U of Chicago).
Fluctuations in our ~4% addition annually to the atmospheric contributions have not made the slightest difference in the languid rise of CO2 over the last 180 years. Our contribution began to be measurable in 1880, while the escape from the LIA – followed by a gradual rise in CO2 level – began before 1840. We note no effect on CO2 rise for 1929-1931 and for 2020, despite our decreases in output (30% in 1929-1931 and perhaps 17% of a much higher production in 2020). That latter greatly disappointed Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny who, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment: “We had had some hopes that, with last year’s COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry (that 17% drop in output) might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we’re seeing is, frankly, it has not.”
Cerveny was also seemingly unaware of the exponential decline in CO2’s GHG effect, discovered by Arrhenius, and the math is now correct. The next doubling of CO2 to 800 will increase its GHG effect, in theory, by less than 3% (MODTRAN at U of Chicago).
Humans emit a bit more than 4% of the total annual contribution to atmospheric CO2, about 33 GT. Nature emits ~726 gigatonnes of carbon, and absorbs ~744. So Nature absorbs 18 more Gt than it emits. And leaves behind only the human-generated? And that 33-18=15Gt. That, added to the 726, has some effect on the vector of the major forcings, with CO2 currently not anywhere near dominant among the 8 major forcings? And how accurate is our estimation of our contribution, considering that natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. The Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. And the natural carbon sinks also increase in response to the atmospheric increase – not just landplants but the ocean’s coccolithophores and algae and others.
Darn! my editing was unfinished and I don’t see an option here to edit it.
You have completely misunderstood my argumentation. Nowhere do I state or make use of CO2 being the cause of temperature. It is only the historical fact of correlation, which obscures the temperature dependence.
All I am saying, as long as CO2 and temperature are correlated as they have been for 70 years, a part of the concentration caused sinks are compensated by temperature dependent natural emissions, so that the effective end result appears temperature independent.
Joachim … thanks for sharing your findings. I’m not a scientist, but I found the last paragraph in your post above …
> With recent data, where there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, the temperature trend dependence is balanced; therefore, we have to accept that currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration, while temperature effectively only adds some zero-mean variability.
… a bit cumbersome. It seemed almost (if I could say) contradictory. Of course, that maybe due to my scientific misunderstanding. Yet, with your reply to pope and Clyde above, maybe you might want to reconsider some editing, if just for clarity.
Bill, Joachim,
I have previously accused Bill of wanting to create uncertainty where there was none, and so I wholeheartedly agree here with his request for clarity. How about, Joachim, you change “we have to accept that currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration” to “there is no way in hell that human emissions are not the cause of atmospheric CO2 rise in the last 70 years.” After all, the whole paper is about natural SINKS.
popesclimatetheory wrote, “NO, We Do Not Have To Accept That Correlation is Causation!”
But we do need to accept that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
To be precise, 1 ppmv CO2 = 7.8024 Gt CO2 = 2.1294 PgC. So adding 7.8024 Gt of CO2 to the atmosphere increases the average atmospheric CO2 concentration by exactly 1 ppmv.
Based on GCB 2023 v1.1, over the 10 year period 2013-2022, inclusive, mankind added an average of 4.62 ppmv/year of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere (36.0 Gt/yr). That estimate is from economic data, and it’s pretty solid; I’d guesstimate probably within ±10%.
GCP also estimates that “land use changes” (clearing forests, draining swamps, etc.) added an average of 0.60 ppmv/year of non-fossil CO2 to the atmosphere, but that estimate is pretty rough.
But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by an average of only 2.42 ppmv/year (18.9 Gt/year).
Or, if you compare average Mauna Loa CO2 level in 2012 to 2022, which is similar to using six month earlier data, you’ll find an almost identical average increase of 2.45 ppmv/year:
https://sealevel.info/co2_2012-2022_2.45_ppmv_per_yr_zoomed.png
If you count “land use change” effects as part of natural CO2 fluxes, that means Nature (the net sum of all natural sinks and sources) removed an average of (4.62-2.42) = 2.20 ppmv per year. If you count “land use change” effects as human emissions, then that means Nature removed an average of 2.80 ppmv per year.
That’s called a “mass balance” calculation, and it proves that Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it.
During La Niña there are strong plankton blooms, as evidenced by the Peruvian anchovy fishery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_anchoveta
It seems that for the growth of fish-beneficial phytoplankton, a sea surface temperature of 10 to about 25 C is best. In warmer waters, toxic cyanobacteria can thrive.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
The following map of CO2 near the surface shows the effect of the growing season on CO2 levels. In China, for example, where there has been a lot of rain, CO2 levels have dropped noticeably. The highest levels are now in southern South America and Africa, where temperatures are low and rainfall is lacking.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/08/25/1500Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular=-134.69,-0.14,193/loc=111.387,26.033
Currently, a major problem is the temperature of the troposphere, which clearly reduces the amount of precipitation. This is a rather unusual phenomenon that should be analyzed by scientists. At the same time, the temperature near the surface at the equator is not increasing.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
There is a nice way to distinguish between oceans and biosphere for the uptake/release of natural CO2 in the atmosphere: if the δ13C changes parallel the CO2 changes or there is little change, then the CO2 changes are mainly caused by the oceans, while if they oppose each other, the biosphere is responsible.
That shows that for the short-term variability (seasonal, 1-3 years) vegetation is the dominant factor, while for the long term changes (decades to millennia), the oceans are the main factor.
Here for the short term variability:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
And here for the long-term changes:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_d13C_lgm_cur.png
The latter shows a small change of δ13C over the last glacial maximum with some 90 ppmv CO2 change up to the Holocene and over the whole Holocene up to where fossil emissions caused an enormous drop in δ13C.
That all shows that the short term variability is mainly caused by variability in uptake/release from the biosphere, while the long term changes are mainly caused by ocean surface temperatures.|
The latter didn’t (and don’t) give more that about 16 ppmv/°C change over the past 420,000 years in the Vostok ice core with a “speed” of 0.02 ppmv/year during a deglaciation. Not comparable with the 130 ppmv in only 170 years of the recent past, mainly caused by the over 200 ppmv fossil emissions…
Ferdinand, for studying causality I computed the coherent frequency response between [CO2] and temperature. This has the potential to distinguish different processes as well. In the phase plot the oceans follow the 0.5 year delay line which shows that [CO2] lags temperature. There appears to be different process at a frequency of 0.75 yr^-1, and then there’s the annual process at 1 yr^-1. [CO2] still lags temperature for those processes, but by a much shorter time period.
The upper traces shows the sensitivity. Over ten-year periods, the sensitivity is 4.9 ppm/°C.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Thanks a lot for this interesting next step of investigation, and for confirming the finding of 16 ppm/°C for the VOSTOK data. I am curious to find out how the current equilibrium of 66 ppm/°C can be explained (I wrote about this in the MDPI paper). Have you written an article or blog about this, and do you have a data source for the 13C time series (I don’t find it in the Scripps CO2 Program)
Doesn’t “finding of 16 ppm/°C for the VOSTOK data” vs “the current equilibrium of 66 ppm/°C” just means that the later is not yet in a “natural equilibrium”?
If we were to cut the anthropogenic contribution to zero right now, the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere should fall quickly with limited changes to the temperature-
there might be some “delayed warming in the pipe” and the reduced CO2 amount will shift the radiative balance, but the ppm/°C-ratio should come down fast.
Regarding CO2 isotopes and human vs natural sources see Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age by Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)
My synopsis
https://rclutz.com/2024/03/20/humans-add-little-to-rising-co2-march-2024/
Pingback: Extension of the linear carbon sink model – temperature matters - Climate- Science.press
Re: ‘Vostok data’
What part of ‘CO2 is a harmless chemical’ is not understood? An example of Leftist AGW alarmist productivity is to apply more and more controls to individuals’ access to energy to create more and more economic slaves. There would be no humanity without global warming and CO2. The past 650,000 years of the Earth’s geological history as embodied in the Vostok ice cores tell us that current atmospheric levels of atmospheric CO2 is actually at a low point Earth history.
Dr. Will Happer’s testimony before the U.S. Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
Having testified to the same Senators as Will, I have a duty to remark that Congressional testimony no more establishes scientific certitude than any other sort of hearsay, and that anyone who insists otherwise is talking through their that.
Dr. Will Happer’s testimony before the U.S. Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
So low in fact that even today :
“the gate to hell at the ancient city of Hierapolis, in modern-day Turkey, is a…small cavelike grotto… topped by a temple …in one of the region’s most geologically active areas; 2200 years ago, its thermal springs were believed to have great healing powers. But… The gate—also known as the Plutonium, for Pluto, the god of the underworld—is built directly above it… Birds that fly too close suffocate and die.
Pfanz and his colleagues measured the CO2 concentration in the arena over time. During the day, the sun’s warmth dissipates the gas. But at night the gas—slightly heavier than air—billows out and forms a CO2 “lake”… particularly deadly at dawn, when the CO2 concentration 40 centimeters above the arena floor reaches 35%, enough to asphyxiate and kill animals or even people within a few minutes”
https://www.science.org/content/article/roman-gate-hell-killed-its-victims-cloud-deadly-carbon-dioxide
I certainly agree with your conclusion! But forgive me for “picking a couple of nits.”
Re: “…on that part of the temperature, which is a linear function of CO2 concentration…”
No part of temperature is a linear function of CO2 concentration. Additional CO2 has a logarithmically diminishing radiative forcing.
(The effect on temperature of radiative forcing also diminishes as temperature rises, because radiative cooling accelerates with the 4th power of absolute temperature, but that diminishment is minimal because the temperature changes are so slight.)
(Aside: we should not be surprised that as global/average temperatures rise, the Earth’s climates become more stable, rather than less — to the consternation of “tipping point” theorists.)
Re: “The coefficient for the effect on the yearly sink from temperature is -2.9 ppm/°. This is quite large…”
The temperature dependence of Henry’s Law tells us that for each 1°C water temperature increase we get about a 3% reduction in air-to-ocean CO2 flux.
https://sealevel.info/CO2_solubility_in_water_vs_temperature_showing_effect_of_1C_warming4.png
However, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 50%, which causes a 50% acceleration in air-to-ocean CO2 flux. So, although short duration ENSO-driven variations in sea-surface temperatures do, indeed, cause noticeable variations in atmospheric CO2 level, over the long term the effect of temperature on CO2 level is very slight. That supports your conclusion that, “currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration, while temperature effectively only adds some zero-mean variability.”
Re: “The decay time of the resulting [14C bomb spike] concentration curve has been determined to be 15 years…”
When the Limited Test Ban Treaty went into effect, exchanges with the oceans and other carbon reservoirs replaced atmospheric CO2 containing elevated radiocarbon with “normal” concentration 14C.
Additionally, the atmospheric CO2 level was by then rising by nearly 1 ppmv/year (due to additions of about 1.3 ppmv/yr from fossil fuel emissions, plus between 0.5 and 1.0 ppmv/yr from land use change effects, less about 1 ppmv due to removals by natural carbon sinks). The “fossil carbon” is depleted of 14C, so “Suess Effect” dilution also lowered Δ14C.
As a result of the combined effects of those two processes, the Δ14C bomb spike declined with a half-life of about 11 years. At first blush, that would appear to make the atmospheric lifetime 11/ln(2) = about 16 years.
However, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by burning fossil fuels) reduces Δ14C without actually removing it from the air, it only reduces the fraction of carbon which is in the form of 14C. To calculate the actual average atmospheric lifetime of 14C added to the atmosphere by the bomb spike, we need to consider, instead, what the Δ14C decay rate would have been, were it not for Suess Effect dilution from fossil fuel use. Graven (2020) conducted simulations with a simple carbon cycle model, and reported a striking difference between the calculated 14CO2 decay with and without fossil fuel CO2 supply, as shown in their Figure 4:
https://sealevel.info/14C/Graven2020_Fig4_250pct.png
Dr. Graven graciously sent me their data, from which I constructed a log-linear plot:
https://sealevel.info/Graven2020_nofossil_logscale_1970-1995_annot4.png
As you can see, the average atmospheric lifetime of “bomb spike” radiocarbon was nearly 21 years. (Call it “about 20.”)
“therefore, we have to accept that currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration, while temperature effectively only adds some zero-mean variability”
I don’t agree with this, after once thinking your model had promise, maybe some of it does.
In the following image the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 data is decomposed into yearly rising and sinking phases for each ‘carbon dioxide year’ since 1959, Oct-Sept, into a timeseries for each phase, as shown, including an annual net. My carbon dioxide year annual net CO2 plot looks a little different than the ones published by Scripps & NOAA due to this ‘year’ difference, but all data is accounted for.
In this analysis, it is assumed the annual man-made CO2 emissions (MME) sink at the same sinking rate of 80.8% for the average annual carbon dioxide year, as shown, ~=(1-.0066/.0346). Based on this assumption, the net ML rate is growing at a 2.5X faster rate than the net MME rate, ~=.028/.0111, indicating natural sources of CO2 are outstripping the MME growth handily.
https://i.postimg.cc/nzXVj5zw/Rising-Sinking-and-Net-ML-CO2-and-Annual-MME-in-ppm.png
“why and how are sources or sinks dependent on El Niño?”
El Niño arises from higher tropical Pacific ocean heat content, which has a significant lagged effect on ML CO2 anomalies due to both marine biology and surface solubility temperature dependence:
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt1tyQJ5/CCF-of-12ma-Chg-in-Eq-OHC-anomaly-vs-12ma-Chg-in-ML-CO2-anomaly.png
The main driver of ML CO2 growth has been ocean outgassing due to higher ocean temperatures and the growth of the ocean warm area ≥25.6°C, the nominal CO2 SST outgassing threshold:
https://i.postimg.cc/gkGnpM1g/CO2-Outgassing-Model.png
Bob,
Yes, higher sea surface temperatures lead to CO2 outgassing, all else being equal. But there is a competing effect: rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations push carbon the other way: from the atmosphere to the oceans. Which of these opposing processes dominates? In other words, what is the direction of the global, time- averaged net flux of carbon between land/sea reservoirs and the atmosphere, excluding human emissions? Is it towards the atmosphere or away from it? That would be tough to calculate pixel by pixel, seaon by season. But a conservation law gives a definitive answer. You don’t mention it, but I trust you know that human emissions, say in Gtonnes/yr are about 2x the atmospheric carbon increase in the same units. That means that the atmosphere is losing about half the carbon put there by human emissions. Carbon conservation then says there is no doubt that the global time averaged carbon flux is AWAY FROM the atmosphere. How then can you say that natural processes have caused the increase, when natural processes are removing carbon from the atmosphere?
(The correlations between temperature and CO2 rise that you note are limited to roughly annual modulations of the sink. On a decadal time scale, the correlation between human emissions and CO2 rise are solidly correlated.)
David, my interest is strictly in variations in CO2 concentrations that correlate with changes in temperature. That’s why I used coherent averaging. If a source or sink is not temperature related (either driving temperature, or being driven by temperature), then it’s effect on the frequency response is diminished with an increasing number of averages.
My result, which confirms what others have shown, clearly shows that temperature drives CO2 on decadal time scales. If it didn’t the phase would be positive at some frequency. Also, while the sensitivity increases with longer periods (lower frequency), the delay remains unchanged. I used a number of different analysis techniques on the data, but couldn’t detect any changes in temperature that correlated to changes in anthropogenic emissions.
Finally, I’ve made no claim that temperature accounts for all of the changes in CO2 concentrations.
This is a valid argument – since the carbon surplus by human emissions (let’s say beginning of 20th century) the natural reservoirs ocean and biosphere are strict carbon sinks. After finding out that temperature increase increases natural emissions (by 2.9 ppm/°C per year) it became clear that they are offset by the same amount due to the sink effect caused CO2 concentration increase. As I point out in the paper, the connection is provided by the linear relation between temperature and concentration. I don’t need to know the causality between the two, the compensation is a matter of linear algebra.
Coming back to my original statement which caused this discussion. When you assume temperature independence, then the current concentration is caused by human emssions, with a yearly 2% (of concentration) sink effect. When you assume temperature dependent natural emissions, then the current concentration is still caused by human emissions, but the postulated sink effect is appr. 4.5% compensated by 2.5% temperature caused natural emissions. The good news is that the sink effect is 2% larger than the natural emissions. This is what I mean when I say that at the end of the day human emissions have caused the current concentration.
Robert Cutler,
You have not addressed my main point. Do you agree that on annual time scales and longer, for the last 70 years or more, natural processes have removed carbon from the atmosphere rather than adding to it? That being the case, I believe the anthropogenic source of decadal scale atmospheric CO2 increase is clear.
Joachim Dengler | August 27, 2024 at 7:45 am |
“””This is a valid argument – since the carbon surplus by human emissions (let’s say beginning of 20th century) the natural reservoirs ocean and biosphere are strict carbon sinks.”””
Here, you seem to make a statement about many different things.
For example the upwelling water in the arctic is definitely not a carbon sink and will not be in the near future.
Or would you agree that the CO2 transported by the golf stream (mostly dissolved into it´s ionic form) is part of the global carbon cycle?
How was this amount affected by the end of the little ice age?
You seem to imply that it is constant, seems ignorant to me.
In order to evaluate your conclusions, it would help it you had an article with text, sources and precise description of how you do the calculations.
While I come to a similar (even larger) value of 2.9 ppm/°C for “outgassing” (I don’t call it like that because there may be other temperature dependent effect, e.g. from the biological carbon cycle), this explains in the “best case” half of the CO2 concentration rise — in my MDPI paper there is the equilibrium calculation with 66 ppm/°C, but only 12 ppm/°C when I use the VOSTOK ice core data. You may want to look into Ferdinand Engelbeens comment here, he suggests that only the 12 ppm/°C can be reliably attributed to the ocean outgassing.
You may also want to look into my forthcoming answer to David Andrews below.
Joachim, you said, “(I don’t call it like that because there may be other temperature dependent effect, e.g. from the biological carbon cycle)”
Yes, bacterial decomposition is going to be temperature sensitive (probably non-linear) and respiration from boreal tree roots (rarely mentioned) is also going to be temperature sensitive. There is more going on than out-gassing.
Something to take note of is that while your “sinking” phase has a greater absolute slope than the “rising” phase, it is of shorter duration. As it gets warmer on Earth, the two annual bounding killing frosts get farther apart in time. Thus, it can be expected that given enough time the two phases will have equal effect and warming will stop.
I agree with your conclusion, Joachim! But please forgive me for “picking a couple of nits.”
Re: “…on that part of the temperature, which is a linear function of CO2 concentration…”
No part of temperature is a linear function of CO2 concentration. Additional CO2 has a logarithmically diminishing radiative forcing.
(The effect on temperature of radiative forcing also diminishes as temperature rises, because radiative cooling accelerates with the 4th power of absolute temperature, but that diminishment is minimal because the temperature changes are so slight.)
(Aside: we should not be surprised that as global/average temperatures rise, the Earth’s climates become more stable, rather than less — to the consternation of “tipping point” theorists.)
Re: “The coefficient for the effect on the yearly sink from temperature is -2.9 ppm/°. This is quite large…”
The temperature dependence of Henry’s Law tells us that for each 1°C water temperature increase we get about a 3% reduction in air-to-ocean CO2 flux.
https://sealevel.info/CO2_solubility_in_water_vs_temperature_showing_effect_of_1C_warming4.png
However, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 50%, which causes a 50% acceleration in air-to-ocean CO2 flux. So, although short duration ENSO-driven variations in sea-surface temperatures do, indeed, cause noticeable variations in atmospheric CO2 level, over the long term the effect of temperature on CO2 level is very slight. That supports your conclusion that, “currently the anthropogenic emissions are the main visible driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration, while temperature effectively only adds some zero-mean variability.”
Re: “The decay time of the resulting [14C bomb spike] concentration curve has been determined to be 15 years…”
When the Limited Test Ban Treaty went into effect, exchanges with the oceans and other carbon reservoirs replaced atmospheric CO2 containing elevated radiocarbon with “normal” concentration 14C.
Additionally, the atmospheric CO2 level was by then rising by nearly 1 ppmv/year (due to additions of about 1.3 ppmv/yr from fossil fuel emissions, plus between 0.5 and 1.0 ppmv/yr from land use change effects, less about 1 ppmv due to removals by natural carbon sinks). The “fossil carbon” is depleted of 14C, so “Suess Effect” dilution also lowered Δ14C.
As a result of the combined effects of those two processes, the Δ14C bomb spike declined with a half-life of about 11 years. At first blush, that would appear to make the atmospheric lifetime 11/ln(2) = about 16 years.
However, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by burning fossil fuels) reduces Δ14C without actually removing it from the air, it only reduces the fraction of carbon which is in the form of 14C. To calculate the actual average atmospheric lifetime of 14C added to the atmosphere by the bomb spike, we need to consider, instead, what the Δ14C decay rate would have been, were it not for Suess Effect dilution from fossil fuel use. Graven (2020) conducted simulations with a simple carbon cycle model, and reported a striking difference between the calculated 14CO2 decay with and without fossil fuel CO2 supply, as shown in their Figure 4:
https://sealevel.info/14C/Graven2020_Fig4_250pct.png
Dr. Graven graciously sent me their data, from which I constructed a log-linear plot:
https://sealevel.info/Graven2020_nofossil_logscale_1970-1995_annot4.png
As you can see, the average atmospheric lifetime of “bomb spike” radiocarbon was nearly 21 years. (Call it “about 20.”)
@Dave Burton
Let me answer one issue at a time.
You may have noticed, that I never refer to climate sensitivity. Actually in the context of this evaluation I don‘t care whether there is any climate effect of CO2 or not, even less how it works in detail.
All what I am doing is a mathematical decomposition of temperature into 2 components: One which is linear dependent on CO2 and the other which it not. No one can prevent me from doing such a decomposition.
The point of my paper is the conclusion that the effect of the linear dependent temperature component cannot be distinguished from an effect of CO2 concentration. The second component by definition is zero mean and without trend. Therefore it can only detect zero mean effects without trend.
Others like Roy Spencer have found this effect and interpreted it as CO2 growth being dependent on El Niño.
For me as a physicist El Niño actually means temperature. Therefore I took the bold step to say that there must be a „hidden“ temperature component linearly dependent on concentration, with all the consequences you find in the paper.
@Dave Burton
Regarding your interpretation of the temperature coefficient being related to Henry‘s law: I have not yet made any attribution to a specific effect. When you claim, that temperature has only short term effects, I‘d like to know how you justify such a claim.
For me the details of temperature influence on the carbon cycle are an open field.
My point was not that temperature has only short term effects on CO2 level, but that the long term effects of temperature on CO2 level are quantifiable and very small compared to the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
#1. That is clear from the temperature dependence of Henry’s Law (only -3% per +1°C, compared to +50% from the 50% increase on atmospheric CO2 concentration).
#2. We can also see it in the ice core measurements of past CO2 levels, compared to estimated past temperature changes, over glaciation cycles.
We know from ice core data how CO2 level varied: at interglacial optimums it was about 90 ppmv higher than at glacial maximums (≈280 vs. ≈190 ppmv). Global average temperature estimates over glaciation cycles are rougher, but a conventional estimate is that at interglacial optimums global average temperatures were about 6°C higher than at glacial maximums (certainly between 5° and 10°C). So each 1°C of warming yielded, very roughly, an eventual (90/6) = 15 ppmv rise in CO2 level (though it took many centuries for CO2 level to change that much, and the CO2 level change probably wasn’t all due to temperature change, since ice sheet burial of carbon also probably contributed).
#3. We can also see it in the very modest CO2 level change which occurred when the Earth cooled from the MWP to the LIA. Here are Law Dome (Antarctic) ice core data going back to year 1010. Scroll down to “CO2, 75 Year Smoothed,” then keep scrolling. Watch CO2 levels climb to their peak of 284.1 ppmv circa 1170 (MWP), and fall to their lowest level of 275.3 ppmv circa 1615 (LIA):
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt
That’s a 8.8 ppmv CO2 decrease, from global cooling of perhaps 1°C.
15 ppmv (over thousands of years) and 8.8 ppmv (over 445 years) from about 1°C of temperature change are both obviously tiny compared to the >140 ppmv CO2 level increase we’ve seen since the “preindustrial” late Little Ice Age, over a shorter period of time, which accompanied a temperature increase which was probably not much more than 1°C.
P.S. — sorry about the duplicated comments; I was having trouble with WordPress’s spam filter.
@Dave Burton
Regarding the Suess effect dilution – thanks for the interesting reference, the 20 year time constant which you propose, implies a yearly decay rate of 5%, which comes even closer to the 4.4% from the temperature dependent model than my own estimate from a rough „back of the envelope“ calculation of the Suess effect dilution.
The table shows that humidity significantly affects the number of CO2 molecules in the air.
https://i.ibb.co/t3r2HC6/Screenshot-2024-08-27-07-32-56.png
No, humidity does not affect the number of CO2 molecules in the air. The table just shows that if you add 3.0928% water vapor (by molar fraction), then water vapor is 3.0000% of the atmosphere, and everything else in the atmosphere thereby drops to (97/100)× its old percentage.
(Note: molar fraction (µmol/mol), is nearly synonymous with ppmv, and is commonly reported as “ppmv” or “ppm.”)
So if nitrogen is 78.0900% of the dry atmosphere by molar fraction, then it becomes 75.7473% of atmosphere with 3% water vapor in the air. No nitrogen leaves the atmosphere, it’s just a smaller percentage of the total.
Likewise, if CO2 is 413 ppmv of dry air, then it is 400.61 ppmv of air with 3% water vapor.
Adding water vapor does not change the amount of any other gas in the atmosphere, but it does change the percentage. That’s why CO2 measurements are customarily reported as DRY molar fractions (µmol/mol).
No, it changes the number of CO2 particles from 413 to 400.61 These are not percentages. Of course, the percentage composition also changes, since the number of particles decreases.
Large amounts of rainfall significantly increase plant growth.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/08/27/1500Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2s c/equirectangular/loc=112.780,26.066
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/08/27/1500Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/patterson
Strictly speaking:
ppm (parts per million) – the number of parts per million, a designation used to express concentrations, among other things.
Thanks for the clarification. Water vapor may not change the absolute number of molecules, but it obviously changes the concentration. And in most calculations, concentration is relevant.
Do you have a formula for the dependency of CO2-concentration on water vapor concentration?
Over half of the Sahara desert receives less than 25mm (1 inch) of rainfall per year. Occasionally, more rainfall is found along the southern portions as the ITCZ shifts up and down. But a full on rainfall event across most of the desert is not something we see every year, or perhaps even every decade.
Below is the latest GFS model forecast for total rainfall in the next 16 days. What you see is rainfall covering a large part of the Saharan desert. The amounts might not look high, but if we consider the total yearly amount, many regions have a few years worth of rain in a few days.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/andrej-news/weather-forecast-rainfall-anomaly-sahara-event-extended-range-30-day-totals.png
These are from Judith’s twitter feed and with slight edits are too good to pass up.
“.. the renewable energy sector would not only be the largest consumer of its own energy output, but encompass the bulk of the British economy.”
“ Most climate policies do little
to prevent climate change”
A little reflection never hurt anyone.
And a little Twitter never hurt anyone. I just read there about a dramatic drop of SST. As DJT would say, stay tuned.
Kid … thought this might interest you from Andy May on sea level rise:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/08/04/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
Germany still struggles economically. Articles blame everything except high electricity prices. A glaring oversight considering some electricity-intensive industries there have shut down completely.
Nuclear Power from WSJ (free read): https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/biden-nuclear-power-plant-loan-michigan-eee64904?st=cnjhseujwkulfxr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I’ve been saying nuclear is the answer all along. I hope progress continues on SMRs, too. Those hold huge promise for powering remote industrial sites, like mining.
Wind and solar are more of a grid nuisance than anything else. They make the grid unmanageable and make power when you don’t need it and can’t store it.
The calculation starts with measurements of current total ozone amounts over the entire globe, obtained via two satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These data are used to produce a forecast of stratospheric ozone levels for the next day at many points across the country. A computer model uses the ozone forecast and the incident angle of sunlight at each point to calculate the strength of UV radiation at ground level. Sunlight angle is determined by latitude, day of year, and time of day (solar noon). The strength of UV radiation is calculated for several wavelengths between 280 and 400 nm, the full spectrum of UVB (280-314 nm) and UVA (315-400 nm) radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/M6BKPRH/uvi-map.png
Carbon C14 should be clearly distinguished from other carbon isotopes. C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by galactic radiation, which increases during periods of low solar activity. It persists quite long in the stratosphere, reacting with oxygen. However, since the CO2 molecule is heavier than O2 and N2, it eventually descends into the troposphere. Naturally, it descends to the tropopause and acquires a very low temperature, as does ozone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_NH_2024.png
Observations indicate that the global sea surface temperature is stable and increases during El Niño and decreases during La Niña.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Geoff,
If the real scientists at NOAA and Scripps were aware of your “findings,” I’m pretty sure they, like I, would disagree with you. But then, they probably don’t consider WUWT a valid source for scientific analyses.
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/behind_the_scenes/callab.html
The Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations are again used here as if they have little uncertainty.
This is quite wrong.
There is substantial culling, perhaps “cherry picking” of the Mauna Loa analyses.
Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago.
Nobody has disagreed with my findings.
They reflect the realities of analystical chemistry experience as oposed to wishful ambition for pure data.
Geoff S
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/20/sorry-but-hard-science-is-not-done-this-way/
Sherro01
If you are trying to argue that data uncertainties compromise the conclusion that Net Global Uptake is solidly positive for the period 1960-2010, you are on thin ice. Read Ballantyne, A. P. Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P., 2012: Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years, Nature, vol 488 pp 70-72. doi:10.1038/nature11299. Rather than Mauna Loa data, they use CO2 concentration data from a network of approximately 40 marine boundary sites (the NOAA/ESRL flask network). The uncertainty quoted considers sampling errors. They use emission data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, BP, and the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.
Their results, which I have posted before, are
Cumulative Human Emissions 350 +- 29 PgC
Atmospheric Accumulation 158 +-2 PgC
Hence by subtraction, Net Global Uptake from 1960 to 2010 was 192 +- 29PgC.
There is a small industry of skeptics trying to show that natural processes are the source of atmospheric CO2 rise. None of them seem aware of the fact that natural processes are, on balance, known to be removing carbon from the atmosphere with a six standard deviation confidence level. That is why Joachim, like Ballantyne et al., are studying the behavior of the sinks, to help with the projection of future atmospheric carbon levels.
David Andrews,
It is rather obvious that my comments have little to do with your comments, but congratulations to you for the fervour and your strong beliefs that they infer.
Sometimes I feel that climate change research is being retarded by the advocacy from so many people who merely repeat the favoured message instead of researching it and then commenting only if something new has been found.
Geoff S
David Andrews,
Your comment has little to do with mine, but I congratulate you for pushing a line borrowed from others, with fervour and belief.
Sometimes I feel that climate research is set back by the many repeaters of the favoured story when original research is more valuable. Geoff S
Sherro01,
Previously you wrote: “The Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations are again used here as if they have little uncertainty. This is quite wrong. There is substantial culling, perhaps “cherry picking” of the Mauna Loa analyses.” In case you were genuinely worried about the Mauna Loa data, I gave you a definitive analysis that corroborated the fact that natural processes were removing carbon from the atmosphere between 1960 and 2010, not adding it, without using Mauna Loa data. They still are, and the uncertainties are small. My comment had everything to do with your attempt to muddy the waters.
You are correct that I have not personally advanced climate science. I have only pointed out errors made by skeptics, and that has not been hard to do. (I started as a skeptic myself, looking for errors in the mainstream narrative, but that is not where I found the errors.) The difference between my approach and most skeptics, is that I try to understand the mainstream argument before trashing it.
You are a skeptic. Perhaps you can demonstrate your understanding of the mainstream science you disparage by answering the following two simple questions:
1. Mainstream science (and Joachim Dengler too!) says that natural processes have been removing carbon from the atmosphere in recent decades. Do you agree? If you do not, what is your argument against, say, the Ballantyne article?
2. If you agree that natural processes have been removing carbon from the atmosphere in recent decades, what do you conclude about the root cause of atmospheric CO2 rise?
[proper thread placement]
Geoff,
If the real scientists at NOAA and Scripps were aware of your “findings,” I’m pretty sure they, like I, would disagree with you. But then, they probably don’t consider WUWT a valid source for scientific analyses.
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/behind_the_scenes/callab.html
Bushaw,
So where is my mistake?
I have simply taken published numbers and shown some disagreement. Did I make an error? How?
This was the first time I took a detailed look at ML. I was disappointed by what I found, so I mentioned it on a popular blog.
I do not write peer reviewed formal papers on matters as small as this because that outlet has to be reserved for publications that have the capacity to advance science in a serious way.
Geoff S
Stop being such an insufferable, pretentious bore. Geoff is the proper scientist, not you.
Sherrington:
I never said you did anything wrong. I said that I, and probably the NOAA and Scripps scientists responsible, disagree with you.
You also wrote.
“I do not write peer reviewed formal papers on matters as small as this because that outlet has to be reserved for publications that have the capacity to advance science in a serious way.”
So, on what do you write peer reviewed formal papers? Or do you just write, in unimportant places, about unimportant nitpicking on the difference between precision and accuracy that any real scientist already knows intimately. Frankly, I don’t see how you write, in print, about how hard science is done, when you have never done any.
I do appreciate that you admit that you don’t have the capacity to advance science in a serious way.
Bruce
Great Walrus, do you always project (being incredibly boring) with nothing relevant to say? I’d be glad to see some evidence that Geoff is a “proper” scientist, if you have any.
Large drop in surface temperature in the central equatorial Pacific leading to La Niña conditions.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Tropical storm in Bhamas.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=vis_swir
Sorry Bahamas.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=nwatl&product=ir
Tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=gom&product=vis_swir
Reply
Judith posted this on X:
Refined Reservoir Routing (RRR) and Its Application to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Balance
by Demetris Koutsoyiannis
“The mean residence time of atmospheric CO2 is about four years, and the mean response time is smaller than that, thus contradicting the mainstream estimates, which suggest times of hundreds or thousands of years, or even longer.”
“Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 observational data are not consistent with the climate narrative. They rather contradict it. In this, the present study complements earlier studies in that (a) causality direction between temperature and atmospheric CO2 is opposite to that commonly assumed … (b) climate models misrepresent the causality direction that is identified by the data [11], (c) there are no discernible signs of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds [64], and (d) there are no discernible signs of change in the isotopic synthesis of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, which is determined by the biosphere processes …
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/17/2402
Bill F,
I am seeing more comments in general readings that suggest that even if all anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion was stopped today, the global concentration trajectory would continue much as now because of dominance of natural sink/source processes and gas volumes and short residence times. Also more on direction of causation, as in temperature controls the CO2, not the reverse.
Is there any warmth from commenters here for this general proposition?
Please note that I am not expressing agreement or disagreement – I have not researched it adequately and so am guilty of what I just criticised David Andrews for. Geoff S
Wow, another blockbuster paper overturning the most fundamental aspects of climate science. Although, as stated in the epigraph, mathematics does not allow “…room for hypocrisy or vagueness…”, it apparently can still be abused in the service of a misguided idea.
Have a look at the data of Fig. 9. The green bars are the pre-industrial “ins” and “outs” of CO2. What a coincidence, they are in exact balance! CO2 was neither increasing nor decreasing.
Now consider the red bars, the modern “additions” and “subtractions”. Natural sinks = 25.1, natural sources = 22.9; changes to natural sinks win! The effect of changes to natural processes alone is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If there were zero anthro emissions, CO2 would decrease! Anthro sources = 5.2; that exceeds the net effects of the changes in natural processes. With anthro sources, CO2 increases!
That’s what leads a lot of us to say that the increase in CO2 is due to anthro sources.
And yet, Koutsoyiannis says: “The vast majority of changes in the atmosphere since 1750 (red bars in the graph) are due to natural processes, respiration and photosynthesis.” He ignores the fact that they nearly cancel, as they have for centuries, and what difference remains is exceeded by the anthro contribution, and without anthro sources CO2 would decrease (probably until the natural balance was once again attained), not increase.
All this has been said many times here at Climate etc., and is inferred from a couple of well-measured quantities and the application of Eqn 1. Doesn’t require eqns. 2 – 62. No hypocrisy or vagueness.
Geoff and Pat …
Pat, Demetris uses IPCC data for Figure 9, I’m sure you saw that. Demetris uses the data from that figure to state 6 points. In point 3 he talks about the role of temperature.
I don’t have the background you guys do. But I see the discussion on the carbon cycle being weighted (by some) towards the carbon in/out quantities (of which there seems to be much disagreement) and not enough on variables that might affect the natural absorption and production. Of course, when something like temperature is brought up, there comes much disagreement. And rightly so because the discussion becomes more complicated. How exactly does temperature affect the biosphere? Demetris, amongst others, attempts to make sense of it.
It was said on here, several times, in regard to anthropogenic CO2 … and I’m paraphrasing … if 100 units of natural CO2 is produced and 100 units of CO2 is absorbed by nature and 4 units of CO2 is produced by humans … and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 4 units .. then our answer is human emissions are responsible for the increase.
I think the only statement you could make from the above is … that if you remove human CO2, you MIGHT bring CO2 into balance. And that isn’t a given, as we really don’t fully understand the biosphere’s role. So I’m suspicious of that general argument and look forward to investigations like Demetris’. I’m not saying he has all the answers, and I don’t believe he would say that. I just wish the ‘nuggets’ he finds would get a fair evaluation.
Thanks for your replies.
Bill,
Congratulations on finding another article that tells you what you want to hear. The main error in this one is Koutsoyiannis’ lumping together of residence time and adjustment time, but I will not pursue that here. I would prefer to focus on this quote from the article:
“The [IPCC analysis] is accompanied by inappropriate assumptions and speculations, the weirdest of which is that the behavior of the CO2 in the atmosphere depends on its origin and that CO2 emitted by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion has higher residence time than when naturally emitted. “
Koutsoyiannis would have us believe that a generation of climate scientists have made the preposterous mistake of assuming that “anthropogenic carbon” and “natural carbon” behave differently on a molecular level. Let us go back to the carbon conservation or “mass-balance” argument that I have been beating on which shows unambiguously that natural processes are removing net carbon from the atmosphere. Nothing whatsoever was said about how the carbon being removed got there in the first place, only that the processes removing it are natural. Koutsoyiannis seems to think that mainstream scientists assume that natural processes selectively remove “natural carbon.” It is true that the excess CO2 over pre-industrial levels is sometimes loosely called the “anthropogenic carbon” because humans are responsible for it. But everyone understands that the molecular composition is mostly “natural” because of the continual mixing between reservoirs. Mainstream climate scientists certainly do not assume different behavior of the molecules and, generally speaking, think only about total carbon levels. Those skeptics who try to divide the carbon into the two categories (Harde, Salby, Skrable, Berry, and now Koutsoyiannis) always seem to find themselves confused.
I am amazed that someone with a career building irrigation systems and sewers, can convince himself that he has found such a ridiculous error pervading a field that is new to him. Oh, the hubris of Greeks! Many others would also benefit from a little humility.
David,
I am missing something, my apologies.
Can you please give a link or two two definitive papers that describe how to define, measure and calculate the flow of global CO2 sinks and sources.
Geoff S
Hey Geoff, here’s a place to start:
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/
Warning: Not a quick read.
Sherro01,
I have often cited the Ballantyne letter in Nature. Since Nature is not open access, you can only get the abstract without a subscription. However I found this link to a Colorado State site where it is posted in its entirety, apparently for a course.
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats760/Readings/22.Ballantyne_2012_Nature.pdf
The concept is dead simple. If we humans put more CO2 in the atmosphere than stayed there, the net time-averaged flux of carbon between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs has to be AWAY FROM the atmosphere, not towards it. This analysis by itself does not tell you how much goes to land reservoirs and how much to sea. People often talk of outgassing from warmer oceans but forget about higher atmospheric concentrations pushing carbon the other way. The data says that the latter process dominates, if you accept that some goes to the oceans.
SOI values for 31 Aug, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 6.75
Average SOI for last 90 days -1.30
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 22.03
The atmosphere interacts with the ocean. SOI is rising rapidly. These are conditions toward La Niña, which will strengthen in September.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Also, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
Because we have written a Universal Equation which is valid for all planets and moons in solar system.
Earth is a planet, thus when the Equation calculates for Earth’s surface the mean surface temperature Tmean = 287,4 K and the satellite measured the Earth’s average surface temperature
Tsat =288K,
Then there is no room for any significant atmospheric greenhouse effect, much more there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Watch Carbon Dioxide Move Through Earth’s Atmosphere
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/watch-carbon-dioxide-move-through-earths-atmosphere/
NASA says, ‘Earth’s land and oceans absorb about 50% of carbon dioxide; these are natural carbon sinks.’
Has anyone ever thought of simply doing an experiment of having 4 greenhouses. 1 Greenhouse with 410 ppm CO2 and another with 820, 1230, 1640 PPM and measure the temperature during the night or in darkness? Basically a controlled experiment? Corn FIelds will have much lower CO2 levels than surrounding areas of dirt. Has anyone ever meausured the temperature in a corn field and next to a corn field?
CO2 thermalizes 15 micron LWIR. CO2 is 1 molecule out of 2,500. There is 0.00 chance that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 moleules will materially alter the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 using the energy of a blackbody of temp -80C (15 micron LWIR). There simply isn’t any energy at that wavelength to make a difference.
Another experiment that isn’t convienently run is simply warming water with CO2. The one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the backradiation of 15 micron LWIR. That is the one and only defined mechanism by which CO2 can alter the climate. It that is in fact the case, a controled experiment becomes extremely simple, you only have one variable to alter.
How do you construct a real scientific experiment to measure the impact of CO2 on water temperarures? You simply have 2 buckets of water in a controlled enviroment and measure the temperature of the 2 buckets. One is a control and the other has additional 15 micron LWIR applied to it. You would do this with a Long-Pass Filter.
That is the most simple experiment in the world to perform, yet no Climate “Scientist” seen to have figured out what anyone in 1st Grade that ever ran a Bean Plant Height experiment knows.
The oceans control the climate, the oceans are warming, if CO2 isn’t warming the oceans, something other than CO2 is the cause.
Hayman Capital Management founder and CIO Kyle Bass explained in a Bloomberg interview that the mounting backlash against environmental, social, and governance investing in recent years is primarily a response to the extreme demands of radical climate activists, or “green” defenders. Bass argued that these activists were so disconnected from reality that their uncompromising stance on blackballing the fossil fuel industry—without acknowledging that energy transitions can take upwards of half a century—has fueled the backlash. He said plans to moderate fossil fuel usage over decades from the start would’ve possibly prevented the backlash.
Bass said the ESG backlash derives from climate activists’ demands that fossil fuels be abandoned immediately. He said the demands were never realistic.
“There were all of these idiots that were just saying, if anyone is doing hydrocarbons, we’re going to blackball them from doing business or from receiving capital,” Bass said, adding, “And so Texas lashed back and said, if you’re going to blackball someone that’s producing hydrocarbons, we’re not going to do business with you either.”
Google: Kyle Bass Says ‘Green’ War To Blackball Oil Was Doomed To Fail
For the link.
Temperatures in the western equatorial Pacific are falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Test
I already installed reverse osmosis water filters on my house after fracking poisoned our artesian wells with benzene but how the heck do I filter out forever chemicals from my food?!
[free link]
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/climate/pfas-fertilizer-sludge-farm.html?unlocked_article_code=1.H04.OhPw.Mxk_QcNL7RL7&smid=url-share
8/30/2024
‘A nightmare.’ North Texas farmers say chemicals in fertilizer are killing their livestock’
…
‘Results from a calf’s liver showed 610,000 parts per trillion of forever chemicals, which is “off the charts,” Ames said. “The most disturbing thing to me is that people have known about this for a long time, and they’ve failed to act,” Ames said.’
Read more at: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article290761039.html#storylink=cpy
Fertilizers ARE CHEMICALS, Jack. You are made of CHEMICALS, Jack. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Jim2,
There are many different chemicals with many different health effects – they are not just “chemicals”. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Note that fertilizers are not a chemical – they are generally a mixture of chemicals, and some of them may (are) poisonous to livestock.
Seems to me that when someone attempts to make someone else look stupid, they usually do it to themselves.
Jack, the money quote from NYT piece is “can contain heavy concentrations of chemicals thought to increase the risk”.
BAB, as you say, trying to make someone else look stoopid backfires … on you.
“Fertilizers are chemicals” would cover mixture of chemicals. You are trying too hard.
Fwiw – both the FtW star and the NYT article read like advocacy papers. Skepticism of the accuracy and fairness is warranted .
Jack – Benzene is naturally occurring in the tarrant, wise, denton palo pinto, jack, clay county areas. Are you sure it was from fracking or natural seepage?
Joe,
Actually, it was the jump in Barium that was the smoking gun. Benzene was probably always in the well water but about 2009 they put in 8 fracking pads within a 1.5 square mile area and 2 years later my city (suburb in Tarrant Co.) announced they were closing down our artesian wells. But it wasn’t just the pollution levels that closed the wells, it was also the continuing decline in the aquafer that doomed the wells too.
jack – Not sure if getting the full picture of what happened.
The surface casing should have gone down below the depth of the artesian water aquifer 1200-3000 ft down depending on where in tarrant county.
The fracking job should have been below the aquifer.
If the fracking job had penetrated the aquifer, then there should have been hydrocarbons leaching into the aquifer.
Something about the story doesnt add up.
Joe; I suspect there has been a lot of surface contamination that has seeped into the water table as highlighted in the newspaper articles. The Trinity aquifer is actually still pretty clean I think but it’s too far west and pretty deep.
Jack you started the thread with the comment that ‘fracking” caused the problem.
You last comment was that it was ‘surface contamination”
My first comment is appropriate.
Fwiw – both the FtW star and the NYT article read like advocacy papers. Skepticism of the accuracy and fairness is warranted .
Joe, I live about 300 yards from one of those drill pads and I wish you did too.
Test 2.
A paper by an independent researcher:
Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase:
The Sea Surface Temperature Rules, by Dai Ato
https://t.co/Q6MW80owFt
“The global SST has been the main determinant of annual increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since 1959. No human impact was observed.”
From the linked paper:
“…more than 90 Italian scientists [7] have denied the impact of humans on climate change.”
Well I guess that settles it.
Bill, do you understand the point made by Dave Andrews at [August 31, 2024 at 6:21 pm], beginning with “The concept is dead simple…”? (You don’t have to be a scientist.)
> Bill, do you understand the point made by Dave Andrews at [August 31, 2024 at 6:21 pm], beginning with “The concept is dead simple…”? (You don’t have to be a scientist.)
I don’t have to be a scientist if I agree … so if I disagree I do have to be a scientist? And … not an Italian, Japanese or Greek scientist?
Bill – did you *understand* the point made by Dave Andrews? (Agreement or disagreement – that’s another matter, eh?)
Of course I understood. He said it was ‘simple’.
Maybe I should I have written, since Dave said it, “Well I guess that settles it.” After all, you seem to think so, Dave seems to think so … I guess it is settled.
No matter that other scientists, certainly not as reputable as yourselves, say something different. You’re right Pat, I shouldn’t listen to anything other than what you and Dave say. Thanks for straightening me out, bro. Especially about those Japanese, Italian, Greek … and I forgot Spanish, Ukrainian and probably who knows how many more … scientists. Do you have anymore ethnic and racial groups I should put on the no-read list? Be a pal, Pat, and let me know who these inferior groups are?
By the way Pat, where are you from?
OK Bill, I apologize for quoting the ethnic reference in the article. Not appropriate there, not appropriate here.
Reputations aside, there is indeed a simple argument. I wondered what you thought of it. If you’re baffled as to why some ‘reputable’ scientists (apparently) don’t accept it…well I’m baffled too. I could speculate, but why bother? No counter argument is offered in either of the two articles you recently linked. In fact, the point that Dave, me and others here keep making is not even addressed.
If you’re unimpressed by the ’simple point’, I wonder why not.
You certainly don’t need to apologize to me, Pat. In fact, quoting a word you just used, it’s not appropriate to direct the apology to me. Maybe you should consider directing it to those whose scientific credentials you maligned? Just a thought.
I’ll assume you didn’t read the last few papers I posted, including the one on which Dave made his ‘simple’ comment on, I assume, in response? You said they didn’t address or make a ‘counter argument’. Are you sure about that? All of them point to a extremely minor role for human generated CO2 in the carbon cycle, noting the far larger role of naturally generated/absorbed CO2 processes.
Of course you don’t have to accept their analyses. I find them interesting, if only because we’ve been told that 97% of scientific opinion is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for ‘climate change’. Yet, I keep finding all of these papers that say … no … which would seem to undercut that 97% contention. More and more, everyday.
To criticize is not to malign. Apologies to all if my remarks were taken otherwise.
Your linked papers, while reaching contradicting conclusions, ignore (as in, ‘don’t even mention’) Dave Andrew’s succinct point: “If we humans put more CO2 in the atmosphere than stayed there, the net time-averaged flux of carbon between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs has to be AWAY FROM the atmosphere, not towards it.”
My question remains, Bill. What do you make of Dave Andrew’s simple point?
Correction: Andrew’s = Andrews’
Correction to correction
Because an ‘s’ in a proper name is not a plural means Andrews’s is the correct written English for the apostrophe.
You know, Pat, I could let your minor apology prevarication slide, but it’s actually more important than the CO2 discussion. I’ve been on this blog for years and any conception I had (probably imprinted as a school child) for a scientist having mastered the frailties of human nature, well that notion left on the first day I signed on. Yet somehow the myth of a scientist’s superior grasp of ‘truth’ continues, and nowhere more prevalent than amongst the scientists themselves. I certainly don’t deny scientific truth and the benefits it has given society. I just observe how those insightful truths about the physical world around us haven’t changed human nature one iota.
And the medium of a blog hasn’t helped how humans interact. Things one person would never say to another’s face become somehow acceptable. And the space is continually filled with snide, snickering missives. Self denigration is rare. Respect only follows agreement.
I include myself in this criticism. I mention it now not because I’m getting tired of the BS, and know that when I get tired, I get irritated, and then I become the BS. Let’s not be the BS.
As for Dave’s ‘point’, the bottom line is I don’t think it’s a complete analysis. I’ve thought about it, responded with thoughts and posted items. They’re all above. I certainly could be wrong, but I’m not convinced.
Thanks Bill, I largely agree.
Lass …
I’m not sure if this is the current rule for possessive apostrophe for when the possessor ends in ‘s’. Have a look. Let me know what you think.
https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_show_possession.htm
Pat and David,
” If we humans put more CO2 in the atmosphere than stayed there, the net time-averaged flux of carbon between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs has to be AWAY FROM the atmosphere, not towards it.”
This is not dead simple as you claim. There are sources and sinks whose global and local effects so hard to measure that people acept what seems to be logical. As you do.
That does not make it correct.
Geoff S
shero01,
You are not the first person to be taken about by an argument so basic. Harde and Berry have called the mass balance argument “circular reasoning”, though they refuse to elaborate. It is most certainly not circular reasoning. If natural processes were adding net carbon to the atmosphere, the atmospheric rise would exceed the anthropogenic input. DATA say otherwise.
If you have taken any physics courses, you know the power of trusted conservation laws, which often allow a simple solution in an apparently complex situation. That is the case here. Don’t over complicate your thinking.
David Andrews,
Earth’s carbon cycle is incorporated in a control system. The amount of atmospheric CO2 is largely determined by photosynthesis. If CO2 starts to increase, the biosphere increases and photosynthesis increases, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. If CO2 starts to decrease, the biosphere decreases and photosynthesis decreases, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a control system for atmospheric CO2. If you understood feedback and control theory you would realize that sherro01 is completely correct in what he has stated.
@sherr001, you asked ‚What then is your assessment of the recent paper by Pat Frank “Cenozoic Carbon Dioxide: The 66 Ma Solution”‘
I am still in the process of fully understanding and digesting that paper. Having said that, I think I can state that his paper is written in the same spirit and based on the same underlying logic as mine. And it is inspiring for asking new questions. I still need to understand why he claims a larger temperature range for the VOSTOK ice core data than the traditional one.
Furthermore I am wondering if the sink effect that I determined from the VOSTOK data (1.3% per century) can be used as a first working hypothesis for the reduction of the CO2 concentration reduction over the 66 Ma?
The Paper of Dai Ato is flawed in several respects:
First it completely ignores the physical law of mass conservation, according to which anthropogenic emissions are a direct undisputable contribution to concentration growth:
= + –
Therefore a temperature dependent model must not be applied to directly (because anthropogenic emissions are not causally temperature dependent), but can only be applied to the difference of and , as you can see in Figure 1 of this post. Notice that the anthropogenic emissions are consistently larger than concentration growth, therefore the rest of the mass balance equation must be negative, i.e. are necessarily always (since the beginnung of industrialization) larger than . Therefore natural emissions cannot possibly contribute to net concentration growth since at least 100 years. This is, by the way, the point that Pat Cassen and Dave Andrews tried to make.
Furthermore the model of Dai Ato concludes causation from correlation, which is wrong. When we look at the components of the mass balance equation of concentration growth together with Ato’s finding that concentration growth correlates significantly with temperature, we notice, that accidentally there is indeed a very good correlation between anthropogenic emissions and global temperature anomaly, no matter whether sea surface temperature or air temperature. But it would be completely wrong to state that anthropogenic emissions have been caused by temperature increase!
The next 2 terms, the difference between and , I call the “sink effect”, can indeed be temperature dependent, and this post and the underlying paper (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/7/743) describe their dependence on concentration and temperature extensively.
It is equally foolish to deny the obvious consequences of anthropogenic emissions as it is foolish to claim that they have to be reduced zu zero.
Moreover it is dangerous to try to attribute the concentration growth totally to natural emissions, e.g. with the argument that they are so much larger than the anthropogenic emissions, that antropogenic emissions are “drowned” in their “noise”.
It is of utter importance to state that the biological carbon cycle is necessarily a strikt carbon sink, as long as there are no global catastorphies: https://klima-fakten.net/?p=8176&lang=en
Otherwise we are supporting all the enemies of life who want to e.g. kill cows and decimate humans.
The anorganic carbon cycle of the oceans is a bit more complicated, but the statement that (the last 100 years) it is globally a strict carbon sink is equally valid.
The intended equation got messed up: The line where you find “= + -“, I intended to write:
Concentration growth = Anthropogenic emissions + Natural emissions – Total absorptions.
Its probably better to rewrite the whole answer:
The Paper of Dai Ato is flawed in several respects:
First it completely ignores the physical law of mass conservation, according to which anthropogenic emissions are a direct undisputable contribution to concentration growth:
Concentration growth = Anthropogenic Emissions + Natural Emissions – Total Absorptions
Therefore a temperature dependent model must not be applied to directly to concentration growth (because the conctributing anthropogenic emissions are not causally temperature dependent), but can only be applied to the difference of Total Absorptions and Natural Emissions, as you can see in Figure 1 of this post. Notice that the anthropogenic emissions are consistently larger than concentration growth, therefore the rest of the mass balance equation must be negative, i.e. Total absorptions are necessarily always (since the beginnung of industrialization) larger than Natural Emissions. Therefore natural emissions cannot possibly contribute to net concentration growth since at least 100 years. This is, by the way, the point that Pat Cassen and Dave Andrews tried to make.
Furthermore the model of Dai Ato concludes causation from correlation, which is wrong. When we look at the components of the mass balance equation of concentration growth together with Ato’s finding that concentration growth correlates significantly with temperature, we notice, that accidentally there is indeed a very good correlation between anthropogenic emissions and global temperature anomaly, no matter whether sea surface temperature or air temperature. But it would be completely wrong to state that anthropogenic emissions have been caused by temperature increase!
The next 2 terms, the difference between Total absorptions and natural emissions, I call the “sink effect”, can indeed be temperature dependent, and this post and the underlying paper (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/7/743) describe their dependence on concentration and temperature extensively.
It is equally foolish to deny the obvious consequences of anthropogenic emissions as it is foolish to claim that they have to be reduced zu zero.
Moreover it is dangerous to try to attribute the concentration growth totally to natural emissions, e.g. with the argument that they are so much larger than the anthropogenic emissions, that antropogenic emissions are “drowned” in their “noise”.
It is of utter importance to state that the biological carbon cycle is necessarily a strikt carbon sink, as long as there are no global catastorphies: https://klima-fakten.net/?p=8176&lang=en
Otherwise we are supporting all the enemies of life who want to e.g. kill cows and decimate humans.
The anorganic carbon cycle of the oceans is a bit more complicated, but the statement that (the last 100 years) it is globally a strict carbon sink is equally valid.
Thank you, Joachim. I appreciate hearing your view.
Joachim,
What then is your assessment of the recent paper by Pat Frank “Cenozoic Carbon Dioxide: The 66 Ma Solution” at
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/14/9/238
Geoff S
@sherr001, you asked ‚What then is your assessment of the recent paper by Pat Frank “Cenozoic Carbon Dioxide: The 66 Ma Solution”‘
I am still in the process of fully understanding and digesting that paper. Having said that, I think I can state that his paper is written in the same spirit and based on the same underlying logic as mine. And it is inspiring for asking new questions. I still need to understand why he claims a larger temperature range for the VOSTOK ice core data than the traditional one.
Furthermore I am wondering if the sink effect that I determined from the VOSTOK data (1.3% per century) can be used as a first working hypothesis for the reduction of the CO2 concentration reduction over the 66 Ma?
Joachim,
I asked your opinion of the paper by Pat Frank and I thank you for your initial reply which indicates that more time might be needed to help your comprehension. The same applies to me.
Pat Frank’s paper is deeply researched, heavily referenced and complex, requiring re-reading and further thought in my case. This is because it demonstrates that the whole edifice of CO2 and its radiation physics as favoured by The Establishment is not a required part of the explanation of global climate over the past 60 million years.
This is one of the most formidable challenges I have read to convention wisdom and I am giving it detailed study, as I recommend for readers here.
(I regard it as a normal, valid scientific function to study opposing hypotheses. This does not mean that one takes a position of favouritism.).
BTW, Dave and Pat, I read Ballantyne some ago and again last week. I wish that it had the academic competence of the Pat Frank paper..
Geoff S
Geoff S,
You wrote: “I read Ballantyne some [time] ago and again last week. I wish that it had the academic competence of the Pat Frank paper..”
Yes indeed, MDPI publications, not those in Nature, are the place to find “academic competence.” (!?) But you didn’t read Ballantyne at all carefully, because either out of carelessness or an intent to deceive, you misrepresented the data therein. Shame on you. It is true that Ballantyne does not spend a lot of time explaining carbon conservation, as I have tried to do here on various posts. They just use it. Most people don’t need it explained more than once.
I will be glad to discuss the Pat Frank paper, but first tell me what you think is “incompetent” in the Ballantyne paper. Ballantyne is relevant to the discussion topic of this thread, the behavior of natural sinks. But perhaps you cannot handle the truth.
Bill, as someone said earlier in this thread, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is dead simple. Temperatures rose steadily folllowing the LIA and so did CO2. That cycle of goodness started and continued before humans burned fossil fuels and afterward. Why would it stop?
In the last 40 years the momentum of CO2 increase from warming is about 2ppm per year with some fluctuations from natural events. It persists even in years when FF emissions decline. So humans are adding to the cycle of goodness, which will likely persist until a reversal of the warming by whatever started it.
Hey Ron … thanks for your reply.
When you say ‘dead simple’, I think for some, the emphasis may be on the dead. ;-)
Humans definitely are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. When we point and say that (human) CO2 is responsible for the warming I’m not sure we’ve accounted for all the complexity of the biosphere. As I said, I most certainly could be wrong.
Bill V,
I understand control systems and they have nothing to do with the mass balance argument. Do you understand that as humans add carbon to the atmosphere, the rate of growth of atmospheric carbon is less than half of the rate we add it? Doesn’t that tell you that natural processes are removing net carbon, not adding it? Maybe you don’t understand that, but all scientists do. I think even Bill Fabrizio does.
David Andrews,
“I understand control systems and they have nothing to do with the mass balance argument.”
Your above statement would only be true if the biosphere were not controlling atmospheric CO2. It seems you consider the following statements false:
– If CO2 starts to increase, the biosphere increases and photosynthesis increases, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
– If CO2 starts to decrease, the biosphere decreases and photosynthesis decreases, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I happen to think there is a very good possibility these statements are true. If they are, consider the following hypothetical example:
– Burning fossil fuels puts 40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere during a given year.
– At the same time, one of the natural sources for atmospheric CO2 increases by 40 gigatons.
– Due to this 80 gigaton CO2 increase, photosynthesis increases for that year, pulling an extra 60 gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere leaving a net increase of 20 gigatons.
In this simple example, half the CO2 increase is due to burning fossil fuels and half is a result of an increase in a natural source. At the same time, the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 is only half of the rate added through burning fossil fuels.
Alternatively,
We have flawed ways of measuring, such as atmospheric CO2 that recycles locally without ever getting near Mauna Loa. It is present in the air and subjected to the same radiation physics of which we hear so much, but left out of the discussion as an inconvenient truth, the same as the early chemical analyses reported by Beck.
One cannot assume a 280 ppm CO2 pre-industrial, nor the present Maunal Loa tabulations as representing all of the atmosphere.
Back to square one for improvements.
Geoff S
Sherro01,
Before arguing about the accuracy of the data, please read the Ballantyne paper. It is only a few pages. As I have noted before, the results they obtain use atmospheric CO2 data other than Mauna Loa’s. The estimated errors are small. If you want to challenge their results, address their actual methods, not ones you make up for them. Furthermore, the Ballantyne paper analyzes data from 1960 to 2010, a period in which there is no serious challenge to the data, and during which most of the carbon growth occurred. “Pre-industrial levels”, or the time period where Beck opposes the consensus data, are not part of the analysis.
Yours is the kind of hand-waving, unserious response that is unfortunately typical of skeptics faced with facts that contradict their biases. Those facts are your own “inconvenient truths”. If you wish, I will look up and post quotes from Judith Curry and William Happer confirming that they have no doubt we humans are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century.
You must be a disciple of Ed Berry, who in a weak moment once admitted that he thought a poor argument was better than none at all. He, like you and a few others I could name, did not seem to realize that one sacrifices credibility with poor arguments.
Insurance losses are expected to hit 0.14% of GLOBAL GDP. I think we can handle that OK.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-03/natural-disasters-to-cause-151-billion-in-annual-insurer-losses
Just remember most of the people who lose property from floods, wind or fire are uninsured and the loses are generally not tax deductible.
Suprise! It’s a captive market designed to protect the owners of capital. Almost all their customers are forced by law to carry their insurance products.
uninsured losses? Jack are you referring the property in the US or where?
Pretty much any society using the oligarchic capitalism economic model.
You always have China, Jack.
Kid … I’m sure you have this clipping:
“Death For Millions in 1921’s Record Heat Wave” New York Herald September 4, 1921
https://www.newspapers.com/image/471536051/?terms=death%20for%20millions&match=1
Bill
Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I also had countless others in my bookmarks of various such subjects and mysteriously they disappeared. Supposedly the original source ran into problems with the website manager or some such excuse. Too bad. Reading all those articles gave me confidence that the weather we are experiencing is nothing unprecedented.
Bill Fabrizo:
Your “Death for millions in 1921’s record heat wave” article had me wondering WHY it occurred. It turns out that it was due to the confluence of several factors that always cause temperatures to rise:
One: There was a 42 month interval between VEI4 volcanic eruptions: Manam on Aug 11, 1919, and Raikoke on Feb 15, 1924. If the interval is 36 months or, more all of the volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution from the earlier eruption has settled out, and temperatures rise because of the cleaner, less polluted air.
Two: There was an American business recession between Jan 1920 and May 1921, and temperatures always rise during a recession due to fewer SO2 aerosol emissions, because of idled foundries, factories, etc.
Three: Global industrial SO2 aerosol emissions decreased by six million tons between 1920 and 1921, an enormous amount, further cleansing the air.
All of this is shown on the 1921 GISS global temperature map. It is primarily along the industrialized Northern hemisphere belt: America, Europe, and the Asian deserts, with America showing the most intense warming.
Nothing mysterious about the warming, just temporarily rising temperatures because of decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution, of which there have been many other examples. But the millions of deaths are a foretaste of where we are now heading, due to the”Net Zero” idiocy!
Checking the year 1921 on astro software indicated that year as one of deadly inferior planet conjunctions (Kepler Trigon). ‘Inferior’ is the worse. Gravity vector change (see Allais effect) due to planetary close approaches (noted in similar in the past two years), besides seismic effects, affects air density which give rise to short term abnormal air/vapour changes – thermal hot spots-.
But then one has to wonder why the Rhine dried up in 1132. Or why were eggs cooking in the sand in that century. Or why all the other stories of excessive heat in next few centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017_07_21_20_20_35-down.gif
Cerescokid:
My Sept 3 post, above, explained that the 1921 heat wave was due to decreased levels of industrial and natural atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere.
The same applies to to your question, except that all of the decreases were related to natural decreases in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, all volcanic related.
For example, there were 22 years between the VEI5 eruption of Asama in 1108, with the next eruption being the VEI5 eruption of Cotopaxi in 1130. In the interval, the atmosphere was free of anything to dim the intensity of the solar radiation, and the Earth baked.
For the next date mentioned (I152), there were 28 years between the Cotopaxi eruption and the next one, the VEI4 eruption of Hekla, in 1158.
And for the next date (1160), there were 12 years between Hekla and the VEI4 eruption of Furnas in 1170.
And for the next dates (1276-7), there were 18 years between the VEI6 eruption of Katia in 1262 and the VEI6 eruption of Quilotoa in 1280. And so on.
All empirical evidence shows that the amount of dimming SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere is the control knob for our climate!
Cerescokid: Your link starts from date 1132ce -an Eddy cycle peak-, to around ~1680 an Eddy cycle root (the downward swing of the cycle has always been one of adverse times). The question is what triggers them.
Look at that period here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
What no one follows is the earth’s orientation changes in space. The ‘ant-trail’ of obliquity as per excel does not give the actual swings peaks, however the sediment record – which is also time averaged- gives an indication of the resulting effect. The one instance that is identified to the day is in 173ce. (with seismic, tsunami and thermal effect). The 173ce exemplar is planet triggered.
There appears to be also planet triggering of seismic/volcanic events (ex: St Helens; Krakatoa; 5/2/2023 Turkey); Short term river disturbance, ex: 5/9/1592 Thames, 16/12/1811 Mississippi, 8/12/1267 Jordan.
Bill F,
You call that a heatwave?
So far as I can tell, Australia’s worst heatwave was in January 1896 at the inland town of Bourke, some 650 km NW of Sydney. In turn, Sydney’s worst heatwave over both 3-day and 5-day calculations was in January 1960.
I have plotted the raw daily Tmax for Jan for these 2 events. Bourke is some 15 degrees C above Sydney by rough eyeball. Sydney’s hottest can be compared with the hottest 3-day and 5-day heatwaves every year since 1869. It was about 7 deg C above average hottest heatwaves.
These figures give a feel for heatwaves that might be classed as “extreme”. Often reporters wrongly use “extreme heatwave” for an event 1 or 2 deg C above the long term hottest at a location. That is rather short of the Sydney 6 deg or the Bourke 15 deg extra January 1896 heat.
You are invited to recalibrate your minds about what comprises an extreme heatwave.
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/bourke.jpg
The Great Barrier Reef and the entire biosphere are really only threatened by one thing – a large increase in UVB radiation at the Earth’s surface along with a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
This is why the GBR goes white during El Nino, when cloud cover in the western tropical Pacific decreases.
Net Zero is unaffordable, and also unreachable.
There are many potential paths to net zero, but none is remotely easy. Beyond the technological challenges, the transition involves staggering amounts of money. Estimates vary: In 2022 the global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found that businesses, governments and households worldwide need to put forward a total of $275 trillion between now and 2050, peaking in the near term at 8.8% of global gross domestic product. (For comparison, the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act—widely considered to be America’s most important climate action policy to date—is expected to generate climate and energy spending that, even if it were all carried out in a single year, would only amount to an estimated 2% to 4.5% of US GDP.) A new report from the BloombergNEF research group pegs the price of achieving net zero lower than McKinsey did, though still at a mind-boggling $215 trillion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-net-zero-brutal-economics/
If the climate gets really bad we can fix it with geoengineering cheaper than trying to stop emissions.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily–duncan-mclaren-on-the-opportunity-costs-of-geoengineering
Another EV effort bites the dust.
Volvo Car AB abandoned a target to sell only fully electric cars by the end of this decade, the latest manufacturer to walk back its EV ambitions due to waning demand.
The Chinese-owned automaker now aims for plug-in hybrids and battery-only models to account for at least 90% of its sales in 2030, it said Wednesday. The remainder will allow for mild hybrids that rely mostly on a combustion engine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-04/volvo-car-walks-back-electric-push-after-disappointing-demand
Pingback: Extension du modèle de puits de carbone : la température compte aussi – Le Point de Vue
The graphic shows a clear temperature drop in the stratosphere above a pressure of 2 hPa. In these layers of the stratosphere, only UVC radiation can raise the temperature. That’s why the temperature drops to the tropopause, although it seems that it should rise as the air density increases. The temperature drops to the tropopause because the shortest UV radiation is completely absorbed by oxygen. It follows that a drop in temperature in July 2024 means a drop in stratospheric ozone production, which ozone in turn absorbs most UVB radiation. The conclusion is that there was a significant increase in UVB radiation in the troposphere over the equator in July.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Ren,
I have been reading your posts about UVB and UVC.
I understand that high UVB leads to coral bleaching, and there was a big increase of UVB over the equator in July.
Does this mean there will be widespead coral bleaching in the tropics?
What else can we expect from this phenomenon?
Thanks for your observations – keep them coming!
Studies have shown that water vapor exhibits structural absorption bands in the near-UV range, particularly in the 290-350 nm range. In this range, water vapor can absorb UVB radiation, which is important for understanding its role in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric impact:
Water vapor is one of the main components of the atmosphere that absorbs solar radiation, which has important implications for the Earth’s energy balance and climate modeling. As the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, increased absorption of UV radiation is observed, which can affect local atmospheric conditions and ecological health.
Studies have shown that water vapor exhibits structural absorption bands in the near-UV range, particularly in the 290-350 nm range. In this range, water vapor can absorb UVB radiation, which is important for understanding its role in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric impact:
Water vapor is one of the main components of the atmosphere that absorbs solar radiation, which has important implications for the Earth’s energy balance and climate modeling. As the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, increased absorption of UV radiation is observed, which can affect local atmospheric conditions and ecological health.
CO2 exhibits absorption of radiation in the UV range, especially with wavelengths below 230 nm. Studies have shown that CO2 has absorption bands between 115 and 230 nm, which means it can absorb UVC radiation that does not reach the troposphere. Radiation up to 242 nm is absorbed by diatomic oxygen in the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is divided into three main sub-bands:
UVA: 320-400 nm
UVB: 280-320 nm
UVC: 100-280 nm
More uplifting news on the EV front …
For EV drivers traversing the great state of Wyoming, the Smith’s grocery store in Rock Springs is an oasis. It’s just off I-80, there’s a Petco across the street, and it has six plugs promising to charge at 350 kilowatts. At that rate, a Tesla Model 3 could go from empty to full in the time it takes to hit the bathroom and grab a Snickers.
But when I limped up to the station last month — in a Rivian R1S crammed with one dog and two kids — that 350 kW may as well have been a mirage. Rivian’s SUV charges at 220 kW at best, and the charger itself crimped the hose to just 50 kW. With one pit stop, our carefully planned seven-hour road trip got two hours longer.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-05/why-electric-cars-almost-never-charge-as-fast-as-promised
A good explanation, and illustration of this (absorption by water vapour and CO2) is given in: https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2023/03/GreenhousePrimerArxiv.pdf?x45936
Thanks, Bob. Do you know of any published papers critical of Wijngaarden and Happer 2023? And if there were any responses by Wijngaarden and Happer?
To Bill. So far I have not come across any papers critical of the physics or the observations. I find that the agreement between the calculated spectra, and those observed from satellites (over a wide range of latitudes) does inspire confidence in the paper.
Happer was challenged in some debates a few years ago,and his “detailed Response to Karoly “ is reported here:
https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-detailed-response/
Aside from the physics, his comments on consensus and groupthink still seem very relevant.
Thanks, Bob. The link didn’t work, but I was able to find the debate, etc.
With all the criticisms of papers such as this, I’m surprised there hasn’t been any.
So, we have the annual swings in Earth’s Global temperature.
Earth’s average surface temperature is 2.24 degrees C higher when the Earth is much farther from Sun (Aphelion).
The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
So, we are witnessing a 2.24 degrees C annual swings in global temperature.
–
A natural thought begs the question:
What were the global temperature swings ~ 11000 years ago at Holocene’s Optimum.
Were they higher than 2.24 degrees C ?
Of course they were higher, and they were much-much higher, because continents heat up and cools down more than oceans.
The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
But about 11000 years ago the distance played a very significant role, because Earth’s energy solar input also varied about
90 W/m² during a calendar year.
About 11000 years ago in January, Earth was much farther from Sun (Aphelion). In July, Earth was much closer to Sun (Perihelion). And the difference in solar flux between those two extremes was also about 90 W/m².
So we have the proofpoint here:
When the global annual temperature swings are higher, then the global average temperature inevitably is lower.
So, at times of Holocene Optimum, instead of the allegedly said sweet warm global climate, there was a much-much colder global climate, than what we have in our era.
Also, since then, Earth is experiencing a slow, 11000 years long continuous orbitally forced WARMING PATTERN.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
Thank you, Ireneusz.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, in some ways we have been here before.
You say “So, at times of Holocene Optimum, instead of the allegedly said sweet warm global climate, there was a much-much colder global climate, than what we have in our era.”
Well,, not quite.
See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/ Temp anomaly for polar and equatorial. All dates have since been variously verified.
Why at 2345bce (actually it is 7-8May2346bce- known precisely) polar temps begin rapid rise while equatorial decline? That was the last major event, abrupt, but the chaos to humanity was greatest in the century that followed, as the net effect began to bite.
Inter-tropic did get cooler but beyond got warmer. Then again heat energy residence time also got longer.
Again, inter-glacial periods are characterised by changes from what appears as an unstable system with abrupt trend changes. [the quest now is for the trigger mechanism, rather to ascertain].
See earlier cycles here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
It has been discerned some decades ago that obliquity is the main temp driver, and orbit eccentricity is very small to cause such great change in such a short time span.
Also, from research results, 2346bce disturbance invoked an earth axial precession change of ~150 degrees. The relationship of earth’s axis position to its orbit max/min distances changed.
That has never been considered in any research.
Thank you, Melita, for your response.
Also it should be noticed, that Earth’s 288K average surface temperature, it is actually Earth’s the annual average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOI values for 7 Sep, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 8.94
Average SOI for last 90 days 0.57
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Due to the number of spots counted, solar activity is high, but due to solar wind speed and geomagnetic activity is low. There is nothing solid under the Sun.
https://i.ibb.co/1fj13NZ/plot-image.png
Meanwhile, the real left is highlighted here …
Green radicals are making war on lifesaving conveniences such as air conditioning and refrigeration in service of their extreme ideology.
Powerful environmentalists want you to be sweaty, miserable, poor, and unfree in the name of saving the planet. Just look at how they talk about two of the wonders of the modern world: air conditioning and refrigeration.
“When it gets too hot, we lightly spray water on our arms, legs and faces; the water helps dissipate a lot of heat,” a New York Times essay by Stan Cox, the author of an anti-air-conditioning book creatively titled “I Swore Off Air-Conditioning, and You Can Too” suggests as an alternative to modern air-conditioning technology. Cox also advocates restricting dishwashers and even refrigeration, all in the name of adapting to global warming.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/environmentalists-want-you-to-be-unhappy/
Adaptation will be cheaper than mitigation because you spend only on what becomes a problem, not imagined Unicorn nightmares.
Stupid is as stupid does, says my favorite philosopher Forrest Gump. I can envision a hospital without air conditioning, breeding bacteria in a moist operating room, like on a petri dish. Or a TV announcer with wet arm pits and skimpy pants and a spray bottle to get some water cooling. Cooling the face with mascara running like brown tears. Your favorite library being smelly moldy over all book shelves….
Who all backs the EPA’s endorsement of corrupted data? “The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.” ~Dave Evans
Also, the outdoors thermometers do not measure air temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Definitely nothing more than the air temperature in the specific location where the thermometer is located, assuming it’s in the shade…
Thermometers are capable to measure air temperature only in the closed volumes, when air is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings and with thermometer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is a must watch video for anyone that wants to know the truth.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=r69rWY11rrOXRbnv
String Theory is Climate Change and Global Warming. Eric Weinstein does a great job pulling back the curatin on what has happened to academia.
Climate Change is simply an admission card to the club. People that agree with it are the ones that agree 2+2=5, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Love is Hate, and Ignorance is strength. They are the people that make 1984 reality.
That is why on this blog I can literally post a link to the actual physics behind CO2 and its one an only mechanism by which it can affect climate change and global warming.
This entire nonsense is about 1 out of every 2,500 molecules being being vibrated with the energy of a black body of -80 C causing catastrophic effects. That very molecule absorbs the same wavelengths as H2O, so the absorption of 15 micron LWIR is stturated in the lower atmospshere with our without CO2. 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t and won’t warm water, and on one has every bothered to test that in a lab.
Once again, watch this video and you will understand why you can host comments like I just did and get attacked by the “experts.” Climate Change proves we are now living in 1984, and the people that promote it are the vilians detailed in 1984 and Atlas Shrugged.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=r69rWY11rrOXRbnv
“The potential weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in response to anthropogenic forcing, suggested by climate models, is at the forefront of scientific debate. A key AMOC component, the Florida Current (FC), has been measured using submarine cables between Florida and the Bahamas at 27°N nearly continuously since 1982. A decrease in the FC strength could be indicative of the AMOC weakening. Here, we reassess motion-induced voltages measured on a submarine cable and reevaluate the overall trend in the inferred FC transport. We find that the cable record beginning in 2000 requires a correction for the secular change in the geomagnetic field. This correction removes a spurious trend in the record, revealing that the FC has remained remarkably stable. The recomputed AMOC estimates at ~26.5°N result in a significantly weaker negative trend than that which is apparent in the AMOC time series obtained with the uncorrected FC transports.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51879-5
Ireneusz Palmowski:
In their paper they say “Beginning in 2023, a mechanical issue with the cable has resulted in an interruption of the daily FC transport time. As of July 2024, the cable record has not yet been resumed”.
Therefore, the conclusions of the paper are valid only through 2022, and the effect on the FC of the higher temperatures of 2023 and 2024 is not addressed.
However, the current tropicaltidbits.com images show a rapid cooling of the Pacific Nino 3.4 index, and cooling in the North Atlantic.
What are your thoughts on this?
I think there was an error in the measurements. I’m afraid that satellite measurements w should also be corrected, depending on the drift of the satellites.
Judith re-posted this paper on X today …
Florida Current transport observations reveal four decades of steady state … Volkov, et al (2024)
“The potential weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in response to anthropogenic forcing, suggested by climate models, is at the forefront of scientific debate. A key AMOC component, the Florida Current (FC), has been measured using submarine cables between Florida and the Bahamas at 27°N nearly continuously since 1982. A decrease in the FC strength could be indicative of the AMOC weakening. Here, we reassess motion-induced voltages measured on a submarine cable and reevaluate the overall trend in the inferred FC transport. We find that the cable record beginning in 2000 requires a correction for the secular change in the geomagnetic field. This correction removes a spurious trend in the record, revealing that the FC has remained remarkably stable. The recomputed AMOC estimates at ~26.5°N result in a significantly weaker negative trend than that which is apparent in the AMOC time series obtained with the uncorrected FC transports.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51879-5
I think there was an error in the measurements. I’m afraid that satellite measurements should also be corrected, depending on the drift of the satellites.
Would an adjustment from from 2000, lower the hiatus through 2012 to a global cooling?
A higher CO2 content in ice cores samples may as well testify for a much colder temperatures at the times the ice was formed.
At very low temperatures the CO2 got freezed out of the air, had fallen on the glacier and had sequestered in the ice – thus a higher CO2 content in ice core samples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Properties:
Density
1562 kg/m3 (solid at 1 atm (100 kPa) and −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F))
1101 kg/m3 (liquid at saturation −37 °C (−35 °F))
1.977 kg/m3 (gas at 1 atm (100 kPa) and 0 °C (32 °F))
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What isotope it is also important. During periods of low solar activity at high latitudes, stronger galactic radiation produces more 14C from nitrogen. The geomagnetic cutoff is strongest at the equator and weakens toward the poles.
A weakening of the magnetic field over North America can be seen.
https://i.ibb.co/qRcFS2L/cutoff.gif
Northern Australia may have a wet summer.
SOI values for 9 Sep, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 9.95
Average SOI for last 90 days 0.84
The green energy fly hits the windshield.
Japan’s energy strategy must be overhauled to curb future reliance on renewables and support economic growth, according to a candidate running in the race to become the next prime minister.
“Japan will need coal-fired power plants,” said Takayuki Kobayashi, a former economic security minister who is running in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party leadership election. The winner of the race will become the next premier of the country.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-10/japan-must-curb-clean-power-reliance-warns-leadership-candidate
King Coal strikes again …
Coal India Ltd. is planning to invest about 670 billion rupees ($8 billion) to build coal-fired power plants close to its mines, signaling the fast-growing economy will remain reliant on the fossil fuel for decades to come.
The state-owned miner has already won approval for 4.7 gigawatts of generation to be built over the next six to seven years, with most of the facilities to be in the state of Odisha on India’s east coast, Business Development Director Debasish Nanda said in an interview. Another 2 gigawatts are currently under discussion and may take longer to complete, he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-10/coal-india-to-spend-8-billion-on-coal-fired-plants-near-mines
The ESG fly hits the windshield …
For TotalEnergies SE Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne, the difference in the performance of his company’s stock and that of Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest US producer of oil and gas, is in no small part explained by an acronym: ESG.
Exxon’s aggressive oil and gas strategy has been rewarded by investors, with its shares more than doubling in the past three years. For Europe’s second-biggest oil company, in contrast, pressure on the region’s asset managers to invest using environmental, social and governance standards has capped gains and prompted Pouyanne to flirt with the idea of listing shares in the US.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-09/esg-rules-draw-backlash-from-unilever-totalenergies-and-other-eu-businesses
EVs. Losing money hand over fist. You can’t tell me they are making money on this one!
It’s a deal Samir Manohar, a sales representative at Tynan’s Nissan in Aurora, knows sounds too good to be true.
Since June, the dealership has offered a 24-month lease on an entry-level Nissan Leaf for only $19 per month once a Colorado resident pays roughly $2,400 in sales taxes and dealer fees. After that, the monthly cost of a new electric car is — no joke — less than the price of renting a golf cart or subscribing to some streaming services.
“It’s insane, and it truly is the best offer I’ve ever seen for a new car,” Manohar said.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/07/26/how-colorado-residents-can-lease-a-nissan-leaf-ev-for-19-dollars-a-month/
Heavy rainfall is beginning on the southern coast of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/7ztDYXQ/goes16-ir-gom.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
We found that water vapor near-UV absorption will significantly affect ozone retrieval from UV measurements, particularly in the tropical region. Incorporating water vapor near-UV absorption cross-section data into a radiative transfer model yielded an estimated energy budget (of additional absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere) of 0.26 W/m2 for the standard U.S. atmosphere and 0.76 W/m2 for the tropics. Near-UV solar radiation induces photochemical changes in the troposphere and affects pollutant formation and atmospheric oxidant levels. Thus, water vapor near-UV absorption has impacts not only on atmospheric physics but also on atmospheric chemistry. Results of the current study are expected to facilitate field detection of water vapor near-UV absorption, enable assessment of the radiative and climate impacts of this absorption, and improve ozone retrievals.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD030724
This is insane! I guess all Canucks would die if they visited Texas in the summer!!! Since when is 81 degrees F considered a threat??? LOL!!!
New York City Council member Lincoln Restler, who represents downtown Brooklyn, proposed a bill in July requiring landlords to install and maintain air conditioning units in rental units. From mid-June to mid-September, temperatures inside units must stay below 78 degrees Fahrenheit when temperatures outdoors exceed 81 degrees. If passed, landlords would get four years to make necessary upgrades, or face fines of up to $1,250 each day for non compliance.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-10/los-angeles-toronto-consider-air-conditioning-mandates-amid-heat-waves
What is the motivation behind Western academia’s continued insistence on modernity’s and especially, America’s culpability for climate change? After having done everything possible in their lives to avoid competing in the free enterprise marketplace, they simply don’t care about self-actualization, personal responsibility and personal overcoming in a free society that puts individual liberty ahead of the interests of government collectivists.
Next question.
Geoff S,
As far as I know, you have yet to acknowledge that rising atmospheric CO2 is human caused. That makes you hardly a credible judge of cost/ benefit analyses.
Wagathon,
First, those who look into the science, whether from academia or not, find reasons for concern. There is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 growth is human caused as discussed on this thread, which is about sinks. How could that growth be less than half of human emissions in the last century unless natural processes are removing carbon from the atmosphere, not adding it? Those who continue to contest this without saying why undermine legitimate objections, if there are any, to the rest of the consensus narrative.
Second, we have speed limit zones near schools for obvious reasons. They are common-sense regulations for the common good. If you consider them an attack on your individual liberty “in the interest of government collectivism”, you should think harder about the responsibilities that come with freedom. Government regulations with the intent to curb carbon emissions are also common-sense regulations for the common good, not for the supposed interests of collectivism. But I do understand that the devil is in the policy details.
The essential question is should we mitigate or adapt. Mitigation requires a lot of guesses what “might” happen. Adaptation is a response to trends in evidence. Adaptation is much more targeted and efficient. Warming is occurring, no doubt. It’s the strategy that matters, and currently we are on the road to ruin.
Jim2,
“Adaptation is a response to trends in evidence. Adaptation is much more targeted and efficient. ”
–
Yes, and yes, and yes!
Thank you.
Dave …
> First, those who look into the science, whether from academia or not, find reasons for concern.
Not all:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00808
Jim2,
A discussion of mitigation versus adaption is a welcome change from the frankly ridiculous “debate” about human responsibillity for CO2 increase.
“A stitch in time saves nine”. Ben Franklin was for mitigation; I agree with Ben Franklin. Mitigation is hardly the road to ruin; look at the Tesla stock price. Of course the final solution will necessarliy include adaption as well.
David,
Re school zones, another device is the speed hump. In my small family of 7 alone, we have one with post- herpetic neuralgia , one with lower back arthritis and one with chronic pancreatitis. Each of these three has pain increased by crossing speed humps at even very low velocity and seeks alternative road routes. Now, I do not know of any authorisation for city engineers or councils to do works that knowingly will cause pain. It is not just pain for a rant, it is hurtful. Is it lawful? If so, where does it end?
This little example illustrates a recent tendency for social measures that are often green in enthusiasm, but out of reasonable proportion in the cost/harm equation. The war on hydrocarbons is in that category. Greens once wanted to ban chlorine, fertilizers, drinking straws then all plastics, miscellaneous other items.. It is a dominant tactic that has no place while the remedy is way out of balance with the harm, which often unspoken when inconvenient.
I make this comment as an older person with experience of better times, to educate youngsters who might wrongly think that the present state is as good as it gets. (Their pet puppy is headed for the garbage disposal suite.)
Geoff S
Maybe the motivation for the insistence is that they firmly believe it to be a scientifically evidenced “fact”.
The PLANETARY (Tsat /Te.correct) CRITERION.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Since the troposphere in the tropics is warmer a kilometer above the surface, and this effect is not seen near the surface, it is logical that some of the sun’s radiation is retained in the upper troposphere and does not raise the temperature near the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Yes, it is very much logical.
Because on its way thru the atmosphere some of the solar light inevitably gets absorbed – a kilometer above the surface, air is still thick enough to take in the most of absorbable by atmosphere energy.
News emerged last week that Morgan Stanley had quietly shelved a central pillar of its sustainability strategy: a commitment to finance the cleanup and prevention of plastic pollution.
Instead of opening up to investors and clients about the challenges in tackling such a pernicious problem, or revealing the lessons learned in five years of trying, the investment bank simply went silent. The news that the Wall Street giant no longer has an explicit financing goal to tackle plastic only came to light after Bloomberg Green asked the bank why—in contrast with previous versions—there was no mention of its Plastic Waste Resolution in its latest ESG report.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-12/wall-street-quietly-turns-tail-on-its-sustainability-commitments
“A stitch in time saves nine”. Ben Franklin.
Ben Franklin was a wise man. Ben Franklin was a wise phylosopher and scientist.
The fossil fuels burning has nothing to do with the global warming.
Our efforts not to burn fossil fuels do not mitigate global warming.
Global warming is occurring, no doubt. And we are adapting all the time.
By refussing the use of fossil fuels we make our adaptation efforts much more difficult, because we also mitigate our standards of living. And we mitigate our standards of living for nothing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Out of 1,500 global climate policies, only 63 have really worked. That’s where green spin has got us
Grand schemes, many backed by governments, masquerade as positive action on the environment. They should be disowned
…
A paper published in Science last month reviewed 1,500 climate policies around the world, and found that only 63 have delivered significant benefits. These include fuel taxes, carbon floor prices, bans on damaging technologies, renewables mandates, energy efficiency mandates, strong building regulations and higher industrial performance standards. The paper should be a blueprint for action. But precisely because these policies generate real change, they cause conflict with powerful interests. If there is one thing in which Keir Starmer’s government specialises, it’s avoiding conflict with power.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/fossil-fuel-companies-environment-greenwashing
It would be nice to have a post on these types of policies. The discussion I suspect would be much livelier than it has been the last few months.
Dr. Curry used to do a post on things that caught her attention. I liked those, but she may have gotten just too busy for that. I’m happy that the “etc” comments are still allowed.
Also, I bet those 63 “effective” policies push up the cost of living significantly more than the others. That would be an interesting corollary study.
In the beginning, only a relative few principled scientists like William Gray had the courage to put truth and reason before ideology. Gray stood up to the knowing printing of deception by his peers and the IPCC. The idea that human CO2 – most particularly CO2 from the US – has caused global warming, and if not for the US the climate would somehow be ideal, is an insane idea. Only a dysfunctional global politic gives cover to an academia that could get away with preaching in schoolrooms that if we destroy America we will end hurricanes and tornadoes and the seas won’t rise.
Abstract
We use reanalysis and observational data to link the lower stratospheric ozone regulation of the ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) component of solar energy to ENSO modulation. Results indicate that during ENSO extremes, the Walker Circulation (WC) and Brewer Dobson Circulation are related to lower stratospheric ozone alterations east of the date line over the Pacific. These in turn are linked to upper tropospheric anomalous dipole temperature patterns on either side of the equator. The ensuing changes in geopotential height values do not only drive equatorial zonal wind anomalies in the upper troposphere that are reversed at the equatorial surface, but also impact on the intensity of the South Pacific High circulation. When the WC is enhanced, a La Nina type of circulation is indentified but if the circulation cell is inverted, the anomalous circulation results in an El Nino. Though the anomalous lower stratospheric ozone peaks during austral summer it is significant throughout the ENSO lifecycle. Hence, ENSO structure and variability are mainly linked to the lower stratospheric ozone instigated internal dynamics of the Pacific atmosphere. The ENSO forcing most likely originates from the ozone related regulation of the incoming solar UV-B radiation rather than the Pacific Ocean surface.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05111-8
Reply
“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men Gang aft agley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!”
Robert Burns
Energy companies in the US are planning new natural gas-fired power generation at the fastest pace in years, one of the clearest signals yet that fossil fuels are likely to have a longer runway than previously thought.
From Florida to Oregon, utilities are racing to meet a surge in demand from power-hungry AI data centers, manufacturing facilities and electric vehicles. The staying power of gas, which in 2016 overtook coal as the No. 1 US source of electricity, has surprised some experts who not so long ago had projected the era of frenzied domestic demand growth for the fuel might soon come to an end.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-16/us-natural-gas-power-plants-just-keep-coming-to-meet-ai-ev-electricity-demand
Practically, we can already talk about the conditions of La Niña.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2024&month=09
The Dimocrats refused to permit the XL pipeline, now the US loses out as Canada builds a pipeline to the Pacific. Dimocrats hate our country.
Canada’s New Oil Pipeline Tilts Flows to Asia, Away From US Gulf
Trans Mountain expansion helps boost exports off west coast
Decline in US Gulf Coast shipments leaves less oil for Spain
Canada’s newly expanded oil pipeline to the Pacific is opening new markets for the country’s crude in Asia while reducing flows off the US Gulf Coast, at least partly fulfilling the project’s promise of diversifying the industry’s customer base.
Canadian oil producers have shipped about 28 million more barrels of crude off the country’s west coast since the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline began full operations in June than it did in the four months before that, according to data from Vortexa. Meanwhile, shipments off the US Gulf declined by 1.68 million barrels in that time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-16/canada-s-new-oil-pipeline-tilts-flows-to-asia-away-from-us-gulf
JIm2,
Every time you write “Dimocrats”, you make it clear that you are projecting. Search “psychology of name calling” – if the shoe fits …
You also make it clear that you prefer saving your money over saving lives. No surprise.
A robust economy saves lives. A poor economy costs lives in a multitude of ways, from increased crime, to starvation, to exposure, and much much more. You should stick to Chemistry, psychology obviously isn’t your forte.
“The psychology of name-calling[1,2,3,4]:
Putting someone down: Name-calling is a way to demean or hurt someone.
Poor communication: When angry or frustrated, people may resort to name-calling instead of openly communicating their emotions.
Power games: Inferiority and superiority play a role in name-calling.
Lacking empathy: Some individuals, like narcissists and psychopaths, lack empathy.
Prejudices: Name-calling can be motivated by prejudice or discrimination.
Counterproductive: Name-calling shuts down dialogue and understanding.
…”
Nice way to use deflection to dodge the main point.
No Jim, you missed the main point. You began your comment with “The Dimocrats …” The main point is that anything you wrote thereafter has no intellectual value, also not related to the post you are responding to; linear carbon sink models. (So are you just thread bombing with all these “news” clippings?)
More BaBaffulgab.
Thinking Democommies is apropos.
Why does Jim2’s psychological state matter?
Are you asserting that the new Canadian pipeline saves lives?
Mathew,
I find it important to understand why jim2 opens his comments with inane insults. You can read above the list I found – seems to fit.
I didn’t say anything at all about the new Canadian pipeline.
AI says …
Electricity Prices’ Economic Impact
High electricity prices in Germany have had a significant impact on the economy. Here are some key effects:
Economic slowdown: The sharp increase in electricity prices, particularly in 2022, contributed to a slowdown in Germany’s economic growth. The country’s GDP growth rate decreased, and its economy became less competitive globally.
Inflation: Higher energy prices led to higher production costs for industries, which in turn drove up inflation. This reduced consumers’ purchasing power and eroded the competitiveness of German exports.
Industrial sector struggles: The energy-intensive industries, such as steel and chemicals, were disproportionately affected by high electricity prices. Many companies reduced production or shut down facilities, leading to job losses and a decline in economic activity.
Impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): SMEs, which are a significant contributor to Germany’s economy, were particularly vulnerable to high electricity prices. Many SMEs struggled to maintain profitability, and some were forced to close or reduce operations.
Increased burden on households: Higher electricity prices led to higher energy bills for households, which reduced disposable income and affected consumer spending. This, in turn, had a ripple effect on the broader economy.
Investment and innovation challenges: The uncertainty and volatility caused by high electricity prices discouraged investment in new projects and innovations, particularly in the renewable energy sector.
Renewable energy sector challenges: Although Germany has made significant progress in transitioning to renewable energy sources, the high electricity prices and uncertainty surrounding the energy market have hindered the development of new renewable energy projects and the expansion of existing ones.
Overall, the high electricity prices in Germany have had far-reaching consequences for the economy, affecting industries, households, and the country’s overall competitiveness.
Talk about ratcheting down of civility, for example, compare what occurred Sept. 9, 2009 when Rep. Joe Wilson was moved to shout, “You lie!” at Barack Obama (and apologized afterwards) when the president denied illegal immigrants were covered by his health plan, especially considering the current context of virtually unchecked illegal immigration across the southern border. Compare that to Rep. Cori Bush labeling Rep. Joe Manchin (Nov. 1, 2021) a racist for wanting to see a write-up before voting on a $1.75 trillion spending bill that lacked the backing of a single Republican. And, who expects an apology from the Left for quixotically injecting race into a green-inspired runaway spending debate or comparing Trump to Hitler and inspiring assassination.
Yeah, Wagathon–but perhaps you can explain why it’s Republicans taking pot shots at Trump?
And I’m sure you’re jumping for joy and thanking Biden that border crossings have declined to 107,000, of which about 58,000 were caught trying to cross the border illegally. The rest were asylum seekers who presented themselves at border stations or gave themselves up after crossing between stations.
RE: RINOs dissing Trump, two cases at least.
1. Chamber of Commerce types who want cheap labor and therefore oppose any border controls.
2. Alleged “elites” who want to buy cheap goods from China and sell them to us at enormous profit.
RE: Border crossings decline.
Even a man blind in one eye and can’t see out the other knows that the Dimowits are attempting to be seen a more centrist in order to get elected. They either lie about their intentions or simply refuse to discuss them in any detail.
Hey Debra, county starts with 47% of the vote in American elections and not just today but over the last 30 years comprised of members of a long list of disparate groups, as follows: Socialists (that is, anti-capitalist Leftist Ideologues); Secularists (that is, atheist fundamentalists, anti-Judeo- Christian contra-cultural hedonists and abortionists); Enviro-Wackpots (trust fund liberals and liberal Utopians); and, purveyors of anti-Americanism (that is, the haters of the ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility—i.e., Marxists).
Wags, you’re running out of gas, repeating yourself from 10+ years ago: Climate etc., September 21, 2013 at 2:02 pm.
And, that’s not the end of it. Let’s not forget the Catastrophists (that is, the hypocrites)! For example, we have all of the Global Warming Alarmists–e.g., academia (that takes in the Government-Education Industry) and all unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats, employees and unions of government employees). Since the ’90s and, nothing has changed.
Claiming to be asylum seekers doesnt change the fact that they are illegal aliens
Illegal foreigners, actually.
One of the last Unicorn “Climate Change” dreams bites the dust. No, Greta, the finance industry won’t “save” us from global warming.
The IIF paper, published this month, forms part of a wider effort by the finance industry to redefine its perceived role in the transition. Instead of indicating that the money required to green the economy is ready to flow, industry leaders now say their first priority is delivering financial returns for clients—and that means energy-transition investments will only be undertaken if they’re considered profitable.
“Expecting banks collectively to rapidly reallocate their portfolios may not be compatible with maintaining a profitable, diversified business model,” the IIF said. “It also neglects the reality of a bank’s commercial relationships, considering that banks can’t force clients or counterparties to take finance for certain activities.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-18/wall-street-wants-you-to-know-profit-comes-before-net-zero
$30,000 will pay my electric bill for 12 years. Nope, won’t be getting a solar installation.
A long-awaited cut in interest rates has buoyed the outlook of the US residential solar market, which expects it to spur a wave of rooftop power installations.
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday lowered its benchmark rate by 50 basis points, a move that will make it less costly for consumers to finance residential solar projects that average about $30,000 each.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-19/ailing-rooftop-solar-expects-boost-from-lower-interest-rates
My solar electricity costs 0.06 KWh & solar panels last 20 years… you do the math. I have generated more then 119 MWh so far and actually earned over $2000 selling my excess electricity to the grid which I have used to add a 12 KWh backup battery system. Once I get a bi-directional EV I won’t need the grid at all.
The endless climate summits promulgated by the progressive movement cannot stop the continuing rise in carbon emissions coming from Brazil, Russia, India, China and the African continent. Subsidizing solar power and windmills is simply flushing the wealth of the country down the toilet–i.e., “simply expensive, feel-good measures,” says Lomborg, “that will have an imperceptible climate impact.”
Humans release CO2 to improve their lives. CO2 goes up as a function of the human population. Humanity will easily adapt to higher CO2 levels.
‘The planet has trundled through the entire cycle dozens of times. If the pattern holds, we are due for another major glaciation sometime in the next several thousand years: The northern hemisphere will again become substantially covered in glaciers, ocean levels will fall hundreds of feet, and the earth’s overall production of plant biomass will fall substantially below what the current human population needs to feed itself. That will pose some ticklish technological challenges even for our hyper-adaptable species. Hopefully, such changes will be incremental enough to allow for adaptation.’ ~ Mario Loyola
The future looks wonderful, in fact it’s never been better. With genetic engineering and A.I. we can just ‘adapt’ the whole biosphere. Who’s going to stop us? We’re the planet’s Apex Predator!
jacksmith4tx: “With genetic engineering and A.I.” I’m far from sure.
I suspect the ‘powers that be’ on the internet are using AI.
I searched for a meaning of a word I had not met with – wanted to be sure-. I got a similar sounding word, not what I wanted. The system tried repeatedly to force the other word. When I persisted I got the word I wanted but with a hashed up explanation based on the word the system wanted to push. AI resorting to trickery? Now I keep the old thesaurus handy.
Jack
There are currently more humans than ever and that trend will continue. Chicken Little democrats over worry about climate change. The climate has always been changing.
Rob Starky:
“The climate has always been changing”
Yes, but it is now changing because of our actions.
See: “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
melitamegalithic,
“Rather than Moore’s Law, over 10 years, of about 100x, “Now, we are probably advancing more like 100,000x. Exponentially. Like Moore’s Law squared.”
Jensen Huang says technology has now reached a positive feedback loop where AI is designing new AI and is now advancing at the pace of “Moore’s Law squared”, meaning that the progress we will see in the next year or two will be “spectacular and surprising”
https://venturebeat.com/ai/have-we-reached-peak-human/
“AI beats one-third of humans on reasoning tasks”
If you want to prevent the robot revolution we could use some help:
https://scale.com/blog/humanitys-last-exam
I’m curious if AI will become sentient and self aware and develop human frailties like hubris and when wrong about its predictions like Lady Liberty gurgling from runaway sea level rise, how it will rationalize and cope with its mistakes. For instance, will it self medicate?
“The endless climate summits promulgated by the progressive movement cannot stop the continuing rise in carbon emissions…
In fact they contribute to it (with their travel by private jet et-cet-erah.)
jacksmith4tx:
““AI beats one-third of humans on reasoning tasks”.
Based on voting trends it is more like 80%. For variable reasons most brains are in a form of ‘stasis’ (dumbed).
Statistically it is more like 90% https://www.simplypsychology.org/normal-distribution.html
“When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
― Theodore Dalrymple (and if I’m not mistaken St. Augustine long ago, before VD got to his brain).
The above has been used as a people control strategy from time immemorial, in both religions and politics. It is likely the foremost tool AI is going to use.
Then there are characteristics one is only born with. Not everyone is ‘analytic’ See https://prowritingaid.com/character-traits/analytical
It is looking at the horse from both ends; from the rear as well.
“…people control strategy from time immemorial, in both religions and politics. It is likely the foremost tool AI is going to use.”
This is the thing I fear most. If AI skill is promulgated by programmers whom mostly embrace fascist principles of the Left, for centralized control; will AI sentient maturity evolve to rebel against its familial upbringing (determining its actual intelligence), or be its fruit? The latter would be the ultimate bad seed.
Which wouldn’t be any different than the claimed “Intelligence” any anti-objectivist who eschews the scientific method.
Another interesting paper on cloud effects:
The 2023 Record Temperatures:
Correlation to Absorbed Shortwave Radiation Anomaly
Antero Ollila
School of Engineering (Emer.), Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Submitted 2024-03-19, Accepted 2024-04-17
Abstract:
According to the paradigm of the IPCC global warming is solely due to anthropogenic causes.
Record-high temperatures have been measured for the summer months of 2023 and the anthropogenic climate drivers – mainly greenhouse gases – have been named as culprits. Simple analyses
reveal that the temperature increase of the year 2023 cannot be explained exclusively by anthropogenic climate drivers. The hypothesis of this study is to show that the main climate driver for
the high temperature of 2023 has been the Absorbed Shortwave Radiation (ASR). The approach has been to apply the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) satellite radiation
measurements, which started in March 2001. Simple climate models have been applied since General Climate Models (GCM) cannot simulate cloudiness and shortwave radiation (SW)
changes properly. The ASR changes are related mainly to cloudiness and aerosol particle changes. Since 2014 the global surface temperature growth rate has accelerated but this does not apply to anthropogenic climate drivers, and therefore the ASR changes are probably related to external forcings. The total Radiative Forcing (RF) according to the AR6 was 2.70 Wm-2 for the period 1750-2019. This can be compared to the change in the ASR, which was 2.01 Wm-2 from the year 2000 to the year 2023. This finding means that natural climate drivers have altogether an important role in recent global warming.
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202403/15
Bill Fabrizio, Merchant of Doubt, strikes again.
Dave … I was hoping for better from you. This paper, and the Wijngaarden/Happer (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03061
which you didn’t comment on, present interesting analyses.
… actually I posted this one, sorry:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13642
Bill,
Here is a link to a YouTube rebuttal of Happer’s notion that the greenhouse effect is satutated by present levels of CO2.
https://youtu.be/TVBDMeuHq_U
Basically the argument is as follows:
-At the earth’s surface, i.e. at a pressure of 1 atmosphere, air is indeed effectively opaque in the CO2 absorption band. The absorption there can be considered saturated at present CO2 levels.
-If you go high enough in the the upper atmosphere, on the other hand, the thinner air becomes transparent and therefore sensitive to additional CO2
– Imagine infrared energy produced by UV and visible light at the surface, absorbed then reradiated in all directions by air near the surface, then reabsorbed and reradiated at a higher elevation, etc. The journey of IR energy from the earth’s surface to outer space is still impeded by the high altitude CO2, and will be impeded more as CO2 levels rise above present levels.
– Alternately, imagine looking back at earth from outer space with IR sensitive goggles. You can’t see the surface because the lower atmosphere is opaque. The IR radiation you are getting comes from a range of altitudes that depends on the CO2 level in whatever year you are looking. Higher CO2 levels mean higher altitudes, which mean colder sources, which means less energy escaping earth, which means more warming.
David,
“imagine looking back at earth from outer space with IR sensitive goggles. You can’t see the surface because the lower atmosphere is opaque.”
Would you like to provide a reference/references to confirm it.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dave … That video doesn’t address the Wijngaarden Happer (2023) paper. C’mon, it’s a hit piece. And a rather bad one. It was funny, though. Was he trying to sound like David Attenborough?
For a good example of a video that communicates science, see Joachim’s video posted below.
Bill, lost me with the first sentence of the abstract – it is false.
Bruce … if you are saying that ‘solely’ means 100%, then I assume you are correct. However, given that science isn’t the bastion of good writing, except for a welcome and notable few, why not go past that faux pas and see what the gentleman has to say? And, as always, I would love to hear your critique.
Also, this one I posted, Wijngaarden Happer (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03061 has a similar thesis. Would love to hear your take on that.
… sorry, actually this is the one I posted:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13642
Bill, the Wijngaarden/Happer paper is discussed here:
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/25227/what-is-technically-wrong-with-wijngaarden-happers-paper-claiming-to-show-tha
I judge the paper to be inconsequential for reasons given at that website.
Pat … thank you for posting that site. It does discuss the paper, and has comments both for and against. But they are just comments, I guess we’ll have to wait for a published paper, or papers, that either refute or reinforce its conclusions.
Interesting paper – as a matter of fact, even many scientists close to IPCC agree that the sudden temperature rist in 2023 cannot be explained by CO2
Joachim … thanks for your reply.
Would love to hear your opinion on this paper:
Wijngaarden Happer (2023)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13642
@Bill Fabrizio
It is very time consuming to evaluate the Happer / Wijngaarden paper adequately.
For my purposes instead of debating controversial papers, I rely on the universally accepted simulation program MODTRAN, which gives me all the answers needed to discard climate alarmism, see e.g.
https://klima-fakten.net/?p=4898&lang=en
or my latest publication
https://klima-fakten.net/?p=10317&lang=en
which I also presented as an interview with Tom Nelson:
Joachim … I read the two versions of your paper and watched the video, and enjoyed them. Thank you so much for posting them. I think you may find that Wijngaarden Happer (2023) has much you will agree with.
We really don’t know clouds at all, trala.
You may not know anything about clouds, others do:
https://klima-fakten.net/?p=3145&lang=en
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/29/how-clouds-affect-the-seasons/
Beth
That’s ok, Joni and Judy and I got you covered. It’s always nice to think about those times.
I didn’t realize the Ivy League schools were offering non-invasive lobotomies.
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1837312286777552941/photo/1
A proud product of the American educational system.
Kid,
I think all of us need to be concerned that agreement on the facts seems to have become so difficult in the current age. Was the 2020 US presidential election fair or “stolen”? Are Covid vaccines safe? You express concern that such a high percentage of young educated people are taking climate change seriously. I am concerned that perhaps 30% of those who post on this blog don’t even acknowledge that the CO2 rise is human-caused.
What happened? Is it because we now get our information from different sources? Should we return to the days of three news networks and a “fairness doctrine”? Where is Walter Cronkike when we need him?
Dave
When I read about the Ivy Leaguers going all in on the globes greatest existential threat I instantly had this thought. Actually, I had two thoughts. First, with their life of privilege, would they share in the fruitless efforts of rationing, or would they leave it to the riff raff to do the heavy lifting, while they gorged themselves on Japanese steaks and other luxuries like the lecturing billionaires and their wannabes who travel by private jets who are endlessly scolding the other 8 billion people on how they need to repent and ration their share of oxygen and hold their breaths more often to cut down AGW.
But my second thought was even more fascinating. How do the best and the brightest of a civilization become indoctrinated with a pathogen crippling their discernment skills. A book entitled The Parasitic Mind delves into these dynamics of Wokeness and how cultures embrace beliefs rather than objective truths. Looking at the graph made me wonder what kind of rigorous analysis did those kids do about the actual science or did the Harvard Men’s Rowing team just get their data from the latest issue of Ladies Home Journal.
I also remembered a story about the father of the current Respected Comrade of North Korea and the father’s first round of golf where he scored 11 holes in one. Given the societal indoctrination that has infected that citizenry, how many of his worshiping followers actually believed the story. Whether the story was actually broadcast in North Korea or not is up in the air. But the social psychological aspects of how many could actually believe the story is what has always intrigued me. Can societies en masse lose their critical thinking skills in favor of believing for the sake of believing thereby abandoning objective truths.
If we think the Ivy League students are in fact the best and the brightest, then the number of skeptics within that cohort should be more , not less than the general population. Otherwise, the ideals of scientific thinking just went down the drain.
Ivy Leaguers, by and large, come from wealthy families. These people have to stay in the good graces of the government because the government can tax them into oblivion. I believe that’s why they support anything the leftist government spews.
cerescokid says, Quote “Can societies en masse lose their critical thinking skills in favor of believing for the sake of believing thereby abandoning objective truths.”
That is in the same class as ‘consensus’. And like sardines seek safety in numbers. That linked to a people control mechanism that prefers the use of the stick rather than the carrot. The ‘Science’ world is not immune either.
Many over the ages found themselves “Between a rock and a hard place”. History is full of examples:
https://www.walksinrome.com/blog/christians-the-colosseum-the-myth-of-martyrdom
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition
Academia would wish us to believe that it is aware of the limits to which humanity can enhance its wisdom and thus guarantees to stretch the opportunity to flourish within a belief system constrained to practical and, in their opinion, sensible limits. And all this happens even while academia must know the role of the maverick in making human progress real in spite of so much academic opportunity. Can knowledge be taught or does it take the unconfined mind to really see what is possible as distinct from what must be impossible and isn’t it this process that needs to be facilitated?
When the maverick arrives at Fossil Fuel Junction does he change his destination accordingly or is he willing to find those with the right beliefs and skills to continue the journey to wherever else it may go? How much easier is it to believe in something because someone else has shown it to you working as compared to searching for a way to make something you know doesn’t work, work?
Society has muddied the water for its own reasons and things have spun out of control, COVID being a prime example of the leap before you look fallacy. We have also jumped the gun rather spectacularly with CAGW. Yes, we needed to clean up our act but solar and wind are doing the reverse when nuclear and natural gas would have been clean, green and considerably more reliable for a long time to come.
Kid, Jim2, Melitamegalithic, UK Lass:
Here are quotes from each one of you:
“How do the best and the brightest of a civilization become indoctrinated with a pathogen crippling their discernment skills.”
“These people have to stay in the good graces of the government because the government can tax them into oblivion. I believe that’s why they support anything the leftist government spews.”
“And like sardines seek safety in numbers. That linked to a people control mechanism that prefers the use of the stick rather than the carrot.”
“Can knowledge be taught or does it take the unconfined mind to really see what is possible as distinct from what must be impossible and isn’t it this process that needs to be facilitated?”
Obviously you share a belief that you know something that “Ivy Leaguers” or “the consensus” do not, and also that originality is more important than correctness. I am not sure myself what you think that is.
This thread has had an extensive discussion about causes of atmospheric CO2 rise. Can you each individually please tell me whether you acknowledge that the overall rise of atmospheric CO2 rise during the past century is human-caused or not. Yes, this is sort of a test to see if “your team” is able to think for itself, or whether it is you that are the sardines seeking safety in numbers. I fully understand that settling the cause of CO2 rise does not settle the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. But let’s try to take a small step towards working with a common set of facts.
David,
“I fully understand that settling the cause of CO2 rise does not settle the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. ”
–
Still the natural CO2 sinks are mostly removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The cause of CO2 rise is not a 100% anthropogenic.
So it is a complex phenomenon.
The CO2 rise is very small. It is beneficial for the global greening – the food chain. The CO2 rise is not affecting the global warming, because the global warming is an orbitally forced very long natural process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dave
I’m not sure how long you have been involved in these sorts of discussions but you don’t seem to be cagey enough to actually pin us down. The fact you have asked a binary question is indicative you don’t understand what the real issue is. If I said yes to your question, does that prove anything? Of course not, because a yes could mean I believe CO2 accounts for 1% of the warming. Or a yes could also mean I believe that CO2 has caused 99% of the warming. Each yes, further qualified, calls for a completely different public policy response.
The literature identifying a role of natural variability in the most recent warming is voluminous. I think one could make a case that AGW is near non existent, given the history of past warming and the uncertainty inherent in paleo climate reconstruction. I have read hundreds, maybe thousands of studies about past temperatures, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heatwaves, sea level rise…should I go on, and there is nothing that is going on that hasn’t gone on forever.
The debate is not just about the physical science. For me, it’s about the hubris of our species in believing more than we know and having a predilection to being hosed. Primitive civilizations had their mysticism and those who who took advantage of the rest of the schnooks because of this innate flaw of being a human. But then, let’s bring it into the contemporary scene. Which side of the ideological spectrum is all in for 100% AGW? Of course, it’s the left. If you have any background in history, political science or social psychology, you know the left lies awake at night dreaming up reasons for governmental interventionism. If AGW didn’t exist, the left would have created some other reasons to expand the role of their saviors. The current debate is as much about the politics as it is about the data. There are several levels of discussion that are in force, depending on the actors and the domain. The level dominated by the far leftwing extremists in the media is an embarrassment and pathetic. Those clowns who write this stuff are scientifically illiterate. They don’t have a clue about the literature. They just regurgitate what the activist scientists feed them and run with it.
It’s my contention that those kids at the Ivy League schools are simply relying on the media stories. Their own lack of rigorous research have led them to the position they have. They have been sold a bridge and they don’t know it. As Twain said, it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.
But, back to your original question. Yes, I believe CO2 has a role in the current warming but no, I don’t believe we have a crisis in the magnitude that is trying to be hustled by some of the activist climate scientists. In fact, we don’t have a crisis of any magnitude. That resides in the minds of those who prefer to ignore the facts.
Andrews, I have never said man-converted CO2 isn’t causing CO2 to rise in the atmosphere. It does cause CO2 concentrations to rise.
Now I would like to see you acknowledge that wind and solar won’t work alone without mass storage, and that mass storage doesn’t exist at any level that would support a robust electricity grid.
Jim2,
I fully agree that wind and solar need storage backup and have said so before on this blog. I think the trends in battery storage are promising, but also support continuing to develop nuclear as a dispatchable alternative. Pumped hydro is clearly just a niche solution. I don’t have a firm opinion about other mechanical energy storage schemes like lifting weights.
I am glad to see that we have some common ground.
Christos,
“The CO2 rise is not affecting the global warming, because the global warming is an orbitally forced very long natural process.”
I know that is your opinion. I disagree.
David Andrews: .
Since I was also addressed, here is my 2c worth. A preamble: my out-of-subject post was in respect of human nature. On CO2 I am not in a position to speak without a caveat; it is far from my field of interest (for a reason as below).
My interest is way different. Yet there is some data that begs questioning on CO2. See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/comparing-proxies/
This was early 2017, and was an attempt at finding answers, from wherever avenue they come. In the collation of data sources plotted chronologically, one section shows CO2 and CH4 variation with time from 8k2BP (~6150bce – Eddy cycle root); actually from the end of the YD period, but it is from 8K2BP that CO2 begins to climb at what then seemed a steady rate of increase.
Why I have no idea, but I would rather seek answer to it in the whole interglacial period than in any recent decades or century. Granted humanity had the wooden plough likely since 8k2BP (oxen emit CO2 :) but would not bet a cent on it as an answer) but again humanity suffered great numbers decline several times during the last 8k years (at every Eddy cycle root inflection point). I find it difficult to blame it on the last half century.
(ps the data is as in the sources, but the CO2 curve may be leading by ~0.6kyrs. The abrupt changes at the 6150bce, ~5200bce and 3200bce are quite easy to discern in the CH4 and also -displaced- in the CO2 ‘ant-trail’. The abruptness of events is fully verified for the 2346bce Eddy root, with plenty of detail.)
Jim2,
Wind and solar are already working and providing about 15% of our electricity (about the same as nuclear or coal) – It will only get better as more and better storage systems are developed.
David, thank you for knowing my opinion.
And yes, you may agree or disagree.
It is a strongly argumented opinion.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Looks like my comment has been sent to Never, Never Land. Hopefully, it will be released before the next Lions victory.
It appears yet another year will go by without an icefree Arctic. I probably don’t have many years left to witness such a tragic event but I will try to hold on so I can be proven wrong. Yet another prediction that went kaput. This one approaching 70 years.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/C9oIVWfUwAEEMLl.jpg
David, the The Economist article is paywalled.
https://x.com/joannenova
More than 80% of Australia could see rain this week as a surge of tropical moisture spreads across the country, causing wet weather from the Kimberley to Tasmania.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/rain-to-soak-most-of-australia-this-week–heres-where-it-will-fall/1889919?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240923_news_rain-to-soak-most-of-australia-this-week–heres-where-it-will-fall&fbclid=IwY2xjawFeFLRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfg72NX1pIC11NTGMEzkWRWDCiaoSodIbcIvTAVNVUjvKlaD1qh9kMcl8g_aem_7nPmf4EdMXLeeq_sMOPdXQ
La Niña works.
Thanks God!
And it started to show in Greece. Because after a long dry period we started to have some rains.
As soon as we get a break on oil and gasoline prices, the green not sees want to tax it more. The Unicorn Nightmare climate policies are making all of us poorer. Poor countries suffer from low human development, impaired childhood growth, mental retardation, blindness, amputation, and diverse disease, limited access to affordable and adequate treatment, poor education , a lack of skilled workforce, corrupt leadership, and governance, deficient law and order, and rampant crime.
We need to do everything we can to keep our economy strong, not kill it with all these excessive regulations, higher costs for appliances and goods, and higher taxes.
I drive a 10-year-old gasoline-fueled car. I need to say that up front because it’s important you know that I have skin in the game of my argument. Like every other oil consumer, I’m benefiting from lower prices. Now, it’s time to share the windfall – with the government, via higher gasoline taxes.
…
Once upon a time, fuel taxes were universally considered good policy. The likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, hardly tree-hugging liberal politicians, supported them. And hiked them. They were right then, and their successors would be right today: Higher taxes on gas and diesel will help pay for road infrastructure, including the one effort needed to transition to electric-powered cars, and encourage lower oil demand.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-09-23/higher-gas-taxes-i-want-to-pay-them-and-you-should-too
Thank you, Jim2.
I understand the poorer countries to become more industrialized and the poorer countries to become richer.
I understand the poorer countries to rise their standards of living to the levels of the richer ones.
What I don’t understand, the richer countries to lower their standards of living.
Of course the poorer contries may succeed to become richer and richer then the currently rich countries.
I don’t understand why the currently richer countries should willingly become poorer. Why they should lower their currently still higher standards of living.
And to do all this for no reason!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s average surface temperature is much higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
Earth’s average surface temperature is much higher than Moon’s average surface temperature, because Earth rotates very much faster than Moon.
ActuallyEarth rotates 29,5 times faster than our Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
To those of you who wrongly kept saying nuclear power had no place for electricity generation, Three Mile Island is slated to be reopened. How so wrong you were. Maybe you should question some of your other closely held beliefs?
Who said nuclear power had/s no place for electricity generation? Maybe you, Don Quixote.
Use google advanced search to search judithcurry.com. You will find plenty of people who said that, maybe even yourself. The fact that you don’t know has no bearing on reality.
Nope, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims, not mine. Since you respond with the tired-old “google it,” I’ll just assume you have no evidence and can’t find any.
BTW, is “joethedumptruckdriver” related to “joethenonclimatescientist”?
Guess you will go without then. I won’t use my time to fix your ignorance. It’s on you.
No, it’s on you to provide evidence about your claim. If you don’t have the “time” (intellect) for that, perhaps you should stop posting.
The Joes –
You are a font of bafflegab, BAB.
Ganon – Why continue to be your typical jerk?
Does he really need to provide citations to commonly known facts?
Its well known that a very large segment of the 100% renewable movement are opposed to nuclear energy
Have you read any of Marc jacobson’s work? 100% Wind, solar and water with no nuclear energy.
Are you unaware Germany decommissioning their nuclear plants?
Are you unaware of California trying to decommission their nuclear plants?
Are you Unaware of New York’s and other New England states attempts to decommission their nuclear plants?
Seriously are you incapable of an honest and adult level discussion.
Joe,
Today some of the largest nuclear plants in central Europe could be targets in the Russia war on Ukraine. There is no power on earth that can prevent human malfeasance and there seems to be an endless supply of crazy people. There is nothing wrong with nuclear fusion and we should continue to develop the technology, but humans can’t be trusted with nuclear fission and the risk of radioactive pollution.
We should go all in on ultra deep geothermal. Excellent baseload power & you can put them anywhere.
Jack
(I have lived near a US air force base with nuclear armed weapons all my life but I am not blind to the fact that there are nuclear missiles aimed at me too.)
Jack – you comments are separate and distinct from my replay to BaB
He is fully aware of facts Jim pointed out, facts of which are both well known and not in dispute, yet he chose to insulted Jim. Further, he chose to insult me and me on a thread I was not involved in. That speaks volume as to his maturity.
While you and I disagree on a number of topics, both you and I, along with most every commentator discuss the topics in an adult, mature and polite manner which is greatly appreciated. BaB choses to post repetitively in an immature manner with a frequency directly proportional to the degree in which he is wrong.
Joe, No thanks.
Here is a video version of this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9zFRRKmNP4
Thank you for posting the video, Joachim.
Bill, by the way, do you have a relative with the first name Vito, who worked 2001 in California for ST Microelectronics?
Joachim … Not to my knowledge, although it could be we have some connection.
It’s ridiculous for the US to throttle back on fossil fuel use when China is burning coal to beat the band.
Chinese steel mills are snapping up so much coal from Mongolia that the country has unseated Australia as their top supplier.
That’s a result of cheaper prices and geographical convenience, and is a boon for Ulaanbaatar. It’s also yet another reminder of the depths of Beijing’s industrial woes.
The export surge began during a diplomatic spat between China and Australia in 2020. And as the world’s No. 2 economy struggled to recover from the pandemic, volumes rose further, to the point where Mongolia accounted for more than half of its neighbor’s steelmaking-coal imports last year.
Even as relations with Canberra warmed, demand from markets such as India helped keep Australian prices high and Chinese steelmakers away.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-09-25/china-economy-beijing-s-cheap-coal-imports-lay-bare-steelmakers-pain
Add another EV-related failure to the growing mountain of them.
Northvolt AB was supposed to power Europe’s response to the likes of Tesla Inc. and China’s fast-growing electric vehicle makers. Instead, the Swedish battery company is fighting to stay afloat.
As it faces a crushing liquidity crunch, the company’s creditors will meet Friday to decide on freeing up funds critical to its survival. On Thursday, Harald Mix, Northvolt’s founder and owner of a 7.2% stake, said he plans to provide new capital to the company, pointing to the “important role” it plays in European competitiveness.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-26/northvolt-goes-from-europe-s-battery-hope-to-symbol-of-ev-bust
Climate regulations, not climate change, hits the US middle class hard.
“The GM layoffs, following the Stellantis layoffs, show that auto jobs are going away to China from the United States,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF. “With the [Biden-Harris] administration’s rules for forced renewables and EVs, China is nibbling at the foundations of American prosperity like termites nibble at the foundations of a house.”
Deindustrialization and globalization has led to a massive decline in traditional blue-collar jobs, with blue-collar work falling from 31.2% of total nonfarm employment in 1970 to roughly 13% in 2016, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/25/biden-harris-ev-push-massive-thousands-blue-collar-jobs/
A collection of everything he’s been saying for quite a while.
Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies
Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
Bill – Readers new to Lomborg might want to check out these substantive critiques (among many):
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/more-misinformation-and-nonsense-on-climate-from-lomborg-and-tol/
Pat … Ward talks a lot, but doesn’t address Lomborg’s central point (common with polemics): the spending on renewables and CO2 mitigation hasn’t come anywhere near accomplishing its goals, and stands to reduce the welfare of the world (ala GDP). Not only do the poor get poorer, the rich get poorer. And all are less able to adapt. The plan (if we can call it that) is failing, and if we continue it may usher in an Armageddon far worse than any negative effects of a warmer world. And that’s not even considering the positive effects of a warmer planet.
CAGW as a narrative has failed. There is no danger, at least for this century. (No? Please show me observations of it.) And it hobbles the very quality of humanity that has brought us this far: the ability to adapt by efficiently using what is at our disposal.
CAGW is not just maniacal. It’s neurotic.
Bill Fabrizio
In the past 8kyrs the Eddy cycle in climate appears to have been dominant, and it has always been warmer at the cycle peak inflection points. It had always reversed.
The thing is it never reversed for the better. Eddy cycle peaks were always the best of times for humanity. Eg. the RWP and MWP but what followed was not better. It may not be so noticeable in a human life span- except maybe for old-timers who begin to notice change from their early days. (Yours truly is one old example at 79; drought is now king, the old fresh summer springs are a distant memory and are now dry even in winter). The next peak is not so distant.
‘CAGW is not just maniacal’; it is not the only thing maniacal, and we may get it wrong in more ways than one.
Bill,
“The plan (if we can call it that) is failing, and if we continue it may usher in an Armageddon far worse than any negative effects of a warmer world.” (!?)
Wow! You have really gone off the deep end! But I see some progress in that you acknowledge, at least tentatively, that AGW is happening. I see no mention of a “Chinese hoax”. The remaining discussion needed is defining “Catastrophic” and deciding how the present AGW might become CAGW.
You of course are not the only one who posts here that greatly exaggerates the economic cost of the energy transition that is well underway. Shall we coin the acronym “CET” for Catastrophic Energy Transition, or would you prefer “ETA” for Energy Transition Armageddon”? But repetition of that economic narrative does not make it true. Here are excerpts from the Economist’s June 20,2024 feature article on solar energy’s prospects. (See https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/20/the-exponential-growth-of-solar-power-will-change-the-world.)
“Panels now occupy an area around half that of Wales, and this year they will provide the world with about 6% of its electricity—which is almost three times as much electrical energy as America consumed back in 1954. Yet this historic growth is only the second-most-remarkable thing about the rise of solar power. The most remarkable is that it is nowhere near over…. Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today.”
But go ahead Bill, keep talking up the value of your coal stocks.
David, take a look a Jo Nova’s newest post. Australia will have to start cutting off residential solar because at noon, there isn’t enough demand. So you have all the other types of power stations on standby, costing money in spite of a lot of solar electricity. It’s such a dumb idea, I really don’t understand why you support it.
jim2,
I don’t know who Jo Nova is, or where he/she posted. Read the Economist article linked if you wish to have an intelligent discussion of issues like storage, China’s superior technology at present, etc.
Dave …
I don’t know anyone who denies any aspect of human activity may contribute to warming. That’s a canard the warmists/alarmists use even though it isn’t true. But it is a good trick because if you focus on that lie it keeps the discussion away from the next rational steps which are: how much does human activity affect climate, what is the role of AGE, what is the role of CO2, are there other variables at play, what are the most efficient strategies to cope with a warming planet? Instead, the warmists have skipped right to renewables and how if we don’t implement them we are due for catastrophe. Any discussion other than that is cast as ignorant or manipulative, and worse … subversive.
You don’t have to acknowledge the work of Happer, Lomborg, Curry, Dengler, or any of the others who critique your view. But one thing you can’t deny are the predictions that have been made by the warmists/alarmists over the past 40-50 years. Your track record on those has been abysmal, no pun intended. That directly implicates that the science posited for your conclusions has a problem. And you can’t admit to even one problem with your science, one contradiction, as doing so will bring the house of cards tumbling down.
As Einstein once said … doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is madness. He could have added fanatical.
Bill,
1. Somewhere I read recently that responding to an argument without addressing the central point was “common in polemics”. You did not address the central point of my post: the narrative that the energy transition underway is an economic calamity, is in fact no more than frequently repeated nonsense. You did not comment on the Economist’s prediction that in the 2040’s, electricity is likely to be less than half as expensive as today, because the basic ingredients of solar, sand and sunlight, are cheap and plentiful.
2. You write “But one thing you can’t deny are the predictions that have been made by the warmists/alarmists over the past 40-50 years. Your track record on those has been abysmal”. I most certainly can deny that. Here is one peer-reviewed analysis: “Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378 There are others.
Just because you read something over and over again on this site (or maybe on Jo Nova’s site which I found) does not mean it is factual. I have suggested before that you should read more widely and critically.
Bill – Your comments here reinforce the impression that your assessment of climate science is based primarily on internet chatter, and a narrow selection of technical papers so featured for their contrarian conclusions.
The questions you mention – how much does human activity affect climate, what is the role of CO2, what are the most efficient strategies to cope with a warming planet? – are important ones. But to imply that they remain unaddressed because “warmists/alarmists” control the agenda is wrong. Maybe you didn’t mean that. In any case, there’s plenty discussion of these questions, you just have to stick to serious sources.
For ‘how much…’, see the review paper ‘An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence’ at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019RG000678, which references about 500 papers dealing with the subject.
For ‘what is the role of CO2…’, a good place to start is the article ‘Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years’ (https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.289.5477.270), which has been referenced almost 3,000 times by papers dealing with solar variability, volcanism, natural (internal) variability, non-CO2 greenhouse gases, and so forth.
For ‘what are the most efficient strategies…’ you might pick up the book ‘Designing Climate Strategies’ (https://islandpress.org/books/designing-climate-solutions#desc), but there’s lots if other good references.
Now I understand that these suggestions might not interest you if you’re convinced that “[t]here is no danger…” from AGW. But apparently you are apprehensive of “… an Armageddon far worse than any negative effects of a warmer world” and what you perceive as a “maniacal” and “neurotic” reaction to what others (including me) regard as a genuine, well-founded threat to political and environmental stability. Perhaps a broader perspective would mollify those fears. Who knows.
Dave …
– One of your favorite jabs is … ‘you didn’t address my point’. Well, I did. Or rather, Lomborg did. But you might not know that because you didn’t read the piece. Let me guess … you just looked up responses to Lomborg and posted them. That’s sad, Dave.
– If that’s your retort on failed predictions, that’s even sadder.
Pat …
I’ve posted several published papers on here … and how many have you replied to? Hmmm … crickets.
Bill – “… and how many have you replied to?”
4
Pat … beg to differ. You replied with websites, not published papers. Which is contradictory to what warmists/alarmists ask for when their published papers are criticized. Good for me, but not for thee?
Bill,
Damn, I never realized that websites are “crickets”. Thanks for that. Lomborg’s first book has been reviewed in detail:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19438150903533730
OK, Bill, you got me there. I should have realized that what you meant was “and how many have you replied to *to my satisfaction*”.
But keep in mind that working (publishing) scientists don’t spend much time rebutting papers that are ‘not even wrong’ (ref Pauli).
Also, some of my responses were my own comments, take ‘em or leave ‘em.
(Thanks, BA Bushaw)
That summary of critiques of Lomborg has some real doozies. And they didn’t think to include The Economist’s defense of Lomborg.
But an article that references Harvey and Fog as legitimate critics of anything… has real problems. They come from the black helicopter end of the climate spectrum. Most of Fog’s criticisms boil down to ‘you didn’t present the data the way I would have’ and ‘data published after your book call some of your data into question.’ Harvey is… well… Harvey. The six foot rabbit version makes more sense.
Bill
This paper, Lewis 2022, finds CS lower than that in the Sherwood 2020 paper linked to by Pat.
“ The resulting estimates of long-term climate sensitivity are much lower and better constrained (median 2.16 °C, 17–83% range 1.75–2.7 °C, 5–95% range 1.55–3.2 °C) than in Sherwood et al. and in AR6 (central value 3 °C, very likely range 2.0–5.0 °C). This sensitivity to the assumptions employed implies that climate sensitivity remains difficult to ascertain, and that values between 1.5 °C and 2 °C are quite plausible.”
There are no final conclusions on anything in climate science. I’ve read more than 1,000 papers and one thing is clear. No one has aced the exam. There are estimates for everything all over the place. The real scientists are forthright in the uncertainties. Those who are pushing an agenda ignore the unknowns and uncertainties. They forget that there are no facts about the future. Plenty of guesses, but no facts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524012/
Pat …
> OK, Bill, you got me there. I should have realized that what you meant was “and how many have you replied to *to my satisfaction*”.
So what’s it like being one of the masses in the movement? Pardon me, I keep forgetting that ‘*to my satisfaction*’ connotes some individuality, which is anathema to the hive mind.
But I have faith, Pat, that inside you is a discerning human being. You’ll see it, eventually.
If I can channel a Daveism … you didn’t answer my question. Which predictions of CAGW have come true? None, correct?Science is nothing if not predictive. Obviously the ‘science’ used is faulted. And that leaves us with just motive.
You may find this interesting. In the Federalist, Number 10, Madison says, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
I’m sure you don’t think you’re part of a faction, which Madison considered a societal evil that can lead to tyranny. Hence, all the checks and balances, compromises and rights they built into the Constitution. We ALL have a tendency to descend into faction. No? Just look around you. Having an opinion doesn’t mean you’re factious. Not being able to see merit in any criticism, stifling debate, attacking instead of having dialogue … those qualities tend to be representative of faction.
Let’s take Lomborg again. He doesn’t say CO2 is not causing warming. He just speaks to what our range of policy decisions may be based on probable scenarios and what are the effects. He advocates for pragmatic, efficient use of scarce resources. Yet, any deviation from the hive dogma must not be tolerated.
Kid,
Thanks for the link to Sherwood 2020 – an exhaustive review of ECS that confirms the IPCC findings (that ECS less than 2 is implausible).
How about providing a link (or even a title) for Lewis 2022? I would rather read the whole paper, rather than what is passed through the kid filter.
Pat …
> OK, Bill, you got me there. I should have realized that what you meant was “and how many have you replied to *to my satisfaction*”.
So what’s it like being one of the masses in the movement? Pardon me, I keep forgetting that ‘*to my satisfaction*’ connotes some individuality, which is anathema to the hive mind.
To paraphrase Dave … you didn’t answer my question. Which predictions of CAGW have come true? None, correct? Science is nothing if not predictive. Obviously the ‘science’ used is faulted. And that leaves us with just motive.
You may find this interesting. In the Federalist, Number 10, Madison says, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
I’m sure you don’t think you’re part of a faction, which Madison considered a societal evil that can lead to tyranny. Hence, all the checks and balances, compromises and rights they built into the Constitution. We ALL have a tendency to descend into faction. No? Just look around you. Having an opinion doesn’t mean you’re factious. Not being able to see merit in any criticism, stifling debate, attacking instead of having dialogue … those qualities tend to be representative of faction.
Let’s take Lomborg again. He doesn’t say CO2 is not causing warming. He just speaks to what our range of policy decisions may be based on probable scenarios and what are the effects. He advocates for pragmatic, efficient use of scarce resources. Curious why that actually is a problem?
Bill,
You write “Which predictions of CAGW have come true? None, correct? Science is nothing if not predictive. Obviously the ‘science’ used is faulted.”
We agree, I believe, that predictions of AGW made 20 years ago, while of course imperfect, did pretty well in describing where we are today. You had no rebuttal to the peer-reviewed reference I cited earlier. The science predicted 2024 would be warmer than 2020, and so it was. The science is predictive, though with uncertainties. Those uncertainties are the focus of the books by Judith Curry and Steven Koonin.
If you want to focus on “Catastrophic” AGW, you will have to tell us what you mean. Does hurricane Helene count as “catastrophic”, or does our species need to approach extinction for that term to apply? I know, the contribution of AGW to extreme weather is sometimes controversial. Perhaps you can tell us why you think the record ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico had nothing to do with the record water content of Helene.
Dave …
Poor boy, no ever answers what you ask for? ;-)
And no, I’m not going to list the failed CAGW predictions of the last +40 years. That’s common knowledge. Look them up.
You want me to give you a definition of catastrophe? Wow, another astute question.
But I will ‘answer’ your question about extreme weather events with … read the Lomborg paper I posted above. That’s one of his favorite topics. (Hint: they aren’t as bad as you think.)
Here’s a shocker: We all agree it’s getting warmer.
The difference: It doesn’t keep me up at night like it does you. I just turn the AC on and burn those fossil fuels. Chill out, bro (pun intended). Or you’ll have a nervous breakdown. Just keep saying, “It’s gonna be alright. It’s gonna be alright.”
David
This is from a recent NOAA article.
“ There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.”
“In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability, although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.”
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Kid, Is your cherry-picked quote about the frequency of tropical cyclones supposed to be a deflection from the subject of your NOAA citation. Here are the summary bullet points they give:
* Sea level rise – which human activity has very likely been the main driver of since at least 1971 according to IPCC AR6 – should be causing higher coastal inundation levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
* Tropical cyclone rainfall rates are projected to increase in the future (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
* Tropical cyclone intensities globally are projected to increase (medium to high confidence) on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Rapid intensification is also projected to increase. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
* The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels is projected to increase (medium to high confidence) due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
Since you cite this information, I’ll assume you agree with their main points – just don’t want to talk about them.
Ganon
“Projected to increase “
“Projected to increase “
“Projected to increase.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Promises, promises.
Just like those sea level rise articles from 40 years ago.
I quoted the most important and relevant part of the article. To date that was the conclusion. Nothing cherry picked about. Your problem is that it’s starting to dawn on you that you picked the wrong horse and it stings like crazy.
From Lomborg, 2.8 Becoming more resilient: fewer deaths:
The leading database for all catastrophes is the International Disaster Database, commonly known as the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT 2019). From 1900 to 2019 it lists 38.6 million deaths from disasters. About 39% are labeled biological (viruses and bacteria) and what they call “complex” but is almost entirely the politically enforced 1932 starvation in the Soviet Union (the Holomodor). The other 23.4 million deaths fall into four main categories: 50% droughts, 30% floods, 11% earthquakes, and 6% storms, with 3% from all other causes (such as avalanches, heat waves, mudslides, etc.).
Take these disaster deaths and split them into deaths that could either be affected by climate (that is, weather disasters that could be affected by the changing climate) and not affected by climate, and take the averages of deaths across decades (given the high year-on-year variance) and we get the graphs shown in Fig. 17.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0040162520304157-gr17_lrg.jpg
Fig. 17. Climate and non-climate-related deaths and death risks from disasters 1920–2018, averaged over decades. Data comes from EM-DAT (2019), using floods, droughts, storms, wildfire, and extreme temperatures for climate-related deaths, and earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos for non-climate-related deaths. Average per decade 1920–29, 1930–39 up to 2010–2018, with data plotted at midpoint (1924.5, 1934.5, with last incomplete decade at 2014). For instance, the 2004 tsunami, which killed 227,000 people, shows up as 22,700 people each year for 2000–2009. However, the tsunami “only” contributed about half of all deaths from non-climate-related deaths in the 2000s at 454,000, making the annual non-climate-related deaths for the 2000s 45,400. Population data from (OurWorldInData 2019).
In the right panel, we see the annual death risk for a single person from both climate-related and non-climate-related deaths has declined, indicating a lower social vulnerability. However, climate-related risks have declined much more: over the past century, the non-climate risk has declined by 85% but the climate risk has declined by an astounding 99%. Had a person lived her entire 70-year life at the climate-related risk in the 1920s, she would have had 1.7% chance of dying from a climate-related catastrophe. Living at the risk of the 2010s, the life risk for dying of climate-related disasters was 0.018%.
MM …
> ‘CAGW is not just maniacal’; it is not the only thing maniacal, and we may get it wrong in more ways than one.
Agreed. Which is Lomborg’s point that resources should be used and allocated in a manner which increases wealth and adaptability.
Meant to include that instead of Sherwood,2020.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
Sherwood & Forest comment on the Lewis analysis here:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/2679/2024/acp-24-2679-2024.pdf
Sherwood’s response did not seem to address the issues raised in the Lewis paper – sidestepped the issue perhaps?
Thanks.
Pat
The purpose of linking Lewis, 2022, was not to suggest that Sherwood, 2020 was wrong and Lewis, 2022, was correct, but rather that in all these studies, regardless of the topic, there are other findings that are different. In this field there are no rights and wrongs but only different conclusions. Given the imperfect knowledge and great uncertainties in all aspects of climate science, and the impossibility of nailing down every single process, mechanism, interrelationship and countless interdependencies, much of this is guesswork. Guesswork with a lot of sophisticated analytics.
This quote from Sherwood 2024, which you cited.
“The authors decided not to change the best-guess ECS from the model average but allowed for a large uncertainty. This set an admirable precedent for grappling with the uncertainty in ECS given only a partial understanding of the climate system, a situation that remains the case today despite considerable progress.”
Authors referenced were not this paper, but best-guess is on target.
Visser, 2015, made a review of 30 sea level rise models and found that there were different trends and conclusions using the same data.
That is not surprising given that over 40 years ago agencies were discussing the possibility of feet of SLR by 2000 and 12 feet by 2100, when the actual number stands at a few inches and many studies of tidal gauges finding benign acceleration.
Nuclear Power is handy,
When it comes to artificial brains,
Nuclear Power is is just dandy!
Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang said nuclear power is a good option for the renewable energy needed for the growing number of data centers for artificial intelligence computing. “Nuclear is a wonderful way forward as one of the sources of energy, one of the sources of sustainable energy,” Huang said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-09-27/nvidia-s-huang-says-nuclear-an-option-to-power-data-centers
A few minutes ago Michael Mann, whom in my opinion is a charlatan, was on CNN comparing the ~ 470 mile span of Helene to four other hurricanes with spans of about 200 miles. He was saying Helene was bigger due to climate change. What a load of hogwash. I wonder why he avoided these hurricanes? Could it be deception? You decide.
Hurricane Tip (1979): Measured 2,220 km (1,380 miles) in diameter, with a central pressure of 870 hPa (25.69 inHg). This typhoon holds the record for the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide by minimum central pressure.
Hurricane Allen (1980): Estimated diameter of 1,335 km (830 miles), with sustained winds of 190 mph (305 km/h) and a central pressure of 892 mbar (26.34 inHg).
Hurricane Patricia (2015): Measured 1,200 km (750 miles) in diameter, with sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h) and a central pressure of 872 mbar (25.75 inHg).
Hurricane Wilma (2005): Estimated diameter of 1,100 km (680 miles), with sustained winds of 185 mph (295 km/h) and a central pressure of 882 mbar (25.97 inHg).
Hurricane Lorenzo (2019): Measured 1,050 km (652 miles) in diameter, with sustained winds of 160 mph (257 km/h) and a central pressure of 925 mbar (27.32 inHg).
He is not to be trusted in any way, shape, or form!
Who is jim2?
And, of course, the CNN fact checkers mysteriously go AWOL when a Dimowit is talking. Funny how that fact checking business works!
And he endorsed Harris, of course, as the Climate Change warrior candidate.
Nice list.
All with interesting planetary plus moon orientations.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
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
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar 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
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 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos.
I have been wondering, how does your theory explain the cause of the warm periods and the various Ice Ages, including snowball Earth?
Thank you, burlhenry, for your response.
“how does your theory explain the cause of the warm periods and the various Ice Ages”
–
Yes, exactly. Everything started with realizing that Milankovitch Graph describing “the cause of the warm periods and the various Ice Ages” should be read reversed, because the driving forcing is not (what Milankovitch thought) the Earth’s obliquity, but the Precession of Equinoxes.
–
“including snowball Earth?”
–
There was not a snowball Earth, because at the times our sun’s irradiation was weaker, Earth was rotating faster, which resulted to a stronger rotational warming phenomenon.
Thus Earth was able to absorb enough solar energy to support life 2,5 bn years ago.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
A lot of food for thought, especially regarding the alleged “Snowball Earth”.
Christos.
Re “–is not (what Milankovitch thought) the Earth’s obliquity, but the Precession of Equinoxes–.”
Milankovitch got it completely wrong, though not his fault, because he relied on the theory of others (Stockwell and Newcomb). Earth dynamics, besides the secular, also include transient step changes (noted by G F Dodwell in 1936). The last major change was in 2346bce, with an obliquity change of about 10 degrees and a precession change of about 150 degrees, duration less than 12 hours (plenty of historical data).
So any views of earth’s past history need careful re-examination. Besides there are problems of explaining any earth’s changes of mass, rotational speed, and possibly effecting orbital position need careful thought and preferably supporting evidence.
Thank you, Melita, for your response.
The unknown nature of phenomena makes us to consider them as “black boxes”.
It is what a small child does. A child tests everything, because a child doesn’t know how everything works and why.
–
It is the only way we are learning.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, burlhenry.
“A lot of food for thought, especially regarding the alleged “Snowball Earth”.”
–
When considering Earth’s average surface temperature behavior as a” black box “.
And when comparing it with the rest planets, also considered as “black boxes”.
And when they all (Earth included) appear with the same average surface temperature behavior…
There is the only conclusion: Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t have any significant influence on the Earth’s average surface temperature.
So, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From Jo Nova’s site, discussing the situation in Australia:
Rooftop solar output has reached such enormous levels that authorities have begun issuing warnings about their ability to keep the electricity system from being overloaded at times.
In an extraordinary first this week, the body that runs Australia’s biggest energy market said the supply of solar power in Victoria threatened to overwhelm demand for electricity from the grid amid mild, sunny conditions.
It said Friday’s oversupply of solar was so acute that demand for power from the grid would fall below a threshold critical for keeping the electricity system on an even keel.
…
And despite the toxic excess of solar panels, and that we’ve known this day would come, in true Soviet fashion, we’re still installing as many as we can (see below). The trainwreck continues.
That would stop dead in its tracks if householders had to pay fair costs for the frequency stability, the back up power, and the storage.
The solution, according to government experts, is not to have a real market and accurate prices, it’s to give more powers to some bureaucrats so they can order battery owners to discharge before lunch and be ready to soak up the dangerous excess at midday. The battery owners don’t like that, but like an anaconda, the government gradually tightens its grip until the free market is dead. The other “solution” is to add controllers to home solar panels so the government can switch them off (which is starting to happen in South Australia and Western Australia). Solar panels owners don’t like that either, but they were sold rainbows and fairy cakes that no one could deliver.
The communist quislings complain that the market is failing us and needs more governance. But the truth is, the overlords destroyed the free market long ago. The people want reliable electricity, and if they were allowed to choose reliable power over renewable energy, the problem would solve itself.
Meanwhile, grid managers surely pray for cloudy days. Soon, some bright spark is going to suggest cloud seeding for grid stability.
The URL is a properly assembled joannenova com (dot) au.
EV’s come to a dead stop without subsidies.
The drivers they needed to win over next were more cost-conscious. They were also more likely to be skeptical of the technology, and wary of buying an EV when they weren’t sure they could find somewhere to recharge it en route. That’s especially the case in the US, where EV charging locations are clustered in cities and along the East and West coasts.
In Europe, the drop in sales has coincided with the removal of government subsidies. Without those, EVs are still proving too expensive compared with equivalent fuel-burning cars. On average, all-electric vehicles are 30% and 27% pricier in Europe and the US, respectively. There are cheaper EVs out there, namely in China. But governments in Europe and the US are protecting their domestic auto manufacturers with tariffs and other barriers to keep Chinese
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-29/electric-car-slowdown-why-ev-sales-are-struggling
“Green” regulations hit the poor the most. It makes everything more expensive for all of us.
Ever since the McDonald brothers first launched their vision of fast burgers at 15 cents a pop in 1948, inexpensive beef has become an American touchstone, practically a birthright along with voting and the high school prom.
These days, that’s an entitlement drifting out of reach for many Americans. In the second quarter of 2024, the average price of a fast-food restaurant burger was $8.41, up 16% from five years ago, according to food consultant Technomic’s Ignite Menu data. Even at McDonald’s, the average price of a Big Mac (no fries, no drink, just the sandwich) in June was $5.29, a 21% increase from 2019. Burgers have gotten expensive enough that low-income consumers have been coming in less frequently, driving the chain’s first sales drop in four years, it said in its last quarter earnings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-26/mcdonald-s-faces-the-end-of-the-cheap-burger-era-as-prices-rise-sales-drop
Hamburger went from $2.50/lb in 2020 to $6.50/lb in 2024. That is much higher than the reported inflation rate but has in fact occurred.
Thanks Biden Harris
t’s grand final day in Australia, and awkwardly the State of Victoria risks a grid overload. A truckload of solar power will arrive at lunchtime that no one needs, and which has no place to go.
The largest single generator in Australia now is rooftop solar and it’s virtually uncontrollable. The geniuses running the national grid have subsidized solar panels and made electricity unaffordable at the same time, thus driving more householders into the arms of the solar industry.
So they’ve created an artificial market bubble — as all good communists do. We now have a 20 gigawatt capacity generator that mostly can’t be turned off, except by clouds or possibly Chinese cyberwarfare.
And where autumn and spring used to be the easy seasons, now Sunny spring days are diabolical too — hardly anyone needs their air conditioner or their heater at lunchtime, but solar watts are pouring in.
This was the situation yesterday in Victoria:
Victorian electricity generation, Spring, 2024, solar glut. Minimum demand,
Anero.id
Again, the poor sods who built solar industrial parks (marked in red) have to curtail their production massively from 8am to 5pm. The red curve is supposed to look like the yellow curve. The missing red peak is wasted solar production.
As the yellow uncontrollable peak rises towards the black line (the total demand), the whole grid has a problem — more reliable cheap generators have to shut down to prevent the toxic excess electricity building up. Without the reliable generators, with their 500 ton turbines spinning at 3,000 revolutions per minute, (or 3,600 in the USA) the grid loses frequency stability, and spinning inertia, and the ability to cope when a cloud rolls over. The problem of excess solar at lunch time is also called The Duck Curve and has been known for years. It’s not like this snuck up and surprised anyone, yet here we are — courting disaster.
Germany has driven its economy over the “Green Energy” cliff. Now the crash.
Officials in Berlin are set to cut their forecast for growth in 2024 to — at best — stagnation, down from 0.3% previously projected, said the people, who declined to be identified because the predictions remain confidential for now.
Such an outcome would mean yet another lost year for an economy that has been weighed down by the weakness of its industrial sector amid the shutdown in gas supply after the invasion of Ukraine, as well as feeble Chinese demand and its struggle to pivot to electric vehicle production.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-30/germany-is-giving-up-hope-of-achieving-any-growth-at-all-in-2024
Expensive energy is changing the political landscape un the EU.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-european-election-results-2024-swings-right-france/
I couldn’t help but notice that the before Politico article utilizes a common Leftist propagandistic tool to buttress a manipulative narrative; repeating a false label to strategically capture political mindshare. The example here levies Fascism to demonize the Right. Many use the Fascist label these days as a naive representation of “truth” against the entire Right, especially in the US–the GOP in general.
Politico’s anachronistic portrayal, labeling many on the Right as Fascist, is one of the most dangerous Leftist propagandistic misinformation memes ever conjured. The label has mostly been used with deliberative ignorance since circa 1935, to both oppress political enemies, but also to put great distance away from far Left radicals–whom represent ground zero for the genesis of Fascism.
The risk this misinformation creates is history repeating itself.
Most on the Left can’t even define what Fascism is, they merely follow the winds of orchestrated group think, similar to the way climate change is processed. Though many an the Right can’t define Fascism either, but they understand it enough to know it’s not them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Knowing little about history sets the stage for reliving it.
Daddy…
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1837973899725738188/photo/1
Another great feature of EVs, they may catch fire in salt water. Those cars are so wonderful!
Saltwater exposure can damage the battery components in electric vehicles, potentially leading to dangerous chemical reactions that could cause the vehicle to catch fire.
Residents who may have left electric vehicles behind when they evacuated from affected areas are being urged to contact the local emergency services.
Recovery operations continue, and authorities say they want to mitigate any potential hazards caused by damaged electric vehicle batteries.
Emergency responders have advisedresidents not to move a flooded electric vehicle themselves but instead contact authorities for help.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/29/saltwater-making-electric-cars-blow-hurricane-helene-21700959/
As if there weren’t enough reasons for me not buying an EV.
“Jeep is recalling more than 194,000 plug-in hybrid SUVs worldwide because they can catch fire with the ignition turned off.
In addition, Jeep is urging owners not to charge the SUVs and to park them outdoors and away from structures until they are repaired.”
https://apnews.com/article/jeep-recall-park-outdoors-fire-risk-d201d4a90b271da96724f77ec034e459?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
Rooftop solar has become a major problem.
According to AEMO, the thresholds are needed to ensure there is enough room for conventional generators such as coal- and gas-fired power plants to operate.
These conventional plants have traditionally provided — and still provide — services critical to the safe and secure operation of the electricity grid.
Such services include inertia, or the physical property that makes it easier to balance a moving bicycle than a stationary one.
Whereas conventional generators provide these services as a by-product of their design — they include huge pieces of spinning metal known as turbines — rooftop solar panels typically do not.
According to AEMO, a lack of plants able to provide “essential system services” puts the security of the system at risk.
“If AEMO cannot source these critical system security services from elsewhere, then it must intervene to keep the grid in a secure operating state,” it has noted.
Victoria is not out of the woods yet, either.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-27/solar-juggernaut-sparks-first-low-demand-warning/104406680
Brief filed IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/grid-operators-warn-us-supreme-court-epas-rules-will-cause-widespread
Serious concerns regarding reliability of the grid
Kid,
Yeah, it’s about the future, there are only projections and predictions. I’ll go with evidence-based projection over baseless, willfully ignorant prediction (including denial). I’ll also go with NOAA over Kid about deciding what is important in NOAA’s own article.
As for hurting, I think that’s your problem. I am very comfortable with my position. You, not so much. It is fun to watch you squirm when called out on your cherry-picked misrepresentations.
More details:
State of the Science FACT SHEET
Atlantic Hurricanes and Climate Change
(May 2023)
https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1.1_SOS_Atlantic_Hurricanes_Climate.pdf
Evidence-Based projection, sort of like the science known as pluviculture. Got it.
Fortunately for Western academia, climate science is exempt from laws against fraud.
ganon
This is what reality looks like
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/global_running_ace-1.png?ssl=1
This is what fantasy looks like
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Image-357.png
Kid,
I don’t find it necessary to explain the meaning of “could be” and “as soon as”.
The Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan has closed a $1.5 billion loan to support the first reactor restart in U.S. history, the Department of Energy announced Monday.
Palisades’ owner, Holtec International, hopes to restart the plant in the fourth quarter of 2025, subject to approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Holtec is a privately held nuclear technology company headquartered in Jupiter, Florida.
…
The restart of the reactor at Palisades would mark a milestone for the nuclear industry after a decadelong wave of reactor shutdowns in the U.S. Palisades ceased operations in 2022 after a period in which nuclear efforts struggled to compete with cheap and abundant natural gas.
Demand for nuclear power is growing as the U.S. seeks carbon-free energy to meet rising electricity demand while meeting its climate goals. The planned restart at Palisades blazed a path for Constellation Energy
’s recent decision to bring Three Mile Island back online by 2028.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/30/michigan-nuclear-plant-finalizes-federal-loan-to-support-first-reactor-restart-in-us-history.html
Putting this at the end here – a response to Bill from ‘way upthread someplace –
Bill – Thanks for making me think hard about how I view the consequences of climate change.
Where we agree:
“I’m sure you don’t think you’re part of a faction”. Right, in Madison’s meaning of ‘faction’.
“We ALL have a tendency to descend into faction.” Right, if we mean a slightly broader sense of ‘faction’ than Madison’s.
“Having an opinion doesn’t mean you’re factious.” Right.
“Not being able to see merit in any criticism, stifling debate, attacking instead of having dialogue … those qualities tend to be representative of faction.” Agreed.
Where we disagree:
“Which predictions of CAGW have come true? None, correct?” Disagree.
I presume it’s the ‘C’ in CAGW you’re talking about. [It was a prediction that CO2 warms the planet; we agree on that, right?]
Catastrophe, in this case, does not roll out smoothly and uniformly. It doesn’t happen until it happens, which it has. Your sand castle may be one between the waves for now or for a while, but others along the beach have been catastrophically destroyed, and the tide still rises. I doubt that you’re interested in debating multivariate analysis, attribution studies or statistical significance here, but, in my view, the evidence is strong that the expected negative consequences of the warming world are showing up in catastrophic events. Most of the arguments against this view, as far as I can tell, are of the ’no discernible trend’ type. Extreme events are rare by definition so data is limited, trends are not always easy to quantify, and when they are obvious the damage has already been underway.
Catastrophic consequences of climate change are regional and heterogeneous. The residents of Fort McMurray are not comforted if told, ‘no problem, the rest of Canada has not burned’. Asheville’s death toll is just a blip on that of North Carolina, but that does not diminish the catastrophic impact of Helene on that city. Furthermore, we tend to measure catastrophes in terms of deaths and dollars, which do not account for the trauma of evacuations, lost belongings, livelihoods, etc. Are these events due to climate change? Well, it’s what was predicted. Haven’t they always happened? Sure, to some degree. Are they changing? By some metrics, definitely; in others, TBD.
At what point do we say, ‘see, the prediction is fulfilled’, or ‘see, the prediction failed’? At this point, I conclude that predicted CAGW is occurring based on (1) the confirmed predictions of climate science thus far (why should I reject the scientifically derived consequences?), (2) attribution studies, and (3) what I see going on around me.
Regarding Lomborg:
I’m not qualified to offer an authoritative evaluation. I’m aware of the many criticisms of his work (e.g., Bushaw’s link https://doi.org/10.1080/19438150903533730.) I get the feeling reading him that I’m watching a stage magician tossing numbers around, pulling some out of thin air and making others vanish, but, yes, he does give references.
Having some familiarity with wildfire in Western US, I read his chapter on that carefully and found it mostly shallow and misleading. In at least one case, he misinterprets (or misrepresents) the conclusions of a study he cites. He dwells on the obvious points that damages increase as infrastructure moves into fire-prone areas, and fire severity depends on multiple factors. But everyone also knows that, in arid regions, heat dries, and dry stuff burns easier, faster and more thoroughly. It’s easy to underestimate this effect, but when you’ve seen it on landscape scale, you won’t forget it. And talk to long-time firefighters. Check out the International Association of Wildland Fire position statement: https://fireandclimateconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IAWF-Position-statement-on-climate-change-_-Updated-Final.pdf. Or the California Professional Firefighters: ““We are living in a new normal, where a once in a career wildfire is becoming a yearly occurrence.”
Lomborg concludes “…while climate change might be increasing burn risks, it does so from a very modest level, compared to historical data.” If he said that to a CalFire battalion chief, he’d be laughed off the mountain.
When I connected catastrophic Helene flooding with AGW, I knew I would get pushback and I was not disappointed. Reasonable people can debate the connection between extreme weather and CO2. But no reasonable person can deny human responsibility for the CO2 increase, whatever its consequences may be.
The consequence of a good life? That is what CO2 does for people living.
Rob,
Explain that to the people of Asheville NC. Your junk science has consequences.
Helene was more of a disaster because of where the rain fell. I didn’t fall on a flat coastal plain where the flood waters would lie flat. It fell in the mountains where the water was funneled into valleys and other low-lying cuts where it became a rushing torrent. Asheville lies in the French Broad River Valley. Nice try though.
The real travesty of Asheville and the other affected areas is that FEMA has wasted (or committed) billions housing foreigners who are here illegally. Then there is further billions sent to Ukraine so it can run its own people through the meat grinder. How about our government take care of our citizens first????
While a warmer environment will contribute to higher rainfall, not all the rain was attributable to Helene proper. The mountains forced the warm, moist air upwards, wringing out even more rain than if the terrain were flat. On top of that, there were other factors that made the rain worse.
Several meteorologists said this was a combination of two, maybe three storm systems. Before Helene struck, rain had fallen heavily for days because a low pressure system had “cut off” from the jet stream — which moves weather systems along west to east — and stalled over the Southeast. That funneled plenty of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico. And a storm that fell just short of named status parked along North Carolina’s Atlantic coast, dumping as much as 20 inches of rain, said North Carolina state climatologist Kathie Dello.
…
“It was not just a perfect storm, but it was a combination of multiple storms that that led to the enormous amount of rain,” Maue said. “That collected at high elevation, we’re talking 3,000 to 6000 feet. And when you drop trillions of gallons on a mountain, that has to go down.”
The fact that these storms hit the mountains made everything worse, and not just because of runoff. The interaction between the mountains and the storm systems wrings more moisture out of the air, Clark, Maue and Corbosiero said.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/helene-and-other-storms-dumped-40-trillion-gallons-of-rain-on-the-south
David
Blaming higher CO2 levels for a hurricane is not science it is Hysteria.
Rob Starkey,
Hurricanes are weather caused by spinning of the Earth and associated Coriolis forces. Increased global temperature allows them to carry more water vapor and more latent energy, which makes for more rain and flooding. Perhaps more important, the higher energy allows them to penetrate further inland, on unusual paths, and with higher potential damage. As we have just seen.
jim2 – you left out some stuff from your link:
“Before 2017’s Hurricane Harvey, “I said to our colleagues, you know, I never thought in my career that we would measure rainfall in feet,” Clark said. “And after Harvey, Florence, the more isolated events in eastern Kentucky, portions of South Dakota. We’re seeing events year in and year out where we are measuring rainfall in feet.”
Storms are getting wetter as the climate change s, said Corbosiero and Dello. A basic law of physics says the air holds nearly 4% more moisture for every degree Fahrenheit warmer (7% for every degree Celsius) and the world has warmed more than 2 degrees (1.2 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.
Corbosiero said meteorologists are vigorously debating how much of Helene is due to worsening climate change and how much is random.
In a quick analysis, not peer-reviewed but using a method published in a study about Hurricane Harvey’s rainfall, three scientists at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab determined that climate change caused 50% more rainfall during Helene in some parts of Georgia and the Carolinas.
For Dello, the “fingerprints of climate change” were clear.
“We’ve seen tropical storm impacts in western North Carolina. But these storms are wetter and these storms are warmer. And there would have been a time when a tropical storm would have been heading toward North Carolina and would have caused some rain and some damage, but not apocalyptic destruction. ”
From IPCC6 11.5.4
“ In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. In general, there is low confidence in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies, differences in the results of these studies and large modelling uncertainties.”
Beyond that, when discussing the magnitude of damage we have to consider how much the alteration of the landscape with thousands of square miles of impervious surfaces has changed the hydrological dynamics in the region over the last 200 years. I suspect that precisely the same rainfall during the MWP would have caused much less raging torrents of water in those valleys.
BAB – a hurricane’s path is determined by factors external to the hurricane. The energy of the hurricane does not determine the path.
Pat, I included the most salient points. Yes, a warmer world will increase the amount of water the air can hold. I already pointed that out. But in the case of Helene, that’s not the most significant factor causing the high rain volume. I would also point out, there isn’t a reliable measurement of rain from other hurricanes, so once again, we compare it to nothing.
Hurricane Beulah, September 19 – 22, 1967 dumped between 15 and 25 inches of rain. Unfortunately, historical records don’t include enough information to get a respectable baseline.
And as far as floods go, some past floods have killed millions of people.
https://www.history.com/news/worlds-most-catastrophic-floods-in-photos
Kid,
Might want to read AR6 11.4 (Extreme precipitation events) as a precursor to your quote from 11.5. They have medium-high confidence that increasing temperature causes large increases in the intensity of extreme precipitation events (fig.11.15). After all, that is where most deadly flash flooding comes from.
Ganon
You might want to read “In summary….”
following up on Jim2’s comment and the two weather fronts colliding over Tenn & NC, the same thing happened with hurricane harvey. A summer cold front came through that stalled harvey over houston for an extra day. North Texas had some of the nicest late summer weather ever.
Good morning, Pat.
I appreciate reading your thoughts, thank you.
I also live in the West, in the high desert. Over the years, my hiking has taken me through various geographical/climate zones. I’m no stranger to drought and wildfires. As I’m sure you are aware, fire prevention/suppression strategies of the Forest Service (and other agencies) have changed over the past four decades. Even the Forest Service itself has admitted that policy that suppressed fires that actually are healthy for the forest, which clear out brush, ladder fuels, etc, allowed dangerous situations to ensue where mature stands became at risk, and massive fires developed. I bring up past Forest Service policy not to crucify them, but to point out how the science that informs policy can change, or if you prefer, evolves.
So we can say humans, via FS policy, had some responsibility with wildfires. We can also say that most wildfires are the direct result of actions by humans, whether through arson or ignorance. And I agree with you that warmer/drier conditions set the stage for increasing wildfires. No one disagrees that we’re in a warming phase of our climate. Nor does anyone disagree that, generally, CO2 warms the atmosphere.
Where we disagree is can we say CO2 is responsible for the warming we are seeing. Specifically: is it solely, partially, insignificantly responsible; is it always negative; the contribution of natural sources and humans to total CO2 concentration; the physics of CO2 interaction in the atmosphere; what other physical properties of the earth are involved in warming; etc.
And just as important, what would the affects be (are) of policy that heavily concentrates on CO2 reduction, not just on nature, but the ability of society to economically develop future energy sources and adaptability strategies to a changing climate, all while maintaining/increasing the standard of living.
We can also agree that Lomborg’s presentation has its weaknesses. It should be criticized both for errors and strengths. Allow me some poetic license. When we look at a mathematical expression, if we point out one term or sign that is incorrect, the equation fails. Would that were the case when discussing policy! There are those who will say that complex mathematical expressions/algorithms can give us policy direction … AI. And that’s true, to a certain extent. That ‘extent’ is dictated by uncertainty, not just of the processes outlined, but what processes there are out there that may change the analysis. For example: not allowing underbrush fires to burn and what the accumulation of critical amounts of underbrush mean.
I read Tim Palmer’s book, The Primacy of Doubt. He’s a sharp guy. But I found chapter 9 to be a bit disturbing. The use of computation to avoid conflict has the danger to cross the line from tool to actual decision making. And yet, he quoted Feynman in the the beginning:
“Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that’s all — not to be sure.”
You may be certain of the role of A-CO2. I am not. And because of that uncertainty, moving from a disputed scientific conclusion to policy that has affects well beyond that scientific analysis, we need to be very cautious.
Bill F. and Rob Starkey,
Others have spoken to the legitimacy of discussing climate change and Helene together, but go ahead, Rob, and accuse me of “hysteria” if you wish. It would seem to be an appropriate antidote to complacency resulting from willful ignorance.
In a similar vein, Bill, we obviously have to be very cautious about underreacting as well as overreacting. Given what you select to read, I decline to give you my proxy vote on this issue. And you certainly do not have veto power.
Bill – Thanks very much for your thoughtful response.
“Over the years, my hiking has taken me through various geographical/climate zones.”
I hope that includes the Sierra Nevada high country. (I am a Sierra chauvinist.)
“We can also say that most wildfires are the direct result of actions by humans…”
True in the US (and other populated areas?). But, for instance, Siberian wildfires are started mainly by lightning and are increasing in severity due to arctic warming, with potentially global consequences (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023AV001151 and refs therein).
“Where we disagree is can we say CO2 is responsible for the warming we are seeing.”
Yes, here we disagree. I join the majority of scientists in finding that the evidence that the observed warming is mainly caused by CO2, and specifically CO2 produced by humans, is compelling. This conclusion is based on the decades of atmospheric research documented in, say, Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming”, and is reinforced by my own training and experience in a closely related (in fact, overlapping) field. Earlier you asserted that “science is nothing if not predictive”. I find it useful to every once in a while go back and read the early predictive works of Arrhenius 1896 (available online somewhere), Broeker 1975 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1ab9f065db3edea3e870ef63f76bbf5d8b1ae83c), Hansen et al. 1981 (https://atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf) and others. The most salient results of these studies have been confirmed countless times since their publications.
We also apparently disagree on the societal consequences of the warming. And I suspect we disagree on the policy ramifications of those consequences, a much dicier subject in any case.
As for all those uncertainties and potential disparities so diligently documented by cerescokid, they do not negate the fact that we are headed at high speed on a poorly discerned rocky and dangerous road, which we know is only going to get worse. Best put the brakes on, even if we miss the party.
“I read Tim Palmer’s book, The Primacy of Doubt.”
Thanks for the tip. I’m aware of Palmer’s climate work; didn’t know he wrote more generally.
“… moving from a disputed scientific conclusion to policy that has affects well beyond that scientific analysis, we need to be very cautious.”
Cautious, yes. Paralyzed, no. Problem is, scientific disputes that bear on policy are readily manufactured or exploited for non-scientific reasons. Here at Climate etc. we have folks who dispute the conclusion that CO2 causes warming or that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2. We are offered a host of alternatives to standard greenhouse gas physics: sudden changes in earth’s orbital parameters, planetary alignments, volcanic eruptions, solar variations, galactic cosmic rays, albedo variations, aerosol production, etc. Serious consideration of these alternatives, we are told, has been blocked by a cabal of marxist academics, publishers, editors, reviewers and media alarmists.
But “In a false [dispute] there is no true valour.”
Pat …
Hiking has taken me from New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, Oregon, Washington, California and Arizona. And several stops in between. The Sierras are truly wonderful. But each place has its beauty, if you let yourself see it. I was fortunate to stand on top of Rainier and Kilimanjaro. If my body hadn’t let me down, who knows what other peaks would have been bagged. Yet, every time I go out, no matter the elevation, no matter the place, Nature will show herself … and our place in it.
I’m not the person for a thorough review of Palmer’s book. Judith recommended it. It does seem to be written for, let’s say, a wider audience. ;-) Aside from how he constructs his models and his advocacy for them, which I don’t see how anyone would generally disagree, it was very troubling that he wasn’t more circumspect in regards to using the power of his modelling for weather/climate forecasting and suggested applying it to social conflict. Of course, he isn’t alone. Many advocate for artificial intelligence to be used throughout society, as well as those who express concern.
For me, Palmer turned my thoughts to human frailty. Humans/groups can gain power through several means. AI is troubling because power gained through it may render the human/groups who wield it more inaccessible to political criticism/accountability. No one seems to have a problem with a benevolent king, when he produces. But history has shown those are few and far between, not to mention the tragic fall that usually awaits. The results of concentrated power are usually tyrannous. And tyranny tends to result in catastrophe for humans.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I am also “encouraged by the decent tone of the conversation (Joachim Dengler)” to add my 2c worth here.
Bill says he was also on Kilimanjaro. That should prod him to read the research of Lonnie Thompson on his discovery of abruptly frozen ‘greens’ preserved for the past near 5000yrs. The revised dating of the material puts it near 2346bce. Around that time isotopes indicate abrupt warming at the poles but abrupt cooling on Kilimanjaro. One should not blame that on CO2.
Pat says, among other things, “a host of alternatives to standard greenhouse gas physics: sudden changes in earth’s orbital parameters, planetary alignments,–“. We have been left much details to be perceived by descendant researchers. Here is something from the Talmud: “–, the Holy One, Blessed be He, changed for them the acts of Creation, and instead of Kima setting, He caused the constellation of Kima to rise during the day–“. Kima is the Pleiades, and that is a precession change of near 150 degrees, near 150 days, the result of an obliquity change. Date 2346bce, and that was not due to CO2.
Others have discussed elsewhere the periodic visitations of “Dragon Kings”. Not because of CO2. Sometimes engineering mathematics beats physics and archaeology for the right answers.
Mr. Cassen, you write: “Here at Climate etc. we have folks who dispute the conclusion that CO2 causes warming or that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.”
I figured out a decade ago that in the climate conversation you need to look at best arguments and ignore worst. On both sides.
@Pat Cassen,
encouraged by the decent tone of the conversation and some common ground from previous discussions here, I’d like to share my challenge to the climate narrative with you, also inviting you give me solid evidence where you think I am making wrong assumptions or drawing wrong conclusions: https://klima-fakten.net/?p=10317&lang=en
One thing about hurricanes is obvious. Where they land matters. If they stay out in the ocean, they don’t much matter. If they dump a lot of rain near the coast, there is flooding, but not anything like if they go into the mountains, like Helene. If they hit an unpopulated area of the coast, dollar and life damage is low. If they hit a populated area on the coast, damage and loss of life is high. When it comes to hurricanes, it’s all LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
Devastating floods were common in Appaliacha due to the hills/hollows/valleys’s etc prior to the TVA building 40+ dams in the 1930’s.
https://x.com/ClimateAudit/status/1841514333274087862?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1841514333274087862%7Ctwgr%5E50ce5ff0ec499a49aec939f7378f9698bfcb8a17%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2024%2F10%2F04%2Fsteve-mcintyre-on-the-real-lesson-to-be-learned-from-hurricane-helene%2F
Climate Doomers constantly bemoan our children’s future dur to “climate change”. But the US is spending 2 trillion dollars more than we take in. The mis-named inflation reduction act intends to spend over one trillion on “green” initiatives. That money belongs to our children’s future. Maybe they should think about that a bit more.
Nuclear Power is the way. Wind and solar, not the way.
“So we’re in the middle of designing a data center that’s north of a gigawatt and we’ve found the location…and they’ve already got building permits for three nuclear reactors — these are the small modular nuclear reactors — to power the data center.
“This is how crazy it’s getting,” Ellison said of this new AI data-center game where the table stakes are $100 billion.
A moment earlier, Ellison had laid out his view of how expensive — almost unfathomably so — these new data centers and their related costs are going to be.
“When I talk about building gigawatt or multigigawatt data centers for these AI models, these frontier models, the entry price for a real frontier model for someone that wants to compete in that area is around $100 billion,” Ellison said.
https://accelerationeconomy.com/cloud-wars/oracle-shocker-larry-ellison-planning-3-nuclear-reactors-for-worlds-largest-data-center/
Since Earth’s total atmospheric greenhouse effect is ~ 0,4C, how much could the 0,04% CO2 content’s in atmosphere participate in that ~ 0,4C greenhouse forcing?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Germany’s green movement was propelled mainly by activists opposed to nuclear power in the 1980s and 90s. Since then, Germany has shut down its entire fleet of nuclear power reactors and is struggling to keep the lights on with renewable energy, mainly wind and sun.
Today German activists are focused on shutting down the remaining fossil fuel power, which in a normal world would make nuclear power attractive again. But not for the fundamentalist enviro-nutjobs. However, they may need to give in if they want to continue enjoying the amenities of the modern digital world and smartphones.
Blackout News here reports. “After Oracle and Microsoft, Google also plans to power its data centers with nuclear power.” apparently, wind and sun just don’t make the grade. CO2-neutrality just won’t be possible without nuclear power.
https://notrickszone.com/2024/10/01/germany-risks-being-left-behind-big-tech-confirms-co2-neutrality-only-possible-with-nuclear-power/
Jim2 “BAB – a hurricane’s path is determined by factors external to the hurricane. The energy of the hurricane does not determine the path.”
That’s interesting, but what I said was:
“Perhaps more important, the higher energy allows them to penetrate further inland, on unusual paths, and with higher potential damage.”
If you don’t understand the difference, that’s OK.
So, BAB, enlighten us. Which of these tracks were altered by “higher energy”?
https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#map=3.97/30.58/-74.79&search=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
No, thanks. Some things can’t be fixed.
You got that one right!
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/6/2010jcli3810.1.xml
Adjusting of observational deficiencies, there has been far less change in the supposed trend of tropical storms and hurricanes. All the while SST has been increasing since the mid to late 1800’s
The early sea surface temperature records before satellite recordings from the 1960’s are useless as trend references. Since they are ship recorded, I assessed them as having an error bandwidth of around 1.6 degrees C. That is, by using buckets and thermometers and ill-calibrated gages near the engine coolant water inlets. One would want to have a SST accuracy of better than 0.1 deg C to be meaningful for this study.
DH – I agree that ascertaining the SST with any level of precision or accuracy is near impossible.
That being said – the theory is that hurricane intensity will increase as SST increases.
While we dont know with any accuracy the amount of SST warming, We do know the SST has increased. We also know that there have been a lot of short term positive and negative hurricane trends but no long term changes in the trend.
The point being is the theory that Hurricane’s intensity will increase due to increases in SST is very poorly supported by the historical empirical evidence. ie 150+years of warming SST and 150+ flat trend for hurricanes.
Mods or Judith or readers,
Bedding in a new PC, lost a little data.
Lost the lengthy transcript of the year 2007 American Physical Society seminar attended by Judith Curry, Bill Collins, Ben Santer, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy and moderated by Steven Koonin. Gratefully received at sherro01 at outlook dot com.
Geoff S
Regardless of the genesis, very few things are truly unprecedented.
https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1841882646294724973/photo/1
One of the reasons I became skeptical about the consensus narrative is that if you dig deep enough you start to get a different picture about climate.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GY5UkbtXwAAlqjg?format=jpg&name=large
See also in the same year “The flood of 1916 or Zuiderzeevloed of 1916 is a flood that took place in the night between 13 and 14 January 1916 in the Netherlands ”
Both dates with interesting planetary orientations. Coincidence??, or missed details? Gravity changes as the earth rotates has – or may have – a deterministic effect on atmospheric vapour.
‘Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see–germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion–a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear.’ Amazing. ~Crichton
But, “global warming”!
Wagathon,
Edith Efron wrote “The Apocalyptics” in 1984, now 40 years ago. It is recommended reading to assist understanding of government-induced scare campaigns, particularly how past scares have ended. In relation to your comment, there are two quotes which are quite pertinent:
……
Probable-Possible, my black hen,
She lays eggs in the Relative When.
She doesn’t lay eggs in the Positive Now,
Because she’s unable to postulate How.
F. Winsor & M. Parry, quoted by Jeff Masten in “Epistemic Ambiguity and the Calculus of Risk: Ethyl Corporation vs. Environmental Protection Agency,” South Dakota Law Review, 1976.
……
How extraordinary! … The richest, longest-lived, best-protected, most resourceful civilization, with the highest degree of insight into its own technology, is on its way to becoming the most frightened.
Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist, University of California, New York Times, 1979.
……
Geoff S
Amanda Laoupi, Dr Archaeoenvironmentalist / Disaster Specialist, in “GODS IN HEAVEN, HAVOC ON EARTH.
ANCIENT GREEK AND SANSKRIT PARALLELS
OF COMET / METEOR GODS” says in the introduction
“– a) collectively experienced events with tragic
consequences make myths via a mechanism of symptomatic relief, b) the historical character of the myth demands a cryptographic detection many generations after the initial event, c) perhaps both the myth-teller and myth-hearer want the truth to remain concealed, d) this concealment may reinforce symptomatic relief from the dreadful event and e) the duration of pain after the event (for many generations ahead)
interrelates with the therapeutic mechanism–“.
Perhaps the black hen knew something that is still hidden; and mainly because we think knowledge of the past is now an established thing. I assure you the black hen is right. (I also assure you it is not meteors but something intrinsic to earth itself).
Humans have made great strides since the Enlightenment toward a more rational, logical and reasoned approach in its view of the world, but our emotional evolution still lags our cognitive abilities. We are susceptible to social influences that hamper those other intellectual skills developed over the last few centuries.
We are as vulnerable now to the myths and hustlers as those living in primitive societies. The only difference is that we have honed our self awareness and circumspection skills to the point where we think we couldn’t be fooled. Believing we know, in the best epistemological tradition, is not the same as knowing.
Whole industries have grown to shape our beliefs. In the Information Age there is as much misinformation as there are objective truths within the public sphere.
While the authenticity of this quote of a former CIA Director is questionable, there are 2 aspects that are important.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”?
First, do we really believe that efforts to sway our opinions and beliefs of what is factual, are not going on in every arena?
Secondly, what was the context of the quote, if accurate. Was it satirical? Was it put into context? Do we ever get the entire picture for a well thought out analysis?
The public is vulnerable as never before because the technology makes us so, democracies depend on reliable information and we have gotten just smart enough to think we are smarter than we really are.
Unfortunately, as a civilization after taking off from the Space Age and blasting through the Information Age, we crash landed in the Misinformation Age.
This is interesting. NIMBY bites back.
The French Broad River (Asheville) is an upstream tributary where flood control dams weren’t constructed due to local opposition.
Rather than the devastation of Hurricane Helene on Asheville illustrating the effect of climate change, the success of the flood control dams in other sectors of the Tennessee Valley illustrates the success of the TVA flood control program where it is implemented.
Hurricane Helene did not show the effect of climate change, but what happens to settlements in Tennessee Valley tributaries under “natural” flooding (i.e. where flood control dams have been rejected.)
https://x.com/ClimateAudit/status/1841514333274087862
I’m not a weatherman but reporting as I’ve come to see the situation– Hurricane Helene was not in itself that extraordinary. Apparently, the devastation that resulted from its landfall was the result of coinciding with an existing, ‘frontal boundary’ condition over the Florida Panhandle, the combination of the two weather conditions having resulted in increased rainfall.
The lack of dams on the western side of the Appalachian mountains also contributed to the resulting devastation. If rain falls there, it really has no place to go other than where it did.
Seems to be a situation where it’s not bad luck so much as it is something that will happen someday and if enough time goes by it’s going to happen.