by Frank Bosse
Neither the trend analysis nor the model-observation comparison supports the conclusions of the attribution study that found:
“The combined change, attributable to human-induced climate change, is roughly a doubling in likelihood and a 7% increase in intensity.”
Starting September 11, there was a heavy rainfall event in parts of Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. First assessments point to a record high value of precipitation in a wide area, as the result of a “Vb weather condition”, named after the historical classification of the tracking directions of low-pressure fields in Europe. In a Vb weather condition, a low pressure area tracks to the Mediterranean Sea, thereafter north-eastward and ends usually in the Baltic region of Europe. A Vb condition is very often associated with much rain in Mid-and Eastern Europa and flood events e.g. 1997 (River Oder) and 2002 (River Elbe).
However, an “Attribution study” appeared only a few days afterwards. It’s Core message about the event (cited in media) was:
“The combined change, attributable to human-induced climate change, is roughly a doubling in likelihood and a 7% increase in intensity.”
To evaluate the robustness of the claim, the full text of the attribution study was downloaded.
The meteorological classification of the event in question involves several atmosphere dynamics features. The triggering event was an “Arctic Outbreak”, an extreme northward displacement of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) was also involved. To make the things worse, there was a stable blocking high pressure field north of the area in question, so the precipitation area was relatively stationary and could not move north towards the Baltic Sea as usual.
The key question is whether the thermodynamic element (related to warming from “climate change”) contributing to the events described can actually be quantified with some robustness, as it was claimed in the attribution study.
The attribution study describes trend analyses of observational data (E-Obs.) and (weather) model-observational reanalysis data (ERA5) for the time 1950-2023 (2024). The data used are available via the “KNMI Climate Explorer” permitting one to evaluate the numbers. The study uses the GMST GISS Dataset to describe the connection of heavy rain in Mid Europe to a warmer world. The attribution study states:
“All datasets show similar trends across the region, with increasing trends…” (see section 3.1)
The same dataset is used here, but averaged over the European area in question rather than globally. The mean temperature anomaly 1950-2023 in the region 20°W-25°E; 35°N-65°N is shown below. This region includes more land (which is faster warming than the ocean) than the roughly 30% global mean land fraction.
Fig.1: The temperature time series (GISS) in the European area. The figure was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.
The (not too surprising) observation: From 1950 to about 1981 the temperatures did not show any rise. Anthropogenic warming, manifested in the mean temperatures, started around 1981, not 1950.
To calculate the trends in the “RX4days” precipitation (which is the accumulation of 4 days of precipitation) the data for ERA5 were recalculated for 1950-2024:
Fig.2: The outstanding event in September 2024 is clearly visible. It makes the trendslope 1981-2024 ( green) positive (a “one year trend”), for 1981-2023 (black) it’s zero. The figure was generated with ChatGPT.
The ordinary least square (OLS)-Trend 1950-2024 (blue) is robustly positive (p=0.025) as the attribution study states. However, it did not mention that the trend become insignificant after the late 1960s when calculated to 2024. If the increasing trend from 1950 to 2024 were attributable to the “human induced climate change” after 1981, one would NOT expect that the trend slope to 2024 is completely insignificant (p=0,32) and for 1981-2023 (black) it’s zero. In the light of these findings the OLS-trends to 2024 might be more a result of internal variability. Over the period 1950-1981 with no warming (see Fig. 1), the most positive trend slope (orange) of RX4day was 2 times steeper than in 1981-2024, when the forced warming was observed.
The study evaluates the climate models used for the attribution analysis. Many models belong to the CMIP6 family. It iss well known that those models face substantial difficulties when it comes to atmosphere dynamics owing to their low resolution. The Multi Model Mean shows no skill in the study area (46°N- 52°N; 11°E- 24°E) with respect of the model-observation (E-Obs.) spatial correlation for precipitation.
Fig.3: The spatial correlation between precipitation of the CMIP6 Multi Model Mean with the Observations (E-Obs.) for the warm seasons 1975-2023. The figure was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.
A meaningful correlation should be a prerequisite for blaming the anthropogenic warming as simulated in the CMIP6 models, for a distinct extreme precipitation event based on model comparisons with the real world.
In Table 4.1 of the attribution study the models were evaluated, some of them (only a few) were labelled as “good” when it comes to precipitation. The “IPSL-CM6A-LR” model was labelled as “reasonable”. The spatial correlation 1950-2023 to E-OBS observations during months where Vb-events were observed is shown below, also for the “good” model “EC Earth 3”, both with below 20%, indistinguishable from random noise:
Fig. 4: There is no skill (white for the zero- correlation) in selected models of the study. The figure was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Neither “IPSL-CM6A-LR” (left) nor in “EC Earth3” (right), labelled as “good” in the study, have any skill when it comes to the spatial correlation of precipitation with the real world. Nor does the model MPI-ESM1-2LR (“reasonable” in Table 4.1 of the study), but not shown here.
In the end it seems dubious to attribute an extreme precipitation event to climate change when using the CMIP6 models. The ocean warming is for sure a source for more evaporation and also for more rain, although the proportional rise in precipitation with warming is only a fraction of the rise in evaporation.
However, the influence of atmosphere dynamics is overwhelming and hampers the attribution of single extreme weather events based on thermodynamics arguments.
Conclusion
After a closer look, neither the trend analysis nor the model-observation comparison supports the conclusions of the attribution study.
The issue of unsound extreme weather event attribution studies is not limited to extreme precipitation. As this recent article by Roger Pielke Jr explains, attribution studies for all types of extreme weather event are in general highly dubious, and appear to be undertaken more for “political” than for scientific purposes.
Thank you, Frank.
My pleasure!
The slight increase in the precipitation trend, particularly since 1995, would be driven by the warm phase of the AMO, which is always warmer during each centennial solar minimum.
The September flood events were associated with negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, which is the reverse of what IPCC and Met Office global circulation models predict with rising CO2 forcing.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Increase precipitation will be expected if we’re going to have another global cooling, e.g., a mini Ice Age (LIA). It’s happened before.
Not quite. LIA and previous ones are Eddy cycle root inflection points. The next inflection is a peak. Peak warming, but it is also a turning point. Then its 490 years to the next LIA-like point. Still, it is a tough road downhill to bottom. (hypothesis based on previous 8000 yrs of interglacial. Also on proxy evidence of previous four glacial cycles. Unless the change is very drastic and cycle characteristics change; they were different 1/2Myrs ago see https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg )
True coming true. Hannibal crossed an ice-free Alps (w/elephants) in 218 BC, coinciding with global warming and the 14th-19th centuries (spanning the times Charles Dickens and George Washington lived) encompasses the Little Ice Age ending in the beginning of the present period of global warming… ‘natural’ global warming not ‘man-made’ global warming. These epics last hundreds of years and duration. That is why Leftist academia changed the alarmist meme to ‘climate change’ instead of global warming since climate occurs by definition, every 30 years, to more easily facilitate what has become their man-made bad weather hoax.
Wagathon: For an easy and quick look into the past see this site, bottom pic. https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
The wax/wane of civilisations is indicated with peaks at Eddy cycle peaks, warm periods, and collapse at cycle roots, some much worse that the LIA.
(for LIA see https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0703073104 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/203063 )
The next LIA-like is far off, but the tipping point to downhill is – or can be- also very dire; and know from previous to be abrupt also.
More fodder for man-caused weather change alarmism, e.g., reaching tipping points in nature made more dire by abrupt changes caused by more of the world’s humanity living like modern folk.
pet Peeve is providing graphs with shortened periods (granted a starting point of 1950 is 74 years). A longer period graph provides much better context. Even if the older periods with poor measurements / resolution, they can at least be labeled as periods of poor quality measurements.
My apologies if the comment sounds like a rant.
Joe, the dataset used in the study ERA5 starts in 1950. Threfore it was not possible to longer the period.
Frank –
My apologies if I came across as criticizing you, again my apologies.
My criticism was directed at those who use data sets with “convenient ” start periods to push their agenda.
I understand the limitation in your response, so you are stuck with what is available. I am well aware that robust data sets for periods 100+ years ago often dont exist.
My point is a lot of climate and weather events have both short term variability and long term variability. The choice of start period for analysis of a trend will often throw biases into the analysis. It is also common for advocates to use data sets that have a “convenient” starting point which supports the narrative. Very common behavior with advocacy studies on extreme weather, hurricanes etc.
Again my apologies
Joe, no problem at all. I made a review of the study in question, so I was not involved in your “rant”. Of course the attribution study should have taken advantage also from historical flood data , linked to “Vb-events” to put the data in a adequate context.
best Frank
Pingback: Did global warming make the heavy precipitation in Mid Europe in September 2024 more likely? - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
Climate science begins to assume grotesque proportions, when it connects sudden weather events with climate change without previous empirical basis. The fact is that what is called climate change cannot even be said with certainty to be solely due to anthropogenic CO2. How have we ended up here, where various weather events themselves, on loose grounds, begin to be connected with climate change, which in itself is then claimed to be the cause of the weather events.
Of course, anthropogenic climate change is not due solely to human CO2 emissions. There are many human factors that contribute to climate change. This graph from IPCC-6 shows the most important ones.
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
I do not understand what this graph is supposed to mean.
“Change in effective radiative forcing from 1750 to 2019”
What were the numbers in 1750, including for water vapor? CO2 influence (total CO2, not just the anthropogenic part?) supposedly has not changed in a serious way. Also, this graph does not address interaction between the forcing powers. All this looks quite useless to me.
I am not surprised that, if you do not understand a graph, it looks quite useless – to you.
If you don’t understand the graph, you can read about it in IPCC 6 (WG1, chpt. 7). I would hope that you would understand that water is not a well-mixed greenhouse gas (like CO2, CH4 or CFCs) that has short atmospheric residence times, phase transitions, and has always been available to the climate system.
The interactions between forcings are called feedbacks, often mediated by temperature change. This is also covered in IPCC6.WG1. chpt 7. Read it, try to understand it, even if you don’t agree, the knowledge will do you and your arguments/questions good.
I have worked on many technical feedback problems, so I know the functions and mechanisms. Te reemphasize – what does IPCC know how the atmosphere was composed in 1750, never mind how it changed? Water vapor does not have to be uniformly mixed to effect feedback with other contributors, plus, it is the most substantial warming contributor and has been since 1750.. Residency and changes within the water vapor zones have little, if anything, to do with feedback loops. Still, what’s the use of the graph – not even a good intellectual play?
Dietrich,
The good of the graph is it shows the composition of human contributions to climate forcings. That you don’t understand it says a lot.
“I have worked on many technical feedback problems, so I know the functions and mechanisms.”
But you can’t correctly calculate feet/century from mm/year? Please tell us what kind of “technical feedback problems” you have worked on (references welcome).
“Te reemphasize – what does IPCC know how the atmosphere was composed in 1750, never mind how it changed?”
Gas bubbles in ice cores, except for water. Why should we “never mind how it changed” when how much it has changed, current changing, and future change, are what are important?
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Yeah, I violated the first law of discourse, not double checking my calculations. As to your curiosity – servo compensation, target and satellite tracking. And no, the graph discusses radiative properties since 1750, with the assumptions of knowing the atmospheric composition of aerosols, solar, contrails, aviation cirrus clouds, ozone up yonder in the stratosphere, land use albedo and various halogens, yes all bubble-contained and cross-forcing among all those variables.
What a scientific feat!
Yes, it is a scientific feat.
Pingback: Le réchauffement climatique a-t-il rendu plus probables les fortes précipitations qui se se sont produit en Europe centrale en septembre 2024 ? – Le Point de Vue
“However, it did not mention that the trend become insignificant after the late 1960s when calculated to 2024.”
I think “late 1960s” should be changed to 1980s. Even so, the length of time is greater than the amount of time recommended to define climate.
“Late 60s” is correct. Sorry, I recalculated it. I don’t catch the sense of your argument…
Frank, my point was that the graph only shows OLS segments from 1950 to 1981 and from 1981 to 2024. The latter shows no trend.
You should have a closer look at the figure! The trend 1981-2024 shows a trend indeed. The trend 1981-2023 shows no trend. I’m confused a bit.
OK, I did take a closer look Figure 2. The blue, black, and green lines are similar in appearance when presented as thin lines. What I see is that the 1981-2023 OLS line has no trend; the 1981-2024 OLS line only has a positive trend because of the out-sized impact of a warm 2024. However, none of the lines start or end in the 1960s, which is what I originally commented on.
Hi, also with a trend line 1970 – 2024 one would see no difference to the 1950-2024 line because the referenced p-value (significance) one can’t see in the slope, one has to calculate it.
best Frank
“Neither “IPSL-CM6A-LR” (left) nor in “EC Earth3” (right), labelled as “good” in the study, have any skill when it comes to the spatial correlation of precipitation with the real world.”
It is my impression from past reading that as poor as the models are for predicting future temperatures for a given scenario, they are worse for precipitation predictions, particularly at a resolution of regions. Different models are sometimes contradictory with one model predicting floods and another model predicting droughts.
“The combined change, attributable to human-induced climate change, is roughly a doubling in likelihood and a 7% increase in intensity.”
Where are the error bars for these claims?
Thanks Judith for a great analysis. I’m now convinced that attribution studies are right up there with paleoclimatology in the hierarchy of pseudo-science.
dpy6629:
There have been a number of excessive rainfall events this year, in the Northwest, Dubai (April) Europe (Sept.); and probably others.
They appear to have been due to random Atmospheric Rivers, which are always associated with higher temperatures, so one could make the attribution to the higher temperatures. (In Europe, July and August temps were record-setting, which may have triggered the Sept rainfall).
Indeed, “appear to have been” and “one could make” are …possibilities. Can be or can’t be. The paper in question has a different focus. It “attributes” quantities under the flag of science. This was discussed in the main post.
best Frank
There are vast areas on the globe covered with permafrost.
Permafrost shouldn’t have been there if the greenhouse warming effect was real.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Around 15% of the Northern Hemisphere or 11% of the global surface is underlain by permafrost,[5] covering a total area of around 18 million km2 (6.9 million sq mi).[6] This includes large areas of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Siberia. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
The rising temperatures melt some of the permafrost coverage, allright.
But the very existence of permafrost testifies against the atmospheric greenhouse warming effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Britain is shutting down nuclear plants, they will test BABs theory about batteries taking up the slack. Hint: Britain will go down hill economically due to this id ee ot ic decision.
But to others, it flies in the face of what some economists have suggested we should really be aiming for: energy abundance.
One senior energy industry source says: “We are turning off consumers and industries because we can’t provide the power that’s needed.
“It’s like South Africa [which has frequent power cuts], but people here are trying to make a virtue out of it. Demand side response is a euphemism – what it really means is supply-side failure.”
Tone Langengen, a net zero expert at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and a former energy department official, warned against moves towards anything that resembles “stifling demand” for power earlier this year.
Along with another academic, she argued that Britain should instead aim for “energy abundance” by building a large fleet of new nuclear power stations.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ar-AA1saLOz
Lets see what the LCOE costs really are for wind when there is no fossil fuel electric generation plants covering for their down days.
Maybe marc jacobson can explain how you only need 4 hour battery storage for 100% renewable system since if you ever need more backup storage all you have to do is hook up additional 4 hour back in a series. Duh!
Make stoop id decisions, win stoop id prizes!
Not my theory. Batteries store energy, nuclear reactors create it. Guess you don’t know the difference. As I tried to show you, batteries are even being used to improve the peaking of gas fired power plants. But, as they say – can’t fix stoop id.
OK, so you don’t want to admit there are not enough batteries to make any difference whatsoever to the entire grid. Batteries can supply almost nothing compared to our electricity consumption. These batteries you speak of don’t exist. You aren’t doing yourself any favors by going down this rabbit hole.
Jim2,
Obviously, you have no concept of scientific and societal progress. Quite simple, I said it is happening, not already completed. Remember, there was once a time when there was only one nuclear reactor in the world – producing enough power for a few light bulbs. Your regressive thinking does not allow for a 40-year project; rather, you seem to insist the project be complete and functional, before you are willing to accept it as possible (and necessary).
It seems you have difficulty thinking beyond tomorrow – but what should we expect from JoeTheDumpTruckDriver, and any other identities you may assume.
BAB – there won’t be enough batteries to meet any of the Net-0 deadlines. They are too expensive. Sorry, try again.
jim2,
In China they sell lithium batteries for fraction of what they cost in the US. In this podcast they quote a price of $40 per kilowatt hour while here in the US it costs well over $400/KWH. They have been focused on the battery and renewable energy sectors of their economy since 2006 and have a trained workforce in the millions, most valuable patents, plus the most automated production factories in the world.
“Unpacking China’s cheap battery costs”
10/10/2024
https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/catalyst-unpacking-chinas-cheap-battery-costs
*PS I’m 100% grid independent since I added 18KWH of battery storage + the 14KWH battery in my Chevy Volt.
Jim2,
So, you think that because not enough batteries (or other storage systems) exist today, they can’t be produced in the future? If possible, try to think past tomorrow and your pocketbook.
You are the one that brought up batteries and assumed that they are the only thing that can be used for storage (focalism). You’re wrong – batteries are (yes already) and will be a part of a diverse system of energy generation and storage. If having to pay for part of it pains you, that’s fine with me.
I’m thinking of the economic health of the US, not just my pocketbook – everyone’s pocketbook. The poor will suffer the most.
Correct that batteries are not the only thing for “storage”
Hydro for one – though hydro exists due to the need for flood control, irrigation and water usage, Not real smart to deplete the needed water supply for electric generation when needed for consumption
Pumped storage – great – but its a net energy loser due to a thingy called gravity.
Contrary to lazard LCOE , those storage costs needed to maintain the grid will greatly exceed the advertised lcoe costs which only measure the cost of generation of an electric generation source such as wind or solar that only performs in intermediate demand space
Jim2,
I don’t really care what you think. I work with evidence (that’s science).
Joe K,
“Pumped storage – great – but its a net energy loser due to a thingy called gravity.”
Laws of thermodynamics say energy generation and storage are always net energy losers. What is important is efficiency, and quantitative numbers for comparison
I’m still waiting for BABsy to wave his sciencey magic wand and tell us where all this electricity storage is coming from. Never mind how much it will cost. So, BABsy, you need to come up with 4,178,000,000 MWh of storage. The podium is yours.
I don’t need to do anything. Maybe you need to try and convince all the people building and designing new storage systems that the ones in use don’t work.
But you are funny, your requirement is enough storage for a full year of 100% of all U.S. electricity consumption. I like it when you resort made up name-calling – it is a strong indicator that you don’t know what you are talking about and can’t defend your position. Thanks for that, Jimmy.
True, BABs, you wouldn’t need an entire year of backup. You would need adequate backup for each independent grid, or you could spend trillions connecting the entire US, Canadian, and Mexican grid together. Better spent on nuke plants.
JimmyDumpTruck,
Thanks, glad you admit you make up crap just to be confrontational about something you don’t like.
Unlike you I can admit a mistake. But I didn’t make anything up. You are a nasty individual.
JimmyDumpTruck,
BS – you knew exactly what that number was, but you still made up crap about it, and challenged me with the crap. Glad you can admit your mistakes – but it doesn’t erase them.
As for nasty – just trying to keep up with you so we can communicate on a common ground. It certainly isn’t science.
Yours truly, BABsy & BABs (and any other name you’d like to make up for me).
OK, BABs, you are a sensitive soul. I get it. But if you spun cotton like you spin words we would have a thriving clothing industry here in the US again.
!!!! “… energy, nuclear reactors create it.”
Thank you: I needed an eye-opener.
Climate change has become the Kamala Harris of science.
Yes! The AGW movement as opposed to AGW science, and climate science. There are differences. The conflation of a political movement with science has been the problem over the last couple of decades, ergo, some scientists became part of the movement. The honest brokers are still those climate scientists asking questions.
Pingback: Wer rechnet wie? – KlimaNachrichten
A 1,5 °C rise of the global air temperature of course doesn’t thaw glaciers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Anything above 0 C thaws glaciers. How much above determines how fast.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
How much above determines how fast.
–
At what global air temperature the glaciers commence thawing?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Global temperature is irrelevant. It depends on the temperature of the air or earth in contact with the glacier. My prior response applies.
Question please: What is the level of humidity present in polar air?
True, true and there is nothing subtle about the fact that ice on the North Pole is mostly floating seawater whereas st the South Pole it’s snow falling on a landmass.
It’s not that simple: Increased projected changes in quasi-resonant amplification and persistent summer weather extremes in the latest multimodel climate projections, Sullyandro O. Guimarães, Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf… 23 September 2024 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-72787-0 ) “High-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves with zonal wave numbers 6–8 associated with the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) have been linked to persistent summer extreme weather events in the Northern Hemisphere.” “…increase by roughly 30% over the past 4 decades.” “…human-caused greenhouse warming will likely result in an even more substantial rise in QRA events…”
Nevertheless : Impact of climate change on the climatology of Vb cyclones, Messmer et al. 2020. (https://a.tellusjournals.se/articles/10.1080/16000870.2020.1724021 )
“… 2.9 (3.2) Vb cyclones per year are detected … … for the past period, whereas for the future period only 2.6 (2.1) Vb cyclones per year …”
“Moisture is mostly supplied by the moisture flux over the ocean, as this is increased in the future climate simulations, and this is accompanied by a significant reduction in the moisture flux over the soil.” “These changes in moisture supply compensate each other to a great extent…” “This suggests that Vb events that lead to heavy precipitation need temperature conditions that are more frequently met in the warmer summer months in PAST climate…”
There was an identical flood in September, on the same days (!), in 1831 (https://www.imgw.pl/sites/default/files/2021-11/imgw-pib-monografia-2021-przebieg-i-skutki-wybranych-powodzi-w-dorzeczu-odry-calosc.pdf page 57 – sorry, polish language).
The largest floods were in LIA: larger gradients are decisive.
I also recommend this paper: The Influence of Large-Scale Spatial Warming on Jet Stream Extreme Waviness on an Aquaplanet, Batelaan et al., 10 September 2024 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL108470 ): “These findings contradict the mechanism that weakened jet streams increase wave amplitudes and extreme jet stream waviness.”
I guess solar isn’t sustainable in a hurricane area:
What Hurricane Milton did to a Duke Energy solar farm in Florida.
https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1845472558520369481
This is what you need if you live in a hurricane area.
“Since the first residents moved in, in 2022, the homes have survived three major hurricanes: Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Idalia, and now Helene. ”
https://www.fastcompany.com/91199201/this-disaster-proof-florida-neighborhood-kept-the-lights-on
*This is the third hurricane they have experienced since the homes were built.
jack … Judith re-posted this:
Are you in a Western Hemisphere region facing hurricane, atmospheric river, or severe thunderstorm hazards? Boy this paper by @NOAA GFDL veterans Ming Zhao and Tom Knutson is important: https://climate.gov/news-features/feed/crucial-role-sea-surface-temperature-warming-patterns-near-term-high-impact
“Recent studies indicate that virtually all global climate models have difficulty simulating observed sea surface temperature (SST) trend patterns over the past four decades. Models produce enhanced warming in the eastern Equatorial Pacific (EPAC) and Southern Ocean (SO) warming, while observations show intensified warming in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) and slight cooling in the eastern EPAC and SO.
Using Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s latest higher resolution atmospheric model and coupled prediction system, the authors show that model biases in sea surface temperature trend pattern have profound implications for near-term projections of high-impact storm statistics, including the frequency of atmospheric rivers, tropical storms, and mesoscale convection systems, as well as for hydrological and climate sensitivity.
If the future SST warming pattern continues to resemble the observed pattern from the past few decades rather than the GCM simulated/predicted patterns, these results suggest a drastically different future projection of high-impact storms and their associated hydroclimate changes, especially over the Western Hemisphere. A stronger global hydrological sensitivity would also be expected, and substantially less global warming due to stronger negative feedback and lower climate sensitivity.”
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research_highlight/crucial-role-of-sea-surface-temperature-warming-patterns-in-near-term-high-impact-weather-and-climate-projection/
https://x.com/curryja/status/1845927995887763846
Bill,
Thanks for that.
I’m not one of those people who worry about climate models or single metrics like SST or CO2 concentrations. My thesis is the planet’s biosphere is the most important factor influencing the direction of climate change. We humans are making gigatons of man-made molecules and dispersing them into the ecosystems of every square inch of the planet. With the exception of a few species of algae, apex predators and insects almost all lifeforms are in decline.
There is no escape. Our technology has created a reality that we are 100% dependent on to survive. Take away our electricity, fossil fuels and drugs and human populations will decline and lifespans will drop to 30 years or less.
Another Captive Agency Weaponized Against White House Critics
by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
NOAA launches investigation of 30-year-old carcass while allowing offshore wind titans to harm whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1845503530796199978
So on the one hand, RFK does paint a compelling picture. Unfortunately, he has a terrible track record of promoting nonsense – so anything in that regard needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
On the other hand, it’s funny how he lays out the political victimization. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the timing of the investigation might have something to do with when the whale story came out?
Or is that just too straight-forward to fit with contrived conspiracy theories involving da man?
Speaking of taking salt – Jeff Bezos warns that fossil fuels are going to drown Florida, as he purchases hundreds of millions of dollars of oceanfront property in Miami.
Right, he bought a 70 million $ mansion on an island in Florida. He’s truly worried about global warming!
Joshua the Red: “Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the timing of the investigation might have something to do with when the whale story came out?”
No.
This much is certain; as denizens digest CE essays it inevitably leads to Joshua gas.
Bad Andrew: “Jeff Bezos warns that fossil fuels are going to drown Florida”
Jeff’s prognostic AGW sidekick CEO’s representing; Google, Meta and Microsoft, all decided to go to the dark side too–after much ado about nothing.
Microsoft is rebooting the 3 Mile Island nuclear facility to provide power for their AI data center. Likewise, Meta and Google are starting up a coal plant in Nebraska to do the same. More coal plants soon to fire-up in other states; all for AI infrastructure buildout. Juice obviously trumps the CO2 nonsense.
Meanwhile, courtesy of Prager: “Kamala pinches herself: how did I get this far?”
Hey Joshua …
Recently, I’ve heard it said that RFKjr is mercurial. I thought that an odd description as he’s been remarkably consistent throughout his career. Odd until we take into account the shifting political landscape of the past 60 years. Not so odd, in that he’s been, essentially, disowned.
I find him an interesting character. He refused to accept the role the party (and it seems most of his family) required of him. He didn’t take one for the team.
If we want to see if extreme precipitation events correlate to warming temperatures, which makes more sense: 1. analyze ~0.3% of the earth’s surface, as is done in this study, or 2. analyze 100% of the earth’s surface? Call me crazy, but I’m going to go with analyzing 100% of it. It is not surprising that one can find a tiny area that does not show a correlation. But the overall correlation is still quite certain, and the fact that a tiny area with a small number of data points does not show it in no way disproves that an extreme precipitation event in that same particular area is still correlated, and attributable, to our warming atmosphere.
Let’s consider an analogous logical inference. A “mainstream” scientist claims that the malaria causes higher death rates. He looks at the planet and sees that, where malaria has increased, death rates have also gone up. He then sees an outbreak of malaria in 2024 in a village in Kenya, along with a high death rate during the outbreak, and says, “there is a causal relationship.” Now along comes the malaria skeptic. He looks historical death rates just in that kenyan village and, for whatever reason, including limited data points, he sees there is no correlation in that village between malaria and death. He then claims to have discredited the mainstream scientist. “Actually, in that village, there is no such correlation!” But of course, whether the correlation was visible in the history of that village, the high death rate in that village during the current outbreak was still correlated!
Of course the warmer the air – the more evaporation – the higher precipitation.
Because, if there is more moisture in the air, the more it will inevitably precipitate.
The water cycle will inevitably become more intensive, because the air is warmer.
–
The air becomes warmer not because of the fossil fuels burning (not because of CO2 emissions), but because the Earth is in a culmination phase of its slow, millenials long, the orbitally forced warming pattern.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes indeed. It’s not oversimplification to say that:
-CO2 at these levels is not in control of temperature and
-We are not in control of CO2.
Yes, the CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere. CO2 is so infinitesimal content makes plants starving.
The natural processes slowly remove CO2 from atmosphere. There were less and less CO2 for plants – it was heading to an eventual ecological catastrophe.
Volcanism emissions weakened, so plants were only recycling the already available atmospheric CO2.
But yet, some of it continuosly was sequestered in coal, nat. gas and oil sediments. And in various minerals too.
The industrialization based on fossil fuels burning came just in time. It came just in time to save life on planet from an otherwise inevitable ecological catastrophe.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hi Dan B: Of course the thermodynamic issues you describe are true, this is also stated in the main post. However, the event was attributed by the study in question, including some quantitiets. It was this Vb flood in Mideurope. The main post questions this, not the thermodynamics.
best Frank
the logic of the main post verges on nonsensical because, as i said, a lack of correlation between warming and more intense precip events in a single location in no way undermines that when an extreme event happened, the root cause was the warming climate. Such events had not yet occurred previously in that one location. Which is entirely expected as we’re still early on in our new climate and such evvents are relatively rare. this is 100% pseudoscience intended to raise doubt about warming leading to more intense precipitation events.
Fwiw – An excellent book detailing climate history – Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000 Hardcover – January 1, 1971
Granted the book is 50 years old, A lot of the climate history is from planting and harvest records (wine grain, etc) along with receding and advancing glaciers. Notable is the wide disparity in crop yields and associated weather over distances of 200-300 miles. Also notable is the lack of reconciling the more recent paleo proxies back the other corroberating records.
More likely? Possibly.
More severe rain? Quite likely. More heat, more evaporation, more humidity, more rainfall.
Let’s help BABsy with energy storage for the grid. The storage already exists. The energy is stored in hydrocarbons, uranium, and thorium.
Beneath our feet, Uranium atoms in the Earth’s crust hold incredibly concentrated energy. Science unlocked this energy in the mid-20th century, first for bombs and then to power submarines. The United States led the effort to generate electricity from this new source. Yet in the mid-20th century as societies began the transition to nuclear power and away from fossil fuels, a long-term PR campaign to scare the public began, funded in part by coal and oil interests. This campaign would sow fear about harmless low-level radiation and create confusion between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Looking squarely at the problem, Oliver Stone shows us that knowledge is the antidote to fear, and our human ingenuity will allow us to solve the climate change crisis if we use it.
https://www.nuclearnowfilm.com/
Climate change crisis? What crisis? CO2 is not in control of temperature at this time, at these levels, and we are not in control of CO2… see 1929-1931 and the disappointments on 2020.
I’m hoping we don’t slip into that next glaciation that we’re overdue for in this 2.5 m.yr. Ice Age. The we’ll REALLY need a sturdy and reliable electrical grid.
The grid won’t be fueled by windmills and solar panels.
The data centers that make generative AI products like ChatGPT possible will soon reach size limits, according to Microsoft Azure Chief Technology Officer Mark Russinovich, necessitating a new method of connecting multiple data centers together for future generations of the technology.
The most advanced AI models today need to be trained inside a single building where tens (and soon hundreds) of thousands of AI processors, such as Nvidia’s H100s, can be connected so they act as one computer.
But as Microsoft and its rivals compete to build the world’s most powerful AI models, several factors, including America’s aging energy grid, will create a de facto cap on the size of a single data center, which soon could consume multiple gigawatts of power, equivalent to hundreds of thousands of homes.
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/11/2024/microsoft-azure-cto-us-data-centers-will-soon-hit-limits-of-energy-grid
Fake news.
Once we deport 20 million illegal aliens we will have plenty of spare electricity (and everything else too). Who would want to deprive our tech overloads of their ultimate goal…
“AI companies are trying to build god.”
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/377555/ai-chatgpt-openai-god
“Sam Altman, the CEO of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, has basically told us he’s trying to build a god — or “magic intelligence in the sky,” as he puts it. OpenAI’s official term for this is artificial general intelligence, or AGI. Altman says that AGI will not only “break capitalism” but also that it’s “probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity.”
There’s a very natural question here: Did anyone actually ask for this kind of AI? By what right do a few powerful tech CEOs get to decide that our whole world should be turned upside down?”
Why would you get any info, opinions from Vox
Even Wikipedia is a better source
I find AI very helpful, and so do millions of others. Don’t be an old fogy.
You are wrong. The grid is already (partially) fueled by wind and solar, that will continue and grow as part of a diverse energy system. It seems that those that hate wind and solar are the only ones that insist they provide 100% of our electricity. To quote the poster, “stoop id”, and irrational.
“It seems that those that hate wind and solar are the only ones that insist they provide 100% of our electricity.”
What it is the net zero emissions then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“Net-zero emissions” means as much of the emissions are captured as are emitted. It does not mean wind and solar farms have to do 100% of the emission reduction; hydro and nuclear already take care of about 25%.
Maybe this will help.
Fankhauser, S., Smith, S.M., Allen, M. et al. The meaning of net zero and how to get it right. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 15–21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
““Net-zero emissions” means as much of the emissions are captured as are emitted. It does not mean wind and solar farms have to do 100% of the emission reduction; hydro and nuclear already take care of about 25%.”
–
We still would have the wild-fires CO2 emissions. Also the oceanic CO2 releasing processes.
Thanks God, there still will be enough CO2 for plants.
–
When the realization comes, that there is not enough CO2 for plants, there will be the captured CO2 emissions releasing program.
Maybe at COP-60, or at COP-70, but eventually it will be decided the captured emissions should be fast-track released.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Didn’t read the paper, did ya? Next read about the short and long carbon cycles.
I answered your question. I am not interested in your silly deflections.
In the unlikely event that we achieve net zero emissions the CO2 concentration will stabilise at a considerably higher level than today’s.
Why would plants not have enough CO2?
–
But why, hadn’t it been decided by a COP, that CO2 content in atmosphere should be lessen to the preindustrial levels?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s probably a long shot for this flood event, but sodium chloride is used for cloud seeding, and the Hunga Tonga eruption blasted around 5 million tons of it into the atmosphere.
“Climate change” policies are hurting the poor the most. (Hurting us all, actually)
Energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing, mining and agriculture are critical to economies. Measures like carbon taxes that increase energy prices stifle growth and competitiveness, reversing decades of economic progress.
This abuse of Western consumers by a climate industrial complex obsessed with reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is unnecessary, being utterly unsupported by honest science. Moreover, even when emission reductions are achieved –often they’re not – they are offset by the increasing use of coal, oil and natural gas in developing nations like India.
In the U.K. and Canada, where carbon taxes are driving up energy costs, low-income households are disproportionately harmed because a larger share of their income goes toward essentials like heating and electricity.
According to a 2023 report by “Statistics Canada,” 18% of the poorest households had trouble keeping their home heated or cooled. Further, 2% of all “Canadian households reported that someone in their home needed medical attention because their home was either too hot or too cold.”
Likewise, the U.K. government’s own research notes that “around 13% of households in England were classed as fuel poor, 20% in Scotland, 14% in Wales, and 24% in Northern Ireland.”
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2024/10/03/western_households_sacrifice_as_asians_splurge_on_coal_1062021.html
NPR
‘In U.K., Reports Of Elderly Burning Books To Stay Warm
January 5, 2010…
‘It’s so cold in England and Scotland that some elderly folks are buying cheap hardback books to burn in their stoves and fireplaces, the Daily Mail reports.
‘According to the newspaper, an old encyclopedia and other such tomes are much cheaper than coal.’
If carbon capture and storage (CCS) was fracking for gas, it would have been banned years ago. Both processes can cause earth tremors – equivalent to a man falling off a chair in the case of fracking, but potentially much greater with carbon capture. This is because it involves millions of tonnes of pressurised carbon dioxide being pumped into rock cavities possibly compromised by prior drilling holes. Waste water from pressurised oil and gas projects has been known to escape from degraded drill plugs causing geysers 100-foot high. Such a catastrophe on land with millions of tonnes of CO2 waiting to escape is not a good prospect. On August 21st, 1986 the sudden high pressure release of magmatic CO2 from the bed of Lake Nyos in Cameroon led to heavier-than-air CO2 suffocating all living beings in the surrounding villages including 1,746 people.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/11/earthquakes-leakage-expense-death-by-asphyxiation-is-there-no-beginning-to-the-advantages-of-carbon-capture/
Germany needs to back out of “green energy” and start building nat gas plants and revive its nuclear reactors.
(Translated)
Germany’s economic situation has deteriorated drastically this year. Instead of expected growth, Minister of Economy Robert Habeck now anticipates a decline in economic output. Originally, an increase of 0.3 percent was forecast, now a minus of 0.2 percent is taken into account. These new figures reflect the serious situation of the German economy. It is particularly problematic that the corrected economic forecast also has a direct impact on budget planning. This is still based on sustained growth, although all economic forecasts by independent economists have indicated a continuing recession for months (south German: 09.10.24).
https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/wirtschaft-in-der-rezession-bundesregierung-korrigiert-konjunkturprognose-nach-unten/
Yeah sure, your conclusions are based on your extreme bias not facts. Here are the causes of Germany’s recession:
Persistent inflation
Interruptions in supply chains
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
Russian gas supplies drying up after the invasion of Ukraine
High interest rates
Skilled labor shortages
Bureaucracy in the construction sector
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65707206
I see no mention of green energy in either your quote, or mine. If you want to improve Europe’s economy, stop the war in Ukraine.
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say!, that the main stream media outlets almost never mention the cost of electricity made high due to wind and solar penetration plus the shutdown of nuclear and fossil fuel plants. That has contributed to “persistent inflation” and that inflation has caused the “high interest rates”. And please, FINALLY, get over Covid. It’s OVER!
“If you want to improve Europe’s economy, stop the war in Ukraine.”
–
Trump will stop the war in Ukraine. Let’s see if it improves Europe’s economy.
Current temperatures near the surface in southern Greenland.
https://i.ibb.co/4prTLgW/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20241016t1200.jpg
Since 2008 I have developed and produced very long range solar based Northern Annular Mode anomaly predictions, which I have applied mainly to UK weather predictions at down to half weekly scales.
With my heliocentric analogues, I could see 5 years ago that the UK was in for some poor wet summer periods in 2023 and in 2024.
Predictions for 2023 summer were a hot June, a very wet July, a mixed August, and a heatwave early September, which was all verified.
Predictions for summer 2024 were a very cool and wetter second week of both June and July, and later warmer and drier. For August I had predicted cool and wet from around the 8th, which Scotland got, but England was drier and milder.
For September I saw only a brief negative NAM signal in the second week, and a return to a positive signal from week three. The solar wind speed did increase during that period, which would normally mean positive NAM (AO/NAO), but the AO/NAO went stronger negative. There were solar proton storms on the 9th and 14th, which according to the research would in the spring season strengthen the polar vortex, promoting positive NAM conditions. So unless that effect is reversed in autumn, I am still stumped as to what caused the deeper negative AO/NAO later in September.
https://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
It all adds up. It’s just that the period of strong solar wind was too short to change the circulation in the stratosphere. It will only lead to the cutting off of a loop of the jet stream (with a cold spot) over southern Europe. One will disappear over the Alps, and another will form again over Spain and bring snowfall to the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/b1yfFxH/plot-image.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2024.png
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z10_nh_f00.png
IP said:
“It’s just that the period of strong solar wind was too short to change the circulation in the stratosphere.”
A week is plenty long enough to change the NAO.
There were 4 days of strong solar wind on October 10, 11,12, 13. That’s not even a week.
https://i.ibb.co/SxRwswq/plot-image-1.png
Ulric Lyons
https://i.ibb.co/1rpM4VY/latest2week.png
Wrong month, this is about September.
Here it is September and October. The solar wind is weak in September and so is the AO.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.png
https://i.ibb.co/HGp3Gbn/plot-image-2.png
I had already posted the SW data, it was faster in September, the fastest 2-3 week period since May.
https://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
It is better to look at accurate observations at shorter intervals of 45 to 7 days.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
Sorry
It is better to look at accurate observations at shorter intervals of 54 to 7 days.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
https://i.ibb.co/Jys4pF6/plot-image-2.png
https://i.ibb.co/L8SCXCx/Screenshot-2024-10-16-18-09-01.png
The jet stream pulls cool air masses from the north to Florida.
https://i.ibb.co/TqqK6nB/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
The drumbeat of bad news continues to emanate from Germany. The “Green Energy” push for wind and solar and the shutdown of nuclear and coal plants has pushed the German economy to the brink.
“There’s actually nothing that speaks in favor of investing in Germany,” Christian Kaeser, global head of tax at Siemens told lawmakers in Berlin on Wednesday, stressing that Siemens generally is in favor of investing.
“But there’s no growth in Germany — there is growth in other countries — and the tax situation isn’t particularly good either,” he said. “That’s why our most recent investments primarily were made abroad.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-17/german-economic-woes-deter-investment-siemens-official-says
AI says:
Several steel plants in Germany have shut down or announced closures due to the ongoing energy crisis. Key developments include:
ArcelorMittal: The company shut down a blast furnace at its Bremen site in October 2022, citing high energy costs. Additionally, ArcelorMittal plans to suspend production at its Hamburg plant for five weeks in the fourth quarter of 2023, with minimal staff operating during this period.
Blast Furnace 2 Closure: ArcelorMittal Bremen plans to shut down Blast Furnace 2 in October 2023 for scheduled maintenance, which will include a 60-day repair of the sinter plant.
Energy Costs: The CEO of ArcelorMittal Germany, Reiner Blaschek, attributed the shutdowns to the high cost of gas and electricity, which severely hampers competitiveness.
Industry-Wide Impact: A poll by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) found that one in six industrial enterprises in Germany feels compelled to cut production due to high energy prices. Aluminum smelters in Europe have also started closing recently.
Meanwhile in the US, Governor Nuisance has single-handedly shut down a refinery via over-regulation. Maybe he should make a case study of Germany?
SACRAMENTO, California — Phillips 66 announced Wednesday that it will close its Los Angeles oil refinery next year, citing “long-term uncertainty” two days after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law clearing the way for new regulations on the state’s refiners.
The closure would knock out about 8 percent of refining capacity in a state that barely produces enough of its special-blend gasoline to meet demand from its 31 million gas-powered vehicles.
“With the long-term sustainability of our Los Angeles refinery uncertain and affected by market dynamics, we are working with leading land development firms to evaluate the future use of our unique and strategically located properties near the Port of Los Angeles,” Mark Lashier, the company’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement.
Newsom on Monday signed legislation aimed at preventing gasoline price spikes by giving the state authority to require refiners to store more gas and share resupply and maintenance plans with the state.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/16/phillips-66-california-refinery-closure-00184058
La Niña will be in full swing in November. Australia can expect increased rainfall.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Very heavy precipitation in France reaches mountain areas in the Massif Central. Floods are beginning to occur.
The situation in France is similar to the floods in Poland. The upper low is cut off from the jet stream and will remain in the same position for a long time, which means prolonged rainfall.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/fr/limoges/134979/weather-radar/134979
SAT24
https://i.ibb.co/dgBntfR/Screenshot-2024-10-17-19-25-17.png
Here is yet another global warming hoax. Water isn’t used, it’s continually recycled. The writer claims the cycle is out of balance for “the first time in Human history” , as if she actually knows. She doesn’t. There are more plants due to higher CO2 locking up more “green” water. Forest land is increasing, not decreasing.
CNN
—
Humanity has thrown the global water cycle off balance “for the first time in human history,” fueling a growing water disaster that will wreak havoc on economies, food production and lives, according to a landmark new report.
Decades of destructive land use and water mismanagement have collided with the human-caused climate crisis to put “unprecedented stress” on the global water cycle, said the report published Wednesday by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, a group of international leaders and experts.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/16/climate/global-water-cycle-off-balance-food-production/index.html
These southern Europe flood events are occurring at the end of negative NAO episodes, when the NAO index is returning to neutral values. September 13-15, and again now in France October 18. Big winter snowfalls in the UK follow the same pattern, as the NAO shifts back to neutral/positive after being negative.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.gefs.sprd2.png
I hope more research like this can help us understand how the atmosphere will evolve if there is a climate connection between the increasing frequency and strength of sudden stratospheric warming events.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-72594-7
“Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs) are meteorological phenomena driven by enhanced planetary wave (PW) activity in winter, in which the polar stratospheric temperature increases considerably by a few tens of Kelvin. Such an extreme event can have far-reaching effects on the Earth’s atmosphere, from the troposphere to the thermosphere and across both the hemispheres. The predominantly active stationary planetary waves (SPW) in the winter stratosphere are crucial in preconditioning the SSW. The interaction between SPW2 (zonal wavenumber or SPW1 and the polar vortex can lead to displacement or split of the polar vortex.”
Jack, the northern polar vortex is currently weaker than the southern one, though the northern polar stratosphere temperatures are average. It’s a bit early for a SSW.
Full agreement. After the recent increase in solar wind speed, the north Atlantic jet stream is becoming latitudinal and the NAO is moving towards neutral. However, this will not last long, as the solar wind speed has dropped sharply since Oct. 14.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.png
It is logical that the solar wind strongly influences the circulation in winter, because it affects the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere (the magnetic field of the solar wind repels ozone, which is diamagnetic). At the same time, the stratosphere in winter over the Arctic Circle gets closer to the surface.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
One can see the highly asymmetric distribution of ozone in the middle stratosphere, which determines the polar vortex pattern. As the stratospheric polar vortex develops from the upper layers of the stratosphere, the vortex pattern gradually affects the circulation in the lower layers up to the tropopause and even up to the 500 hPa level in the troposphere.
https://i.ibb.co/B4BnLnX/gfs-t30-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/vCF4wKG/gfs-z30-nh-f00.png
If the solar wind is weak, these anomalies will increase and may lead to the vortex breaking up into two centers according to the geomagnetic field in high latitudes, followed by the breakup of the stratospheric polar vortex (SSW). Of course, the ozone anomaly over the North Pacific is typical, but it has been intensifying greatly in recent years.
https://i.ibb.co/p0wzHCS/polar-n-z.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/pZ8zyCk/polar-n-dz.jpg
US National Weather Service Fairbanks Alaska
A strong, long duration storm in Eastern Siberia will bring a front to a majority of the CWA. There will be widespread impacts from the Coast to the Interior. As of now, there is some uncertainty, especially with Interior snow totals as there will likely be some rain mixing in.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ge_magnitude_volokin_rellez_2193-1801-3-723_springerplus_2014.pdf
“… a proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of an airless celestial body (Tna) requires an explicit integration
of the SB law over the planet surface. This means first
taking the 4th root of the absorbed shortwave flux at every
point on the planet and then averaging the resulting
temperature field across the entire surface rather
than calculating a single temperature from the globally averaged absorbed solar flux as done in Eq. (3).”
–
“… first taking the 4th root of the absorbed shortwave flux at every point on the planet…
–
But we are not justified to use the SB emission law backwards, because the SB emission law cannot be applied as the EM energy an absorption law.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But we are not justified to use the SB emission law backwards”
But you use it backwards twice in your “theory” to obtain 4th and 16th roots.
Thank you, B A Bushaw, for your response.
“But you use it backwards twice in your “theory” to obtain 4th and 16th roots.”
–
When obtaining 4th and 16th roots, it is not the backwards SB emission law.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sure,
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 (K) (1)
Recognize that?
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
“Sure,
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 (K) (1)
Recognize that?”
–
Of course, but in the Planet Mean Surface Equation it is:
Tmean = Te.correct * (β*N*cp)^1/16
or
Tmean = [Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 * (β*N*cp)^1/16 (K)
So, the Te is only a part of the Tmean equation.
Or, in other words, Tmean is the Te.correct ( the backwards SB ), but it is multiplied by a factor = (β*N*cp)^1/16.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m sorry. Things that have happened in the past have 100% likelihood. Since it did happen, it increases the statistical probability of it happening again in the future.
Nuclear Power is the future …
Google plans to buy electricity from next-generation nuclear reactors. It announced the deal yesterday, which it says is the world’s first corporate agreement to purchase electricity from advanced small modular reactors (SMRs) that are still under development.
…
Other big tech companies with climate goals are trying to solve the same problem with nuclear energy. In March, Amazon Web Services announced its purchase of a data center campus powered by a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Microsoft signed an agreement in September to help revive and purchase power from the shuttered Three Mile Island plant.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24270645/google-nuclear-energy-deal-small-modular-reactor-kairos
A diversified energy mix is the future.
That’s correct, Mr. Bushaw. Solar will be used extensively for back woods cabins and such. The real grid? Not so much. Some countries are already paying the price for a jump off the “green energy” cliff. Eventually, the populace at large will get them out of government. That day can’t come too soon, either.
Solar works great here in AZ to lower summer AC bills.
Fusion is the future, far future
Mr. Jim2,
Must be some effing big cabins – and usually they are in the desert, but I guess people like you might try to use them in the forest.
https://time.com/3722444/worlds-largest-solar-plants-photographs/
Opinions without evidence from an obviously biased nobody have no value.
Jim2,
Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
81% of total new capacity is equal to approx 30% actual capacity.
Gas capacity is limited by demand
Wind and solar is limited by resource.
Joe,
I reported it as capacity, same as the article. Even if you derate for duty cycle, solar and batteries are still the largest addition to the grid. As for resource limited – that would be gas: expected to be gone within 50 years and hence only 4% growth in 2024, In a couple of years, gas growth will likely become negative, like coal. The resource for solar is sunlight and will be around (and increasing) for a few billion years, There is still plenty of land available for locating solar arrays. Point is, Jim2’s wishful thinking is just that.
Rob, we already have reliable fusion – it’s called the sun. We do have to become more efficient at collecting, using, storing, and distributing some of that solar energy received before it turns to heat.
Please, not at the poorest part expence.
While cost of energy rises the poor people have to cut on their standards of living.
Poor people do not afford having families and they do not afford having children.
Who is going to get the benefits then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BAB – That is a poor attempt at trying to explain away the use a metric that has no relationship to the actual real world
performance.
Bruce, I would hope that you don’t think that batteries generate electricity. They only allow the solar and wind generating excesses to be shifted to a different part of the day. They also can’t make up for the days, or weeks without sun, or wind, and they can do nothing to fix the seasonal variations. For northern latitudes, solar output can drop to near zero in December and January when heating demands are the greatest.
Adding more solar and wind to the grid decreases grid stability.
Also I would suggest using the term capacity factor instead of duty cycle.
BTW, with your background, have you considered how much thermal heating is caused by solar panels? Only a small percentage of the spectrum is converted to electricity.
Thank you, Robert.
“Adding more solar and wind to the grid decreases grid stability.”
–
There is always the hope, that eventually they will come to their senses.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JoeTNCS,
You just gave a relationship for “actual, real world performance”. If you don’t like what I have quoted, write and publish a paper (or even a blog) and challenge the Energy Information Agency and tell them where they got it wrong.
Robert,
Yes, batteries generate electricity from chemical energy when they are in discharge mode. They are also able to use electricity to generate and store that chemical energy. Regardless of your viewpoint, they are an important and fast-growing part of renewable energy stabilization.
Sure, I’ve considered the heating caused by solar panels. They have about the same albedo as the oceans, but they convert solar energy to electricity with about 25% efficiency, the rest is turned to heat, but it is solar energy that would have been absorbed by the earth anyway. Might as well use some of that solar energy to do some work on its way to turning into heat.
In contrast, fossil fuels convert chemical energy to heat and use that heat to generate electricity. FF -> E efficiencies are only slightly better than solar panels, but the efficiency losses are EXCESS heat beyond what the sun provides. It also takes millions of years to replenish FFs through the long carbon cycle – they are not renewable on useful timescales. The same applies to nuclear energy, fission or fusion. Their (and FFs) unused heat (~65%) adds to the earth’s heat content above and beyond what the sun does. Maybe Robert should consider the subject a little more deeply.
Christos,
All forms of energy generation, except fossil fuels, are getting cheaper. For example, solar photovoltalic average LCOE decreased from $0.45/kWh in 2010 to average $0.05/kWh in 2012 (about the same as the least expensive FF power generation). This should be good for the poorer people,
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy?facet=none
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
“It also takes millions of years to replenish FFs through the long carbon cycle – they are not renewable on useful timescales.”
What remains after a forest wild fire is the carbonized trunks – it is the coal.
All it takes to replenish coal is a wild fire. No millions of years the long carbon cycle is needed.
–
What are you going to charge the electricity storage batteries with? Waiting for the excess solar and wind energy is not an option.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos. Wrong again.
“Coal takes millions of years to form
Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock with a high amount of carbon and hydrocarbons. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form. Coal contains the energy stored by plants that lived hundreds of millions of years ago in swampy forests.”
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/
Bruce, I had hoped it would have been obvious that my comment was in the context of the EIA graph you referenced, where batteries are lumped in as generating capacity. The chart is deceptive as battery charging subtracts from the other real generation. I’m personally not inclined to promote misinformation.
Robert,
I find batteries (and they don’t have to be lithium-ion) to be an essential part of the long-term viability of wind and solar. Turn on your phone – you will see a battery generating electical energy from chemically stored energy. A gas or coal power plant also converts chemical energy into electrical energy. Nonetheless, my original comment was about the energy mix of the future, and EIA shows the growth of solar (58%), batteries (23%), and wind (13%) are all much faster than FFs (4%) and nuclear (2%).
Also, you failed to comment on the fact that FFs and nuclear ADD to the earth’s direct heat loading, which solar panels (and wind) do not, even though that was your original silly complaint about solar panels. Might also compare the expected reserve time of FF and nuclear feedstocks (a few hundred years) to that of the sun (about 5 billion years). Next, consider the pollution loading of FFs & N, and the extra energy need to deal with it properly (further reducing effective efficiency), to that of the solar and wind.
I find your arguments simplistic and not very convincing. Have a good day, hope you entertain yourself finding some more nits to pick.
B A Bushaw | October 18, 2024 at 8:05 pm |
Joe,
I reported it as capacity, same as the article.
Yes you did –
though your response demonstrates that you dont understand the difference between “capacity” vs effective and/or effective capacity. Nor did your response demonstrate that you know the difference between demand limited vs resource limited in the context of capacity.
B A Bushaw | October 18, 2024 at 8:05 pm |
“Rob, we already have reliable fusion – it’s called the sun. ”
Yes the sun is reliable fusion 24/7/365/millenium
Yet only able to capture that reliable fusion 6-12hours /sometimes 7 days a week .
Also worthy of note, actual capacity factor is around 25-30% of installed capacity and only 6-8% during winter. Yes battery storage can overcome that shortage – except there is no surplus generation to recharge the battery during the winter.
I work with reality based evidence, not what the activists want the evidence to show.
“The climate crisis has become one of the most important challenges facing humanity, which is confirmed by scientific research, the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the international community with the Paris Agreement in 2015. The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to ensure that global temperatures do not rise by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels and try not to exceed 1.5°C. The European Union has set itself the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% in the short term by 2030.”
–
The global temperature inevitably will continue to rise, no matter what measures are taken to reduce the fossil fuels burning.
The global rise of temperature is a naturally occured phenomenon.
The temperature rises because it is orbitally forced.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Another loop of the jet stream from over the Atlantic is approaching France, where the previous one is still operating.
https://i.ibb.co/qgtm2yr/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
https://www.sat24.com/pl-pl/continent/eu/hd
The solar wind has weakened over the past week, which will cause further ripples in the northern jet stream.
https://i.ibb.co/HFtZhV9/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
A tropical storm can be seen over Yucatan.
https://i.ibb.co/wK8XkQK/goes16-wv-rgb-15-L-202410190345.gif
If you want to see a metric, take a look at uranium miner Cameco. I’m so happy to have invested in it!
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/ccj
Looks pretty good – stock value is up 5x in 5 years. You can compare that to Tesla, which is up 12.7x over the same period. I’m so happy to have invested heavily when we bought our M3 6 years ago.
It’s just getting started. Mine is up 60% so far, bought it in August.
-because radiation does not have a temperature or a temperature equivalent-
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Looks like you have lost 10-20% on that M3 “investment”.
JIm2,
Our investment was in Tesla stocks and they have gained over 1200% in the last 5 years (20k -> 240+k). The M3 was not an investment, it is a car bought for transportation – we expect it to loose value with age. Thanks again for demonstrating you ability to understand things.
Jim2,
My mistake, I should have written ” We invested heavily in Tesla STOCKS when (actually shortly after) we bought our M3.
B A Bushaw,
“Our investment was in Tesla stocks and they have gained over 1200% in the last 5 years (20k -> 240+k). ”
Interesting, “they have gained over 1200% in the last 5 years”.
They have gained…
For you, B A, to gain 1200% you should sell now.
Christos,
Thanks, we already have a professional investment advisor.
That’s a nice return in anyone’s books, Mr. Bushaw. Good on ya.
B A, don’t go for the big buck. It is an illusion – the 1200 % gain.
The money in your pocket – that will be the real gain for you.
I’m neither for nor against electric cars, I just want them to compete fairly in an unbiased market. No subsidies for them, their manufacturers, or anywhere on the supply chain.
All planets and moons in our Solar system get irradiated with the same set of EM frequencies.
The solar flux’s intensity received (W/m^2) differs according to the distance from sun the square inverse law.
But the different planets’ and moons’ surfaces interact with the same (the originated from the same source of EM energy – from our sun), they interact with the same set of EM frequencies.
So, the sun’s unique set of EM frequencies is a common feature in all planets and moons their respective surface temperatures occurrences.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The jet stream in the Atlantic and pulls the low from over Iceland over the British Isles, where it rains heavily. then the low will reach Farncia again.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/10/20/0800Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-9.09,56.45,664
Sorry
The Atlantic jet stream is descending southward and pulls the low from Iceland over the British Isles, where it rains heavily. then the low will reach France again.
You can see how much the solar wind speed dropped after the last geomagnetic storm. As a result, highs will reappear over Iceland and the NAO index will drop.
https://i.ibb.co/yFjqm8z/latest2week.png
There goes 900 jobs.
Over more than 100 years, the Wilmington and Carson oil refineries have pumped out millions of barrels of gasoline, filling the thirsty cars of Southern California’s freeway-driving motorists.
Now, in an abrupt move that reflects the tectonic industry shifts driven by climate change, the transition to electric vehicles and demands for cleaner air, Phillips 66 announced Wednesday that late next year it is closing the twin refinery complex that produces about 8% of the state’s gasoline.
The Houston company, which has operated the refineries since its 2012 spin off from ConocoPhillips, said it would replace their output with sources “inside and outside its refining network” and with renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuels from its San Francisco Bay Area refinery.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-10-16/phillips-66-will-shut-historic-wilmington-refinery
Newsom finally succeeded.
Just another sign of peak oil – get used to it. I bet there are plenty of new jobs in renewables, since they are growing, not declining.
Since you feel that there should be no government support for EVs, how do you feel about the government supports for fossil fuels and nuclear?
I anticipated you would go there, Mr. B.
I am for free markets. Free markets lift economic activity for everyone. But then we have a belligerent country named China with about 6 times our population. Should we engage in free trade with China? I say no, because it gives them money to pour into their military. Not so good for us.
I am for light regulation. But should the government subsidize industries. I say no, generally not. Just to be clear, a government subsidy is when the government gives you other peoples money to do something. A tax break is when you get to keep the money you earned, your own money. A big difference.
Oil is a mining business. They get the same tax breaks given other miners. No subsidy here.
Nuclear provides steady, 24/7 electricity. This is a very valuable property of nuclear. It also provides a lot of electricity on a small footprint. Given the fact that reliable electricity benefits us all, I am OK with some subsidies here.
You are playing a flavor the gotcha game where you want to make me appear to violate my own principles. But as you can see, one size does not fit all.
Dr. B to you Mr. J.
No the government distributes the government’s money. It is no longer “other people’s” money. Money does not have a permanent owner. How it is collected abd distributed is determined by representatives that the populus has elected. If you don’t like it – vote for a representative that supports you views.
RE: free markets. Obvious deflection that has nothing to do with how the government collects and distributes revenues. And, the population of China is about 4.2x larger that the US. Once again, false exaggeration By Mr. J, as usual without evidence for phony claims.
B A Bushaw,
“No the government distributes the government’s money. ”
Why it is called National Dept?
BaB – You really dont understand micro or macro economics do you
A) For those that understand “more new jobs in renewables” recognize that renewables is less efficient ie it takes more people to produce the same amount of product is a sign that process is less efficient.
B) Government support for EV’s is a benefit for the manufacturer, while only very marginally a benefit for the consumer at the cost of giving taxpayer money to the producer. Learn the basics of the supply and demand curves
C) Fossil fuel subsidies are a repetitively repeated delusional belief based on hugely distorted concepts that have zero basis under any economic theory. Any one with a basic understanding micro and macro economics should be able to recognize the delusions
Reducing CO2 emissions also “benefits all of us”, and therefore deserves promotion, subsidies and rebates to make it happen. I am more of an optimist, believing that both reduced CO2 emissions and “stable electricity” can be achieved at the same time. I also believe that added renewables (including batteries) will increase grid capacity and stability (it’s pretty simple).
Joe K,
I understand natual physical sciences better than the pseudoscience of economics, nonetheless. All three are false personal opinions, which don’t interest me. But thanks for making the effort.
B A Bushaw | October 20, 2024 at 11:56 am |
I am more of an optimist, believing that both reduced CO2 emissions and “stable electricity” can be achieved at the same time. I also believe that added renewables (including batteries) will increase grid capacity and stability (it’s pretty simple).
BaB – You keep demonstrating that you dont understand micro or macro economics
You last comment demonstrates you dont understand basic engineering concepts.
You need to get your renewable information from actual experts with real world industry experience – Not from the fake renewable experts such as Jacobson.
fwiw – you demonstrate your complete misconception and lack of basic facts of renewables when you quote the gross capacity factors and then try to defend the use of gross capacity factors even after the logic error is point out to you.
I’m disappointed you responded to my remarks with Bafflegab, Mr. B. But not surprised.
Jim2,
Which comment of yours – the deflection?
Mr. B. Hubris may have blinded you to the fact that others can see through your spin and bafflegab.
The tropical storm will pass over eastern Cuba and enter the Caribbean Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/PZSftGZ/mimictpw-namer-latest-1.gif
[Time to restart the thread]
Joe K said:
“Yes the sun is reliable fusion 24/7/365/millenium
Yet only able to capture that reliable fusion 6-12hours /sometimes 7 days a week .
Also worthy of note, actual capacity factor is around 25-30% of installed capacity and only 6-8% during winter. Yes battery storage can overcome that shortage – except there is no surplus generation to recharge the battery during the winter.”
Yes, thanks, I am aware of these generalizations, but it really depends on where you are, and what other resources are on the same grid. And, it doesn’t change the fact that both solar and wind still contribute to grid capacity at competitive prices.
As far as economics: The people that have the money to invest seem to believe that currently solar is the way to go, providing 58% of new US electricity generation in 2024.
B A Bushaw,
> “The people that have the money to invest seem to believe that currently solar is the way to go…”
–
Interesting, why they wouldn’t prefer to invest in “Tesla” ?
Don’t have to prefer – you can invest in both.
Thanks, but no.
I never invest in bubbles.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I don’t care what you choose to do. I’m not interested in the the “advice” you give – not about money management, not about science.
B A Bushaw,
“Christos,
I don’t care what you choose to do. I’m not interested in the the “advice” you give – not about money management, not about science.”
–
Sorry to hear that. I don’t want for you to lose any money.
Till now you have invested your money – you haven’t put anything back in your pocket.
Now, about science. Everyone is interested in science. Especially, everyone is interested in new sciences.
B A Bushaw, why are you not interested in the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I am not interested in the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” because I was interested in the past and I read your webpage. I found it to be deficient in a number of ways, and I tried to explain some of the physics behind some of your false assumptions. I also find that the subject has already been adequately covered by real climate scientists. As far as I can tell, you just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again and haven’t changed a thing. Therefore, I conclude that you are wasting my time.
Let us know when you publish your results, maybe I’ll show some interest again.
Ciao
Bruce …
> No the government distributes the government’s money. It is no longer “other people’s” money. Money does not have a permanent owner. How it is collected abd distributed is determined by representatives that the populus has elected. If you don’t like it – vote for a representative that supports you views.
Just a few comments on the above. I think you may agree that the government is an agent of the citizenry. It acts on our behalf, as you pointed out, via directions from elected representatives. When you say ‘the government distributes the government’s money’ the implication is that the government owns the money. If that is what you are saying, then please note that the debt the government incurs, in carrying out its duties, would also be owned by the government. As you know, that is not the case. As an example, NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan were governments that dissolved, yet their debts (of all sorts) were not dissolved and were the obligation of the citizenry. The people own the money (funds), debt and any other asset and liability that the government administers as agent of the people. They also ‘own’ all government actions.
That may sound nitpicking to you, but I urge you to consider it carefully. All tyrannous governments, whether right or left inspired, share one thing in common. They move from being an agent that is under control from a constitution and elected representatives, to an agent that assumes control that was never given to it.
The above is an encapsulation of the debate over ‘the administrative state’. Discussions of its limits and legitimacy should always be important to a free society.
Joe K,
From you, I’d be much more interested in references than your opinions and personal attacks.
BAb
You have responded 7-8 times yet you still demonstrate that you dont understand why the 81% capacity is a meaningless metric.
In fact, you keep throwing out unrelated talking points demonstrating you have a very poor grasp of the subject matter
Come back you can demonstrate knowledge as to why the 81% metric is meaningless
B A Bushaw | October 21, 2024 at 1:21 pm | Reply
Joe K said “You have responded 7-8 times yet you still demonstrate that you dont understand why the 81% capacity is a meaningless metric”
That is because I don’t think it is a “meaningless metric” no matter how may times you say it.
BAB – You dont think its a meaningless metric because you simply dont understand the subject or the context.
Come back when you do understand the subject matter.
You keep repeating yourself. It doesn’t make you right. I explained it to you. If you don’t understand, that’s your problem.
Despite your nit-picking objections, solar continues to be, by far, the fastest growing source of electricity generation. That is the only point I was making – you and the small minority of “green deniers” will not change that.
Psychology plays an interesting role in these discussions:
“Our results show that Climate Change Denial is positively correlated with Social Dominance Orientation (r = 0.39) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (r = 0.42), and negatively with Openness (r = −0.14), Conscientiousness (r = −0.05), Agreeableness (r = −0.11), Consideration of Future Consequences (r = −0.38), and Actively Open-Minded Thinking (r = −0.38). Concern for Climate Change correlates with Openness (r = 0.10), Neuroticism (r = 0.12), Consideration of Future Consequences (r = 0.34), and negatively with Social Dominance Orientation (r = -0.36) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (r = −0.22). Finally, Proactivity towards Climate Change correlates positively with Openness (r = 0.17), Extraversion (r = 0.09), Agreeableness (r = 0.05), Neuroticism (r = 0.10), Consideration of Future Consequences (r = 0.39), and negatively with Social Dominance Orientation (r = -0.25) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (r = -0.31)”.
From “Personality traits and climate change denial, concern, and proactivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Sounds about right to me.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424000501
Joe K said “You have responded 7-8 times yet you still demonstrate that you dont understand why the 81% capacity is a meaningless metric”
That is because I don’t think it is a “meaningless metric” no matter how may times you say it.
It is the universally accepted metric for the CAPACITY of a solar array to produce electricity under specified maximum illumination. That is then multiplied by the available (average) illumination at a given site, to yield the energy produced.
Sorry that you don’t know the meaning of “capacity,” but you can look it up. A physics hint: capacity refers to power, e.g. MW. You try to conflate that with energy (MWh) delivered.
PS ~ Even if you multiply the capacity by 0.25 to get an average delivery, solar (and battery & wind) growth rates are still much higher than either gas or nuclear. That was my original point for that reference. You are not going to change that, no matter how much you deflect and demonstrate your ignorance.
Meanwhile, those solar arrays (that won’t work to solve all our energy problems) are out there pumping gigawatts into the grid, and every GWh delivered is a GWh that does not need to burn non-renewable, polluting resources, and saves them for other or later use.
BAB ‘s comment – “Sorry that you don’t know the meaning of “capacity,” but you can look it up. A physics hint: capacity refers to power, e.g. MW. You try to conflate that with energy (MWh) delivered.”
Still demonstrating you dont understand the subject matter (adding an insult to further hide your lack of understanding).
fyi – there is a huge difference between gross capacity and actual capacity. If you understood the subject matter, then you would know the difference and would also know the WHY
8-9 responses from you and you clearly demonstrate you dont know the difference
Joe K,
Are you really that dense? The terms you are looking for are rated capacity and actual capacity. As I already explained, rated capacity is used to calculate the actual (average) capacity using specific site data – I understand the difference. EIA happened to use rated capacity – if you don’t like it, too bad – complain to EIA.
The fact remains, solar arrays are the fastest growing form of electricity generation. Your dislike and anger don’t change that.
B A Bushaw | October 21, 2024 at 3:48 pm |
Joe K,
Are you really that dense? The terms you are looking for are rated capacity and actual capacity.
BaB – 9-10 responses from you and you finally admitted that you used an incorrect metric.
Nice insult, especially considering that you were the one that made the error.
Bab – one last question
Why did you continue to defend the use of a meaningless metric knowing as you now admit was the incorrect metric?
Ego issues perhaps or a poor understanding of the subject matter in the proper context?
Joe K,
No, they are both valid metrics with different definitions, and the real capacity derived from the rated capacity, which also determines the physical and investment requirements for an array. If you think you are qualified to determine what are and are not “correct metrics”, perhaps you should put up some sort of CV information that shows you are qualified to make that judgement. I’ll wait.
B A Bushaw | October 21, 2024 at 4:33 pm |
Joe K,
No, they are both valid metrics with different definitions, and the real capacity derived from the rated capacity,
BABy
You still dont understand do you.
The gross capacity is not a valid metric for the context of what you tried to represent. Period – you should know better but you continue to intentionally distort the facts.
Quite frankly its a sign you dont understand the subject nearly as well as you think you do.
One last response. They are neither meaningless nor incorrect. They are both correct and both have obvious meaning and uses. If you can’t accept or understand that after having it explained, that is your willfully ignorant problem.
The fact remains that solar arrays are the fastest growing form of electricity regardless if power capacity or energy delivery is the choosen metric.
B A Bushaw | October 21, 2024 at 4:52 pm |
One last response. They are neither meaningless nor incorrect.
The are correct but meaningless in the context of the information you were trying to convey.
That is the part that you fail to understand. Its a sign you dont understand the context or the subject matter.
Dear Joey,
You keep repeating youself and and you are wrong:
“The[y] are correct but meaningless in the context of the information you were trying to convey.
That is the part that you fail to understand. Its a sign you dont understand the context or the subject matter.”
Regardless of which metric you chose, generation capacity or derated for “fuel” availability, they both are meaningful and demonstrate what I was trying to convey (that is what you fail to undertand) – one more time:
“Solar arrays have the fastest growing capacity for of electricity generation.”
Cracks me up that you like to copy and paste clips from my responses, but always fail to include that part, instead calling it “the information you were trying to convey”, I even challenged you to “disprove the information I was conveying”; of course, no response. Is it that hard to understand? Is it that difficult to talk about it?
Still waiting on that CV material – until then
Mothers for Nuclear was started on Earth Day in 2016 by two moms who want to protect their children’s future on this planet. They were initially skeptical of nuclear, but through many years of questioning and working at California’s last remaining nuclear plant, they gradually changed their minds. Now they support nuclear as our largest and most hopeful source of clean energy, vital to addressing some of our world’s biggest challenges: climate change, air pollution, and energy poverty.
https://www.mothersfornuclear.org/
jim2; Have those “Mothers for Nuclear” seen the light? (Or the lightning on the horizon?). Or fear setting in that our present comfortable way of life is being threatened?
Keeping the lights on takes a lot of good engineering sense, something that I perceive is getting rare; taking life and the grid for granted.
Covid was a first eye-opener about our abilities to cope and be ready for emergencies. Is Cuba presently another eye-opener for us? Nuclear is far more demanding on good sense in every way one can imagine.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/20/americas/cuba-blackout-third-day-failed-restore-intl/index.html
I worked in the nuclear industry for 35 year. Anyone that calls it safe and clean does’t know what they are talking about.
The lady who started the group is an engineer who worked at a nuclear plant for about 6 years. No doubt knows more than Mr. B about the subject.
I’ve a PhD in nuclear physics and worked at the Hanford Site for 35 developing methods for detection of radionuclides both for environmental and prolifieration monitoring. I image the engineers know more about reactor operation, but doubt they know more about “cleanliness” and safety issues.
Hey, how about a rundown on your background too. I’m always interested in what kind of person makes presumptions (that they couldn’t possibly know) about someone else.
So an engineer who worked in an actual nuclear plant wouldn’t know about cleanliness and safety issues. I see. Do you know how much safety training they have to go through? Every. Year.
Jim2,
Thanks, for the demonstration.
“Integer addition algorithm could reduce energy needs of AI by 95%” https://techxplore.com/news/2024-10-integer-addition-algorithm-energy-ai.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.00907
Absolutely not my field (I have dabbled in this in a very small way) but it is good sense and ability not deep pockets that is required. (But I wait for a trial).
Here you go, Mr. B. You can ask the lady that started Mothers for Nuclear what she knows about cleanliness and safety.
https://www.mothersfornuclear.org/contact-us
Thanks Jim,
Already been there and read their “bios,” and mission statements. I appreciate their intentions. And, if you have read my past posts, you would know that I am not against nuclear – it has its place in the mix. However, from my experience, I want it done right, not whitewashed as “this amazing pollution-free source of energy” (K. Seitz, Mothers for Nuclear)
Cracks me up that you guys (the Jim and various Joes show) get so offended and angry when the only substantive points I made were:
(1) I believe future electricity generation will come from diverse sources (including nuclear).
(2) Solar is (currently) the fastest growing form of electricity production.
If you think team harassment by intellectual midgets, who won’t disclose their real names or experience, will make me back down or leave, then y’all are sadly mistaken. I imagine that all your attacks, and my responses to them, makes this Blog real enjoyable for other people visiting “Climate Etc.” I’m OK with that – keep it up boys.
Hey, keep your cool boys, and your eyes on the ‘road’. Very slippery. There is enough insanity going round right now.
Story: The surgeon had a scalpel in his hand while he operated on a difficult job. Success. He was showered with gratitude and financial praise. The monkey thought ‘I can do that – and then its plenty of bananas’.
You know the rest.
You appear to be hallucinating again, Mr. B. Might be time to take a break.
Sure, Jimmy – Still waiting for your CV and real name. Can’t hide stupidity with anonymity. I see insults are all you have left – not a surprise since you didn’t have much to start with. I don’t need a break (that would be you, perhaps permanently); I can answer your insults with scientific discussion, just as long as you keep throwing out your crap.
Here is an honest (IMHO) assessment about the issues with nuclear, both environmental and economic.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php
The one thing they don’t mention is the slow deployment, which makes the mythical new nuclear installations way too slow to be part of a couple decade (approach to) net-zero, where front-loading is very important to effectively alter non-linear chaotic trajectories.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 15–21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w
Nothing new there, Mr. B.
You’re not ready for the new stuff until you can talk intelligently about the old stuff. It helps if one actually reads and can comprehend the material. Good luck with that.
If you want new stuff, you can start with your CV material – what experience do you have in the field? I can only assume none, since you won’t talk about it.
The credentials fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant.
For example, if a person raises concerns about a political policy, someone using the credentials fallacy might dismiss those concerns without addressing them, by saying that the person who raised them isn’t an expert in the field so their concerns aren’t important.
The credentials fallacy is frequently used in discussions on various topics, so it’s important to understand it. As such, in the following article you will learn more about this fallacy, see some examples of its use, and understand how you can respond to people who use it.
https://effectiviology.com/credentials-fallacy
Trouble is, I don’t dismiss your arguments, few that there are. I refute them, as needed, with referenced evidence. But, thanks for sort of implying that you don’t have any relevant credentials. I’ll keep that in mind.
You are nothing if not amusing, Mr. B.
The hurricane is already in the Caribbean Sea and approaching Jamaica.
https://i.ibb.co/7RcB5jC/goes16-vis-swir-16-L-202410210427.gif
The jet stream will break over the Bay of Biscay where another loop of the jet stream will form, again bringing heavy precipitation to France.
https://i.ibb.co/TP4kD0K/mimictpw-europe-latest-2.gif
Yes, there will be some rain somewhere some day. :-)
England and Germany have lots of coal deposits.
Yet they have abandoned their abundant National resources in favor of solar and wind.
They suffer economic crisis now.
And they suffer economic crisis for nothing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It will be interesting to see what impact this has on EU’s energy mix.
As the final Draghi report makes clear, the EU has been in deep economic trouble for some time now. At the turn of the century, the EU and US were on a relatively equal footing. But, on a per-capita basis, real disposable income in the EU has grown at only half the rate of the US since the year 2000. The US now massively outperforms the EU in advanced technology. Only four in the world’s top-50 tech firms are European. Almost a million manufacturing jobs were lost in the EU in the last four years alone. The EU can no longer afford to be complacent in the face of this ‘calamity’, Draghi warns.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/19/the-slow-implosion-of-the-eu-project/
Hydrogen for energy is a Unicorn Fantasy.
That’s right: hydrogen produced and stored for purposes of home heating only gets cycled once per year at most. To understand the significance of the costs cited, recall that the energy-equivalence conversion factor from $/kgH2 to $/MMBTU (the units in which natural gas prices are customarily quoted) is 8. $6/kgH2 converts to $48/MMBTU. And that’s just for the intra-year storage. Meanwhile, the current price for Henry Hub natural gas is $3.06/MMBTU, and most of it does not need to be stored for any significant period because it gets produced roughly as needed to meet demand.
So kudos to S&S for figuring out that cost of storage for hydrogen is a big and unrecognized issue. But unfortunately, they only go as far as considering intra-year storage. There is also a huge issue of multi-year storage if green hydrogen is to become the backup for a grid powered mostly by wind and sun
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-10-18-the-defr-follies-cost-of-hydrogen-storage
No sort of “green energy” transition can happen without money, and here’s what the money is saying:
The fast money on Wall Street has taken a close look at key sectors in the green economy and decided to bet against them.
Despite vast green stimulus packages in the US, Europe and China, more hedge funds are on average net short batteries, solar, electric vehicles and hydrogen than are long those sectors; and more funds are net long fossil fuels than are shorting oil, gas and coal, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of positions voluntarily disclosed by roughly 500 hedge funds to Hazeltree, a data compiler in the alternative investment industry.
…
Managers in the $5 trillion hedge fund industry say the reason is obvious: Despite the promises, clean energy and green technology stocks have lagged far behind the broader market. Deep-pocketed institutions are concluding that many climate investments won’t pay off as quickly, or as lucratively, as they’d hoped.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-hedge-funds-climate-change-green-energy-stocks/
So, the “investment” in “green energy” isn’t. It’s resources going down a black hole.
A weakening of the polar vortex is evident in the lower stratosphere, where two vortex centers have already formed in line with the two centers of the geomagnetic field to the north.
https://i.ibb.co/zHTfBjS/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
The hurricane has caused flooding in eastern Cuba and has not yet said its last word. The vortex still hangs over Cuba, although it is being sheared hard to the west.
https://i.ibb.co/9qmR1CM/mimictpw-conus-latest-2.gif
While we suffer from green energy policies in the US, China continues to burn coal to beat the band!
A total of 28.95 million metric tons of thermal coal are expected to arrive at Chinese port this month, up from July’s 28.8 million and the most since May, according to data compiled by commodity analysts Kpler.
China, the world’s largest coal importer, producer and consumer, has boosted imports this year as demand for thermal power generation increased as hydropower struggled.
Since March, seaborne imports of thermal coal have exceeded 28 million metric tons every month, except for the 27.63 million from June, according to Kpler.
In 2022, seaborne imports of thermal coal only once breached the 24 million metric tons level, in November, and were below 20 million for eight of the 12 months.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-thermal-coal-imports-rise-amid-domestic-price-output-woes-russell-2023-08-29/
Despite the risk of flood zones, Florida developers, as well as developers across the country, are pushing forward on new housing projects in disaster-prone areas.
Since 2019, “Florida built 77,000 new properties in high-risk flood areas,” according to an analysis commissioned by The Wall Street Journal from the climate-modeling firm First Street Foundation. “Nationally, 290,000 new properties were built in high-risk flood areas from 2019 through 2023, almost one in five of the 1.6 million built in total in that period.”
Nonetheless, developers insist that these projects are crucial for meeting the demands of a growing population, with more people flocking to the South and West. From 2010 to 2020, the South’s population surged by 10.2%, with the West growing by 9.2%, significantly outpacing the national average of 7.4%. But while developers push forward, insurers are pulling back.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/florida-flooding-boom/2024/10/21/id/1184936/
More concrete, because only reinforced concrete can withstand the winds of a hurricane.
Frank has covered Rule Number One below in his well stated analysis in this thread. The material below the link in my post provides Roger Pielke Jr. rules for producing event attribution.
I was particularly pleased with his Rule Number Two, since it is, in effect, what I have been proposing over many years for temperature proxy studies – but not yet heard by anybody working in that field.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-be-a-smart-consumer-of-climate
Pielke’s rules:
Rule Number One: Any model used in an event attribution study to quantify a claimed linkage between climate change a specific extreme event should also produce accurate historical climate trends associated with the relevant phenomena. The claim that rainfall from Hurricane Florence was boosted 50% by climate change should have raised immediate doubts because observations have not shown an increase in rainfall related to landfalling hurricanes. Any event attribution study that cannot accurately replicate historical trends using the same model and methods is clearly fatally flawed. A comparison of observations and modeled climate history with respect to the extreme weather phenomena under study should always be included in event attribution results.
Rule Number Two: All event attribution studies should be preregistered, which means “committing to analytic steps without advance knowledge of the research outcomes.” All methodological choices should be made transparent in advance of any event attribution study and submitted to an independent registry (there are many examples). All analyses should be subsequently published, including null- and non-findings. Such preregistration can improve the rigor of research. As one event attribution study concluded: “any event attribution statement can—and will—critically depend on the researcher’s decision regarding the framing of the attribution analysis, in particular with respect to the choice of model, counterfactual climate, and boundary conditions.” Preregistration will make such choices transparent. Any event attribution study conducted in the absence of preregistration is of questionable value.
Rule Number Three: All event attribution studies should integrate their findings with the traditional approach to detection and attribution of the IPCC. Event attribution studies often result is what is called “attribution without detection.” This means linking a specific extreme event with climate change in the absence of detecting any increase in the relevant characteristics of such events – as with attributing Hurricane Florence rainfall (or some fraction of it) to climate change, but without detecting a corresponding long-term increase in rainfall in the climatological record of U.S. hurricanes. Event attribution and the conventional IPCC approach can be integrated by calculating the emergence timescale of trends in the characteristics of the extreme weather event in question, using the same model and methods of the event attribution study. For instance, any event attribution study of a single hurricane’s rainfall should always be accompanied by a quantitative estimate of when changes over time across all hurricanes should be detectable under the conventional IPCC framework. In this way, event attribution studies can be made fully consistent with the IPCC approach.
Thanks, Ken.
To pass the rigors of the scientific method, we need only ask if it has ever happened before, other than more recently, coinciding with modern man’s desire to stay warm in the winter or haul a boat to the river in the summer.
Nuclear power continues to gain momentum.
NextEra Energy
is considering restarting a nuclear plant in Iowa as demand for carbon-free energy grows amid a historic surge in electricity consumption.
The Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa ceased operations in 2020 after 45 years of service. NextEra CEO John Ketchum said Wednesday a thorough review of the risks is needed to see if restarting the reactor is feasible.
“There would be opportunities and a lot of demand from the market if we were able to do something with Duane Arnold,” Ketchum said on NextEra’s second-quarter earnings call Wednesday.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/24/nextera-weighs-restarting-iowa-nuclear-plant-amid-demand-for-carbon-free-energy.html
Just in case anyone thinks that politics is involved in only select sciences, here is a quote from the NYT about another public policy issue.
“ U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics…. The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of
the care.”
Here is the take by Jk Rowling
‘We must not publish a study that says we’re harming children because people who say we’re harming children will use the study as evidence that we’re harming children, which might make it difficult for us to continue harming children.’
Ckid – Yes, politics intrudes. But you should urge folks to read the whole article. For instance
“Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began. “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy…”
JK is quite off base when she says
“‘We must not publish a study that says we’re harming children…”
There is no assertion in the article, by anyone, that children are being harmed.
If you’re interested, read the article.
Pat
I don’t need to read the article. I had a good bit of education 60 years ago about human behavior when much of this insanity was considered a mental disorder. But that is irrelevant to my knowledge gained since then as a parent and grandparent. There is a parallel between the need to use common sense in evaluating the catastrophic claims of AGW and what is best in the long run for the well being of a child. Adults serve a purpose in a society. They provide guidance and parameters for those who are not in a position to know when their options are being mediated. Based on the vast disparity in population cohorts of having gender identity issues, it’s clear a social contagion is involved.
Children are not in a position to know what is in their own best interests. Some might believe they would like to be Captain Hook and have a leg amputated. Let them mature beyond adolescence, which by the way for some doesn’t occur until the early 20s, before we start allowing them to make irreversible decisions about their well being.
For some whack jobs, I’m sure they see nothing wrong with 12 year old girls deciding to get married. What a great amount of fun for them. And, in some cultures it’s not a taboo.
But then, it’s a real bummer to have the adults intervene.
This is a case where clinicians and studies are irrelevant. Adults, who think like adults, know what is right and what is wrong.
Pat – I concur that its important to read what the article states but is also important to read (or understand) what that article doesnt state. ie issues that should be included, but are omitted.
JKrowling – picked up on the omissions.
Fwiw – its a common trick with all activists studies.
Kid: “I don’t need to read the article. I had a good bit of education 60 years ago”.
Thanks, good to know – It explains a lot.
Joe K,
Pray tell, how are we supposed to read (or understand) something that isn’t there and isn’t specified?
B A Bushaw | October 24, 2024 at 12:19 pm |
Joe K,
“Pray tell, how are we supposed to read (or understand) something that isn’t there and isn’t specified?”
Bab
By having sufficient knowledge of the subject matter or basic general knowledge to know what should be included.
Same as you not understanding why the 81% of new electric generating capacity installed was from renewables was both meaningless and deceptive. You demonstrated throughout your multitude of responses that you did not understand how demand limited or resource limited generation impacted generating capacity. Perhaps you do understand those important criteria, yet you preferred to hide the deception.
Joey K,
In other word, you can’t support your claims or say what they are, but expect me to have divined your thoughts out of thin air. I have no interest in becoming an expert in some pseudo-science, just to try to glean what you won’t talk about. Basically, you are a joke, joey. And repeating prior falsehoods and attempted insults as a deflection doesn’t make it any better – just makes it obvious that you ain’t got much except anger.
Ciao.
Joe,
I knew in 2012 that my 6.7KW PV array (28 panels * 240w) should generate at least 9 MWH a year based on the calculations provided here: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
Well here I am 12 years later and my array has produced over 120MWH of which I consumed all but 25% which was exported to the grid. Now that I have whole house backup my actual grid use has dropped to 1/2 kilowatts a day or about 15KWH a month. The only reason I need the grid is to export my excess generation.
If my panels last till 2032 and you do the math it turns out my all-in cost for electricity is less the .05¢ a KWH adjusted to the value of a dollar in 2012.
I guess I would call it a zero-carbon long-term low risk energy hedge
Bab states he has no interest in being an expert in pseudo science – could have fooled us.
Demand limited and Resource limited are well known concepts in the engineering field and in the manufacturing environment, and especially well known in the manufacturing environment of electric generation which have a direct impact on actual
capacity.
Your lack of knowledge of concepts that are well known through out the industry which you pontificate on as if you are an expert demonstrates arrogance. Get up to speed on the subject matter from actual industry experts instead of advocates.
Joey, I’m not interested in rehashing the false, hyperbolic claims you continue to repeat ad nauseam. My prior responses are quite sufficient.
ganon
Your reply says a lot as well. You don’t grasp the issue. You can’t resolve a societal values question with statistical association.
Try to keep up.
B A Bushaw | October 24, 2024 at 5:43 pm |
Joey, I’m not interested in rehashing the false, hyperbolic claims you continue to repeat ad nauseam. My prior responses are quite sufficient.
Yes your prior responses were quite sufficient – Quite sufficient to show you dont understand the subject matter.
Sure, joey.
Funny that you can’t recognize the sarcasm in JKR’s circular statement. That also says a lot.
At the instant surface is EM energy irradiated, surface already was emitting IR EM energy by consuming its already present inner heat, by transforming heat’s energy into EM energy.
When incident SW EM energy, the not reflected portion of incident SW EM energy on the very instant of incidence inevitably gets to interact with surface’s matter.
The incident SW EM energy adds energy towards the surface. And surface instantly responces to that.
What we observe is the surface getting warmer.
–
Also the surface’s IR EM energy emission intensifies.
This IR EM energy emission intensification, it is not happening from the surfaces inner heat consumption, but from the incident SW EM energy added.
–
The not reflected portion of the incident SW EM energy on the planet surface is not entirely absorbed in surface’s inner layers.
That is why the not reflected portion of the incident SW EM energy on the planet surface cannot be averaged over the entire global surface – a substantial part has never been absorbed.
Thus, the theoretical (the uniform surface) planet Effective Temperature (Te) is a mathematical abstraction without even a physical basis.
Thus the Effective Temperature (Te) cannot be used, by comparison to the average surface temperature, it cannot be used to estimate the magnitude of the planetary atmospheric greenhouse effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More momentum for nuclear …
The owner of Iowa’s only nuclear power plant — which started the decommissioning process in 2020 — would consider restarting the plant to meet the demand of data centers and other customers, according to its chief executive officer.
Emergency managers in Linn and Johnson counties said they haven’t heard anything about resuming nuclear power generation at the Duane Arnold Energy Center, near Palo, which would be costly and would require federal authorization.
But a retired engineer said the plant had top ratings when it closed and, if restarted, could supply far more renewable energy than wind and solar projects.
https://www.thegazette.com/energy/nextera-ceo-says-hed-consider-restarting-duane-arnold-nuclear-power-plant/
Bruce … you said above, “No the government distributes the government’s money. It is no longer “other people’s” money.” I found that to be an interesting comment. It left me with these thoughts: If it is the government’s money, that denotes ownership. And, I’ve seen signs that say “Property of the United States Government”, obviously denoting ownership. So if the government can own assets, it surely can own liabilities, the national debt for example. But strictly speaking, when a government dissolves the debt does not. Post WWII Germany and Japan are just two examples. So, it would seem that the government of the USA is not an entity, such as a person or even a corporation. The US Government is a structure designed to provide for the protection and enhancement of our lives. We give it powers and the use of funds to accomplish those goals. The funds (indeed, all assets and liabilities) are own by us, and the powers are revocable. We are responsible for its actions.
There are those who believe the government does own things. (Not saying you do.) I would caution them that when that line is crossed, that is the beginning of tyranny.
It was just convenient for Mr. B. to rationalize the taking of our money by the government to the ends of “green energy” and other social list stuff like that.
I don’t have to rationalize. I support the government “taking our money” and deciding what to do with it because the big “We” have asked them to do so. If you don’t like it, you have your vote and whatever political activism that you choose to undertake.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Nextra Energy is looking to revive a retired nuclear plant in Iowa. This adds to the current momentum to go nuclear!
Interesting:
The electricity produced by solar panels – what is it?
Is it an absorbed by matter the solar EM energy, or it is a result of interaction of solar EM energy with matter.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The maximum theoretical efficiency of a silicon solar cell – the amount of sunlight energy converted into electricity – is about 29%.
So, is it 29% an absorbed by matter solar energy, or it is a result of interaction of EM/matter process?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nope, sure didn’t measure. I just thought about for about 5 seconds.
Both. Optical absorption is an interaction of EM radiation with matter. Different things can happen after absorption, depending on the quanta energy of the EMR.
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
What will happen if a solar panel is not connected to produce electric current.
Will the panel get warmed from the incident solar energy at higher temperature, or its temperature remains the same?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It will get warmer.
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
Did you the check on your PV? Because I haven’t one to check it.
Wherever I looked I couldn’t find any mention of how the PV surface temperature will become, when disconnected…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Temperature anomalies to the 1981-2010 average have already fallen below -0.5 C in all Nino regions.
https://i.ibb.co/JHP1n6T/nino4.png
Ren … just curious, the +1 degree C change in approximately 40 days … is that in the normal range? How fast/far can the temperature swing?
It is a matter of wind and equatorial current. If they interact the temperature drops quickly in the equatorial Pacific.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://i.ibb.co/nD7Jpby/463482408-1082585623868413-3827359284932915396-n.jpg
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Spain would enjoy more rain on the plain… they’re experiencing drought conditions this year…
Here you can see precipitation from storms entering France. The loop of highs is closing over the Pyrenees. There will be floods.
SAT24
https://i.ibb.co/RSr3kXr/Screenshot-2024-10-26-17-20-09.png
Sorry
The loop of the upper low is closing over the Pyrenees.
Heavy downpours east of Marseille.
https://i.ibb.co/DWgnw4X/Screenshot-2024-10-26-19-48-22.png
El Salvador’s Lake Ilopango, near the capital city of San Salvador, is known for boating, diving and the rugged, scenic beauty of its 100 meter-tall cliffs — the lip of the caldera that holds the lake. However, 1,500 years ago, it may have been the site of one of the most horrific natural disasters in the world. It may also be the long-sought cause of the extreme climate cooling and crop failures of A.D. 535-536, reported Robert A. Dull of the University of Texas at Austin at the Association of American Geographers annual meeting in New York this week.
New research on the extent and the timing of the eruption now places the eruption — previously thought to have occurred three centuries earlier — at the right time and place. The massive Plinian-type event with pyroclastic flows would have instantly killed up to 100,000 people, displaced up to 400,000 more and filled the skies with ash and dust for more than a year. The new findings would make it the second-largest volcanic eruption in the last 200,000 years. “This event was much bigger than we ever thought,” Dull said.
Such an eruption would explain the episode in Mayan history known as the Classic Period Hiatus, when the Maya stopped building stelae, decorative stone columns erected to mark events, Dull said. It would also finally explain the global cooling of A.D. 535-536, an 18-month period of cloudy skies, crop failures and famines that was described in both Roman and Chinese historical accounts. “So it’s very well established this event took place,” Dull said. “The question has been the cause.”
LINK:https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/aag-eruption-el-salvadors-ilopango-explains-ad-536-cooling/
The story of the rise and fall of Roman civilization should serve as a warning to us. The Earth’s troposphere is actually very thin, dropping below 6,000 meters in winter over the pole. Therefore, one must be prepared for different scenarios.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2023.png
AD 535/536 is an Eddy cycle root. A time of upheaval, no matter whether it was mild or not. Optimal date planetary – April 535.
See Wiki here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536 and go to ‘Documentary Evidence’
But see also https://www.lanl.gov/orgs/ees/geodynamics/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm in 535ce for Krakatoa (not the 1881).
Meaning volcanic activity started as a collateral event. The effect was world-wide.
Given the fact that AGW hypothesis that humanity’s CO2 has resulted in a disastrous warming of the globe, how long should we continue to ignore the failure of Western education and their miserable performance based on the all too easily measurable product that is coming out of the state-run dropout factories?
We need to face the simple fact that the null hypothesis of agw cannot be rejected and for that reason alone Western academia can be seen to have been running a con on the public by fomenting an unprovable hoax to the detriment of Americanism.
what does that mean? excuse my lack of learning, please. that the hypothesis that human do not cause global warming cannot be rejected?
If so then why so? Is there some clear overall constraint by which we can clearly see there’s never going to be any way to disprove that?
It’s not always easy being a denier and perhaps deadly in In authoritarian countries but, being a climate change refusenik in America is the only moral course to take… if you believe in science. The null hypothesis of the Left’s conjecture that all global warming is the cause of humanity’s CO2– that all global warming is natural-– has never been rejected. That’s the science.
Sure, the null hypothesis can be rejected, quite simply if something is there.
Arthur, no constraint – no scientific theory can be proven, but it is possible to disprove them if they are indeed incorrect. The probability of that often becomes extremely small with time and continued testing.
Keep in mind that AGW is a quite simple theory that has been around for about 200 years. It is the consequences for the real world that are not so simple.
It’s not always easy being a denier and perhaps deadly in authoritarian countries but, being a climate change refusenik in America is the only moral course to take… if you believe in science. The null hypothesis of the Left’s conjecture that all global warming is the cause of humanity’s CO2– that all global warming is natural (nothing is happening that has not happened before)– has never been rejected. That’s the science.
B A Bushaw,
“Keep in mind that AGW is a quite simple theory that has been around for about 200 years. It is the consequences for the real world that are not so simple.”
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon will be taught is schools soon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon will be taught is schools soon.”
LOL – No, it won’t.
Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases
Jan Kubicki, Krzysztof Kopczyński, Jarosław Młyńczak March 2024
“The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth’s climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456#sec0007
B A Bushaw,
“LOL – No, it won’t.”
–
B A , Earth gets warmer, not because of the AGW.
–
In our times in winter Earth is closer to the sun. In winter Earth orbits sun close to Perihelion!
The warmer the winters – the warmer the planet.
It is a gradual orbital phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bill
It was interesting that in one of the citations in this paper, Schildknecht 2020, an ECS of only 0.5C was found.
Thanks for the link
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979220502938
Kid … Thanks for the link.
Christos, nope. Not interested in your false deflections.
B A, the phenomenon is orbital.
The day-night cycle – it is an orbital phenomenon, because Earth is rotating under the sun.
So, it is cool early in the morning, it gets warmer during the day, and it cools again at night.
The winter-summer cycle – it is an orbital phenomenon, because Earth’s rotational axis is tilted about 23,5 degrees.
So, it is cold at winter, and it is getting warmer and warmer as the summer approaches because the duration of solar hours increases.
The glacial-interglacial cycle – it is an orbital phenomenon, because Earth’s orbit is elliptical.
In our times in winter Earth is closer to the sun. In winter Earth orbits sun close to Perihelion!
The warmer the winters – the warmer the planet.
It is a gradual orbital phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When the midday approaches, what we expect is the day becoming warmer.
When the summer approaches, what we expect is the days becoming warmer.
When Earth in winter approaches sun – close to perihelion, what we expect is the entire Earth becoming warmer.
–
It is Earth’s surface gradual warming orbital phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Precession of the equinoxes: The winters have more intense sunlight, but they are shorter, with the highest speed and angular velocity at perihelion. In contrast, the summers are longer and cooler, more than compensating your half-intuited “warmer winters”. Additionally, the longer, cooler summers increase snow/ice persistence on the northern land masses, raising yearly average albedo and thus more cooling. That cooling had been going on since the Holocene optimum/maximum about 8000 years ago, that is until levels of atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) started to increase significantly and caused warming that has overwhelmed the slow orbital cooling, particularly over the last 60 years. We have discussed this before, I’m sorry it is so difficult for you.
I previously recommended the seminal review article: “Milankovitch Theory and climate”, by A. Berger [Rev. Geophysics, 1988].
Have you read it yet? If so, did you understand it?
Thank you, B A for your response.
” In contrast, the summers are longer and cooler, more than compensating your half-intuited “warmer winters”. Additionally, the longer, cooler summers increase snow/ice persistence on the northern land masses, raising yearly average albedo and thus more cooling.”
–
“The summers are longer and cooler” – but they are summers!
–
“the longer, cooler summers increase snow/ice persistence on the northern land masses” – how can it be possible?
The longer summers – the more solar irradiance hours, the less dark nights hours…
–
Milankovitch was a great astronomer and a great mathematician. He calculated the Milankovitch cycles, which are explaining that the Earth’s Glacial-Interglacial periods are an orbitally forced natural phenomenon.
Milankovitch assumed mistakenly that “the longer, cooler summers increase snow/ice persistence on the northern land masses”.
Milankovitch never said anything about the Global Warming, because he didn’t know Earth was in an orbitally forced, millenials long, slow and steady global warming pattern.
What he though instead, is that Earth was in an orbitally forced, millenials long, slow and steady global cooling pattern.
So Milankovitch attempted to explain it by the “the longer, cooler summers increase snow/ice persistence on the northern land masses”, which was a mistaken assumption.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A,
“That cooling had been going on since the Holocene optimum/maximum about 8000 years ago, that is until levels of atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) started to increase significantly and caused warming that has overwhelmed the slow orbital cooling, particularly over the last 60 years. ”
–
There never was the Holocene optimum/maximum about 8000 years ago.
Instead there was the Holocene minimum about 8000 years ago.
Since then Earth is in a long orbitally forced warming trend.
The CO2 (and CH4) rise do not cause warming, because they are trace gasses in Earth’s thin atmosphere.
–
It is a very thin atmosphere. At night we see distant stars.
Also satellites can “see” somebody reading a newspaper, and they “see” the newspaper’s title.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you haven’t answered my question. Presumably you haven’t read or understood the paper I recommended. Instead, you simply return to your poorly informed and false intuition. I’m not interested in further deflections from the information I present. Try to educate yourself instead of trying to be the hero of AGW denialism via willful ignorance. Have a good life and maybe stick with mechanical engineering – hopefully you are better at it than climatology or astrophysics.
Thank you, B A, for your response.
“you simply return to your poorly informed and false intuition.”
–
Thank you again. I am concerned now about the CO2 removal programs, about the CO2 removal from the atmosphere!
–
You know, B A, the CO2 is the necessary component for the plants photosynthesis.
You may fertilize crops with as many fertilizers you want – if there is not the CO2 component present, the photosynthesis will not occur.
The CO2 and H2O are the main components for plants photosynthesis. And the presence of solar energy of course.
–
When the CO2 content in atmospheric air will lessen, there will be less crops. Then all of us – the entire humanity – all of us will be in an irreversible ecological catastrophe.
Because, when the CO2 content lessens beyond a critical point – the depletion of CO2 ecological tipping point – there will be no means for turning back to normal.
The ecological disaster will be done, and it will be a complete desaster!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You still haven’t answered my question.
I am not interested in yet another uneducated deflection, this time about plant physiology. But since I am foolishly indulgent:
There is, and will be for the foreseeable future, plenty of CO2 for plant growth. However – surprise, surprise – other things (e.g., soil moisture) are needed for reliable plant growth.
Instead of blindly repeating “skeptic’s” foolish talking points as
a silly deflection, educate yourself. Nobody is trying to make CO2 go away – they are trying to slow and stabilize its growth. You can start with this article from the World Economic Forum:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/climate-change-extreme-weather-food-shortages-rise-prices/
Or perhaps,
https://time.com/6081919/famine-climate-change-madagascar/
for an example of how more CO2 (and concomitant climate change) improve crop yields.
Christos,
“It is a very thin atmosphere. At night we see distant stars.
Also satellites can “see” somebody reading a newspaper, and they “see” the newspaper’s title.”
The usual half understanding – yes the atmosphere transmits shortwave visible light the same cannot be said for other regions of the EM spectrum. It is lying by omission.
Thank you, B A.
When surface has a lower thermal capacity, when solar irradiated, surface will intesify emitting more intensively, because it gets warmed at higher temperatures.
I am referring to the EM energy/surface skin layer’s interaction process.
When surface consists from a material with a lower thermal capacity, it is because the surface is made of larger atoms.
When atoms are larger, there are much less atoms streched on the surface skin layer of 1 m².
When there are less atoms to interact with, the incident EM energy (W/m²) is shared between a lesser number of atoms, so they interact more intensively (W).
And, yes, the surface temperature is induced to higher levels.
It is the same EM energy/interaction process. But there are less EM energy degraded to heat. So, there are less EM energy conserved as heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, B A.
“Nobody is trying to make CO2 go away – they are trying to slow and stabilize its growth.”
–
You mean to slow and stop its growth…
What about slowing and stabilizing (stoping) the industrial growth?
Slowing and stabilizing the world’s population?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
BS – you were talking about transmission of visible light through the atmosphere, while ignoring the large regions of opacity in the infrared that coincide with the thermal emissions of Earth.
Αντίο
Thank you, B A, for your response.
–
Sun is not a perfect blackbody emitter.
–
Earth is not a perfect blackbody emitter.
Earth’s average surface spectra profile is not the 288K blackbody emission curve.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png
So, Earth’s atmosphere, on graph, absorbs what is not emitted.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
What is project Earthshine and why is the dark side of the moon getting dimmer?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/earthshine-reflectivity-dimming-albedo-climate-change/
“Study results suggest that warming ocean temperatures due to human-induced climate change are reducing the levels of low cloud cover over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which act like a mirror to reflect light and radiation from the sun back into space. The more sunlight the earth absorbs, the warmer it will be, the more of the sun’s light earth reflects, the cooler it will be.”
Thank you, jacksmith4tx, for your response.
“Christos,
What is project Earthshine and why is the dark side of the moon getting dimmer?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/earthshine-reflectivity-dimming-albedo-climate-change/
“Study results suggest that warming ocean temperatures due to human-induced climate change are reducing the levels of low cloud cover over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which act like a mirror to reflect light and radiation from the sun back into space. The more sunlight the earth absorbs, the warmer it will be, the more of the sun’s light earth reflects, the cooler it will be.” ”
(Emphasis added)
Let’s see:
“Study results suggest that warming ocean temperatures due to human-induced climate change are reducing the levels of low cloud cover over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which act like a mirror to reflect light and radiation from the sun back into space.”
Let’s separate issues:
1). “Study results suggest that warming ocean temperatures are reducing the levels of low cloud cover over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which act like a mirror to reflect light and radiation from the sun back into space.”
and
2). “due to human-induced climate change ”
What about the study is then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
jacksmith4tx, the earthshine, which falls on Moon, is Earth’s diffuse reflection.
Earth also has a strong specular reflection which does not fall on Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
When they started to quantitively measure it there was hypothesis that the decrease of the earth’s albedo might be because the warming atmosphere was shrinking in polar ice caps – not fewer clouds in the southern hemisphere.
It is a good research.
“ In a shocking escalation of restrictions, the Taliban’s Minister for the Promotion of Virtue, Khalid Hanafi, has declared it forbidden for adult women to allow their voices to be heard by other adult women. This unprecedented order adds to the mounting constraints on Afghan women’s lives, sparking outrage both nationally and internationally.”
Afghan women can be excused for not talking about global warming with their friends since they can’t talk at all.
https://www.afghanistantimes.media/taliban-add-a-new-ban-on-womens-voices-in-afghanistan/
“ According to UNICEF, approximately 319 million people in sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to improved reliable drinking water sources. This not only poses significant health risks but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality.”
https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/africacan/celebrating-water-day–why-access-to-clean-water-is-vital-for-af
Millions of African women can be excused for not talking about the abstractions of 3C increase in global temperatures by 2100, since they are consumed with the tangible problems of finding potable water in the morning.
It’s not always easy being a denier and perhaps deadly in authoritarian countries and states but, being a climate change refusenik in America is the only moral course to take. If you believe in science, the null hypothesis of the Left’s AGW conjecture (i.e., that all global warming is the cause of humanity’s CO2) has never been rejected. The null hypothesis is that, global warming is actually, completely natural- i.e., nothing is happening now that has not happened before. That’s the real science of climate change- the actual science, not the politically useful government-approved science.
jacksmith4tx, there is more to it:
“The study, led by Philip Goode of New Jersey Institute of Technology, observed the moon’s surface from California’s Big Bear Solar Observatory over the 20-year period between1998 and 2017. Comparing like-for-like measurements while controlling for a variety of factors, the team found a “gradual but climatologically significant” decline in earthshine levels, as the chart shows.”
–
The earthshine levels – ” “gradual but climatologically significant” decline in earthshine levels “.
–
Of course it is a very interesting and a very important research. It is wonderful we have the important measurements.
Thank you, jacksmith4tx, again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The lack of manageability of wind and solar due to its sporadic nature has been brought up on this blog time after time, only to be met with derision by the alarmists. But now, the chickens has come to roost in Germany due to its headlong plunge over the cliff of “green energy”.
The country’s rapid solar expansion has led to wholesale power prices frequently turning negative during hours when supply exceeds demand — for instance on particularly sunny days. Since the government ensures producers get paid a minimum feed-in tariff, it has had to shell out the difference, with renewable subsidies estimated in May to hit €20 billion ($21.6 billion) this year, and possibly total €18 billion in 2025.
Policymakers therefore want to lower the threshold for solar producers who must sell their output via direct marketing, according to a draft law from the economy ministry obtained by Bloomberg, which involves selling on the electricity exchange. That means producers above a certain capacity level wouldn’t receive remuneration fixed by the state.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-28/germany-to-cut-some-solar-farms-off-subsidies-amid-oversupply
Jim2 A couple of important points on renewables and stability. First, the stability issues are caused by two separate and distinct characteristics of renewables, A) the daily/hourly/by minute volatility of wind, (much less so with solar) the wide swings causing frequency issues and matching demand with generation and B) the periods of low generation (hours/days ) without sufficient generation.
Currently, fossil fuel generation covers both types of stability problems, effectively hiding those stability issues and costs. The LCOE computations cover the generation and transmission costs but not the costs of maintaining stability. As renewable penetration gets deeper, then the LCOE costs will skyrocket as the costs of redundancy and storage are included.
I know you economic vigilantes look for every opportunity to disparage wind & solar but I like that they make electricity without water. If your power source requires boiling water to spin a turbine you need to factor in droughts and the limits to the Carnot cycle (the French had to curtail their nuclear fleet last year).
“France’s nuclear power stations to limit energy output due to high river temperatures”
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/13/frances-nuclear-power-stations-to-limit-energy-output-due-to-high-river-temperatures
It’s highly likely that “green energy” will price itself beyond reach.
McKinsey reveals demand for seven minerals could double before 2030. These comprise lithium, cobalt, nickel, dysprosium, terbium, neodymium, and praseodymium. Each serves specific functions in clean energy applications.
The consultancy forecasts nickel demand will increase by 100%. Dysprosium and terbium requirements could expand by 400%. Lithium demand faces a potential 700% surge.
Low-emissions technologies will drive more than 50% of critical mineral demand by 2030, McKinsey says. For lithium and rare earth elements, clean technology could comprise 90% of demand.
Source: https://miningdigital.com/sustainability/mckinsey-warns-of-critical-minerals-supply-crisis
The source for that was, one word, mining digital, dot com.
That’s nothing. Have you seen the bill-of-material for Saudia Aribia’s futuristic city Neom? All paid for by petrodollars.
“Saudi Crown Prince MBS’s dream project Neom is racing towards completion at such speed that it alone is consuming 20% of the worlds steel.
https://luxurylaunches.com/travel/neom-city-steel-consumption-10162024.php
“According to World Steel, in 2023, the world produced nearly 1.9 billion metric tons of crude steel. Neom consumed 20%, which would equate to 380 million metric tons. To put this in perspective, the entire U.S. consumed only 104 million metric tons in 2022. So Neom’s consumption is approximately 3.65 times higher than that of the United States”
And Kamala Harris wants the US to not produce more domestic oil and the keep giving the Saudi’s vast financial resources. #1 reason to vote for Trump.
I disagree. The #1 reason to vote for Trump is he will make the USA the #1 bitcoin miner on the planet AND create a USA Sovereign wealth fund of bitcoin. Look it up, Do the math dude!
I’m amazed you an lift a finger to comment, Jack, what with all those PFAS and microplastics weighing you down :)
nín yǐjīng diūshī le
Bill Fabrizio
“In some studies, such as Trenberth and Fasull (2009), it is noted that the adopted models do not account for the fact that the greenhouse effect caused by increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback) is balanced by a decrease in cloud cover and, therefore, an increase in radiation emissions. The need for a more serious consideration of aerosols in the conducted research is also emphasized. For example, study (Landsberg 1970) states that aerosols produced by humans, due to their optical properties and potential influence on cloud and precipitation formation processes, pose a more significant problem than CO2. Additionally, Wild (2016) shows that subtle changes in aerosols over large ocean areas, amplified by aerosol-cloud interactions, can significantly alter incoming solar radiation and, consequently, change sea surface temperatures.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
By Richard Willoughby
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-105.png
The decrease in reflected shortwave radiation in the northern hemisphere shows the decrease in cloud cover in the northern hemisphere. During winter, this means a rapid loss of heat energy from the atmosphere.
Tropical clouds provide highly negative feedback that is so powerful it limits ocean surface temperature to 30C. The maximum temperature possible with the present atmospheric mass.
So-called “greenhouse gasses” are not involved in Earth’s energy balance. Atmospheric water in all its phase control the surface temperature.
Ren … thanks for the links.
Does anyone believe that Nature has just completed the LAST, 120,000 year, LARGE ICE AGE and just BEGUN the FIRST LITTLE ICE AGE of the NEW LARGE ICE AGE?
CHANGE OVER from Sept. 28, 2022, IAN, to Today.
No, I don’t believe it. I believe the “NEW LARGE ICE AGE” will be significantly delayed, if it happens at all. Sans humans, we would be experiencing orbital cooling and concomitant reduction in CO2 as positive feedback for that cooling. Well, for obvious reasons, that isn’t happening.
Perihelion in January allows the surface temperature of the oceans to rise in the northern hemisphere (they cool more slowly than in the southern hemisphere). In a few thousand years, this will change and we will face inevitable cooling with the increase in snowfall in the northern hemisphere and the decrease in the Earth’s tilt (cooler summers).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/plot_anom_sdep.png
You can see the AO increase after a strong geomagnetic storm and decrease when the solar wind weakened. Now the AO is dropping, the NAO will drop in early November and the low will move into central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/NrZ3yhP/hgt-ao-cdas.png
This CEO is blaming the market for his bad choice to go into “sustainable” chemicals. Make stoop id choices, win stoop id prizes!!
“The equity market is not properly acknowledging NextChem’s value and that’s frustrating,” Bernini said in an interview Monday.
Engineering, procurement and construction contractors are generally valued at around 5-6 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, the CEO said, while tech-focused businesses like NextChem should be valued at 12-15 times Ebitda.
That means Maire’s sustainable technology business, led by recently reorganized NextChem, could in the future be valued at a minimum of €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion), Bernini said.
LINK:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-29/maire-ceo-weighs-options-for-green-tech-unit-to-extract-value
There is a new battery in town, it is “solid state” meaning a minimal amount of electrolyte. Mercedes is one of the early potential customers, so it’s probably a pricey alternative. Here is an AI summary:
Factorial Battery Risks and Benefits
Improved Range: The Factorial battery, with its solid-state electrolyte, can potentially increase electric vehicle (EV) range by up to 80% compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries. This enhanced range can alleviate range anxiety and make EVs more practical for daily use.
Enhanced Safety: The solid-state electrolyte reduces the risk of thermal runaway and potential fires associated with flammable liquid electrolyte battery designs. This improved safety profile can reduce the risk of accidents and injuries.
Faster Charging: Solid-state batteries can enable faster charging, potentially reducing charging times to under 15 minutes. This can make long-distance EV travel more convenient and practical.
Scalability: Factorial’s proprietary sulfide-based electrolyte can be manufactured on existing lithium-ion battery production lines with minimal modification, increasing efficiency and speed to market.
Environmental Benefits: The Factorial battery’s improved performance and safety can contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a more sustainable transportation sector.
Risks:
Cost: Solid-state batteries are currently more expensive to produce than traditional lithium-ion batteries. This higher cost could make them less competitive in the market, at least in the short term.
Scalability Challenges: While Factorial claims its electrolyte can be manufactured on existing production lines, there may be challenges in scaling up production to meet demand. This could lead to delays or supply chain issues.
Thermal Stability: While the Factorial battery maintains stability at operating temperatures over 90°C (194°F), there may be concerns about its performance in extreme temperatures or under high-load conditions.
Limited Cycle Life: Solid-state batteries may have a shorter cycle life compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, which could impact their overall durability and lifespan.
Integration Challenges: Integrating the Factorial battery into existing vehicle designs and manufacturing processes may require significant modifications, which could add complexity and costs.
Overall, the Factorial battery offers significant benefits in terms of range, safety, and charging speed, but also presents some risks related to cost, scalability, and thermal stability. As the technology continues to evolve and mature, these risks may be mitigated, and the benefits become more pronounced.
Another new grid battery, AI summary:
Form Energy Battery Risks and Benefits
Low Cost: Form Energy’s iron-air battery technology claims to store energy at less than 1/10th the cost of lithium-ion battery technology, making it a potentially game-changing solution for widespread adoption.
Global Scalability: The use of abundant and inexpensive materials like iron, water, and air ensures global scalability, reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions and increasing the feasibility of large-scale deployments.
Safety: Iron-air batteries are designed to be extremely safe, with no risk of thermal runaway, a common concern with lithium-ion batteries.
Durability: The technology’s durability and long lifespan (up to 100 hours) make it suitable for long-duration energy storage applications.
Flexibility: Form Energy’s batteries can be paired with lithium-ion batteries and renewable energy resources to enable optimal energy system configurations.
Risks:
Unproven Commercial Scale: While Form Energy has demonstrated its technology, scaling up to commercial production and ensuring consistent quality and performance remains a risk.
Interoperability: The integration of Form Energy’s batteries with existing grid infrastructure and other energy storage systems may require significant modifications or upgrades, increasing costs and complexity.
Grid Balancing: The multi-day duration of Form Energy’s batteries may require advanced grid management systems to balance supply and demand, adding complexity to the energy grid.
Competition: The battery market is highly competitive, and Form Energy’s technology may face challenges in competing with established players and emerging alternatives.
Regulatory Framework: The regulatory environment for energy storage is still evolving, and Form Energy may need to navigate uncertain or changing regulations to deploy its technology widely.
Key Uncertainties:
Cost Reduction: While Form Energy claims its technology is significantly cheaper than lithium-ion batteries, the actual cost reduction may be less pronounced or dependent on economies of scale.
Scalability and Quality Control: As Form Energy scales up production, ensuring consistent quality and performance across large numbers of batteries remains a risk.
Grid Integration: The successful integration of Form Energy’s batteries with existing grid infrastructure will require careful planning and coordination, and potential issues may arise.
Overall, Form Energy’s iron-air battery technology offers promising benefits, but its commercial viability and widespread adoption will depend on addressing the identified risks and uncertainties.
Monster.
https://i.ibb.co/nC9RW6f/himawari9-ir-meso.gif
The eye of the typhoon is headed between Luzon and Taiwan.
https://i.ibb.co/Rzpps1F/himawari9-ir-23-W-202410291650.gif
This is from BBC on Spain floods “While the worst of the Spanish storms are over, the low pressure system responsible remains across Iberia today and tomorrow. ”
Tomorrow is the New Moon. A reduction in gravity vector means also a reduction in ‘pressure’.
Judith confidently predicted no warming though the 2030’s.
Looks like 2024, like 2023, will be the hottest year in record.
Don’t any of you think that to maintain credibility she need to explain why she was so wrong? She went on and on about a “pause in global warming.”
Joshua, you assume that she has credibility to maintain. She kinda blew that with the biased misrepresentations made to congress. She has very little credibility in the “climate change arena,” but is loved by the so-called skeptics, who are much more interested in support of their position than credibility.
B A Bushaw | October 30, 2024 at 12:46 pm | Reply
Joshua, you assume that she has credibility to maintain. She kinda blew that with the biased misrepresentations made to congress.
Just another typical immature and jerkish insult characteristic of BaB’s behavior.
As if Bab has any credibility left to maintain with the frequency of distortions and delusional understanding of renewables, subsidies, etc.
Truth hurts, eh Joey?
B A Bushaw | October 30, 2024 at 1:23 pm |
Truth hurts, eh Joey?
Obviously as evidenced by the frequency of your insults which are directly proportional to your ignorance and / or distortions/delusions on the various topics.
joey, still hurts, eh? I’m not a climatologist, I don’t have, and don’t need, credibility there – I am perfectly happy “get your goat” with references to the literature and agencies that do have credibility. You can check what my scientific credibility by placing my name after “ResearchGate”. What credibility do you have, joey noname?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Polly: “I’m not a climatologist”
True.
Though obviously there was an intervention on Polly’s neural network by 60 Minutes to make him think he’s an authority on climatology. Or maybe it’s just his fluttering, feather flapping pom-pom predisposition to repeat what he hears—yea, that’s it.
Jungletrunks,
You aren’t even interesting.
ganon
“.. She has very little credibility in the “climate change aren…..”
Rich coming from someone who needed a primer on actual climate science, versus the theoretical and hysterical kind found in Better Homes and Gardens and ELLE. You know I taught you everything you know about sea level rise and the actual science for Antarctica. In the early days you sounded as if you thought palm trees were sprouting on the Antarctica Peninsula.
Says the cagey flocker, Polly.
Kid, sorry about your dementia. I taught you about the realities of sea-level by referencing the NOAA 2022 Technical Report. Anything you tried to teach me turned out to be false or misrepresented. I refuted accordingly. I have long since stopped listening to your illusory superiority.
Bab – insults the host with zero basis, then hurls a
series of immature insults.
Joey, I gave a quotation and references requested by Jim2. Sorry that your reading comprehension is so selective, and that you are so prone to hyperbole. You can look up the same information from many other sources, if you don’t like mine.
Bruce … if Judith has no credibility, I’m curious why are you here?
Bill,
I’m here because it has spurred me to learn more about climatology, paleoclimatology, and psychology; and it will probably continue to do so. I am also interested to see what the “contrarian” objections are, and to try to determine if they have sufficient evidence to disprove “greenhouse” gas driven AGW. So far, that is a no. Why are you here?
Mr. B. You left out the context: the HYPOTHESIS named the Stadium Wave. It was clearly put forth as a HYPOTHESIS. And if it held, then the hiatus might last. A tempest in a teapot, once again, fitting of an Alarmist.
The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.
Bruce … pretty much the same, except the AGW theory seems more belief than science. Those who espouse it go to great lengths to disparage anyone who disagrees. When I was a boy, I was told when someone resorts to personal attacks, you know you’ve won the argument. As an outsider, those who present arguments against AGW seem to have better arguments, and far more integrity. And that brings us to Judith, who exhibits integrity every time she speaks, and in anything she’s written. Perhaps what shows it best, is that she changed her views. And … that she allows insults. In this age, insults are easily given as they are conveyed through the ether, not face to face. A sort of revenge of the nerds, who usually know, painfully well, what would happen otherwise.
Sorry Jimbo, I gave direct quotes and references for them – that is what you asked for. If you need the rather obvious context too, I refer you to my reference links.
Bill, you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously came to a different conclusion, I attribute that to my scientific background.
Your defense of Dr. Curry is admirable, but what I said was she has “very little” credibility in climate change circles. I’m sure you don’t like it, but It is easily verified.
Bill –
Wow. Didn’t know you had gone that far. Looks like a lot has happened when I wasn’t looking.
Sad.
Mr. Bushaw, I have no doubt that the relatively closed and incestuous community of very vocal climate scientists have a bad opinion of Judith Curry. The opinion of many scientists outside that community is different.
However, voicing a different opinion of Curry (hell, voicing a different opinion on any aspect of the climate conversation) is likely to result in excommunication, I’m not surprised that you think opinion is unanimous. You might ask Lindgren, Spencer, Pielke (fils and pere), Christy and many more–or you might if you hadn’t already excommunicated them.
Remember that in repeated surveys of published climate scientists, although they are unanimous in identifying the greenhouse gas effect, only 66% say that half or more of the current warming is due to our emissions.
You may want to paint a picture of unanimity. Not just about Curry–she’s only a symbol. But that unanimity does not exist. Not about Curry. Not about many aspects of the climate conversation.
J
What is sad is how so many have been taken in by so few when there is such a wealth of literature that could explain the actual increase in temperatures. This entire arena is as much a study of social psychology as the physical sciences.
Humans are hardwired to seek out simple explanations. They don’t exist. Except in the minds of those who are blinded by their own hubris to believe they are being hosed.
Yes, Mr. B. I got the context from the link. Funny how you alarmists hate context.
B A Bushaw | October 30, 2024 at 11:04 pm |
Bill, you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously came to a different conclusion, I attribute that to my scientific background.
Your scientific background shows serious deficiencies as exhibited by your comments regarding renewables and the inability to understand basic concepts. Numerous concepts that are well known, yet you rely on advocates’ commentary.
Bruce …
> Your defense of Dr. Curry is admirable, but what I said was she has “very little” credibility in climate change circles. I’m sure you don’t like it, but It is easily verified.
You actually said ‘climate change arena’. An arena implies competition, which you grudgingly admitted with ‘but is loved by the so-called skeptics’. I think you may have realized your mistake and changed ‘arena’ to ‘circles’. So your statement that she has no credibility is actually that she has no credibility (or very little) with the warmists.
My point is your criticism of Judith isn’t scientific, but emotional. I’ve never heard you criticize her book, “Climate Uncertainty and Risk”. It is the most recent statement of her position. I would think there is abundant material for rebuttal.
As you graciously said to me, you are entitled to your opinion.
Mr. Fuller,
Sorry, you really lost my interest with your first sentence. Nonetheless:
I never said anything about unanimity. Scientific theories are judged based on the available evidence. Unanimity is not required. The nature of science is that even if it is not a close call (as is the current case), science with continue to investigate to expand/further confirm or disprove the theory.
As for you claim of 66%. Worthless without references. Try something like this:
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”, Mark Lynas et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
Bill, I think you read too much into any difference between “circles” and “arena”. You, too, are part of the arena and in one of the circles of the 3-ring circus: those that believe in science and the scientific process, those that only believe in science when it agrees with their personal opinions (I believe that is your circle), and those that don’t care. Your contrarian beliefs are duly considered and addressed, and, for the most part, rejected for lack of convincing scientific evidence.
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”
Interesting point to perch on. 99% also happens to roughly match those CE denizens believing humans are responsible for some amount of AGW, it closely aligns to the same numbers dismissing CAGW as the ideological movement it is. Your effort is to henpeck for effect, to conflate—for AGW to mean the same as CAGW. The paper you reference doesn’t align consensus to CAGW.
ganon
“ 1—Explicit endorsement with quantification 19”
Your Lynas paper is a joke.
So out 3,000 studies they found only 19 studies with an explicit endorsement and they made an effort to quantify it.
Let’s do the obverse. Actually 99.4% made no explicit endorsement that was quantified.
There, fixed it for you.
You make important distictions about the propagandistic nature of the Lynas paper, cerescokid. Cook et al had similar issues.
CAGW carnival barking ideologues keep these dog eared papers readily available for presentation to buttress their perception of cred.
Kid,
So, the senile cherry-picker strikes again; “analyzing” one of 7 categories to reach a conclusion, with yet another “crappy” deflection that does not disprove the paper’s conclusions. Since you choose to consider only those endorsements that include quantification: There were 19 that met this category, with quantification supporting the AGW theory consensus. There was only one (1) giving quantification that rejected the theory. Perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the paper, and then quote all the papers that support your fabrications.
Then, why don’t you tell us about all your publications that have passed peer review? Maybe your background also, to give of some indication that you are qualified to judge the veracity of peer-reviewed scientific papers, Mr. Fakename. Our past discussions indicate that your personal opinions and are your only qualifications.
How about you tell Mr. Fuller to provide references for his claim of 66%, it is worthless without them.
ganon
This is known as hiding the pea logic by the alarmists.
A metaphor that demonstrates how it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.
“In other words, the predictive keywords successfully allowed us to identify a total of 28 papers from the full dataset of 88125 which appeared implicitly or explicitly sceptical of ACC. Only one of these papers had already appeared in the first 3000 randomized sample.“
Bill –
I’m sure there’s more than one other.
Again, my comments about Judith’s predictions based on her scientific analysis stand on their own and are open to critique. Feel free to offer a critique. Your insistence on hand-waving at vague assertions about my scientific credibility only deepens my surprise at how much things changed when I wasn’t watching.
Kid,
28 out of 88K papers. WOW – You skeptics sure do produce a lot of supportive scientific evidence for your skepticism.
ganon
19 for and 26 against and 1869 taking no position. Out of that, screwy alarmist logic ends up with the headline grabber that 99% support.
Makes perfect sense in the minds of some who have lost all reasoning ability to arrive at 99% when actually neither number says anything about the overwhelming majority of studies. Science is no longer relevant. It’s all in the marketing.
Kid, you may quote 1 out of 3000 or 28 out of 88k (both well over 99% for the remainder), but you can’t mix them. My opinion: you are engaging in intentional misrepresentation or are suffering from dementia. Are you still able (were you ever) able to comprehend what you claim to have read?
ganon
The most important stat is 1869 took no position. That blows your entire premise out of the water. Took no position should not be difficult to comprehend. Even for you.
Kid, you may read the abstract of the paper, preferably several times – I don’t expect you to be able to understand the body, it involves statistics.
I am not really interested in your desperate attempt to discredit a paper via intentional misrepresentations and without references. I would think that with about 1/3 million downloads, you could find somebody with some kind of credibility (which you don’t have and won’t provide) that has published a rebuttal of what the paper actual says, not what you pretend it says.
ganon
The pie chart depicts exactly what I wrote. Do you have trouble with data and pie charts. Why do you make it so easy to refute what you have provided for evidence? Your own link substantiates what I wrote. Took no position means took no position, in any language.
Kid, yes, I understand graphs and pie charts. Can you still read text, and can you comprehend it? It seems you have devolved to making up your own interpretation of pictures.
Mr. Bushaw, I am surprised that you are not familiar with the two studies I’m referring to regarding the perceptions of published climate scientists of the current warming period. They both were the subject of animated discussion at the time of publication.
Bray, von Storch et al, 2010 and Verheggen et al 2014 both found that about two-thirds of published climate scientists attributed half or more of the current warming to anthropogenic causes including greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bray-2010.pdf
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e
Certainly a consensus–of sorts–exists, but scientific opinion is heterogeneous enough that acknowledging the gray area vitiates some of the more virulent commentary by consensus supporters. Such as saying that Judith Curry has ‘blown her credibility’ when it would appear that more than a third of published climate scientists might well find her credible.
Which also I guess is why the exercise hasn’t been repeated since.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, right? We’ve all seen you and your partners in crime do the same trashing of other scientists, so we know what you’re trying to do with Curry.
Provide direct quotes from original sources, Joshua L Brooks. Otherwise, this is nothing but a straw man.
Addressed to Joshua, but I’m already in the conversation:
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
this may also be of interest:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/
BA –
Thanks. There’s more, actually, but that will suffice.
What’s funny is that fanboys who are here day after day don’t even care enough to know what she’s said.
Of course it won’t matter to them that she said it. I still like to hope that she will show up to be accountable.
Post after post she talked about a “pause in global warming.”
What we saw was a short term slow down in the longer term trend of increase in SAT trends. It wasn’t a “pause in global warming” in any case because it didn’t take into account the ocean temps – which comprise the vast majority of the energy budget.
Yet she testified before congress about a “liase in global warming.”
I like to think that Judith cares about scientific integrity.
Well, here’s her chance.
curryja | April 27, 2021 at 12:14 pm |
Joshua …
> curryja | April 27, 2021 at 12:14 pm |
“My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. […] I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade”
1) Seriously, why would she comment before the decade is out?
2) If you’re saying we should hold feet to the fire for predictions, many on here can provide a list from the past 50 years of failed warmist predictions.
3) As a member of the pharma industry, can you defend your past statements in support of the covid vaccine, including the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing infection, the efficacy of masks, government mandates, the wet market origin, etc? Or, have you changed your mind on some aspects?
4) Credibility and integrity usually implies full disclosure. To my recollection, I never heard you fully disclose your work in pharma during your comments on covid. I always got the sense you were in the ‘health industry’, but it would have been informative to know … where your bread is buttered.
Bill, if you are asking other people where their bread is buttered, i.e., where they have accumulated their scientific knowledge, perhaps you. Jim and all various Joeys should also tell us where their “bread is buttered” – y’all have no credibility unless you share that information.
Joshua,
Sorry to have butted in on a comment addressed to you. The only excuse is that it seems to be common practice around here. Thanks, for providing the quote that shows that Dr. Curry was still making these claims as late as 2021, when the period 2015-2020 had already shown that a continued hiatus prediction was incorrect (if there was any hiatus at all on a climatic timescale).
Well, Mr. B. Unfortunately for Josh, he is dead wrong. And Dr. Curry hit the nail on the head.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011497
Bill –
1) Seriously, why would she comment before the decade is out?
So she commented before the decade even started, but shouldn’t comment before the decade is out? And do you really think it’s feasible that after these first for years of the decade, the “hiatus” is going to “continue?”
My take now, as it was back in the day when Judith wrote post after post about a “pause in global warming” is that there was no such thing. What there was, was a short-term decline in the longer-term trend of increased temperatures. That’s what we know. Calling it a “hiatus” would imply that there’s a understanding of a mechanism of causality. How has that worked out? Well, I welcome Judith to step forward to explain what the many subsequent years tell her about a mechanism of causality. But what bugged me even more was that a scientist, she conflated “global warming” with SATs – which ignores the primary domain of heat content.
2) If you’re saying we should hold feet to the fire for predictions, many on here can provide a list from the past 50 years of failed warmist predictions.
Lol. So now asking for accountability for scientific statements equals “holding feet to the fire.” Jeez. What a bunch of snowflakes.
3) As a member of the pharma industry,
This is positively beautiful. A member of the pharma industry?
Positively abso-frickin-lutely hilarious. Let’s make a bet. I will pay you $10k if you can provide ANY confirmable proof that I’ve EVER been a “member of the pharma conmmunity” and you’ll pay me $10k if you can’t. Deal? I’d be happy to offer proof that I have NEVER been a “member of the pharma community” – except proving a negative isn’t possible.
What has happened to while I wasn’t watching, bro? I don’t ever remember you beeing this batty. Are you ok?
…including the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing infection,
The efficacy of the vaxes in “preventing infection” were over-stated, just as are the claims that that don’t prevent infection.
Early on, they were very effective at preventing infection as well as in preventing transmission. After the early variants, they were certainly less effective at both with the more immunity-invasive variants. I will heartily acknowledge that “experts” should have expected and communicated exactly that: first, it should have been communicated that an intramuscular shot would have limited efficacy in preventing infection of a respiratory virus spread through mucosal tissue and second, it should have been anticipated that more immune-invasive variants would evolved.
There is absolutely NOTHING that I have posted here about the efficacy of masks, government mandates, wet market origin etc. that needs to be corrected. If you want to show something were you think that’s not the case, please do provide an example and we can discuss. I’ve always discussed the uncertainty ranges on all those issues and I think I pegged the uncertainties in ways that are pretty damn consistent with the subsequent evidence that has come to light. Again, please do show me were you think I was in error. I suspect, actually, you have nothing on offer, and instead are just engaging in cheap guilt by association with something or other.
Of course, NONE of that has anything at all do to with whether or not Judith is going to speak the credibility of her statements. Of course scientists make errors. That’s a given. What matters is accountability.
4) Credibility and integrity usually implies full disclosure. To my recollection, I never heard you fully disclose your work in pharma during your comments on covid. I always got the sense you were in the ‘health industry’, but it would have been informative to know … where your bread is buttered.
I have to say, this is truly an example of just a bizarrely facile epistemic on your part. So first, you wrongly interpreted some putative feature of what I’ve said based on an absolutely incorrect epistemic and now, amazingly, you’ve gone from that wrong epistemic to convincing yourself that it was right, even though it was absolutely wrong.
Again, my recollection was that you were more careful in your reasoning. Now I could have been wrong then, or perhaps this is just a one off. But if it’s a one off, it is indeed a pretty spectacular one off.
Bruce … on numerous occasions I’ve stated I’m not a scientist. However, while not being a priest may limit one from commenting on the workings of the priesthood, it doesn’t exclude one from commenting on religion. Particularly, when the plate comes my way. I’ve also spoke of where my bread was buttered, as an electrical contractor. And, I’ve always used my true name. I have never asserted any scientific expertise. Nor would I. I do listen, to all sides, ask questions and will render my opinion. If you don’t value that opinion, of your arguments or of you, that’s your right. Oh, Joshua and I have had conversations on here for many years. I’ve defended him and criticized him. If he’s upset, or just disagrees, with anything I’ve written, he will respond.
B A –
Sorry to have butted in on a comment addressed to you.
No problem at all. Unlike the snowflakes you’ve been engaged with here, I don’t take offense at any of this.
jim –
Sorry to have butted in on a comment addressed to you.
Lol X 2
I provided that date when Judith said that.
Geez X 2.
jim –
Oops. Wrong quote. Let’s try that again:
Well, Mr. B. Unfortunately for Josh, he is dead wrong. And Dr. Curry hit the nail on the head.
I provided the date when Judith said that.
Lol X 2.
It’s really remarkable just how strong the confirmation bias is in some folks. I provided the date that she made the remark about the next decade, and you just went right by it to confirm your bias about her analysis.
WOW!
Joshua …
1) You can certainly ask Judith how her prediction is going. You didn’t do that. You basically sat at the 6 mile mark and taunted her from the sidelines of a marathon saying her time isn’t going to be what she predicted. Love to have your crystal ball so I could pick some stocks.
2) LOL! It applies to thee but not for me? Can’t have it both ways, bro. C’mon, you know that.
3) I did make an assumption that a post earlier from Joshua L. Brooks was you. I was a bit excited to see who you actually are. My bad if it’s not you.
4) So, if you aren’t Brooks, apologies to Mr. Brooks, and let me take a page from Bruce and ask who you are? If you prefer anonymity, that’s your choice … but it does go to credibility and integrity.
Bill –
My name is Joshua L Brooks – and the earlier post was by me.
I have NEVER had anything at all to do with the “pharma industry” (except to the extent that I do take some medications).
I’ll go further to add, my posts at this blog have NEVER had anything at all to do with you my bread is buttered.
Now think about how both statements can be true. What would explain that? Please, I beseech you, up your game.
Here’s a hint – you’re using an algorithm that is sometimes correct, and not recognizing its limitations. That is the basic mechanism of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
Bro – there’s something seriously wrong with your epistemics.
correction…
…have had anything at all to do with [how] my bread is buttered…
in case it wasn’t obvious.
Bill: You didn’t need to say that you’re not a scientist, some things are obvious. I once valued your opinion – until you gave up the game of pretending to be an impartial observer trying to figure things out – I do not now, way too much willful ignorance demonstrated.
Beseech? It’s now official, Josh the Red wears a three cornered tinfoil hat. The ankle biting little fart just can’t help his epistemic self. That Polly follows with his feathered dust- up is just too precious.
Trunks –
Well while Bill’s decline is deeply disturbing, it’s good to know that you haven’t changed.
Obsessed with farts and anything scatalogical as always. And given how long this feature has been present in your comments, I think it’s safe to assume it’s not just because you’re in junior high school. Surely you would have graduated by now.
Sorry to inform you, Red, your definition precedes you.
Joshua …
Okay, now that we have the name settled, you still didn’t tell us, ala Bruce, what it is you do/done that makes your scientific comments credible. Credibility and integrity. You can’t ask it of others unless you do the same. ;-)
Bruce … Oh just stop it.
Bill –
Unfortunately you’re ducking accountability for your terrible epistemics.
Disappointing. Rightly or wrongly I expected more of you.
As for what makes my “scientific comments credible,” you can think what you want on that topic. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments about the flaws in Judith’s predictions, and whether she’s going to step up and explain, scientifically, why her previous scientific comments were wrong. Her predictions and the accompanying analysis stand on their own, completely independently of my scientific credibility. I have provided quotes of what she said. That she was wrong isn’t particularly important, per se, IMO. Scientists make errors. Ho hum.
What important is how they show accountability – by explicating what were the flaws in their scientific process that let their analysis to be in error. That’s were the learning takes place.
Ok, so you don’t care if she does that. Most certainly, that is your prerogative. And apparently instead, you gain some measure of satisfaction by making incorrect claims about me and focusing on MY scientific integrity. Both of which are completely irrelevant.
I have to think that goes in parallel with your lack of accountability for the gobsmackingly erroneous reasoning that led you to conclude by bread is buttered by the pharma industry.
Sad.
Joshua … you ask for credibility and integrity. All I ask is that you demonstrate the same. You want to avoid doing that … then we know where you stand.
Josh, Dr. Curry has voiced concerns relative decadal climate decrees and measures. Science describes a climate data point as 30 years. Fanatical CAGW reliance on decadal data points is like waking any given brisk morning and blaming climate change for the warming afternoon. Gas giants say near-term data is noisy.
Bill –
My scientific credibility here rests on the very simple statement that Judith’s prediction, as I quoted, seems entirely inconsistent with the subsequent developments.
If you want to argue that my statement is wrong, and thus lacks credibility, go for it. jim tried, but he bizarrely referenced a time span that is completely irrelevant to the quote from Judith that I provided..
Meanwhile, you have focused on absurdly wrong conclusions about by identity, declined accountability for how wrong they were, and on my statements about COVID-related topics which you have yet to specify.
What happened to you?
Trunks –
Judith made predictions on a scale of a considerably less than 30-year time span, based largely on an analysis of a less than 30-year time span (the putative “pause in global warming).
I happen to think that making broader generalizations about the mechanics of climate change based on 30-year time spans seems rather dubious. Even more is making projections of less than 30-year times spans based largely on even less than 30-year time spans.
But that’s what Judith did (obviously she’s an expert and I’m not), so here we have it. If you consider the credibility of her scientific analyses to be immune from a failure to explain her scientific errors, so be it. That’s about what I’d expect from fart-obssessed commenters.
Red, describe what a hypothesis is…
Joshua … do you work in Boston? If you don’t want to answer, no worries.
Bill –
I lived in Boston and the surrounding area (Dorchester, Lincoln, Wayland, Belmont, New Ipswich NH, Nashua NH) for more than a decade, but not since 1996. When I was living in that area I worked in construction, as a computer lab coordinator, in software tech support, as a teacher, and obtained my undergrad and graduate degrees).
You were wrong. Please own up to it and reflect on why you were wrong.
There – I’ve given you enough info to Google your a$$ off, along with any murderous nutbar will malevolent intent, to track me down among the many people with my name. You will find absolutely nothing whatsoever that in any way connects me with the pharma industry. You could pay for one of this lookup services or you could just take my word for it.
Either way, reflect on why you were wrong in running your “buttered bread” algorithm through a motivated reasoning and confirmation bias filter.
Joshua … I was wrong about the pharma, but not about the credibility/integrity. You should admit that and come clean. By the way, there is another Joshua L. Brooks. But he has hair and it isn’t gray, so it can’t be you. LOL!
BAB – As Usual – you throw immature insults (most often when you are wrong) then change the subject trying to hide your prior incorrect statement. Its repetitive and very immature.
Joey, As usual, you are projecting, and seem unable to specify what you are talking about. Thanks anyway.
Joey, I quoted the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency. I don’t care that you don’t like their metric – they define it explicitly. Your inability to process that is a clear sign of willful ignorance, and deflectionism. I believe the repetitive immaturity must be a projection. Willful ignorance generally cannot be fixed without therapy, and true self-deception is even more a more difficult psychological problem.
B A Bushaw | October 31, 2024 at 11:23 am |
Joey, I quoted the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency. I don’t care that you don’t like their metric – they define it explicitly.
Its not a question of the metric presented by EIA – Its your use of the metric out of its appropriate context which gives the false impression. Either you know you used the metric inappropriately or you lack sufficient background understanding of the subject matter.
Very similar to your missuse of the 99% consensus. As others have noted, the data doesnt support the conclusions ( at least not without the typical advocacy distortion / misprepresentation of the data)
Joey, I used the same metric as EIA in the same context – the amount of new equipment being installed. I think most everyone (except maybe you) here is familiar with the difference between capacity (machine limit) and capacity factor (available fuel, downtime, etc.). Even if you insist on including some mythical “average capacity factor”, which, in reality, is different for each location, the conclusions are the same – solar and batteries are by far the fastest and growing sectors of electricity generation and storage. Sorry, you have difficulty absorbing that, and instead are hell-bent on deflecting from it by trying to insult my intelligence – it only reveals yours.
B A Bushaw | October 31, 2024 at 4:02 pm |
” I think most everyone (except maybe you) here is familiar with the difference between capacity (machine limit) and capacity factor (available fuel, downtime, etc.). ”
Bab – your comment highlights your extreme dishonesty and lack of ethics. Your omission of the capacity factor was exactly the error which I pointed out in your original comment. Yet you know accuse me of not being familiar when I was the one that pointed out your omission.
Ethics and honesty is not your forte
B A Bushaw | October 31, 2024 at 4:02 pm |
I think most everyone (except maybe you) here is familiar with the difference between capacity (machine limit) and capacity factor (available fuel, downtime, etc.)
Bab – Chutpzah – Accusing me of not being familiar with the subject matter when my original response pointed out your omission. Arrogance, dishonesty, ethics, – I will let others judge your behaviour
Kid, I’m not interested in your false misrepresentations. People can the read the reference I gave, if they are interested. I must have missed the refuting references from you and Mr. Fuller. Sorry about your mental state, it seems rather pathetic.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011616
Joshua, thanks for starting such a vigorous and important conversation. Reactions are as expected.
B A –
Indeed, reactions are as expected. I absolutely predicted that instead of dealing with what Judith said, someone would claim she never said it. It’s all so sadly predictable.
Good to see that trolls stick together. The world needs more collegial support.
“Empirically we KNOW that absorbed solar energy on surfaces is converted to heat. And physics makes this clear.”
–
What I would like to comment is that the absorbed solar energy on surfaces is already heat. When some of the solar energy is degraded to heat, it gets absorbed on surfaces, because it is heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is climate change a negative AO that causes the Atlantic storm track to cross Europe?
https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/composites/comp.day.pl?var=Sea+Level+Pressure&level=Surface&iy%5B1%5D=&im%5B1%5D=&id%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&im%5B2%5D=&id%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&im%5B3%5D=&id%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&im%5B4%5D=&id%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&im%5B5%5D=&id%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&im%5B6%5D=&id%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&im%5B7%5D=&id%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&im%5B8%5D=&id%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&im%5B9%5D=&id%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&im%5B10%5D=&id%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&im%5B11%5D=&id%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&im%5B12%5D=&id%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&im%5B13%5D=&id%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&im%5B14%5D=&id%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&im%5B15%5D=&id%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&im%5B16%5D=&id%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&im%5B17%5D=&id%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&im%5B18%5D=&id%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&im%5B19%5D=&id%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&im%5B20%5D=&id%5B20%5D=&monr1=9&dayr1=1&monr2=9&dayr2=30&iyr%5B1%5D=2024&filenamein=&plotlabel=&lag=0&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&type=2&scale=&label=0&skip_vector=&cint=&lowr=&highr=&istate=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=&xlat2=&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Cylindrical+Equidistant&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot
Dr. Curry has made great achievements by applying her knowledge of climate in a successful business.
LINK:https://www.cfanclimate.net/_files/ugd/867d28_91fbe2f16bdd4e8bae33473163d97097.pdf
Sure, Jim,
Is the nonexistent climatic warming hiatus a product of CFAN’s “Inovative Forcast Tools” that empowers businesses to manage weather and climate risks? If so, I prefer the IPCC that covers specified possible future scenarios, ranging from benign to disastrous, which are all guided by possible different societal responses; rather than a had-waving personal opinion, based on an untested hypothesis, that in essence falsely says, nothing happening their folks. As I have said, the evidence is publicly available ,it is your choice to (willfully) ignore it, if it makes you feel better.
Joshua said: Joshua | October 30, 2024 at 11:37 pm |
curryja | April 27, 2021 at 12:14 pm |
“My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. […] I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade”
So if we examine the global temperature from 2000 to 2010, what do we find? A cooling of about 0.5.
LINK:https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2010/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2010/trend
Don’t you care about your scientific integrity, Josh?
jim –
Lol.
I provided the date when Judith said that. Now put on your thinking cap and try again.
Geez.
Correction, cooling of abut 0.05.
Say Jimmy, that is a cherry-picked range analysis over a less than climatic timescales. Perhaps since it is a simple ordinary least squares fit, why don’t you provide the uncertainty in the determined slope that (most likely) shows that your conclusion is meaningless. This is soooo obviously willful ignorance, especially after you ignore the direct quotes you requested (Judith and her co-author also predicted that the non-existent hiatus would last through the 2030s). I suppose you are proud of your lack of intellect, ignorance, and dishonesty.
It is hotter on the Moon’s surface (compared to Earth’s Sahara), it is much hotter during the time about the midday hours of the much longer lunar day, but it is very much colder a meter below.
This observed phenomenon happens due to the very slow rotation with respect to the sun Moon has.
Earth, on the other hand, rotates 29,5 TIMES FASTER.
On Earth there is much more effective the solar energy INPUT in the surface – thus Earth’s surface is on average much warmer than Moon’s.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The global warming is here, but it is not caused by the fossil fuels burning!
Because there is not any atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
The evidence is publicly available ,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Conclusions:
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Planet………Te……Te.correct….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….440 K……364 K……..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K……210 K……..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 K….224 K……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……….210 K……174 K……..213,11 K…..210 K
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
…………………..
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.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Joshua has generated a lot of bafflegab about Dr. Curry being wrong about the “hiatus”. But has not addressed the actual data, which proves she was absolutely correct.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011497
jim –
Keep ducking. It only reinforces my point.
Your point? BS, Josh. I posted data. You post bafflegab.
Jim –
You’re ducking the date when she made that statement.
Record warmth in 2023 and 2024 are not consistent with what she predicted going forward in 2021.
Please, try to keep up.
Your post was this:
“My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. […] I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade”
That was the period I used. Sorry if I didn’t see any other of your posts.
Right, Josh. I use the years you quoted and you continue to whine about it.
Jimmy, I was the one that quoted Dr. Curry’s 2013 CE post. Joshua added her 2021 post. She was wrong in both, and I have disproven your so-called proof that she was right – perhaps address that, instead of admitting you don’t understand science, literal quotations, logical argumentation, dates, etc. by dismissing it all as “bafflegab”. Small minds – small thoughts.
Jim –
In 2021 she said she expected the so-called “pause in global warming” to continue until 2030 at least. Since then we’ve had two years of record temps.
Continue on with your sycophancy.
Josh, post the link where she said that it would last until 2030. TIA.
Jim –
Lol. In 2021 she predicted at least another decade of the “hiatus.” Stop playing games.
Joshua and Mr. B thread bomb until my comment with the proof of Dr. Curry being right disappears. Charlatans!
Poor Jimmy, what proof? We know you have lost when you resort to “bafflegab” – it just indicates you don’t understand the science, and can’t argue convincingly against it.
As for your so-called “data”, it is scientifically incomplete as it does not provide uncertainties or a slope correlation coefficient, and therefore proves nothing except that the analysis is incomplete. And, it only covers a short cherry-picked sub-climatic time-frame of 2000-2010 that is not statistically significant. Your data does nothing to prove that Dr. Curry’s predictions about the future through the 2030s are true – and that is the real discussion here. In fact, those predictions (opinions) are demonstrably false if one looks at all the available data. Here is a refutation of your data, which uses global average surface temperature (the usual metric for climate change), rather than an average of the lower troposphere which you cherry-picked. This is from Hadcrut 4, using your same “calculator”:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2010/plot /hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
and for NASA’s GISTEMP:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend
Thus your “so-called proof” is disproven.
It seems to me that Dr. Curry made a false assumption about a nonexistent hiatus and projected it into the future without justification. If you don’t get it, that’s OK, understanding such things does require a modicum of intellect.
B A –
It seems to me that Dr. Curry made a false assumption about a nonexistent hiatus and projected it into the future without justification.
Interesting how similar that is to Nic Lewis’ COVID modeling that Judith posted here at Climate Etc. – which also was provably wrong.
Actually, Mr. B., Wyatt made the remark about 2030. But you still cheerfully ignore the fact that the Stadium Wave was put forth as a hypothesis. Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? I’m starting to wonder.
It was your buddy Josh who posted the 2000-2010 time period. Feel free to complain to him or her.
Jimmy,
Dr. Curry was a co-author and I quoted the 2013 article correctly.
Yes, I know the difference between hypotheses and theories. Sometimes your ignorant assumptions crack me up. Hypothesis are opinions suggested as a possible answers to scientifically formulated questions about the unknown, before they are tested. They have no intrinsic value, and should not be relied upon until they are tested and have sufficient supporting evidence. If there is sufficient accepted supporting evidence, and no disproof, it becomes a theory.
So you’re not going to address my disproof of your so-called “proof”? I’ll just take that as confirmation that you are one of the ignorant people that can’t admit they are wrong.
PS ~ In addition to the PhD in experimental nuclear, atomic, molecular and optical physics, BS and MS in chemistry, I had an undergraduate minor in philosophy (science and logic), and a PhD “nebenfach” of theoretical physics: nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory, which, for all you linear and focal thinkers, is very important to understanding climate change.
Jimmy, Indeed she did, and Dr. Curry immediately confirmed it. Since your memory seems a bit selective, here is the quote
from the 2013 article one more time:
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
I would just add that there is no stadium-wave signal. There is a proposed stadium-wave effect.
It just chaps your a$$ that she was right.
It chaps my a$$ that you and so many of your cohorts are so blatantly and willfully ignorant, and retreat to conspiracy theories, fabrications and lies (she was wrong) when you can no longer defend your position. But that’s OK, you don’t have any credibility, and apparently can’t or won’t try to establish any. Bluster doesn’t cut it.
Mr. B. says “waaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”
Jim, you may also look for that hiatus in figure 1 of the opening article here by Frank Bosse, and posted by Dr. Curry. Good luck with that, evidence says she was wrong.
Jimmy says “waaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”, once again demonstrating the depth of his intellect.
Instead of that remarkable show of 2nd-grade playground retort, maybe you would like to respond to my disproof of your so-called “proof” that is only evidence of cherry-picking data source and range.
And of course, the expected lie (false attribution.)
Mr. B. did not say “waaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”. Jimmy is the one that said that, as yet another demonstration of his powerful intellect.
Jimmy thread bombs by reposting Bloomberg articles that have nothing to do with the given CE article in which they appear. “Thread bombing” is just another of Jimmy’s silly insults that carries no water, and applies more to him than the to the people he tries to attach it to. At least the “accused” stay on subject.
You must be paranoid, I don’t want to see your comments scroll off the bottom (complain to WordPress, it should be scrollable) – I want to see every one of them and respond as needed. I Look forward to it.
Making demands on the productive based on Western academia’s certainty to the 100th of degree concerning their unprovable conjectures about an impending climate catastrophe comes oh so easily from the comfort and security of air-conditioned and heated ivory towers.
So you don’t get it, either. Science does not provide proofs, it evaluates evidence and performs additional studies to test that evidence and either solidify it or disprove it (which is possible in science, but only if the given theory is actually incorrect).
After all the repetitive crap about Western academia, I have to ask: Did you flunk out at some point, or were not accepted to graduate school, or something similar? Like most here, you don’t have any credibility, and apparently aren’t interested in establishing any. I do hope your random, and largely contentless, comments make you feel better.
“…conjectures…comes oh so easily from the comfort and security of air-conditioned and heated ivory towers.”
https://x.com/climate_ice?lang=en
Thanks Pat,
It’s great. I particularly like all the modern references so that Kid, the self-appointed sea-level-rise expert, has a chance to update his half-century old thoughts on the subject, if that is even possible at this point in his career – whatever that may be.
When ganon asks, I deliver
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbPlFxnakAEB7ch?format=jpg&name=large
Here is a longer term view that skeptics have. It’s always the same. If you look back at history, what is happening has happened.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbOYvpUXUAARpt_?format=png&name=medium
KId,
No, of course you didn’t deliver. No references, no tidal data.
Kid,
RE:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbOYvpUXUAARpt_?format=png&name=medium
What the H do improvements in technological adaptation (communication, transport, weather forecasting, warning sirens, emergency rescue services, etc.) have to do with your lack of understanding, or ignorance of, modern sea-level-rise studies. Is that the ‘ol dementia kicking in again, desperately searching for a deflection?
ganon
Look who is forgetful. I’ve provided you with tidal gauge data that show insignificant acceleration countless times at hundreds of spots across the globe. This picture shows what anyone who has been on any beach in the last 60 years at the same location can attest to, nothing is happening. Direct observation is a bummer.
Kid, you couldn’t even calculate what the changing accelerations meant, and it was old data. And you provided no tidal data for when the pictures you referenced were taken. Same old deception used at the base of the Statue of Liberty or Plymouth rock. Fail.
Yeah, amazing there still are any polar bears still living… Such resilient creatures…
For the record, no one has posted a link to a 2021 article where Dr. Curry said the haitus would last for 30 years, or whatever it is you made up.
Jim –
For the record, no one has posted a link to a 2021 article where Dr. Curry said the haitus would last for 30 years, or whatever it is you made up.
I posted the quote with a timestamp. It’s funny that it so blows your mind and frustrates your compulsive sycophancy that you have to try to find a way that she didn’t say it.
What I posted was that she said in 2021 that the putative “hiatus” (that never actually existed) would continue for another decade.
Deal with it.
Wow! So you think a timestamp is as good as a link. Maybe in your world.
jim –
The quite is real, and verbatim. If I provide the link and it turns out she said exactly as I said she said, what will you say then?
Does it blow your mind that she said that?
More bafflegab from Josh.
Here jim –
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948376
Deal with it.
OK. Let’s recap. Wyatt and Curry examine data and find a pattern. They put forth a hypothesis to explain this pattern. They make some predictions based on this hypothesis. The hypothesis turns out to be wrong or at least incomplete. That’s what scientists do and there is no shame in that. It’s a non-problem. There. Dealt with it.
Jimmy, there is shame in it when you can’t admit that you are wrong, even when it is obvious. Can you refer me to Dr. Curry’s retraction – I haven’t been able to find it.
Mr. B. OK. Show me where I’m wrong. You and Joshua are spreading FUD and spin concerning Drs. Curry and Wyatt. This is a nothing burger. I was so fortunate to find the word ‘bafflegab’.
bafflegab
/băf′əl-găb″/
noun
Unclear, wordy jargon; gobbledygook.
It so perfectly describes 80% of what you and some others say about Dr. Curry. It also comes in handy for some of your ideas about “green” energy.
How do you live with yourself?
Jimmy,
It may be “bafflegab” to you, but not to scientists and other educated people that understand the subject.
You didn’t specify which of the many things you have gotten wrong that you wish to have pointed out. However, I believe Joshua and I, to some extent, have pointed out many of your failures with respect to this thread. It appears that you suffer from both memory and understanding problems – but you have already been shown many times.
I live with myself just fine, as I am confident in my ability to understand new knowledge. How do you live with your apparent Dunning-Kruger syndrome? (Most simply deny it.)
Jim –
In 2021 Judith predicted a other decade of warmkng, at least.
Obviously there was something very wrong in her thinking. I’m glad that after claiming she wasn’t wrong you’ve realized how foolish you were. But that doesn’t change that she was wrong.
Being wrong isn’t a big deal. Scientists are wrong all the time.
What matters is how they deal with being wrong. Judith should explain the error in her analysis. She predicted another decade of cooling three years ago. The lasf two years were record breaking warmth.
What was the error in her thinking that led her to be so far off? Don’t you even care to know?
jim –
OK. Let’s recap. Wyatt and Curry examine data and find a pattern. They put forth a hypothesis to explain this pattern. They make some predictions based on this hypothesis. The hypothesis turns out to be wrong or at least incomplete.
You seem to be having some trouble following along.
A number of years ago Judith et al. came up with an hypothesis. It certainly appears that hypothesis was wrong. Then quite a few years later, three years ago, Judith doubled down, presumably based on that hypothesis to predict another decade of cooling. It’s not just that the hypothesis was wrong, it’s that many years later she still didn’t see that it was wrong.
What explains why she was wrong and what exlnakna why many years later she still didn’t perceive that it was wrong? I mean it would be good for her to say “Oops, my bad,” but that doesn’t really matter much? Science is about updating your reasoning when new evidence is introduced, to account for that new evidence. Don’t you agree?
I can’t speak for Dr. Curry and neither you nor I can dictate what she should or shouldn’t do or say. If she feels the need to address this, I’m sure she will. Not knowing her mind, I can’t say what she should do here or why she does or doesn’t. I haven’t done an extensive search, so it could be she has addressed it, but we aren’t aware of it. That said, I would be interested to know what she thinks of the current conditions in relation to the hypothesis.
Jim2 said: ” … I would be interested to know what she thinks of the current conditions in relation to the hypothesis.”
I would also be interested.
Joshua: quote “Being wrong isn’t a big deal. Scientists are wrong all the time.” Wrong.
Being wrong is a big deal, especially if it is pushed on to become dogma. In other areas we have been fed wrong dogma for more than two centuries. All science built on that dogma in now very faulty (with great cost).
Scientists are not wrong all the time. Much of today’s progress is built on what turned out to be correct. We have been to the moon and back. In the past we used to adore the moon as a deity; and greatly fear it (that with good reason).
There is need to avoid being wrong. Mistakes are always very costly somehow; financially and otherwise. It is not the right ethic or attitude for one to accept.
jim –
It’s not about “dictating.” That’s such an odd way to think about it.
When a high profile scientist engages on a high profile platform to offer hypotheses on phenomena that affect the whole planet, it’s part of the scientific process that as new information accumulates the scientist explains what if any implications are to their hypothesis.
That’s how scientists establish and maintain scientific credibility.
The center of the upper low has moved from over Spain to the Atlantic. Threat of heavy rainfall in western Spain.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/11/01/0900Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-5.01,42.97,718
Thunderstorm north of Valencia.
https://i.ibb.co/2qCKBnk/archive-6-image.png
This is the second time that an upper low with a cold spot has been blocked over Europe causing flooding. At the edge of such a low, convection is very strong, and the low remains in the same place until exhaustion. The cold air was in contact with water vapor from over the Mediterranean Sea for a long time.
Thomas Fuller,
You can be surprised all you want – you have no idea of what I am aware of. But thanks for giving your references (after the fact). They are 10 and 14 years old, and I am familiar with them. (you may unsurprise yourself) I’m more interested in what working (publishing) climate scientists think in the current decade. That is what I referenced. I’m sorry if you haven’t read or understood it. They have seven different levels of concurrence and disagreement with AGW theory, and break those down by specific areas in the AGW theory. If you don’t like that one, you can try to understand this one:
“Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later”, Krista F Myers et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 104030
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
“We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.”
Note the use of “mostly” that means more than half. Thanks for your thoughts, but climate change is a rapidly progressing field of science, and if you want to comment on it, you should try to keep up.
ganon
Fuller is infinitely more qualified to discuss climate than you ever thought about being. You should try to keep up rather than trying to impress us with your PhD.
By the way, Javier has 2 published books and possibly another one in gestation. I’ve been keeping track of the NYT best selling books on climate and haven’t seen yours.
Burl,
Thanks for the reference. I must say, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a 2.5 page “Review Article” with 4 references.
I urge everyone to read it – shouldn’t take long.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Kid,
Thanks – I always enjoy your hyperbolic excesses. My education, publications, patents, and places I have done research are part of my general scientific background. I’m sorry if it irks you, but you are free to do the same.
ganon
And none those accomplishments were in climate science. When you take people out of their area of expertise, they are at base camp with the rest of us.
I had a PhD work for me once who thought the NYSE daily trading volume for a stock was what that company had sold in new stock issuance. Sort of a perpetual IPO machine. Using his logic, GM float would be in the quadrillions.
Being brilliant in one area doesn’t guarantee brilliance everywhere.
Rain Man was unparalleled in counting toothpicks and a shark at counting cards. But what else did he have in his backpack?
And, so what are your scientific accomplishments, Kid? Collecting newspaper clippings?
Not interested in your deflective anecdotes.
Your attempts to belittle my scientific background, have negligible weight, since you apparently have no science background. One of the main differences is that I can understand science outside my direct field of research, while you have made it apparent that you have no scientific field, no experience with scientific research, and have never had the background to do so.
I understand your anger at not having any experience to back up your ridiculous cherry-picked claims, but a knee-jerk, weak attempt to belittle someone else’s scientific experience, when you have failed to demonstrate any of your own, is laughable. I am very comfortable with my knowledge of the issues, you still have lots of study to do, if dementia has left any reading comprehension.
Your behavior is very typical of willful ignorance, where one knows somewhere deep-down they are wrong, but can’t quite admit it – therapy can help. If you suffer true self-deception, you have my sympathy.
ganon
Like I said, regardless of your other accomplishments you are at base camp in climate science. I’ve read 1,000 climate science studies. Reading is the necessary ingredient to understand the science. Nobody is impressed with your views. They are not anymore legitimate than others on this site.
Just curious, do you recite your experience to yourself in the mirror before bedtime for reassurance?
Kid,
I’d been asking you to tell us about your experience/background – thanks for that.
Thanks for reinforcing my point and I’m glad you found an article that supports both Verheggen et al and von Storch et al.
Yes, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.
As can be expected with a study including John Cook, response rates were poor–about 25%.
The headline question was “Which of these three statements about the Earth’s temperature comes closest to your view?’
Participants could choose one of four responses (labels used subsequently throughout the paper are included after each response option):
(a)
The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels (‘Human Activity’)
(b)
The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth’s environment (‘Natural Patterns’)
(c)
There is no solid evidence that the Earth is getting warmer (‘No Warming’)
(d)
Do not know (Do Not Know)”
This is a question that most skeptics would join the 91% of climate scientists by responding in the affirmative. I would answer A. I’m sure most skeptics on this thread would answer A. There is little variation in the sample. The paper analyses the very minor differences in responses from scientists with different quantities of publications, but it tells us little.
It does not answer important questions such as, speed of warming, atmospheric sensitivity, constituent components of warming influences and on and on and on.
Nonetheless, 91% of published climate scientists think human activity is causing most warming. This is indeed higher than the 66% a decade earlier. The composition of the scientists selected may have been a factor–they were all ‘geoscientists.’ Previous surveys sampled a wider selection of climate scientists. This paper does not address this.
Why is there still a controversy about global warming then? Because answer A to this question does not help us understand very much about climate, climate science, the current warming or anthropogenic contributions to it.
This, as is always–always–the case with a John Cook comic book production, a hand-waving exercise. He did the same thing in 2013 and in 2016 and has indulged in it frequently at his misnamed weblog ‘Skeptical Science.’
You should keep up with the cast of characters, BA. There is more to relevance than recency of publication.
You shouldn’t tell people what they should do. You don’t know me and I don’t know you, and I don’t find anything that looks like you on ResearchGate, unless you wrote a book on the mathematics of classical and quantum physics in the 1960s, and thus, I know nothing of your competences. And apparently you haven’t bothered to check mine. However, your tone says a lot. Must be the frustration of having to admit you are wrong, or living in the past.
The relevance is that climate scientists overwhelming believe that humans activities are responsible for more than half of current global warming. I have hope, since you were able to admit this, instead of sticking with your unreferenced (thanks for fixing that) 14 year-old value of 66%.
I don’t write the titles of the papers I reference, I read the contents.
As for the participants here, you might give your little quiz (I am obviously an A) to Jim2, the Joes, Christos, Burl, and others that claim solar variation causes it all (it is mostly the change in solar capture (GHGs) and reduced albedo (less reflective loss from reduced sea and land ice/snow – not the very small solar intensity variation.
BA:
Since you mentioned my name, I would refer you to your post of Dec. 3, 2023, where you stated “Some of the most convincing DATA that supports CO2-GHG-AGW, is the remarkable correlation between temperatures and CO2 rise since 1950, without any other viable and tested explanation (yours is neither) for the temperature rise”.
Here is a viable and tested explanation for you to chew upon:
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Mr. B. just can’t get it right. I have never said the Sun accounts for any portion of the current warming spell.
Jimmy, I think there are classes to help reading comprehension. I never said anything about you and solar effects. I said it about unnamed other people here. Read it again Speedy, even if it wasn’t addressed to you.
Jimmy, you must be hurting pretty bad, to try and nitpick on English grammar that you don’t understand. My sympathies.
Burl, I don’t believe you or your paper. We have discussed this before, and it is clear that you don’t have a full grasp of the subject. You are as bad as Christos, except you were clever enough to publish in the “peer reviewed” vanity press. You do know how many times your papers have been cited, right?
With two samples now, I guess this is the kind of stuff we should expect to see from mediocre(?) and retired engineers trying to play climate scientist, without enough background in the natural sciences, mathematics and logic.
Thanks for your thoughts, anyway.
BA:
Your “Belief” is meaningless. You need to DISPROVE the facts presented, if you are capable of doing so, which I seriously doubt.
As far as being a “Mediocre” engineer, I was always rated in the top 10% of the Senior Engineers where I worked, with multiple awards.
The problem with this survey, as with others of this type, is that when they say ‘half or more of current warming,’ we are left to guess whether that means 51% or 99% or something in between. Standard survey practice calls for a follow-up to a general question that interrogates ranges, e.g., ‘What percentage of current warming do you attribute to anthropogenic influence? 10-20%? 21-30%? etc.
It is also less than best practice to leave ‘anthropogenic influence’ untouched. A similar follow-up question would ask for percentages attributable to LU/LC, Milankovitch or other orbital causes, etc., as well as greenhouse gases. Of course then you also have to ask about atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2, which is another can of worms.
You can of course leave out those questions, citing concerns over length of survey, etc. But then you leave your results fearfully open to question.
Which you would know, Mr. Bushaw, if you knew anything about best practices in opinion surveys. So much easier to make fun of those you disagree with, don’t you think?
You are parroting Dr. Curry as an apparent deflection from the obvious. But, you are free to conduct your own surveys/polls, in whatever way you wish to push them. If you want percentages, you need to go to the literature.
Here is a simple search term you may borrow:
“What percentage of global warming is attributed to human influences?”
Here is one detailed answer (there are many similar):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
And you can find links for about a dozen peer reviewed papers that come to (roughly) the same conclusion at
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
You’re welcome, and thanks for your thoughts.
Well, Mr. Bushaw–I only worked in opinion polling and consumer surveys for 28 years, so I’m sure I can learn something new.
However, none–none–of the studies referenced in the websites you linked to above are of surveys of climate scientists. I am, of course, familiar with Carbon Brief and have read their work over the years. Sadly, I am also too familiar with the cartoonist fraudster John Cook and his weblog Skeptical Science.
Your links–one to a very credible source, one to a joke–are not relevant to a discussion of the perceptions and opinions of climate scientists, as they do not discuss any such.
Are you somewhat foolish, or do you just think I am?
It seems somewhat clear to me that climate scientists who venture into opinion polling of other climate scientists refrain from asking certain questions out of fear of getting the ‘wrong’ answers–‘wrong’ as in not helpful to the cause…
Well, Mr. Bushaw–I only worked in opinion polling and consumer surveys for 28 years, so I’m sure I can learn something new.
However, none–none–of the studies referenced in the websites you linked to above are of surveys of climate scientists. I am, of course, familiar with Carbon Brief and have read their work over the years. Sadly, I am also too familiar with the cartoonist John Cook and his weblog Skeptical Science.
Your links–one to a very credible source, one to a joke–are not relevant to a discussion of the perceptions and opinions of climate scientists, as they do not discuss any such.
It seems somewhat clear to me that climate scientists who venture into opinion polling of other climate scientists refrain from asking certain questions out of fear of getting the ‘wrong’ answers–‘wrong’ as in not helpful to the cause…
B A,
“Here is one detailed answer (there are many similar):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/ ”
13 December 2017 16:59
As I have explained, it is one of the articles written before 2020!
–
Please, B A, would you provide a reference to the article/paper written after 2020, and closer to the 2024?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s right. They refer to science, not opinion polls. Thanks for letting us know your “qualifications”.
Christos,
No you haven’t really explained anything, except that you think anything before you came on the scene is irrelevant.
None the less, per your request. IPCC AR6 Synthesis (2023) and references therein.
Mr. Fuller, as I said, you may run a poll anyway you want. Please let us know when the results are out. Besides that, they aren’t polls – the ones in question literature surveys. Do you have 28 years of experience doing comprehensive climate literature survey?
As for Dr. Cook, I figured you’d go there. So, you think character assassination of someone who references peer reviewed papers, and is not an author on those papers, is a valid refutation of papers?
Thanks for that, really all I need to know about you.
Christos,
“Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period”
Gillett, N.P. et al. Nature Climate Science 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9
Mr. Bushaw, I’m sorry–I didn’t realize until now that you are actually fairly ignorant. I thought I was corresponding with someone who knew at least something about which he was speaking.
Mr. Fuller,
I’m not interested in your prejudices and lack of logical analysis of your own statements. But that for letting us know your background, Mr. survey taker.
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.
“A major claim requires a major proof.”
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Publish it (fat chance), maybe people will then, maybe at least a little, pay attention to your weird claims.
“A major claim requires a major proof.”
No, Science does not provide proofs, it provides evidence, and that evidence is further tested to either confirm or disprove the claim. It is helpful to understand science, and the scientific method, before trying to dabble in it.
PS ~ if you put a statement in quotation marks, you should refer to who made the statement.
“
B A,
“Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.”
(emphasis added)
–
B A, I launched my site October 11, 2019. Soon after I started commenting at Climate Etc…
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon and its Conclusions about the non-existence of the Earth’s thin atmosphere greenhouse warming effect upon the earthern surface – it was not known to the Earth’s scientific community before 2020, because there were not enough time to get to learn about the New Equation.
Now, November 1, 2024, after the five years of public appearance, the vast majority of climate scientists are already informed about the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
And, what I have noticed, there are only few publications since, and those few publications because not the entire global scientific community has yet being informed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The rotational effects were already known before you came on the scene. I already gave you two references. Sorry to burst your bubble. Hardly any scientists know of your hypothesis because you haven’t published it – posts on CE don’t cut it. Dr. Roy Spencer, a real climate scientist, at UAH covered it in a blog in 2016 and came up with a reasonable result of 5-6 C rotational warming for the Earth. While your result of 33 C warming is farcical, as is your hubris to claim there can’t be any other significant warming because your (copied?) hypothesis and calculations don’t allow it. LMAO
Thank you, B A Bushaw, for your response.
“Hardly any scientists know of your hypothesis because you haven’t published it – posts on CE don’t cut it. Dr. Roy Spencer, a real climate scientist, at UAH covered it in a blog in 2016 and came up with a reasonable result of 5-6 C rotational warming for the Earth. ”
–
“posts on CE don’t cut it.”
Why, the Climate Etc… is read by everyone who is interested in global climate.
The Climate Etc… is read everywhere on our planet Earth!!!
It is read on all continents, Antarctica included!!!
–
PS ~ if you put a statement, please put it in quotation marks. Also, you should refer to the reference/sourse, where the statement is made.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, This is a waste of time. You won’t ever publish it, and won’t be recognized for it because others had the idea and already published. Bye, I don’t think I can help you any further.
Thank you, B A.
“Christos,
No you haven’t really explained anything, except that you think anything before you came on the scene is irrelevant.”
–
The carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere.
The 0,04 % CO2 doesn’t cause any harm to the global climate.
It is obvious for us engineers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Christos
But I’m not interested. We have covered CO2 atmospheric properties many times, and you apparently didn’t understand any of it, or willfully reject because it conflicts with your hypothesis.
BA:
On the other hand, o/a Nov 1, I provided proof that CO2 does not cause any global warming, which you have never refuted, so what is YOUR explanation for continuing to claim that CO2 is the cause of our global warming?
Burl,
You never proved anything. And you “cheated” by only including the decay of SO2 emissions after the 1980 peak. You “cherry-picked” the data from 1980 on, while omitting the symmetric available data from 1950 to 1980, which disproves your hypothesis. It is a bad enough mistake on its own, but I explained it to you several times, yet you continued to publish the same thing – approaching scientific misconduct. Maybe this will jog your memory:
https://mega.nz/file/IvVzTTgA#cp-CCfdj589Dww9_8PhU1uey2VV1ma5n5yZaRlrjknA
We also discussed other things like short lifetimes of SO2 and its hydration aerosols in the troposphere (where most human emissions go); they also did not support your hypothesis. You also do not review other (real) scientific studies that substantially disagree with your “all SO2 no CO2” and come up with 10-20 % A-SO2 aerosol “un-cooling” contribution.
No further interest, unless you have the courage to submit a retraction.
BA:
You said that I “Cherry-picked the Data. No, Greenhouse gasses were first blamed for global warming in June 1988 when James Hansen made his presentation to Congress, where he said that temperatures then were higher then than at any other time in the instrumental record. He ascribed it (without any proof) to the Greenhouse effect.
This seemed plausible because temperatures were rising at about the same rate as CO2 levels were rising at the Mauna Loa observatory (although as you know, correlation is not necessarily causation). However, after his presentation, warming due to Greenhouse gasses became widely accepted
Because of Acid Rain and health concerns “Clean Air” legislation was passed in the 1970’s in the US and Europe to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution the troposphere.
In the run-up to 1980, those aerosols peaked at 141 million tons, in 1979, and as the result of the Clean Air, and later, Net Zero efforts, they began falling circa 1980, and by 2022 they had fallen to 73 million tons, a decrease of 68 million tons.
Decreasing pollution in the atmosphere increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and warming naturally occurs. This warming is indisputable, but it is ignored, and is instead blamed on CO2.
So, ALL SO2, no CO2!
Thus, there is NO SO2 aerosol “un-cooling” contribution, as you falsely maintain.
Burl,
You mean this?
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
I urge every who hasn’t read it to do so. I have already read it and its predecessors, and, to put it politely, it no longer interests me. However, I’ll comment on the paper’s structure:
Title
Abstract
1, Introduction
2. Conclusions
References (4 of em).
What’s missing (LOL)? It is a review article only because there is nothing new in it – just rehash.
So, you concede that you are unable to refute anything that I have written.
Not very bright, are you.
“Are you referring to this?”
NO, I was referring to my reply to your post of 11/3/2024, 5.38.49 PM
Burl, I disproved your hypothesis. I’m not interested in your
Dunning-Kruger narcissistic behavior.
https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570
BA:
“Burl, I disproved your hypothesis”
You did NO such thing.
It is irrefutable that decreases in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution will cause temperatures to rise, because the cleaner air increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, causing warming.
This warming cannot be ignored, and is the actual cause of our warming since 1980, NOT rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, as you hypothesize.
The most important question now is why the production of ozone in the upper stratosphere in the tropics is declining, as evidenced by the temperature drop on about 5 hPa at an altitude of 35 km. At this level, the temperature can only rise as a result of photolysis of O2 into oxygen atoms by UV radiation shorter than 242 nm. We don’t realize what kind of disruption this can cause to the circulation of the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2024.png
B A,
“While your result of 33 C warming is farcical, as is your hubris to claim there can’t be any other significant warming because your (copied?) hypothesis and calculations don’t allow it. LMAO”
–
I never said there is a 33 C rotational warming.
What I said is, there is not any 33 C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
Also I said Earth’s average surface temperature (288K) is 68C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature (220K) because of the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hi, B A !
“LMAO” – I don’t know, what does it mean. Sure it is something like the LOL=laugh of my life,
or the BTW = by the way, or the WRT = with respect to…
Please explain what “LMAO” means.
Regards.
Christos
It is an acronym for “Laughed My A$$ Off”.
Thank you, B A. Interesting, I’ll keep it in mind.
Now I know what you meant writing:
“While your result of 33 C warming is farcical, as is your hubris to claim there can’t be any other significant warming because your (copied?) hypothesis and calculations don’t allow it. LMAO”.
–
Yes, B A, you know what I valued in that sentence most?
The “…claim there can’t be any other significant warming because your (copied?) hypothesis and calculations don’t allow it.”
Because it is exactly that – the new theoretical planet mean surface temperature equation don’t allow it.
And that is the best saying!
Thank you, again,
Christos
Christos:
B A Bushwacker really has problems grasping simple facts and concepts, perhaps because he is in such a rush to portray himself as a superior intellect (yet quotes the Guardian and believes in a 99 % consensus). How can such a condescending, nasty snot be so self-unaware? Readers laugh at his feeble attempts to insult those who rank scientifically far above him. And you, Christos, are a much classier person.
Meanwhile, the ice just never seems to stop growing up here in the Far North. Fat polar bears are everywhere (unfortunately).
I quoted Environmental Research Letters and I don’t believe it is a 99% consensus; it is higher for actively publishing climatologists. As for you, you are simply a fat a$$, with nothing to offer but insults and making up names. Is there any reason whatsoever that I should pay attention to you? P.O.
Thank you, Great Walrus, for your support.
Best regards,
Christos
Re evidence of global warming.
Here are some official Australian numbers from our Bureau of Meteorology. They are unadjusted raw minimum daily temperatures, Tmin. (A similar study with Tmax gives similar inferences to Tmin.) The graphing program shows them smoothed, but the real variation is much larger than the graph lines show.
The 45 weather stations were chosen because they had long records and because they were the closest candidates I could find, after trips around Australia exploring for minerals, to be “Pristine” sites for UHI studies. The local influence of humans on these temperatures has been minimal.
The stations have derived temperature trends over time with the highest value in being 3.1 deg C per century equivalent and the lowest being -0.15. These are approximate because of coarse treatment of missing data.
Some of the records start in year 1910. In that year, it is thought that CO2 emissions were too small to affect temperature. Presumably, there was a later time for CO2 to affect temperature. My query is why that later time is not evident in the patterns of any of there v45 pristine sites? Why are there no visible trend breaks at 1950 or whatever date is believed to apply for the CO2 effect to become visible?
The data show no significant correlation of measured atmospheric CO2 and ground temperatures, mathematically or visually from the graphs.
How is it justified for neutral scientists like me to claim that CO2 is affecting temperatures? Is a correlation shown by others only possible when confounding factors like UHI are present? If so, that would be dishonest science.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/pristtmin.jpg
For those who worry about global warming or who are concerned about bad weather ahead there are several ways to address the problem. We have, for historical examples, the counseling of Pharaoh to store basic staples like grain and fuel to prepare for hard times; or, the burning of incense and sacrificing young girls on the wuthering summit of a snowy mountain. In modern times, a capitalistic economy that recognizes the limitless spirit, energy and creativity of free individuals, together with a limited government that gets out of the way of a strong and resilient economy is humanity’s best hope for the future.
A polar vortex center has formed over Russia in the upper troposphere (5 km ), bringing air from the north to Poland as well. This situation may last for quite a long time, as the tendency to block the western circulation is seen.
Son of a Stadium Wave. I would love to get a copy of this pay-walled article. But it appears that Sergey Kravtsov has continued research along the lines of the Stadium Wave hypothesis.
There is a free 2018 paper on the topic here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
And a pay-walled 2024 one here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-024-07451-4
Thanks, Jim.
The desperation is obvious. Dr. Curry was wrong about the hiatus.
What is characterized as ‘desperation’ is nothing more nefarious that curiosity on my part.
And here is one from Kravtsov, a poster?
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uwm.edu/dist/a/122/files/2024/05/poster2-AG.pdf
Another by Kravtsov.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article-abstract/36/10/106631/3317895/Quasi-geostrophic-monopoles-in-sheared-zonal-jets?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Google Scholar search on Sergey Kravtsov, 2020 or greater date.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=%22Sergey+Kravtsov%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10
Google Scholar search on “stadium wave” from 2020.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22stadium+wave%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_ylo=2020
Conterminous U.S. Observed Number of Very Hot Days Per Year
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1852476465998164463/photo/1
Certainly looks like a decline …
You must be very desperate, X is not a valid source of scientific information (nor is CE). Record 112 days in a row of temperature over 100 F in Las Vegas this year says the X post is a horse crap deflection.
How about the same treatment for average highest, lowest and median daily temperatures for the earth. Clue – they have all increased significantly over the last 60 years.
https://www.ktnv.com/news/las-vegas-saw-a-record-112-days-over-100-in-2024-what-did-we-learn
Sorry, not in a row. Just 112 days total, although I expected there are many >4 day streaks within those.
The source of the data in the Bill’s X-link is NOAA. Your source is the main-stream media (ABC affiliate), and no data was supplied to support the headline. No further comment required.
Robert Cutler,
Did you bother to check out the reference for the figure in the X-post? It is an index for NCEI data sets, and does not tell which one the author manipulated to come up with his lame attempt at “nothing to see here folks”. Such crap is very typical of anti-science deniers. You can see plenty of it here on CE.
I repeat “How about the same treatment for average highest, lowest and median daily temperatures for the Earth not the lower 48, Clue – they have all increased significantly over the last 60 years.”
As for Las Vegas, I certainly trust a national news work much more unknown data manipulation by an unknown individual on X. But I also do additional research. Since you apparently can’t be bothered to do that, I’ll help:
https://www.weather.gov/media/vef/Las%20Vegas_consecutive_day_records_.pdf
No further comment required.
Bill, cranky CAGWer’s only care about the inevitable dead cat bounce following most strong trend breakdowns—it’s because they’re invested in it.
“A dead cat bounce in investing is a “sucker’s rally.” It can entice investors to put money into a troubled company.” [insert ideology where needed]
What trend breakdown? On climatic time scales, the temperature trend has been positive. with very high statistical probablility for at least the last 60 years.
Forecasting a future trend within an already established trend that’s, in total, only a few climate data points long, is called a sure bet, not skill. Maybe that’s why you landed on Vegas in your last comment. You talk climate scale when decadal no longer suits you; you speak local when regional or global no longer suits you.
With the exception of a black swan climatic events, trend reversals in climate are measures requiring many climatic data points, hundreds of years, at minimum excluding the many dead cat bounces before a trend reversal is realized.
You really sound pissed off, Polly, relax. Maybe you stumped your four toes on a stack of Trump votes. The din of your squawking is quite pronounced on this particular thread, even for you.
Jungle,
No, it was a specific response to a crap post on X. You, and how you view it, don’t interest me. You are just another of “shadow” people here.
PS, a new climatic interval can be started every year. There is oodles of data. Sorry that you fail to understand, but then there is no evidence that you have ever done any real data analysis. This can be done easily with a, for example, 31-point running average:
Here is mine:
https://mega.nz/file/RzNVkaoD#WE2NMseirWVZnP7VO_ySLwVRkBp-k-y1QPFDybyHRtI
As for trend analysis, I have compared linear (the usual) and a more appropriate exponential (has physical causality) trends:
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
If you want to discuss the science and data – that’s great. If you wish to continue be an a$$, I have no interest.
Polly, you don’t have climate skill–you parrot.
Trend analysis for anything else can’t muster escape velocity from the rather immense shadow gravity of your hubris, including all ideological tangents it orbits.
Thanks Jungle,
Glad to see you have reverted to your true self. You are not even interesting.
Gee that hurts, Polly. Thanks for repetitively reminding denizens how interesting it is to unveil your inadequacies.
Don’t you have something seedy to bake for crying out loud?
Jung,
Thanks again,
The data and analysis stand on their own. Almost anybody half-competent in scientific analysis, apparently not you, can reproduce them.
And of course, going forward, I will feel free to dismiss anything you say or present, simply because of who you are, and how you behave – Just as you did with the trend data I presented, in your feeble efforts to come up personal attacks and name-calling trying to deflect from some science that you can’t or won’t discuss.
“…the trend data I presented”
You presented an original take on climate trend data? Are you lobbying serious climate scientists to look at your unique skills, Polly? Should I care about what you baked? If so, explain why you’re relevant?
I’ve already explained why I’m relevant – extensive background in general as well as some specific sciences – 50 years of it has developed an excellent BS detector.
Why are you relevant? Perhaps you should think reflexively when you make up your attacks and insult.
The global temperature rise is a natural orbitally forced millenials long and slow planetary phenomenon.
In our time North Hemisphere’s winters occur when Earth is at its closest to the sun (Perihelion).
Thus we have warmer winters.
Thus planet proceeds storing heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And what about the longer, colder summers? Ignorance is not an excuse – it has been explained to you.
Thank you, B A Bushaw.
“And what about the longer, colder summers?”
–
What about them? There is more heat conserved around the year, when the Northern Hemisphere’s winters are warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
“North-South
Northern Hemisphere: The half that lies north of the Equator. This hemisphere contains approximately 68% of Earth’s landmass…
[4] It includes North America, Europe, Asia, and most of Africa.
Southern Hemisphere: The half that lies south of the Equator. It contains approximately 32% of Earth’s landmass…
It includes South America, Australia, Antarctica, and the southern parts of Africa.”
–
Thus we can distinguish that the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres have a major difference.
The Northern has more than twice as much landmass compared to Southern Hemisphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Never mind. I explained it once, not interested in repeating it for someone who doesn’t “listen” the first time. But, if your memory is faulty, maybe you are able to work your way back and find it.
When a planet year-after-year proceeds storing heat, then the planet gets gradually a warmer planet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you don’t understand why this CO2 nonsense has gone on so long, read this:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/06/the-fatal-flaw-in-artificial-intelligence-climate-change/#comment-1011687
It’s easy to understand, especially when you realize over 90% of the population doesn’t know the difference between a photon and a proton.
You don’t need to understand the difference and between a photon and a proton to understand ACC. It’s pretty simple to understand.
If you don’t understand the photophysics of so-called “greenhouse gases” that has been known and refined for 200 years, you have some studying to do, and come up with a slightly better refutation than calling it “nonsense.” That may be your opinion (or fantasy, as it may be), but it clearly has little weight or support, from either “faction”.
Sorry Bushaw, but you’re confusing “beliefs” with science. You “believe” CO2 is warming Earth, but in science, you need to show how CO2’s 15µ photons can warm a 288K surface.
Thank you, Clint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
CO2 carbon dioxide:
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Earth:
Temperature 255 K (−18 °C)
(blackbody temperature)[18]
Surface temp. min mean max
[n 5] −89.2 °C 14.76 °C 56.7 °C
–
Earth’s minimum temperature is T = −89.2 °C
Carbon dioxide CO2
(solid at 1 atm (100 kPa) and −78.5 °C)
(liquid at saturation −37 °C)
–
Thus, the higher CO2 content in the ice core data testifies for a colder global climate.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can see anomalies in the pressure distribution over the Arctic Circle that block the circulation. A cut-off upper low over Spain and a polar vortex center over the Norwegian Sea can be seen.
https://i.ibb.co/12zMMV1/Screenshot-2024-11-02-12-51-39.png
Sure R,
Since you try to impute mine, what is your science background? And certainly, I would need some background, before I pay much attention to some unknown Clint who has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand what he is talking about, and then tells me what I need to do. Nonetheless:
CO2 re-emission can warm the surface – it is the absorption of electromagnetic radiation, kinda like when you hold your hand over a warm stove – your hand gets warm too. However, reabsorption and collisional deactivation in the lower troposphere are much more important. It is very well understood, except perhaps by you.
Basically, as a physical scientist, I evaluate the weight of evidence. Unfortunately, you present no evidence except your personal opinion of “nonsense” – gee, thanks for that – most impressive. Come back after you learn a bit more about the subject and can discuss it intelligently. Your aggression will only beget mine, and I’m OK with that.
Sorry Bushaw, but a “warm stove” only proves you don’t understand anything about photons. Not all infrared is the same. A warm stove can warm your body, but 15µ photons can NOT. Just like CO2 15µ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
And, your false accusations bounce off me like water off a greased duck.
What will you try next?
Yes, Clint.
It is like trying to get warmed with the low
temperature heat.
If you have 25 °C temperature in the room, no matter how much water
at 20 °C circulates in the heating unit, the room temperature will not rise.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry R,
You are wrong. As I said, it is electromagnetic radiation, if it is absorbed in condensed media (a “surface”), it creates heat.
As for me not understanding anything about photons, you may peruse this:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/B-A-Bushaw-8748013
(Read some – if you can understand them)
And then tell me why you think I don’t understand anything about photons and that you do? Got any background or references that you’d like to share that support your quite silly claim that 15 micron radiation doesn’t cause heating when absorbed. I’d like to introduce you to CO2 laser (9 – 11 um), see if we aren’t able to warm your hand … or turn it to charcoal.
Those false accusations – you’d have to enumerate and refute them, as I don’t believe any are false. However, I do like the image of you as a greased duck. I imagine it applies to your physical science education as well.
Go on as long as you want, R. I can always use the writing and typing practice.
Water vapor has been increasing at about 1.4 % per decade since before 1988. About half of the increase is from planet warming (feedback) and half from human activity. About 90 % of humanity’s contribution is from increasing irrigation. Analysis demonstrating this is at Sect 12 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Bushaw, you keep trying stuff but nothing works for you.
All infrared is NOT heat. And a CO2 laser is a manmade device. (There are no CO2 lasers in the atmosphere.) You understand neither radiative physics nor entropy.
And, you still can’t scientifically respond to “you need to show how CO2’s 15µ photons can warm a 288K surface.”
What will you try next?
The CO2 laser beam is still composed of photons, each of which carries energy that can be converted to kinetic energy (heat).
“And, you still can’t scientifically respond to you need to show how CO2’s 15µ photons can warm a 288K surface.”
I already did explain that – sorry you didn’t comprehend. I’ll try to make it simple: the more photon flux absorbed, the greater the warming.
What will I try next? Thanks for asking.
I’ll again ask you read some of my publications. And ask you to again assert that I don’t understand anything about photons.
Then, I’ll again ask what background you have that leads to your conclusions and funny questions. Without an answer, I’ll assume none.
Consider those questions posed.
Sorry Bushaw, but you’re still clinging to the same nonsense.
CO2 lasers are manmade. The entropy has been significantly reduced by design and additional energy. And claiming that more photon flux means more warming just means you don’t understand radiative physics. (Where are the lasers in the atmosphere, and where do you plug them in?)
An ice cube emits photons. At 273.15K, the wavelength at the peak of the spectrum is about 10.7µ. That means ice emits a photon with higher energy than a 15µ photon. Your nonsense would mean that you could boil water with ice cubes!
I have no interest in impressing you with my background in science. I’m not using anything but basic physics found in first year college textbooks. This is not about me. It’s about accepting reality, which you can’t do.
What will you try next?
R: “I have no interest in impressing you with my background in science”.
I’ll take that to mean: I have minimal background in science, and it’s not very impressive.
Actually, with no identity and no background (mine are an open book), IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU, your credibility, incorrect science, false presumption, aggressiveness, and a penchant for insults that demonstrate low intellect. You made a mistake this time,
NIDBNI
R, It is clear you won’t believe anything I say and want to be confrontational no matter what my qualifications may be (PhD Physics: nuclear, atomic, molecular, and optical; among others). so here is a simple parting search term:
Can 15 um radiation warm an absorbing surface?
I happened to ask Copilot in “precise” mode: this was the answer:
Yes, 15 μm radiation can heat an absorbing surface. This wavelength falls within the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is known for its thermal radiation properties1. When an absorbing surface is exposed to infrared radiation, it can absorb the energy and convert it into heat, thereby increasing the temperature of the surface1,2.
Bushaw has to pervert the issue to protect his false science.
There are surfaces 15µ photons can warm, but not a surface at 288K.
Bushaw continues to reveal his ignorance of the relevant science.
R,
Are you really that dense? Is that what makes so defensive and aggressive? The temperature of the surfaces doesn’t matter, and the energy of the photon doesn’t matter. One more time:
If the surface absorbs a photon, its energy is higher, and hence warmer, than it would be if the photon was not absorbed.
Thanks for another example of your ignorance, Bushaw.
Photon absorption is based on two factors: The types of molecules and the temperature of the surface. You seem to not understand the “temperature” part.
And adding energy does not always result in an increased temperature. Consider an insulated box containing a brick. The box and brick at all at the same temperature — 100ºF.
When a second identical brick, also 100ºF, is added to the box, the temperature does NOT increase. More energy was added, but the temperature does not increase.
If you really have a PhD in physics, you need to see if you can get your money back.
Thank you, Clint
I cling to the same things because they are scientifically correct, and I don’t really care if you think they are nonsense – that just indicates the limits of your knowledge and education.
Photons/electromagnetic radiation are not cold, hot, or “neutral” bricks – they do not have mass and can add energy to a system, without changing its physical mass or construction, and hence warms it.
Yes, the particular surface, liquid, or gas’ chemical and physical composition may interact with the photon-field with different efficiencies. But all I said was, “If a photon is absorbed, … “, and you are off on a straw man about some physics that you quite obviously don’t fully understand.
Not interested in further unless you can come up with references for your nonphysical claims and irrelevant analogies.
Here’s some more reality for you to ignore, Bushaw:
Add a third brick to the box. The third brick is at a temperature of 50ºF. You’ve added energy to the box — more photons flying. But the system temperature drops!
Electromagnetic radiation/photons are never heat, no matter what wavelength. It/they have to be adsorbed, and then its energy converted to motional energy (translation, rotation, vibration -molecular and solid lattice), of massed particles to produce heat.
Current global warming is:
* caused entirely by decreasing sulfate aerosols, no CO2e contribution. (Burl)
* caused entirely by increased water vapor partial pressure, no CO2e contribution (Dan)
* caused entirely by Earth-rotational distribution of solar irradiation with weird hypothesized inverse Milankovitch cycles, no room left for CO2e contribution (Christos)
Y’all have tired me out, but there seems to be an obvious problem that you engineers need to sort out. I’d just mention bias-induced focalism, which makes it much more likely that none of these hypotheses alone are correct. I’d be much more interested in realistic, quantified contributions and associated uncertainties.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere.
The 0,04 % CO2 doesn’t cause any harm to the global climate.
It is obvious for us engineers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BAB, My assertion is that the HUMAN contribution to warming is from water vapor increase with no significant contribution from CO2. There is also natural climate change. I am unaware of any assessment of what % from WV and what % natural (solar, cosmic radiation (effect on clouds), planets, etc.
Dan
Dan, you may assert anything you want. Problem is you need to prove the GHG theory wrong. Water vapor is controlled by temperature and it’s phase
Dan,
You may assert what ever you like. Most physical scientists will assert that you are wrong.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-when-water-vapor-much-more-common-greenhouse.
BAB, The link that you posted on 11 4 at 4:44 pm is misleading. Measured WV is substantially more than possible from just feedback from planet warming and has been increasing at a rate of about 1.4 % per decade. The ‘extra’ WV results from increase in residence time of (10.866 – 10.558)/36 = 0.008555 days = 12.3 minutes longer each year compared to the previous year. The detail calcs are at Sect 12 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan,
Gee, 1.4% per decade, that’s just what you’d expect from a 0.2 K/decade temperature rise. Let me know when you publish.
BAB, You need to sharpen your pencil. Average global temperature increase has been 0.16 K per decade and average global WV has been increasing less than 6.4 %/K for less than 1 % increase in WV from planet warming. The rest is from WV increase from irrigation increase
Dan,
Did you ever plot water vapor (not total water content) as a function of temperature? Or, overlay a time series of GAST vs. WV? Does your blog include uncertainties on the 4- and 5-significant figure numbers that you report? In what section do you discuss increased evapotranspiration (soil and plants) from increased rainfall, widespread flooding and temperature as compared to increases in irrigation?
Other than that, as I indicated previously, a detailed read will wait until it is published.
Thanks
Dan, as for sharpened pencils,
If you would do a linear trend analysis of HadCRUT 5.0.2.0 for Jan-1982 to Sept-2024, you will find the temperature increase rate is 0.214 K/decade.
Have you ever wondered why ResearchGate gives you 3000+ reads and only 6 citations? Also, can you explain “preprints” that never got published – seems a paradox to me – were they ever accepted?
I am particularly interested in your so-called preprint of “Water Vapor vs CO2 for Planet Warming,” which looks very much like your blog post. Except that you have apparently revised that “preprint” about 10 times since 2019. Yet, it has never been published, nor do you list the places where it has been submitted (how strange). I see a couple of possibilities: either your paper has been rejected multiple times, or it is actually a manuscript, not a preprint, which you haven’t submitted anywhere. Care to comment?
BAB, I suspected that HadCRUT5 measurements were high because of underestimate of HIE and the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com corroborates the suspicion. A more valid temperature trend is 0.16 K/decade from UAH data (no HIE). The 6.4 %/K is from the slope of the saturation vapor pressure vs temperature curve/pressure at average global temperature (lower panel in Fig 4).
The paper is there for people to examine and/or comment with specific quotes. It appears that no one else has thought to do the common-sense determination of average global residence time. Few seem to be aware of the increasing WV. Do you accept without challenge what others say in journals?
Dan,
OK, specific quotes:
” (10.866 – 10.558)/36 = 0.008555 days = 12.3 minutes longer each year compared to the previous year. ”
Can you put uncertainties on those numbers?
“Much of the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere is redirected to water vapor molecules via thermalization.”
What does “much” mean, and how do you come to that conclusion? My understanding is that almost all excited CO2 at lower tropospheric pressures is deactivated by collisions, not radiative decay – as you say, “via thermalization” where all the gas is heated equally – water doesn’t take up more than about 4% (high humidity) of the radiant energy absorbed by CO2.
“A more valid temperature trend is 0.16 K/decade from UAH data”.
What level of the atmosphere was that? I’m pretty sure most evaporation that adds WV to the atmosphere occurs at the surface. REMSS-MSU, uses the same raw data as UAH and has a low troposphere channel that yields 0.227 K/decade. Their middle troposphere channel is in substantial agreement with UAH.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
“Do you accept without challenge what others say in journals?”
No, the physical causality has to make sense to my physics background. IMHO, it seems to be a more frequent problem with blogs.
“It appears that no one else has thought to do the common-sense determination of average global residence time.”
I don’t know what the “common sense” means, but there have been a number of determinations of average H20 molecular atmospheric residence time. Some are similar (slightly lower) to your values. Apparently you are not aware of them.
Here is review article that may help
Gimeno, L., Eiras-Barca, J., Durán-Quesada, A.M. et al. The residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2, 558–569 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00181-9
Behind a paywall but you can find it here:
https://repository.tudelft.nl/file/File_79f7d95b-b6b1-4403-934a-748a6cf1d82b?preview=1
BAB, Sorry about the delay in responding, I got sidetracked.
re uncertainties: Not without a lot of work. The method is described at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com Sect 6 and Sect 12. Calculating the variation in each of the trends using LINEST in EXCEL wouldn’t work because they vary pretty much together and of interest is the difference. I would calculate the increase in residence time thru the end of several different years.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the term thermalization as applied to the action of ghg and non-ghg molecules in the atmosphere. It is described in more detail at Sect 4 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Collisions are part of thermalization.
The reported UAH data is lower troposphere. The difference with others e.g. RSS reporting is from data processing. IMO RSS tweaked their processing to agree with the surface data which is contaminated with uncertainty in HIE.
“physical causality has to make sense” agreed.
I am aware of lower, and higher, assertions of global residence times; most, if not all, from models. I suspect that none are aware of the ‘measured’ water vapor reported by NASA/RSS: Average global TPW anomaly measurements thru Dec 2023 are at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202312.time_series.txt
Description of how the water vapor measurements are made is at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor
This is the ‘common sense’ assessment:
Average global rainfall is about 1000 mm. Before the rain fell it was water vapor. Average global WV has been increasing. The trend in Dec 2023 was 29.7 kg/m^2 = 29.7 mm. To accumulate the rainfall, the WV had to be replaced 1000/29.7 = 33.67 times. The average residence time is then 1/33.67 = 0.0297 year = 10.8479 days.
Subtract the 0.0182 * 36 = 0.6552 mm for planet warming, 29.7-0.6552 = 29.0448 mm for 0.02904 year = 10.609 days. Likewise, the trend in Jan 1988 was 28.2 mm for a residence time of 28.2/1000*365.25 = 10.300 days. The difference is 10.609 – 10.3 = 0.309 days in 36 years or 0.309/36*24*60 = 12.36 minutes i.e. about 12 minutes.
The purpose of my calculation was to explain the increase in measured WV of about 1.4 % per decade which it does. I didn’t find anything in the link that you provided or in other literature that would do this. I agree with their speculation that the increase in residence time results from increased travel time from evaporation location to precipitation location. This occurs with irrigation which has been increasing.
‘A human signal does not exist at all without manipulating the data and pointing to statistical models that real world observations invalidate altogether. The only correlation observed between increased CO2 and global warming, is the other way around: the historical record shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow periods of global warming. The lag time is measured in centuries — 1000±500 years.’ (Wahlen et al. 1999).
Climategate: Tom Wigley to Phil Jones email:
https://x.com/TomANelson/status/1851568360405733411
Bill
In isolation this one email is not that significant. But a pattern emerges from reading all the Climategate emails that should be concerning about the integrity of the data used by the establishment.
In isolation reading the unhinged, maniacal ideological rants of a famous climate science activist is not that significant. But it undermines the concept of detached objectivity in climate science.
In isolation old articles about predictions that never materialized is not that significant. But it undermines confidence in the models that were and are being used in climate science.
In isolation the benign acceleration of a single tidal gage is not that significant. But when hundreds of tidal gauges show the same thing, it should give one pause about the top end projections of global sea level rise.
In isolation the studies concluding the existence of conditions consistent with MWP in the Southern Hemisphere is not that significant. But it raises questions about the public relations efforts to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
In isolation the NOAA document showing pre 1900 less than 12% coverage of SH land temperatures is not that significant. But when that is accompanied by pre 1900 NOAA document showing 40% land coverage and knowledge about SST pre 1900 was nearly non existent, it should raise questions about how much temperatures have risen since 1850.
Individually, these and other anecdotes used by skeptics are not that significant. But the totality of evidence raising questions about the establishment narrative should, at a minimum, raise questions about the assumptions being used in how much future temperatures will rise and how much of the past warming has been related to natural variability.
Kid … absolutely!
Regarding seas rising, here in Great Southern Land, Isle of
the Dead tidal gauge, Hobart, hasn’t risen in a century,
likewise Sydney, Fort Denison tidal gauge. … Noah’s Flood Replay, it ain’t happenin’ folks!
Beth,
Cherry-picked Hobart tidal station only has data since 1987, and it shows sea level rise, lower than the global average, but rising. How many tidal stations are there in Australia? What is their average sea level rise over the last 40 years?
https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/838.php
The Australian Academy of Science does not agree with you:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/what-sea-level-rise-means-australia
Beth is a good example of why I don’t pay much attention to unsupported personal opinions.
The matter has a quality to spontaneously emitting EM energy, and the matter does so by transforming the available in the matter heat into EM outgoing energy.
When matter being hit by the incident EM energy, the matter doesn’t “harry” to absorb the incident EM energy transforming it into heat.
The matter instead reflects some of it as SW outgoing energy, without changing the incident EM frequencies.
Also another portion is transformed into IR outgoing energy. It is a kind of reflection too, but for this portion the incident SW EM frequencies change into the LW EM frequencies.
And only, what amount, during the SW frequencies into LW frequencies transformation, the amount of energy (because the transformation is not perfect) the amount of energy which “is lost as heat”, it is the energy which is conserved as heat.
The conserved as heat energy gets absorbed in inner layers, it is stored, it warms a planet or moon, and it is re-emitted in dark hours.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The low will now tend to stay below southern Greenland. This is the kind of circulation that occurred during the Little Ice Age.
A strong temperature drop in November will start from Russia and Scandinavia.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector_band.php?sat=G16§or=na&band=GEOCOLOR&length=24&fbclid=IwY2xjawGUDL5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHZHnx1A_SwMfh65r1PXm3c9husW3Pnw5vsS_DmY2pZJHjNY_Fz9nbrPChA_aem_e4mGA8chy-QHqfetC_fJ1A
Thank you, Ireneuzs!
May we have some heavy rain and some heavy snow this year in Greece. It is already four (4) years long drought…
The recent devastating floods around Valencia were followed by the obligatory and reflexive articles that they were obviously the result of global warming. As usual there could be a more nuanced and complex set of factors involved. The question is to what extent did dam removal in the region exacerbate the flow of water and to what extent does the existence of millions of square miles of impervious surfaces in any nation contribute to the probability of massive flooding.
https://x.com/latimeralder/status/1852245184538390955/photo/1
In the coming days, the center of the polar vortex will be over northern Russia, which means a sharp frost in Russia in November.
https://i.ibb.co/3fLDz9j/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
Who’s unaware global-warming-cum-climate-change is a Left vs. right issue and therefore more political than scientific?
I am unaware of that. “Global-warming-cum-climate-change” is a scientific issue. How to deal with it and funding continued research to understand it better, might be a political issue, but not necessarily along a “right” – “left” division that you try to propagate. I tend to think of it more of as a scientific literacy division.
Leftist-approved Western academia’s climate science would make the Piltdown man blush…
Remember how quick the AGW catastrophists and their comrades were to denigrate William Gray and associate legitimate scientific skepticism with those who deny the Holocaust ever existed? The “denier” label began with the attempted marginalization of William Gray when the global warming alarmists employed the rhetoric of ‘Holocaust denier’ to compare Gray to a Nazi because he dared to question the UN-blessed, Anti-American global warming consensus.
Somewhere up thread Clint R said “… you need to show how CO2’s 15µ photons can warm a 288K surface.”
Here’s how the folks at Columbia U explain it:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
And at MIT:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere
I thought their explanations were pretty good.
Or you could try a textbook. I like this classic: “Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey” (au. Wallace and Hobbs).
It’s available in lots of places.
Pat, you have found two links but neither addresses the issue.
We all know that CO2 can absorb and re-emit photons of certain wavelengths. No problem there. But the issue is can 15µ photons warm a surface at 288K? It’s a physics issue. You need to show how that happens. Just claiming it happens doesn’t hold. Beliefs ain’t science.
CR, The 288 K surface is warmed by the sun. Water vapor causes the surface to be at 288 K by partially shielding it from radiating to the 3 K or so cosmic background.
Water vapor doesn’t make for very good insulation since it emits energy to space.
Water vapor can affect surface temperatures, but it’s much more complicated than that. For example, cloud formation can both warm and cool surface based on altitude and time of day. Thermodynamic processes like the “hydrologic cycle” come into play, limiting any surface warming.
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/hydro
Clint R:
“We all know that CO2 can absorb and re-emit photons of certain wavelengths.”
Good.
“… can 15µ photons warm a surface at 288K?”
Not quite the right question. Try “Can 15µ photons warm the atmosphere above a surface at 288K? And, in so doing, can the absorption of 15µ photons induce warming of an underlying surface at 288K?”
The answer of course is ‘yes’.
Are you seriously entertaining the idea that CO2 does not warm the surface?
Sorry Pat, but you’re just restating your beliefs.
You haven’t shown how 15µ photons cab warm a surface at 288K? It’s a physics issue. You need to show how that happens. Just claiming it happens doesn’t hold. Beliefs ain’t science.
Clint – Are you seriously entertaining the idea that CO2 does not warm the surface?
Pat, this CO2 nonsense is easily debunked, just from first level study of physics and thermodynamics. The fact that 15µ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface is just the start.
Up above, the “33K” nonsense was mentioned. Do you know what that is about?
Yup, you are seriously entertaining the idea that CO2 does not warm the surface.
Stop the presses. Anonymous internet commenter spots fatal flaw in two century old theory. Textbooks must be rewritten.
Clint says ” … the fact that 15µ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface … ”
Ah, the ‘ol absolute declarative of “fact”. Clint – prove it is a fact, your opinion is not sufficient. If you can prove it (beyond the reasonable doubts that we have expressed) maybe someday they’ll call it Clint’s Law.
Pat, do you happen to have particular interest in the genesis and evolution of proto-planetary discs.
Pat, I’d call it something more like desperate to deflect, but without much ammunition.
Meanwhile, in the north.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2024.png
So, I guess this is (if true) CO2 mitigation warming?
Fire erupts in southeast Missouri at one of world’s largest lithium-ion battery facilities
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/fire-erupts-in-southeast-missouri-at-one-of-worlds-largest-lithium-ion-battery-facilities/
Frosty high in northeastern US.
AI is getting the red carpet to power plants.
“We have that opportunity today with regard to data centers, and we should not surrender it,” Phillips said Friday at a highly anticipated FERC technical conference about building data centers next to power plants. “Data centers moving overseas due to a lack of power supply and infrastructure or regulatory barriers could cause lost opportunities for economic growth and raise national security concerns for our nation.”
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-01/top-us-power-regulator-sees-data-centers-as-critical-opportunity
This is why the free market rules. Government mandates fail.
Ford Motor Co. plans to shut down the Michigan factory that produces its F-150 Lightning plug-in pickup truck, its signature electric vehicle, through the end of the year as demand for EVs continues to wane.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-31/ford-to-halt-f-150-lightning-production-as-ev-demand-wanes
The time has come to kick the global warming catastrophe science of Western academia to the curb. We all need to awaken to the simple fact that funding the AGW hoax that humanity is heating the globe is an anti-science, society-killing sickness. The methodology of real science shows how to put AGW theory to the test –i.e., if you can reject the null hypothesis of AGW, you may have a valid theory; and, if you can’t reject the null hypothesis – that all global warming is natural – you don’t have a valid theory.
I agree that AGW caused by CO2 increase is a hoax. However, an analysis made public at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com , especially Sect 12, shows that human activity has contributed to planet warming as a result of adding to increasing water vapor, primarily (about 90 %) from increasing irrigation. This is particularly pronounced since about 1960. The WV increase has been (and probably still is) from increasing average residence time of only about 12 minutes in each year compared to the previous year. WV increase will slow and perhaps prevent a temperature decline into the next glaciation.
Dan, if a new glaciation comes, water vapor will condense and freeze and not protect us from it.
Dan,
Normally, I don’t use AI except for literature searches, but it seems good enough for retired mechanical engineers that think they have disproved 200 years of physics and atmospheric science research a “hoax”:
“Copilot:
The majority of the world’s water vapor comes from natural processes:
Evaporation from natural water bodies: About 90% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is produced by evaporation from oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers[1,2].
Precipitation: The oceans are the primary source of water evaporated into the atmosphere and also the main site of precipitation, with 86% of global evaporation and 78% of global precipitation occurring over the oceans3.
In contrast, human water management, such as dammed reservoirs and other managed water bodies, contributes significantly to seasonal variability in Earth’s surface water storage, accounting for about 57% of this variability4. However, the direct contribution of human water management to atmospheric water vapor is relatively small compared to natural sources.”
Let us know when you have turned your blog into a “peer” reviewed publication.
By the 14th of November, the center of the polar vortex will have moved completely over Russia.
https://i.ibb.co/TbqhRLG/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
You can see the weakening of the solar wind speed since October 14. Such solar wind spikes will cause serious anomalies in the distribution of ozone in high latitudes and will shift the center of the polar vortex over Siberia, where there is a strong center of the geomagnetic field.
https://i.ibb.co/YZWmTkC/plot-image.png
More ineffective policy from the Green Unicorn.
Yet methane emissions from the fossil fuel industry, including coal mining, remain close to a record level set in 2019 as supply continues to expand, according to International Energy Agency data. Concentrations of atmospheric methane, from human and natural sources, have surged faster than any period on record.
“There’s a huge disagreement between what companies say they’re emitting and what the scientific field thinks that they’re emitting,” says Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist who has tracked the rise in methane. “We’re not seeing real action on a scale or at a pace that’s making a difference.”
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-11-04/cop29-methane-pledges-aren-t-yet-reducing-emissions
Please find me some good news on PFAS & PFOS chemicals. I am seeing headlines that PFAS is in the Florida rainwater! Is it really screwing up the reproductive cycle of humans?
Jack – if reproduction is a concern ban abortions and birth control. What’s that? You don’t like those ideas? I see. I don’t either.
Federally funded climate science may take a change depending on the result of the upcoming election- Hulk Hogan vs Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei…
The thing about extended ‘extreme weather events’ is not always about the total precipation, rather the precipitation per unit area.
Often the same amount of rain will fall over Europe, but if the low pressure area keeps moving steadily, then the rain is distributed all over Italy, Austria, Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, maybe other places.
The the extreme events often happen if the low pressure stalls over pretty much the same area, which in this case was Eastern Austria, Czechia.
Usually this happens if a deep low comes up against an equally strong high pressure. I saw some very heavy snowfall events in Scotland when I lived up there when a depression came up from the south, hit a high pressure extending down from the arctic and parts of the southern and south west Highlands got very, very heavy snowfall whereas further north got absolutely nothing.
So one of the questions about this outbreak of extreme weather is whether there were any blocking factors which prevented the moisture laden low pressure area from spreading rainfall over a wider area.
e.g., ‘the statistical result of the superposition of contributing factors, such as (in the case of excessive rainfall) abundant humidity, an unstable air mass, low-level convergence of air, a stationary or slow-moving storm (In western NC, the mountains providing uplift are stationary), etc.’ ~ Dr Roy Spencer
Of course, the most extreme events will come from a “perfect storm” convergence of different factors. Focalism is rampant.
What’s even more rampant is Ismism.
It’s been several days now, but neither Cassen nor Bushaw has been able to show how 15µ photons from CO2 can warm a 288K surface.
They’ve provided links supporting their beliefs, and plenty of childish snark, but NO science.
R: Ahhh, cloaked in secrecy, the shadow people don’t give up, and can’t verify their incomplete understanding of physics.
“For solid lattice vibrations (phonons), the energy range is typically in the infrared to terahertz (THz) region. The lowest photon energies absorbed by lattice vibrations are in the range of a few meV (milli-electron volts)2.” [Copilot]
[2]https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Materials_Science/Supplemental_Modules_%28Materials_Science%29/Electronic_Properties/Lattice_Vibrations
I must have missed your reference that says this can’t happen, but thanks anyway. Or maybe your limited physics exposure didn’t cover lattice vibrations and phonons.
Sorry, here it is as a link
Sorry again – fat fingers
https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Materials_Science/Supplemental_Modules_%28Materials_Science%29/Electronic_Properties/Lattice_Vibrations
You continue to make my point for me, Bushaw.
You find irrelevant links that fail to show how 15µ photons can raise 288K surface temperatures, so you resort to childish snark. I’ve seen it all before.
Please continue.
R:
It is up to you to prove the accepted theory wrong. Go for it! That’s the way science works. There is no need for us to disprove unsupported/physically incorrect claims, made by unknown amateurs – have you made it through quantum mechanics yet?
You don’t have a “theory”, Bushaw.
If a “theory” violates the laws of physics, it ain’t a theory. You can’t show how 15µ photons from the sky can warm a 288K surface because they can’t.
And here is a discussion of the root of your wrongness – the difference between heat and photons (EMR); and where, and where not, “thermodynamics and entropy” apply.
It’s a red herring that was floating around 10 years ago, how clever of you to pick it up again.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-ir-and-heat.836555
Wrong again Bushaw, as usual.
You find irrelevant links that fail to show how 15µ photons can raise 288K surface temperatures, so you resort to childish snark, proving me right.
Please continue.
I don’t think we’ll change Clint’s mind, but here’s another try, from a macro perspective:
15µ photons from CO2 warm a 288K surface much like the way that IR photons from the ice wall of an igloo at 273K warms an Inuit at 372K. (Hint: heat is not flowing from cold to hot.)
Bushaw – proto-planetary discs – yes, in my erstwhile productive days. Now I try to keep up – so many new, fabulous observations. Do you have an interest?
Correct Pat, you’re not going to change my mind with your nonsense.
Photons from ice is NOT what warms the Inuit. You just don’t understand the relevant physics. You can’t show how 15µ photons can warm a 288K surface.
But, feel free to keep proving me right.
Mr. B. – a tip. Sky Dragons can go on forever. Sometimes it’s better just to sit back.
jim2 – thanks. Sigh –
Jim2, What is a Sky Dragon? Someone without a name, without a background, without an understanding of physics, suffers extreme willful ignorance, cannot back up his ridiculous claims, does not understand the scientific method, and buys into 10-year-old contrarian fabrications that don’t make physical sense.
“A tip. Sky Dragons can go on forever. Sometimes it’s better just to sit back.”
Your philosophy? (practice what you preach) – Not mine, ignorant liars need to be called out to minimize other ignorants believing them. If Mr. R stops making a fool of himself, I’ll be gland to stop making a fool of him.
R: You didn’t answer my questions: – Have you made it to quantum mechanics yet? Have you addressed the fact that you are just repeating a 10 year-old non-physical fabrication? Just an ignorant little boy that repeats the same trash over-and-over again, because his narcissism won’t allow him to admit he is wrong.
Pat, it is only a general interest – physical science – not a focal point; my focal points would be atomic & molecular spectroscopy and nuclear forensics. I’ll see if I can find your book chapter and try to gain a little more knowledge. =)
Mr. B. A “Sky Dragon” is one who believes CO2 will not cause additional heating of the air/surface and makes fun of people who do believe that. To them, a mythical Sky Dragon causes the warming.
Jim2 leaves his snarky comment, joining in with Cassen and Bushaw. They have NO science, only insults, false accusations, and snark. That’s why they have to make up childish nonsense like “Sky Dragons”.
Let’s talk science. CO2’s 15µ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface. The first thing to understand is what “temperature” is.
A bucket of water has a “temperature”. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature. A simple mercury thermometer is placed in the water. The molecules in the water have kinetic energy — they are moving. As the molecules strike the glass tube of the thermometer, their energy can transfer to the glass and then to the mercury. If the water is hot, the water molecules cause the mercury molecules to become more active, causing the mercury to expand, causing its level in the tube to rise. We calibrate the tube for whatever temperature scale we prefer — Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin (Absolute), Rankine, or other.
Simple.
The temperature of the water becomes the temperature of the mercury. We say the temperature is due to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If no new thermal energy is added to the water, or lost, the temperature remains constant, and the thermometer reads the same temperature. If a heater raises the water temperature, the thermometer reads higher.
If ice is added to the water, its temperature drops. The average kinetic energy of the molecules is reduced, the level of the mercury falls, and the thermometer reads a cooler temperature.
It’s important to note here that adding ice adds both mass and energy to the water. Mass does not determine temperature, so we need to only consider the energy. The average kinetic energy of the ice molecules is less than the average kinetic energy of the water molecules, so the average kinetic energy decreases, and the thermometer reads a lower temperature.
Energy is added, but the temperature decreases!
So, adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature. It HAS TO BE the right kind of energy. As applied to climate science, the frequency of absorbed photons would have to raise the average kinetic energy of the water molecules. That’s why we know ice cannot boil water, and CO2’s 15µ photons can not warm Earth’s 288K surface.
It’s simple. Just basic physics.
Jim2,
Thanks, Now I understand, Sky Dragons are similar to Flying Pizza Monsters.
R: “CO2’s 15µ photons can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.” That is your false hypothesis, for which you provide no evidence. You do not understand the difference between the kinetic energy of vibration of massed particles and lattices vs. massless electromagnetic radiation. You do not understand the difference between heat and temperature. In fact, all you do is regurgitate a decade old false “gottcha” conspiracy theory that debunked almost immediately.
But that’s OK, I want you to have every opportunity to demonstrate your lack of scientific knowledge.
As usual, Bushaw couldn’t understand any of it.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011860
Clint, Try Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation as well as the derivation of Einstein coefficients for spontaneous emission and absorption. Let me guess – you don’t/won’t understand them and claim they have nothing to do with your silly demand. I’ll make it easy for you: If the earth’s surface (assume 288 K) can emit at 15 microns (it does), it can also absorb there. Bye bye, No more invisible flying pizza monsters today.
Bushaw, you’re just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. You don’t understand the relevant physics.
If something absorbs the same photon as it emits, there is no increase in temperature. Since the temperature is related to average kinetic energy, only photons with higher frequency than the average can raise temperature.
What will you try next?
R:
You have been proven wrong by Kirchhoff and Einstein. Get a life, little boy.
I explained this, Bushaw. I can explain it, but I can’t understand it for you.
You’re frustrated, so you resort to false claims and childish insults.
I’ve seen it all before….
Hey Clint – I’ve really been slow to fool around with ChatGBT, being an old fart, slow to keep up. And naturally skeptical of black-box stuff. But I typed in “How can a 15 micron photon heat a 288 K surface?” just for fun, and what ya know, it did pretty well! Answer starts out with “A 15-micron photon can indeed heat a surface at 288 K (close to room temperature) through a process known as radiative absorption…” and goes on in accurate detail from there. I’m impressed. Readers should try it. Clint can tell us where ChatGBT went wrong. Maybe it was just trained on Bushaw :-)
Pat Cassen: Thanks for the tip about Chatgbt. Being an old fart myself I decided to have a try with some questions from my own research.
Smart parrot chatgbt. When pressed with detail I got “accepted scientific evidence or consensus”. When given more details I got “If you have a specific source or context for this claim, please provide it, and I can help clarify or discuss it further.” On further given specifics I got “If you are looking for specific details about his findings or their implications, please let me know!”
Weeell, my site provides a lot of detail, but it seems too far off the academic tether, or that it is in the ‘lunatic fringe and beyond’ for chatgbt; or maybe it only follows what the consensus, or the old dogma said.
Thanks for admitting you’ve been slow, Pat.
What’s slowing you down is your belief in a false religion. The CO2 nonsense is easily debunked from First Principles. The problem has been that “climate science” does not understand First Principles.
CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface. To understand that, you need:
1) To understand what “temperature” is and,
2) To understand what is required to raise temperature.
Start here:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011860
Don’t be slow, get up to speed.
Clint,
Changed your story from “a 288 K surface can’t absorb 15 micron photons” to “a 15 micron photon can’t heat a 288 K surface”.
Kinda slow, but you’re making progress. Thanks for the implicit admission that you were wrong. It’s OK, undereducated narcissists have a very hard time explicitly admitting when they are wrong.
https://www.energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_temperature
Wrong again, Bushaw.
If you weren’t so immature and incompetent, you would realize you made a “false accusation”. I never said what you accused me of saying. I never “changed my story”.
Go to your room.
B A, here it is what Dr. Roy Spencer, a real climate scientist, at UAH covered it in a blog in 2016:
“Yesterday I showed that the difference in rotation rate between the Earth and the Moon caused the more-slowly rotating Moon to be about 55 deg. colder than the Earth, all other things being equal (no atmosphere, the same albedo and IR emissivity, and a surface bulk heat capacity which gives model temperatures than match actual lunar observations). The effect is muted the greater the surface bulk heat capacity, since that also reduces the diurnal temperature range.
Basically, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation. I suspect the effect does not exist if the surface being heated has zero heat capacity, since the temperature of the surface will instantly come into equilibrium with the absorbed sunlight; in that case the length of day would not matter. But since that is physically impossible, it does not apply to real planets.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Christos,
Perhaps you don’t remember, I already gave you this reference – you don’t need to quote it to me. Perhaps you should also quote what Dr. Spencer found as a value for the rotational warming of Earth. Thanks anyway.
B A,
The quote:
” the difference in rotation rate between the Earth and the Moon caused the more-slowly rotating Moon to be about 55 deg. colder than the Earth, all other things being equal”
(emphasis added)
B A, please, doesn’t it say everything? Doesn’t it say Earth is warmer about 55 deg. than Moon, all other things being equal? Because of the difference in rotation rate?
Christos,
No it doesn’t say anything, because all other things are not equal; such as the heat capacity of water vs. dry lunar soil, and an atmosphere that has strong, composition dependent, far infra-red absorption.
You still haven’t reported what Dr. Spencer (the real and renowned skeptical climatologist) found for the rotational warming of the real earth, instead of Christos’ made up ideal world, when both are compared to an atmosphere-free earth that is otherwise unchanged. If you won’t compare your result to Dr. Spencer’s (which you have now shown you are aware or) to your result, you are just demonstrating willful ignorance, trying to “protect” your simplified hypothesis that blatantly ignores important factors.
B A (November 1 above)
“Dr. Roy Spencer, a real climate scientist, at UAH covered it in a blog in 2016 and came up with a reasonable result of 5-6 C rotational warming for the Earth. ”
The quote:
” the difference in rotation rate between the Earth and the Moon caused the more-slowly rotating Moon to be about 55 deg. colder than the Earth, all other things being equal”
(emphasis added)”
Why do you, B A, say I demonstrate “willful ignorance”?
What the above two quotes say to you?
Do they say, maybe, that Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse warming effect is some ~50 C then?
( 55 C – 5 C = 50 C )
I know addition and subtraction can be difficult, must be hard for an engineer.
255 K: Simple occluded disk absorption vs sphere emission model:
+ 6 K rotational warming (Spencer, 2016)
= 261 K (no atmosphere, but with rotational warming)
Current GAST = 15C = 288 K
Difference between the non-existent atmosphere-free world and the real one
288 – 261 = 27 K (not 55).
I would also note that earths surface and atmosphere redistribute heat by mostly by convection (air/water currents) not by conduction, as your hypothesis implies.
B A, shouldn’t the above be reconciled with Moon’s:
270 K: Simple occluded disk absorption vs sphere emission model:
Current Moon’s 220 K
Difference between the non-existent atmosphere-free world and the real one
220 – 270 = -50 K
Please explain, why the – 50 K?
Christos,
No I don’t really care about comparisons to the moon when you blatantly ignore the large differences from Earth’s surface.
B A, by your consensus’ hypothesis, Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is not 33 C but it is 27 C, because of Earth’s ~6 C the rotational warming.
Also, as you know, our Moon also rotates, but 29,5 times slower than Earth.
But Moon does rotate.
How it comes the Earth’s 29,5 faster than Moon’s rotation warms by ~ 6 C?
Why Moon is ~ 50 C colder? Ok, Moon has no atmosphere, but Earth has.
“I know addition and subtraction can be difficult, must be hard for an engineer.”
(emphasis added)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I know the moon does not have an atmosphere or oceans or convective heat transport. I know your hypothesis and calculations about the earth do not include the obvious. Ignorance and deflections are not on adequate defense.
Ben Wouters says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:41 am
“Imo the largest problem has its origin in astrophysics: the use of the Effective temperature (Te) as base for our climate. With albedo .30 the Te for earth is 255K. For the moon (albedo .11) the Te is 270K. Yet its actual average temperature is only ~197K. (Diviner project)
So the temperature rise attributed to the GHE is not 33K, but at least 288K-197K = 91K. ”
Link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/comment-page-13/#comment-1202310
The Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not only THE NON-LINEARITY OF THE S-B EMISSION LAW.
It is a much more Powerful Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
THE NON-LINEARITY OF THE S-B EMISSION LAW is a kind of approach to the planet surface emission behavior, when considering two identical planets absorbing the same amount of incident EM energy AS HEAT. And then, the planets IR emiting the same exactly amount of outgoing energy.
So the faster rotating planet’s surface would have the less differentiated temperature, and the higher average surface temperature.
Thus, when a planet rotates faster, all other things the same, it is considered that the planet absorbs the same amount of HEAT, no matter how much faster the planet rotates.
But when a planet rotates faster, all other things the same, the planet absorbs a larger amount of HEAT.
And that is what makes the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16 true.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And, when a planet rotates faster, all other things the same, the planet absorbs a larger amount of HEAT.
When a planet rotates faster, the Rotational Warming Phenomenon amplifies the planet average surface temperature.
And, of course, that larger amount of absorbed HEAT is IR emitted too, so the radiative balance ( Energy in = Energy out ) to be necessarily met.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Excuse the language but I thought it was important to know the mentality and maturity of the editor for one of the leading science publications. Are adults anywhere to be found?
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1854247712268664937
Kid
thanks , Are we to judge the quality of their work, the quality of their scientific work by their behaviour?
Interesting article on watts up with that.
If we use the top seven series listed in table one, that is everything but CO2, and regress against HadCRUT5 we get the result shown in orange in figure 2. If we then regress everything, including CO2, we get the blue dashed line in figure 2. The two lines are nearly identical.
Most of you know where that web site is.
Jim2,
Sure do, WUWT is where pseudo-scientists present their opinions that they can’t substantiate well enough to publish in the scientific literature.
Hmmm … an ad hom attack. I expected you would refute the method. Oh well, you need to turn in your science badge and mass spectrometer.
Jim2,
What were the methods I should have refuted – I don’t recall seeing. What I refuted is trusting WUWT as a good source of scientific knowledge.
My opinion, comes from reading articles on WUWT. I’m sure you can’t tell the difference from scientific publications – you spend way too much time on X and Forbes trying to reinforce your biased ignorance. Not enough time try to understand (as if you could) the knowledge that science, including climatology, provides.
I have no mass spectrometer and no science badge. I have my education (BS and MS – chemistry, PhD – physics; work experience (35-years as a national laboratory research scientist); publications (over 120); and a couple of scientific instrument patents. None of these can be “turned in” on Jimmy’s silly demand. And of course Jimmy, himself, has nothing to turn it, except perhaps his schadenfreude over the difficulties encountered during a major technology transition.
I believe in peer-reviewed scientific publications when someone thinks they have developed new scientific knowledge. You may judge my physical science expertise, and what new knowledge I have added, by going to:
https://scholar.google.com/
type “ba bushaw” in the box, hit enter, and read.
Or, do the Jimmy thing and just call it “bafflegab” and move on because he already knows he won’t understand it.
I’d be glad to see your scientific expertise, knowledge generation, and knowledge evaluation capabilities. But, apparently you are not willing to share those, if any.
P.O. Come back with something better, when you’ve got something more than stupid sources and stupid insults.
Well. Isn’t that special!
Certainly quite a bit more special than the information you have provided about your lack of expertise.
SOURCE:wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/05/natural-climate-change-factors/
Western academia’s climate alarmism political science has been kicked to the curb. Didn’t we learn all about, margin of error in polls leading up to the Trump vs. Clinton election?
Battery storage probably won’t work. So, no, you don’t have to have enough storage to back up the entire grid, but you do have to have enough to get through times when the wind isn’t blowing and it’s dark. These periods can last for weeks in some places.
On the plus side of the ledger for this Report, the authors use the correct units to calculate the amount of energy storage needed to back up intermittent wind and solar generation; and their arithmetic appears correctly done as far as I have checked. Also a plus is that it takes them almost no time to conclude that there is essentially no possibility that battery technology will ever be able to solve the energy storage problem for a nation’s grid powered by intermittent sources, no matter how much the technology may improve and no matter how much its costs may decrease.
But then there are the negatives. The authors share the conceit of all green energy advocates — and of all central planners everywhere — that their models and projections have anticipated all costs and problems of their massive schemes. And thus, they think, they know all the answers to how this will work, and can dispense with the tiresome need for any physical demonstration project to prove function and cost. And then there is the discussion, or lack thereof, of ultimate cost to the consumer of these grand plans. The treatment of this subject is inadequate, and characterized by what appears to be an effort to divert the reader’s attention from the subject before too many questions are asked.
The Manhattan Contrarian has a good article on battery storage for the UK. Assuming 20% of the grid needs to be backed up, battery storage is not feasibl.
SOURCE:www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-9-28-a-semi-competent-report-on-energy-storage-from-britains-royal-society
Marc Jacobson’s 100% renewable for 145 countries is even worse.
Jim2, Try a space after the “:” – it’s not a ratio.
My punctuation engine runs to the beat of its own drummer.
That’s fine. I won’t bother to try your polluted non-links.
Yes, I flout your over-puckered conventions.
How this is resolved should be interesting:
“More than one-third of the UK MetOffice stations used to produce the average temperature have ceased to exist in recent decades, yet they continue to produce fabricated temperature data with double-digit precision.”
https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1854437340120310037
Bill,
Simple answer. Satellites are much better than local ground stations for determining average. Only a few very high quality ground stations are needed to check satellite calibrations. It is not a fabrication, it is a calculation with defined methodology. Guess what, the number 17 has double-digit precision; however, 0.0003 only has single digit precision. Your/Mr. Vinos’ definition of precision is imprecise. If you don’t understand how they can be as precise as they are, you don’t understand statistics. And of course, Mr. Vinos’ hand waving just shows either (1) his prejudices and/or (2) that he doesn’t know the difference between fabrication and calculation or the difference between precision and accuracy, and/or (3) it is intentional misrepresentation by omission. Crap like this is why Mr. Vinos can’t publish scientific papers.
Let me rephrase shortly:
The UK Met office is phasing out some of its ground-based temperature stations because satellites provide more comprehensive coverage and accuracy.
Bushwacker: “Guess what, the number 17 has double-digit precision; however, 0.0003 only has single digit precision.”
Nonsensical comment, as the important distinction is that “17” has two significant figures, whereas “0.0003” has four, meaning the latter has been defined much more rigorously. You will never understand a topic like “climate change” at this rate.
GW,
More idiocy from the fatboy shadow person.
https://brilliant.org/wiki/significant-figures-and-precision/
or
https://www.sigfigscalculator.com/articles/significant-figures-rules.php
You ought to check out your claims (if you even understand them) before you make a public fool of yourself.
You will never understand a topic like “climate change”. You repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t have the background or abilities. Oh well, you are pretty good at making up stupid names for yourself and other people – such a great show of intellect.
Who said scientific journals weren’t politicized?
You’ll have to open this to read what Laura Helmuth, editor in chief of Scientific American tweeted, as the monitor will probably not pass it.
https://x.com/MatthewWielicki/status/1854317340030046291
Bill, WTF do her personal opinions about the election have to do with science. And why should I pay attention to someone whose occupation is running a blog site called “IrrationalFear.com” (I think he is projecting).
“Yes, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling.
Even here, at the end, Pachauri fails to grasp that science and religion don’t belong in the same sentence; that those on a political mission are unlikely to be upholders of rigorous scientific practice.” [emphasis in original] ~Journalist Donna Laframboise (24 Feb 2015)
ganon
We expect more out of editors of a well known scientific publication. But then some well known climate scientists turned activists have lowered the bar so much this kind of mindless ranting is becoming the norm. They should at least try to appear they have a little decorum. You know, put on some airs, so they can seem like they value science.
The ’emphasis’ on scientific, not religion.
KId – there was nothing about science in that post. It was about politics, to which we all, even you, are allowed to express our opinions. She expressed hers on her X account, not as an editorial in Scientific American. How’s that dementia doing – having trouble with my real name are ya, Ceresco.
Kid, I would add that you are entitled to your unsupported opinions, but they have no real value coming from a “shadow” person.
Just one quote from Helmuth describes her lack of science:
“…with climate change, you can disagree about what to do about [it], but the science of it is completely, comprehensively proven.”
Like the rest in her false religion, she can’t show how 15µ photons from the sky can warm a 288K surface.
ganon
Get with the program. You can’t be this dense. It’s about appearance. It’s about how those in the field of science conduct themselves. If they want credibility as scientists then all those who engage in the field should be more conscious of the public image they portray. Whether her childish behavior was about science matters not. It reflects badly on the publication and demeans scientists in general.
Did your elementary school teacher have to do remedial work with you. What I said was obvious and self evident.
Mr. KId, What I said was self-evident also. Thanks anyway.
She finally got it. I’m not sure why others can’t.
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1854612895289819251/photo/1
kido,
What is “this dense”? Does that mean, as dense as you? Then no, I can’t be that dense.
“WTF do her personal opinions about the election have to do with science.”
A lot.
Said “personal opinion” is actually a collectivist trait relative to the cultural context presented, it aligns with leftist political science tactical goals, a holistic promotion of collectivist ideology.
Tactical coercion towards desired cultural consensus is required for statist goals. This methodology is also carried forward in applicable hard sciences where it’s useful for leveraging politics–it’s actually stated as an essential componant in IPCC’s bylaws, 50/50 politics and science, building consensus.
Collectivist ideology requires diminishing individualism and replacing it with collectivist traits. One way this manifests itself is by demonizing individualism, associating it with impure cultural character (i.e. racist), while simultaneously advertising approved collectivist thinking as pure. Conservatism in the US is centered on individual freedom–this therefore is racist for the collectivist.
Divisive, politically inspired identity politics is really good at consensus building. “It’s science, therefore it must be right”–Goebbels proved the utility of identity politics–political science.
Now we see she’s backpeddling, it’s a professional necessity.
ganon
You seem especially sensitive and agitated today. Does it have anything to do with events the last couple of days?
I’ve watched dozens of videos of people with TTDS (Terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome) acting out with such hysteria that would make them candidates for institutionalization. Screeching. Shaving off their hair. Screaming at their Trump voting boyfriends and cutting them off for 4 years. One guy who was associated with a university said certain voters should shoot themselves. On and on and on. I see employees of a UK newspaper have been offered therapy because of the trauma caused by the election.
My favorite however is the guy who said he was leaving the US and moving to Hawaii.
Like Clint, kid is a shadow person. I guess some people need that. I’m not really interested in their personal delusions, but I am perfectly happy to correct them when they get the science wrong.
What does her opinions have to do with Science?
The same “top tier Science journal ” that claimed no difference between male and female athletes.
It shows that the activists have allowed far too much of science to be seriously corrupted.
It explains why there is so much distrust of the “science”
Why should the layman trust the science, If the activists are so keen to distort , misrepresent the science.
Why should the layman trust the “science” when so much of the “woke” is easily shown to be wrong, or when peer reviewed studies are academic fraud. Why should the laymen trust the science when activists defend academic fraud, just because its published in Scientific journals.
I’d like to provide further color for how collectivism has not only infected U.S., and global cultures, but also AGW science directly through collectivist ideology.
In an earlier thread “The fatal flaw in Artificial Intelligence: Climate Change?” I provided background support for my view that Hermann Flohn is the father of the global warming movement. I posited that he was the ideological preamble for the AGW movement, ultimately leading to consensus climate science: https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/06/the-fatal-flaw-in-artificial-intelligence-climate-change/#comment-1010768
Time was limited in my earlier post, but there’s more provenance for the how Flohn’s ecofascist collectivism was the central influence leading to global climate activism.
Initially Flohn’s ideas failed in fits and starts to capture attention (there was little science backing global warming, it was merely an unsupported idea), though eventually Flohn’s ideas generated politcal imagination. When leveraged with an international desire for collectivist influence his ideas led to the bureaucratic formation of the IPCC in 1988. Ideology quickly found its cultural influence, strengthened by deep pocketed global government funding under the auspice of finding consensus—politics homoginized with science. IPCC bylaws utilize a 50/50 measure for political and science consensus http://web.archive.org/web/20160304004003/http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
Six years after the IPCC was formed:
“In 1994, Merkel was appointed federal minister of the environment. Her overall ambition was to combat anticipated climate change. She organized the first U.N. conference on climate, COP 1 in Berlin in April 1995. Both Merkel and Helmut Kohl spoke in their introductory statements about carbon dioxide as “climate poison carbon dioxide.”…” The climate issue perfectly suited Merkel, if her aspirations were to change Germany and the world according to ideas developed by Hermann Flohn and Green Socialist ideologists like Bahro, Harich, and Havemann. With her position as a minister in the governing CDU party, she could have much more influence on policy in Germany than as an activist in the Green Party.”
“Merkel fully committed herself to negotiating the Treaty of Kyoto to combat global warming. It implied binding emission limits for Western industrialized countries with no requirements at all for developing countries, such as China and India. She collaborated with Vice President Al Gore about Kyoto, but soon realized that Mr. Gore was mostly out to enrich himself. He lacked ideological conviction. The United States did not, in the end, ratify the Kyoto agreement.”
“Merkel was committed to building an international position for herself, which we would call globalist today. Among the like-minded politicians, she found Tony Blair and the Democratic Party junior senator from Chicago, Barack Obama, who soon would gain a prominent profile in U.S. and world affairs. When Obama proclaimed his presidential candidacy, he was supported by Merkel. On June 24, 2008, Obama addressed 200,000 enthusiastic Germans in the Tiergarten, Berlin. The speech was held at the Siegessaule, a monument to German militarism and revanchism, moved to its present location by Albert Speer. Obama’s speech was broadcast in all the German state media, such as ZDF and ARD. German TV and newspapers cheered over Obama as the “Anti–George Bush.” One paper called him the “New Messiah.” … In Barack Obama, Merkel had found a younger partner sharing her basic views about climate and social values, a man of mostly talk and little substance. Merkel increased the resources for a government-funded network, WBGU (Scientific Council to the Government, for Global Environmental Policy).”
https://www.takimag.com/article/merkels_great_transformation/
The truth is, according to the rules of the scientific method, we are unable to distinguish the climate we see now from the climate we know can be totally explained by natural causes because, it has all happened before. All the rest is conjecture, superstition and ignorance or worse- the will to deceive (a knowing hoax).
Is the West finally ready to stand up to Lenin’s green army of ‘useful idiots’ yet? Will the West finally stand up and give the boot to the secular, socialist Education Industrial Complex that on the taxpayers’ dime preaches nothing but nihilism, self-defeatism and anti-Americanism?
Not quite. “–from the climate we know can be totally explained by natural causes because, –“. Because we do not know completely the explanation for the natural causes.
In my view, modernity has made us -some of us at least, I included- think that the knowledge of our past elders seemed as somewhat based on ignorance. Granted that they could not explain what they observed acutely, but they were not mistaken about the links of their observations to the climate. And that included the effect of the planets and moon, not just what is intrinsic to earth alone.
You miss the point- it is because we do not know completely the ‘explanation for the natural causes,’ that the scientific method is needed to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Your first two lines are precisely my clarification in the earlier comment (2nd+3rd line). So we agree.
It is academic nit-picking (or teasing out the devil in the detail). But it takes out the possibility of one taking the primary comment to mean directly the opposite. That climate “can be totally explained by natural causes because, it has all happened before”.
That is not all. I suspect that some weeks ago torrential floods in one place and a long drought elsewhere both resulted from cloud seeding.
Melitamegalithic.
No, the events that you mentioned were not due to cloud seeding–not enough moisture in clouds to cause torrents of rain.
They were due to Atmospheric rivers, which are always associated with droughts, and higher temperatures
See “The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.2.0323
Burl:
The case I had in mind does not fit in the subject of your paper. Cloud seeding was being practiced.
The point of my mentioning it in earlier post was to point out that we are now past the “all natural” situation. The natural situation that had been accepted for millennia is now disturbed. No one had questioned ‘prayers for rain’ or ‘rain dances’; it was all left to the gods. Now it is different.
Melitamegalithic:
The article addressed the causes of atmospheric rivers (droughts leading to increased evaporation due to cloudless skies, resulting in large increases of moisture in the atmosphere, which is randomly discharged in torrents of rain).
With respect to the earlier flooding in Dubai, cloud seeding is routinely practiced in that area of the world, without excessive precipitation being observed. However, it IS possible that cloud seeding might have been the trigger that caused an atmospheric river to release its torrents of rain, far more than available from normal cloud seeding.
It is well known that the Sun plays the fundamental role as our energy source… To date, the only proxy providing information about the solar variability on millennial time scales are cosmogenic radionuclides stored in natural archives such as ice cores. They clearly reveal that the Sun varies significantly on millennial time scales and most likely plays an important role in climate change. (J. BEER, et al. Solar variability over the past several millennia. 11-Nov-2005))
This is also a point I think ought to be nit-picked. The main variability on millennial timescales is the earth’s axial orientation to the sun. If I recall correctly others have said solar variability is a minor variable in the mix that effects earth’s climate big-time.
What the ice-cores reveal is abrupt change, and appear to follow the millennial Eddy cycle. But ice-cores, like many other proxies, can be quite ambiguous. Ocean sediment reveal abrupt changes at specific millennial times that agree with the ice cores – and other proxies such as ice rafting.
In Climatology, the necessary caveat should be–e.g., “even if we believe long term projections are ‘do-able’ — say, 50 years out — we’ll have to wait 50 years to find out if we are right.” A consensus of like-minded global warming alarmists means nothing.
“A consensus of like-minded global warming alarmists means nothing.” Such consensus can be dangerous if their belief is scientifically wrong, and they are influential where it matters in a society.
In life, planning ahead long-term is essential for survival – as a sentient species. Otherwise, as naked apes, it would have been ‘extinction’ long ago. Getting out of the Dark Ages, man has greatly extended his limitations. With the right knowledge man did so in the more distant past, in the face of great calamities.
There is but a caveat. With the growth in turning the physical laws of nature to advantage, so grow the risks; eg the grid.
‘Climatology’ is only one collateral change factor, of other more potent drivers. There is need of long-term projections. There is evidence of drastic change on millennial time-scale, not just 50 yrs. Scientifically unfounded alarm and knee-jerk reaction, to appear to be doing something (like sacrificing humans to deadbeat gods; it has been done before, as evident in several historical annals) usually is grossly recessive.
True, ‘(t)here is evidence of drastic change on millennial time-scale,’ but… not a need for it. However, in Western academia, there was a need for a prediction of imminent disaster, all caused by modernity in general and America in particular, to scare and control for political purposes, the Greta’s of the world.
Major action can be dangerous and there is no guarantee of success – it should have consensus before it is taken. Science can be wrong, but it is the best system we have for gaining verifiable knowledge. That consensus exists very strongly among climate and related scientists, and there is consensus among scientists in general. The only people that claim consensus isn’t important are people that don’t like the consensus conclusions. The place where consensus is not important is personal opinions.
…to the Aristotle’s, Galileo’s, Einstein’s, da Vinci’s and… Vincent Gray’s of the world, the ‘consensus’ is oftentimes irrelevant to truth.
B A,
“Science can be wrong, but it is the best system we have for gaining verifiable knowledge.”
When science is wrong it is a duty, for those who see the mistakes, to prove it wrong.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.’ (Dr. Vincent Gray)
No, it has never happened before. Previously, humans have never caused a more than 1 K increase in GAST in less than 100 years. The willful ignorance and deflections are pathetic.
From the beginning and up to now, nothing has changed-
‘Thousands of scientists from around the globe who have closely followed the IPCC statements believe that they have grossly exaggerated the influence of CO2 rises on global warming.’ ~William Gray
Excellent posts, Wagathon—the real evidence is on your side.
“Responding to pressure from the U.S. and others, in 1988 WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change… IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body but a unique hybrid. The political representatives, by virtue of the consensus rule, would hold veto power over every word of the summaries that were the essential product for policy-makers. But the scientists, represented by the lead authors of their reports, would also hold an effective veto by virtue of their prestige and unimpeachable expertise. Once a
consensus was forged among all parties, it would not be questioned by any well-constituted and representative political or scientific body.”
http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
Use this link instead:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160304004003/http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
I wonder why the original disappeared?
So what, they are a small minority.
Jungletrunks,
It is still available from the source, although the source is not secure:
http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
It appears to be a manuscript that was never published – note that there is volume/issue information in the lower right
I’m not really interested in unpublished material referenced by shadow people. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
I actually agree with you on one point, Polly, in the grand scheme of things the IPCC is a small minority; yet they represent the outsized confirmation bias of world views. They represent YOUR activist bias for climate science. You’ve already stated that you’re an activist, science is antithetical to activism, you should know that.
Your dismissal of the politics behind AGW tells us that you’re willfully deaf for someone claiming to be a “science guy”. Most CE denizens have always seen through who you really are, which is why you catch so much grief–you represent activism first, science veracity 2nd, you’re a digrace to science.
BTW, you should know what citations are, being a “scientist”, the essay is well referenced. It’s a short history of the IPCC, not a science paper. You make no sense.
Diapers,
Are you really that dense, or is intentional misrepresentation just built in to your psyche?
The minority referred to is the scientists that are skeptical of the IPCC position (without much evidence) and what you stated. I suppose you think you are clever or funny, but shadow people tend think some very strange things. Keep working on those archived references to unpublished manuscripts.
William Gray has been dead for over 8 years. Is that what you mean by “up to now”?
Lol: “The minority referred to is the scientists that are skeptical of the IPCC position”
Poor Polly, the irony here is that the paper celebrates consensus! It’s om yoyr side! It affirms the belief that international, consensus driven bodies is best practice! YES! Poor thing. Your fraud grows with your every post.
The paper is an accurate representation about how the IPCC works, and its history.
Polly, the paper unwittingly is a celebration of the IPCC, and consensus science in general. The paper has nothing to do with skeptics. Now do you comprehend?
We get your idea about good scientific practice: it’s policians and scientists coming together to find consensus; majority rules, done. Strong arm it through the press from there.
Green Energy policy disables entire, vibrant country.
High energy costs and an uncertain transition to cleaner fuels have been a key driver behind Germany’s exodus of industrial giants in recent years. The ruling coalition’s sudden dissolution and looming snap election will only compound the problem.
The government led by Social Democrats, Greens and Liberal Democrats — forged in the early days of the energy crisis — once found unlikely common ground in its response to soaring gas and power costs and defense spending. But Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the burden posed by high energy prices was among key areas that led to the coalition’s falling apart, with hawkish finance minister Christian Lindner opposing relief for grid fees and pushing to delay the country’s climate goals.
Here’s another paper from Demetris:
Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the
greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?
“A notable feature of the current period is that the classical value of science as the pursuit of the truth, independently of other interests, is gradually being abandoned (Koutsoyiannis and
Mamassis, 2021). People pride themselves on being scientists and activists at the same time (Koutsoyiannis, 2020b), while calls for political actions to “save the planet”, including enhanced
global governance, are published even in scientific journals (e.g. Biermann et al., 2012). While common perception promotes the idea of science-based policies and politics, the reality is the
exact opposite, i.e., politics-based science. For it is self-evident that by mixing science and politics the end product is politics. A relevant example is provided by the high-profile journal Nature,
which declares that it is “committed to supporting the research enterprise”1, but admits being involved in politics and proclaims that this is the right thing (Howe, 2020; Nature Editorial, 2023), even though it is recognized that this affects scientific credibility and causes loss of confidence in science (Lupia, 2023; Zhang, 2023). Another relevant example is the campaign of a famous
learned society, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), related to the USA 2024 election.2”
https://t.co/o8vlUc2NwF
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202404.0309/v1
Thanks for the link, Bill.
Demetris nails it, contemporary science has lost its moorings, at least within certain disciplines.
Climate science is perhaps the poster child for what happens when politics leads science, what can possibly go wrong? Once money and power are on the table veracity will absolutely be a casualty.
Here is another paper on the subject from Richard P. Allan, a real climate scientist, rather than retired engineers.
“Global Changes in Water Vapor 1979–2020”, Allan, R. P., Willett, K. M., John, V. O., & Trent, T. (2022). Global changes in water vapor 1979–2020. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127, e2022JD036728
I wonder why the engineers, (Dan and Demetris) don’t bother to reference this. Actually I don’t wonder: part of the scientific method is researching, understanding, and acknowledging prior work in the field. Apparently, engineers don’t think this applies to them.
I find scientific societies, which sponsor searches for knowledge and truth (as best as can be determined), need to take a political position against politicians who lie pathologically and try to suppress scientific knowledge and research.
Sure, Polly, you can’t wonder, but you do wander into line as flockers do.
Once it’s written, it’s the word. That’s how religion works.
Trunky,
That all you got? Dumber than a sack of rocks.
Yea Polly, birdbrains fixate on their precious seed, you’ve got nothing–such is what defines the birdbrain.
Trunky,
But I understand – you are trying to protect and validate your pseudo-scientists. Unfortunately, all you can come up with is made-up names, insults, and trying to project the characteristics of your religion onto science.
The way it works is, once it is written, it is open to criticism. But that’s OK, you are just one of ignorant shadow people.
Very good, Polly, you’ve described parroting. That’s what you’re best at.
Very good, trunky, you demonstrate what you are good at: making up names and insults; science and logic not so much.
nlm
Bill, Demetris’ opening words in his abstract: “Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model … “. Unfortunately he never mentions collisional deactivation processes, which dominate CO2 warming of the lower troposphere. Explains why he had to publish it where he did (preaching to the choir). Thanks for the link.
As Polly has stated, relative to being “open to criticism”, this is what Demetris aspires to isn’t it?
That there’s no politics in science, flockers don’t flock, this is nonsensical to Polly. Gee, it’s like the tail is wagging the dog.
Diapers,
Aspires, but doesn’t succeed.
Yet diapers do succeed in capturing crap, Polly, you deliver crap.
I think of Diapers as being full of crap. Certainly devoid of science.
Very good, Polly. Yes, full of crap That’s captured for what it is. Keep woking on your crap thesis, Polly.
My thesis is that Jungletrunks in full of crap, no science, no intellect, only insults and name-calling. Thanks for helping by providing evidence.
Amd thanks for your eviden6ce, Polly, I’m sure it can be found in a diaper.
Diapers,
And thanks for all the scientific evidence you have provided, but you have to know about and understand evidence, before you can present. I do appreciate all the evidence for a defective psyche. I look forward to more evidence of your psychological deficiencies – keep it up, I’m not going to stop. I do enjoy you rolling everyone else’s comments off the bottom of page with your inane and irrelevant remarks. Thanks for that.
But yet,
the CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere. CO2 is so infinitesimal content makes plants starving.
The natural processes slowly remove CO2 from atmosphere. There were less and less CO2 for plants – it was heading to an eventual ecological catastrophe.
Volcanism emissions weakened, so plants were only recycling the already available atmospheric CO2.
But yet, some of it continuosly was sequestered in coal, nat. gas and oil sediments. And in various minerals too.
The industrialization based on fossil fuels burning came just in time. It came just in time to save life on planet from an otherwise inevitable ecological catastrophe.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
High wholesale electricity costs costs due to renewables have run industries out of Germany. The US should learn a lesson from that.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-07/germany-s-looming-snap-vote-throws-wrench-into-energy-goals
Always looking for a scapegoat jim2… so its renewable energy that is killing our industries?
The Chinese are crushing western corny capitalism not because of energy costs. It’s because they make better products cheaper and lead the world in patents.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/china-is-the-largest-contributor-to-global-patent-applications-substantially-ahead-of-other-countries
This is why US cannot stop the rise of China
https://youtu.be/uyk3zQ_WAL8
Sorry, Jack. You are thrown out at first base. The Chinese have cheap labor and government subsidized industry.
Jimmy,
We’re not playing baseball. Your deflections don’t refute Jack’s comment. Maybe you shouldn’t pucker up so much when people respond to your selected news clipping service.
BAB – Jim2 statement is factually correct.
Joe K
What did the article jim2 commented on actually say? It’s paywalled and he didn’t actually quote anything.
I always try to provide open access links and direct quotes when I comment.
Did you look at my links? I thought the 2nd. link to the interview with Professor Kishore Mahbubani was enlightening.
Joe K,
No. His first statement was incorrect.
On top of cheap labor and government owned businesses, China has one of the dirtiest environments on the planet. Heavy metals and other chemicals on the ground and in water ways. Real pollution. Not CO2 or PPT inert ones.
Jim is correct, German energy prices are among the highest in the EU.
The German government has collapsed. “There are a number of reasons for Germany’s economic stagnation. The country’s energy-intensive businesses have suffered from the lingering impact of the energy crisis sparked by Russia’s war in Ukraine. Germany’s problems are also structural, ranging from high labor costs, a rapidly aging population and red tape to outdated physical and digital infrastructure.”
B A Bushaw | November 9, 2024 at 6:44 pm |
Joe K,
No. His first statement was incorrect.
Baby – As usual your response is pathetic. Jim’s first statement was simply an analogy. He substantive statement is correct. That is the statement you chose to dispute the first time. You then deflect which hightlights your repetitive dishonesty
Jack – Jim was responding to your statement on China
jim2 | November 9, 2024 at 2:48 pm |
Sorry, Jack. You are thrown out at first base. The Chinese have cheap labor and government subsidized industry.
Jim’s statement in response to your comment on China and the lower cost of labor (much lower in many cases) is correct.
Like many instrialized countries, industy is moving to lower cost regions of the world. Germany has very expensive labor costs and over the last several years are experiencing much higher energy costs.
Germany’s normally stable government has collapsed.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/07/europe/germany-government-collapse-explainer-intl/index.html
Jim is correct, a big reason for this collapse is deindustrialization, hardships brought to its citizens because of sky-high energy prices—among the highest in Europe.
Diaper BAB, presenting the politically correct boilerplate, wrong as usual.
https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/
Diapers, by definition the shadow people have nothing important to say. Thanks anyway. But, I am glad to see you can post news clipping references, now try some science.
Polly, per usual, spiteful as the child he parrots.
Diapers, as per usual, full of crap.
Yes, even though out of office, quite literally blame this on Merkel.
Water vapor self-regulates based on temperature, and availability of condensed water for evaporation and evapotranspiration. Non-condensing GHGs. Do not have self-regulating phase changes.
No, the cost of natural gas is what drives electricity costs. Renewables reduce that dependence:
“The price of electricity is partially dependent on the various energy sources used for generation, such as coal, gas, oil, renewable energy, or nuclear. In the U.S., electricity prices are highly connected to natural gas prices. As the commodity is exposed to international markets that pay a higher rate, U.S. prices are also expected to rise, as it has been witnessed during the energy crisis in 2022. Electricity demand is also expected to increase, especially in regions that will likely require more heating or cooling as climate change impacts progress, driving up electricity prices.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201714/growth-in-us-residential-electricity-prices-since-2000/
Earthern atmosphere is the two gasses N2 ~79% and O2 ~21% thin mixture.
The air at the sea level is dence enough for us to breath and for birds to fly.
The more up you go the thinner the air, and the colder the air.
There is not any +33 C greenhouse warming from air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I love your quantitation “~”. You can find the real composition of the atmosphere in hundreds of places, e.g:
https://earthhow.com/earth-atmosphere-composition
CO2 is the 4th most abundant non-condensing gas (NCG, not regulated by temperature and phase changes) in the atmosphere. It is the most abundant NCG that is infrared active, and is not classified as trace gas. As you have been told many times(with references), the atmosphere is optically thick for broad absorption by CO2’s IR active bending mode.
Creative thought is a wonderful thing; not bothering checking it against existing knowledge is not. Perhaps a little more study of science, instead of dreaming about inventing new hypotheses, that might make you famous, would be in order.
“According to education site Vision Learning Earth’s atmosphere is composed of approximately 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.93 percent Argon, 0.04 percent carbon dioxide as well as trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton, ozone and hydrogen, as well as water vapor. as well as trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton, ozone and hydrogen, as well as water vapor.
Earth’s atmosphere: Facts about our planet’s protective blanket…”
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
0.04 percent carbon dioxide – 1 molecule to 2500 molecules is not a trace gas?
But you do you agree earthern atmosphere is a thin atmosphere, don’t you?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Great that you can look up what I’ve already referenced for you, and then regurgitate it – gold star for you.
No, I don’t consider it a trace, which is non-quantitative. I consider it to be about 0.425 +/- 0.005 pptv.
As for thin atmosphere: No, it extends at least 1000 km above the Earth’s surface and can be detected beyond the moon. It has a column weight of 1.06 Kg/cm^2, equivalent to 135 cm of iron or 10.06 meters of water. That is plenty of thickness for physical interactions to occur – the ones that you choose to ignore.
Most important, CO2 makes it optically “thick” (opaque) in a large fraction of the H2O FIR absorption window. If you don’t understand this, I don’t think I can help further, except maybe suggesting some ESL classes and reading a lot of physical science textbooks.
thin – having a small distance between two opposite sides.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Thin, isn’t it the opposite of thick, is it?
What is thick then? Is air thick or not?
What to replace the ‘thin air’ with then? Because you know what I meant – with ‘rare’ air maybe?
What they mean in English, when saying ‘in thin air’?
A thin glass in common window, why it is opaque to infrared?
A thinniest slice of iron, why it is opaque to visible light?
Questions… “~”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, In science, thick and thin refer a physical dimension between two surfaces. Formally the atmosphere only has one side, and hence is formally infinitely thick. For climatic purposes,”top-of-the atmosphere” is taken to be 100 km.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7373/the-top-of-the-atmosphere
Popular usage sometimes means viscosity, but I think you are trying to make “thin” refer to the inability of an atmosphere to have significant physical interactions; such as interacting with electromagnetic radiation as various frequencies, the ability to have convective heat fluxes, pressure gradient – Coriolis force driven circulation, physical interaction with the ocean to drive surface currents and more convective heat fluxes, formation of clouds, etc. I assume that by “thin” you mean that you think these are not significant processes in earth’s atmosphere and energy. I think what you are trying to say is “I have dismissed the importance of earth’s atmospheric process as an approximation by incorrectly calling it thin.” I don’t have a single-word to replace it with, so how about “atmospheric effects and convective heat-fluxes are not included in this derivation”. Be up front and don’t try gloss over it with an undefined (an incorrect) quantity.
In English “[vanishing or appearing out of] thin air” is an idiom for “In a very sudden and mysterious way” and has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
Q: “A thin glass in common window, why it is opaque to infrared?”
A:amorphous lattice vibrations.
Q; A thinniest slice of iron, why it is opaque to visible light?
A: Because it is a metal.
Q: “~”
A: approximately, or about. Sometimes used to “fudge” numbers that are more precisely know, so that they add up to what you want.
Thank you, B A.
All questions answered, and they are answered well. I’ll read the answers again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, B A.
““atmospheric effects and convective heat-fluxes are not included in this derivation””.
They are not included because they are not present in the Planet Effective Temperature (Te) definition.
“Be up front and don’t try gloss over it with an undefined (an incorrect) quantity.”
–
What “undefined (an incorrect) quantity.” ? Everything in the New Equation is double-checked for.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“What “undefined (an incorrect) quantity.” ? Everything in the New Equation is double-checked for.”
“thin” is not a defined quantity and is incorrect, as has been explained to you. Atmosphere, convective and advective heat fluxes (ocean and atmosphere) are not included in your treatment. So, did you double-check them, or double-check to make sure you left them out? Also for double-checking, I once asked for a units check on your equations – I’m still waiting. Double-checking includes more that equations, it also should include a detailed check on physical causality.
It is pretty simple: Your “new” equation is not applicable to celestial bodies that have atmospheres with sufficient mass and chemical species to interact with the radiative fluxes (in and out). Also, you do not considered that earth has fluids (air and water) covering the surface, which move heat convectively and advectively, while you only consider heat conduction in condensed matter. And thus, any quantitative results you obtain for earth are actually for a mythical planet that does not exist, and you should make that explicitly clear.
Christos,
“They are not included because they are not present in the Planet Effective Temperature (Te) definition.”
And thus, your Te definition and equation do not apply to planets with liquid surfaces and interacting atmospheres (e.g., earth) and your derivation is hardly “universal”.
What my “Te definition” ?
Doesn’t the alleged Earth’s Te = 255K lead to the non-existant
288K – 255K = 33C total atmospheric greenhouse effect?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Looks like we are winning already! From the article.
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said Friday that she proposed to President-elect Donald Trump the idea that the U.S. could supply more natural gas to Europe to decrease the bloc’s reliance on Russia, according to Barron’s.
The EU chief said the topic of tapping U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) could also be discussed in relation to the EU’s trade deficit with the U.S., Barron’s reported, citing AFP News. Von der Leyen also said it was “very important” that Brussels engaged around “common interests” with the president-elect.
SOURCE:dailycaller.com/2024/11/08/ursula-von-der-leyen-trump-gas-us-russia/
I’m new here but already know who the biggest troll is. Bushaw comments much more than anyone else, yet offers NO science. He resorts only to his troll tactics.
It’s important for us to remember some definitions of science:
–knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
–such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
–a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
–the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Notice words like: Knowledge, Truths, and Laws. Notice also there is no mention of consensus, opinions, or beliefs.
Bushaw can’t support his false beliefs because he’s ignorant of the relevant science.
I’m new here but already know who the biggest abuser is. Bushaw comments much more than anyone else, yet offers NO science. He resorts to nothing but his childish tactics.
It’s important for us to remember some definitions of science:
–knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
–such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
–a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
–the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Notice words like: Knowledge, Truths, and Laws. Notice also there is no mention of consensus, opinions, or beliefs.
Bushaw can’t support his false beliefs because he’s ignorant of the relevant science.
Clint … Agreed about consensus, opinions and beliefs. That’s why, for me, it’s important that scientists publish papers that come at climate science from a different angle. A good example is Demetris’ paper I posted above. More papers, more discussion, more doubt. That’s how we combat consensus, opinions and beliefs.
“The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science”, April 2013 Nature Climate Change 3(4):399-404
Of course, many here don’t want the public acceptance of science. Without it, nothing will be done about the problems revealed – You must want that too.
Too bad, there is a very clear consensus; scientists understand its importance, and undereducated shadow people don’t. Nor, as noted, do their unsupported opinions have any value.
I post here so much because I respond to responses to my comments.
Bill, There is a difference between “beliefs” and “belief in evidence”. Unsupported and unfounded “religious”-type beliefs have no value in science.
R: Insult all you want, it just shows your ignorance, insecurity, and education level.
Bill, I especially enjoyed his comment: “For it is self-evident that by mixing science and politics the end product is politics.”
How true.
That’s why it’s so important to keep the issue focused on basic physics — CO2’s 15µ photons can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface.
ganon
“ Too bad, there is a very clear consensus; scientists understand its importance, and undereducated shadow people don’t.”
One of the great mysteries of the universe is how a top notch, whiz bang scientist such as yourself has become hosed so badly. Consensus is irrelevant. This is not a vote for homecoming queen. Popularity contests have no place in science.
No one knows precisely how much it has warmed since 1850. No one knows, in the traditional epistemological sense, how much of the warming, even in the last few decades, is because of CO2. It’s all conjecture. Ask 100 climate scientists and you will get 100 different answers.
There are plausible explanations for the warming without any impact from CO2. I don’t subscribe to that view but it is possible. No one knows. Well, let’s modify that a little. No one, except for those whose judgment has become so clouded by hubris that they can’t see straight. They know.
Kid, and all other unknown shadow people:
Sorry, I’m no longer interested in unsupported personal opinions from the shadow people – they tend to be much more insults and name-calling rather than competent science. It is simply not worth my time. I’m not terribly interested in the “Etc.” part of this blog, I am interested in hearing the contrarian view – e.g., the wildly varying hypotheses on why CO2 can’t be responsible for global warming. Is it water vapor? Is it sulfate aerosols, is it that Milankovitch got the effect of his orbital cycles backwards? Or, maybe it is just well established GHE/AGW theory?. Which of these focalized hypothesis is correct in claiming that their view explains 100% of global warming?
cerescokid says: “No one knows, in the traditional epistemological sense, how much of the warming, even in the last few decades, is because of CO2. It’s all conjecture.”
Exactly! In fact, the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation is at the heart of the nonsense. It’s a completely made up equation with no basis in science. CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.
R:
The basis in science is the Beer-Lambert Law.
CO2 goes both ways, it both leads and follows temperature. It depends on whether it is feedback, e.g., orbital changes which cause radiative warming release CO2 from reservoirs: ocean and frozen soils. Or, it can be a forcing, e.g., volcanic activity or release from melting ice fields, or human activities adding NEW CO2 to the climate system. As a forcing it can induce feedbacks that cause more warming, e.g., temperature mediated increase in atmospheric water vapor, or release of CH4 from frozen tundra and decomposition of methane clathrates in deep, cold oceans (yes the extra heat is getting there too).
Way wrong Bushaw. Beer-Lambert is concerned with transmission of light through a gas. It has NOTHING to do with the bogus nonsense that adding more CO2 adds more radiative flux.
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the science.
Thanks, shadow person. Did you have to look those up?
The government could burn through billions more dollars on filing cabinets full of worthless junk science but the real harm done by global warming fearmongering is cutting GDP growth and that amounts to tillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost, and futures of the next generation destroyed, and poorer nations being deprived of the benefits of modernity; and, that KILLS.
“The warmer temperature in a greenhouse occurs because incident solar radiation passes through the transparent roof and walls and is absorbed by the floor, earth, and contents, which become warmer. These in turn warm up the surrounding air within the greenhouse. As the structure is not open to the atmosphere, the warmed air cannot escape via convection due to the presence of roof and walls, so the temperature inside the greenhouse rises.”/i>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse
“The incident solar radiation passes through the transparent roof and walls…”
Use of the analogy of a greenhouse with respect to global warming alarmism is not objective at all. What such purposefully inept analogizing really means is obvious too: it’s Western society’s excuse for avoiding reality. What it really shows is that fear by an ever-growing secular, socialist society of global warming is a mask to hide its fear of individualism and a determined effort to limit the freedom of others through the control of factors of production such as energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse
“The incident solar radiation passes through the transparent roof and walls…”
“…so the temperature inside the greenhouse rises.”
It doesn’t mention that the transparent roof and walls are not transparent for the outgoing from greenhouse the IR EM energy.
So the IR EM energy doesn’t go through the roof and walls out.
The outgoing from greenhouse the IR EM energy is partly reflected back in, and it is partly absorbed in the (transparent for the incident SW EM energy) roof and walls.
So, the absorbed by transparent the roof and walls energy warms the roof and walls, and, from roof and walls, this energy is then the IR emitted EM energy in both directions – towards the inside of greenhouse and towards the outside of greenhouse.
That’s right, The IR out is absorbed in the glass roof and walls. This heats the glass which then re-emits the energy from both surfaces. Only (less than) half the IR-out generated by material within the GH escapes. “Less than” because the inner surface of the glass is warmer (convection and absorption) than the outer surface. It is actually a pretty good analogy if one understands the physical causality for the greenhouse effect.
Thank you, B A.
A portion of the SW incident on transparent roof and walls EM energy gets reflected from the outside surface, so not the entire SW incident on transparent roof and walls EM energy goes through and in the greenhouse.
The greenhouse, during the solar lit hours, gradually warms up – and, it happens so – the greenhouse warms up regardless that not the entire SW incident on transparent roof and walls EM energy goes through.
And, when the sun goes, the land inside the greenhouse, because it has retained heat, the land continues kept warm for hours in the night.
The adjoining out of the greenhouse free land area also reflects some portion of the same SW incident on transparent roof and walls EM energy.
This free land area doesn’t retain as much heat as the inside of greenhouse land.
And as soon as sun goes, the outside land is not warm, because it has not accumulated much heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That is correct. The important fact is that less than 1/2 the outgoing IR from the soil does not make it out of the greenhouse, as I have already explained. I hope you understand the implications of that.
Glad you brought up the day – night differences. Nights are getting warmer faster than daily averages – less IR energy is getting out.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/why-nighttime-heat-can-be-so-dangerous-and-why-its-getting-worse/1551868
Thank you B A.
“Nights are getting warmer faster than daily averages – less IR energy is getting out.”
Please, can you be more specific. I was describing the glass covered greenhouse…
I meant in the greenhouse soil retains heat. But outside the greenhouse soil retains much-much less heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The air in the glass greenhouse. When the door is open, it lets in the colder outside air, which cools the interior.
–
A glass greenhouse on the airless moon. The soil will be much-much warmer in the greenhouse, regardless of some portion of the incident SW EM energy from the glass-cover reflection.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The air in the glass greenhouse. When the door is open, it lets in the colder outside air, which cools the interior.”
Yes, so what?
–
A glass greenhouse on the airless moon. The soil will be much-much warmer in the greenhouse, regardless of some portion of the incident SW EM energy from the glass-cover reflection.”
Christos – I was talking about the greenhouse or the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter. The atmospheric column weight of CO2 is ~ 0.7g/cm^2. And if it all condensed to a compact solid it would cover the earth with a thickness of ~ 5 mm, about the same as greenhouse glass. Sorry you don’t get it.
B A, thank you. it is very important… and very interesting. I got out of bed (it is 1 AM in Greece right now) back to laptop, to see your response.
“if it all condensed to a compact solid it would cover the earth with a thickness of ~ 5 mm, about the same as greenhouse glass. Sorry you don’t get it.”
I have thought about the same, but somehow it seems to me different. EM energy is not a flow of rays.
So EM energy interaction with a continuous solid surface should be different than with the separately scattered atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules interact with EM energy, but the continous surface is much more effective.
An analogy may be the miriads of stars and galaxies scattered everywhere around our solar system. But yet, they do not interact with the our sun’s the solar EM energy as a continous solid surface, because otherwise we would be evaporized from the tremendous greenhouse effect they would create.
Also, all of them galaxies emit EM energy, yet their energy doesn’t burn us with its combined power.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, as a solid it would behave as a solid and the spectroscopy would be quite different. My point is there is enough there in the atmospheric column to be optically dense within the 15 um region of the H2O (non) absorption windows.
Christos:
“A glass greenhouse on the airless moon. The soil will be much-much warmer in the greenhouse, regardless of some portion of the incident SW EM energy from the glass-cover reflection. ”
Yes, On the moon, the EM from the soil surface is normally emitted into a near vacuum. Inside the moon greenhouse, that EM is absorbed in the glass panes, with more than half of the energy re-emitted back into the greenhouse, where it can be reabsorbed by the soil.
Wags:
Yes, it is only the analogy that is objective. Alarmism, conspiracy theories, and politics are not.
Climatists’ greenhouse analogy is about as objective as leaving your poodle in the backseat of a locked up ’55 Ford on a sunny day with the windows rolled up and thinking all will be fine because it’s rather cool out.
The EM energy interaction process – instead of the simplified reflection + heat absorption – the EM energy interaction process leads to a New, a complitely different the Planetary Surface Radiative Balance CONCEPT.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wags, it appears that you are the one with objective/relevanancy problems. Idiocy tends to be reflexive.
Although reality paints a different picture Western academics cheat and even abandon the scientific method when it comes to describing reality, it is also true that many simply believe what they want to believe, without facts and despite alternative explanations and evidence to the contrary, which pretty much explains belief in global warming, i.e., it has become a religion.
Interesting China thread …
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1012017
Only slightly off topic because this is also about the survivability about our civilization. Toughen up buttercup.
https://detroitnews-mi.newsmemory.com/?publink=171bfb2cc_134d4fa
How has the population growth curve looking.
I guess AGW only effects snowflakes.
There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world. ~Koutsoyiannis
…given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. (Ibid.)
… they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades. (Ibid.)
How could we reject a hypothetical model (e.g. one in which the climate sensitivity is very small), according to which the entire observed (past) variability is ‘internally generated natural variability’, while the response to change in external forces is negligible? (Ibid.)
Clint:
Beer Lambert (A = ecl) does not deal directly with transmission; but transmission can be derived the definition of A = -log(T).
However, in terms of transmission (if that is more comfortable).
T= I/I₀, I ≤ I₀
I(am) = I₀ – I, is the intensity absorbed within the medium.
The -log(T) term is what describes the logarithmic (sublinear) response of the amount absorbed with increasing concentration or path length (or both). Ratios of different concentrations at different times (e.g. 2x preindustrial).
For your reading pleasure:
“Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
Wrong again, Bushaw. Beer-Lambert is concerned with transmission of light through a gas. It has NOTHING to do with the bogus nonsense that adding more CO2 adds more radiative flux.
And your link makes my point for me. The very first sentence of the intro: “It is well known that the radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration, producing about 4 Wm−2 of additional global-mean forcing for every doubling.”
It is only “well known” in your false religion. There is NO viable support for the bogus CO2 equation. Energy does not magically appear.
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the science.
What will you try next?
Repetition aids learning:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1012142
Bright boy strikes again
“Energy does not magically appear.”
Of course not, it comes from fusion in the core of the sun.
The real question, which you clearly do not understand, and from which you try to make desperate deflections (e.g. my level of understanding – LOL), the question (1st step of the scientific method):
How does earth’s atmosphere affect the amount of the sun’s energy retained by the earth?
What’s your hypothesis (2nd step)?
Clint, I already know your falsehoods. You are the one that seems to need to repeat them (hint: repetition does not make a falsehood true.) Where is your evidence for all your silly rejections? It can be assumed that you don’t have any. Claiming an understanding of freshman physics, that you clearly do not have, is not evidence.
Beer Lambert deals with absorption just as much as transmission. You sir, are undereducated, and I grow tired of your illusory superiority. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments – they demonstrate your ignorance and limited education, and your anger at being called on it, just confirms it.
https://scienceinfo.com/beer-lambert-law-statement/
Natural gas is the only economically feasible grid backup to renewables. From the article …
Drax Group Plc pushed back the start of three new gas-fired power stations to next year because of delays in getting the units connected to the grid.
As demonstrated during last week’s power squeeze in Europe, gas-fired plants that can start up quickly are still very much needed even though the region is pursuing aggressive targets to decarbonize by using more renewables.
The three plants with a total capacity of about 1 gigawatt are located in South Wales, Suffolk and Bedfordshire. Drax had previously stated that the facilities would start this quarter. All three will now be commissioned in 2025, a spokesman said by email.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-11/drax-delays-new-uk-gas-fired-power-plants-amid-grid-congestion
SOURCE link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-11/drax-delays-new-uk-gas-fired-power-plants-amid-grid-congestion
Don’t miss this interesting thread on China …
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1012017
Casual reader- why is this BA Bush guy such a jerk?
Tough to read his comments and not feel like he must be some liberal professor getting paid big bucks to push agenda
I mean no offense – for all I know he’s just a regular scientist from Sweden – but being a jerk just to be one is not a great way to get your point across
Good observation – He may or may not know the actual “climate science”. However, when he ventures into topics related to climate science, such as renewables, engineering, economics, subsidies, attribution studies, he displays a very distorted and delusional understanding of the subject matter.
Yes, I understand climate science and the underlying physics. One can’t understand the impacts on related topics if you don’t. However, I freely admit that I don’t pay a lot of attention to those “related topics”; that’s why generally I provide references rather than make statements in regard to those.
Joey, No he wasn’t polite. He called me a jerk, misspelled my name, and made presumptions about what I am without knowing hardly anything about me. I tried to fix that, if he bothers to look.
I’ll try to make it clear. I’m a jerk because you, Myley, and most of the rest of the shadow people are jerks. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read my posts.
BaB – Quit acting like an immature baby.
Bottom line is you started the jerkish name calling and insults in almost every case.
While you may or may not be correct on the science – you are almost always wrong ( or greatly distorting the facts) on the Peripheral subjects. Your frequent errors on the peripheral subjects calls into question any actual compentcy you may have.
Thanks Joe, the more you reveal yourself, the better.
“Bottom line is you started the jerkish name calling and insults in almost every case.”
Can you please provide evidence for that, particularly the “in almost every case” part. Otherwise, I’ll just take it as a false accusation and ignore it.
Myley,
I am such a jerk, because of the way a lot of the jerks here think that insults and name-calling are appropriate responses to scientific information. E.g., if Jungletrunks calls me Polly because he thinks my scientific comments are “parroting” the consensus view, then I have no problem calling him Diapers because I think he is full of crap. And if Jim2 calls me BABy, I have no problem calling him Jimmy. As for you, Myley, if you misspell my name and call me a jerk, with apparently not knowing anything about me, then you too, are just another jerk among the shadow people.
What Myley “feels” does not matter if it is wrong. I have never been a professor, I am not paid by anyone, I am retired and self-sufficient. And, he has not read very much here, even in this post subject page, if he doesn’t know me from a regular scientist in Sweden.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1012153
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/B-A-Bushaw-8748013
I’m not really interested in getting points across anymore, those suffering from willful ignorance will not accept them no matter what detailed explanations and references are given, no matter how polite I am. I just feel a scientific obligation to correct false statements. Like all others, you are free to ignore what I have to say, but it does crack me up how some of you get so upset when confronted with scientifically accepted “facts” that you can’t disprove.
B A Bushaw | November 11, 2024 at 11:37 am | Reply
Myley,
I am such a jerk, because of the way a lot of the jerks here think that insults and name-calling are appropriate responses to scientific information.
Myles – worth noting that Bab’s first response to you was to insult you even though you were very polite in you comment. It has been Bab sop to initiate the insults with every commentator.
BA:
You maintain that you feel an obligation to correct false statements, but when confronted with the possibility that many of them may be wrong, you just say “I don’t believe it” and fail to refute the offered proof.
Again, “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Burl,
You do not make a proof – in science, you make a hypothesis and provide evidence for it. But, I have already refuted the hypothesis, disproving it simply by looking at ΔT/ΔS, where S represents annual anthropogenic SO2 emissions; comparing the rising 30 years before S peaked (1950-1980) and the declining 30 years (1980-2010), which are relatively symmetric. The ΔT/ΔS ratio changes sign; I hope you know what that means. I’d be glad to repost the graphical disproof if you can’t find the link I already gave.
I’m glad you got another chance to promo your paper. As before, I urge everyone to read it and make their own evaluations.
BA:
In NO way have you disproved what you call my “hypothesis”.
It is a FACT that after industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked circa 1980, temperatures began to rise because of “Clean Air”legislation directed toward reducing the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere.
It is a FACT that reductions in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution will increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
It is a FACT that increased intensity of solar radiation will cause more surface warming.
It is also a FACT that this inevitable warming is totally ignored, and instead is mistakenly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your inability to understand the above simple FACTS proves that you are completely incompetent when it comes to discussing climate-related issues!
Burl,
I don’t care. I disproved your hypothesis with facts (publicly available data) and simple arithmetic. I do not have to disprove your facts, such as they are. Your denial is understandable on psychological grounds, but not on scientific and math grounds.
If is quite simple: Your hypothesis, that reduction in SO2 emissions is responsible for ALL current warming and therefore CO2 can’t cause any warming, is unproven and false, for lack of evidence, lack of quantitation, and it has been formally disproved.
Again, as said: I urge folks to read Burl’s paper. I’d add, perhaps let Burl know what you think of it. It would be hearing other contrarian’s opinions of Burl’s hypothesis.
BA:
What nonsense!
You are basically saying that decreasing levels of atmospheric S02 aerosol pollution will NOT cause temperatures to rise, but, instead, that all of the current warming is due to rising levels of CO2. in the atmosphere.
Historically, all of the prior warming periods, such as the Roman and Medieval warming periods were due to to very few volcanic eruptions, so that their atmospheres were essentially free of dimming SO2 aerosols.
Due to on-going “Clean Air” and “Net-Zero” efforts, we are decreasing atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, causing temperatures to rise, as then, and the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!!
Burl, I’m not really interested in your repetitious denials, Nonetheless: Your facts and handwaving are not quantitative, and do not address what fraction of warming is caused by decrease in anthropogenic SO2 emissions. “All” is not believable from the get-go. There are many papers that put it between 10 – 30%. You have not referenced or refuted those (that is either ignorance or dishonesty). Your papers are not science, they are pseudo-scientific opinions that have not been properly researched or referenced, by scientific standards.
Funny thing about proofs and disproofs of hypotheses. To prove one, you must account for every possible instance, which is generally not possible in the real universe. However, to disprove a hypothesis, one only needs to demonstrate that a single instance is false. I have done that, and need do no more.
Ta Ta
PS ~ what kind of engineer were you at IBM.
About a year ago, I had asked you why you believed that CO2 causes global warming. I can’t find your reply, but as I recall you said that it was because of the coincidence between the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the concurrent rise in temperatures.
Is that still your belief, and why?
Burl, the “nonsense” is yours. I freely admit that reduction in anthropogenic SO2 emissions results in relative warming (as a result of less reflective cooling). What I deny is that it is responsible for all recent warming, as you claim to have proven.
Further, based on literature that you do not reference, I claim that A-SO2″ warming is under 1/3 of current total warming, and that is only getting smaller as SO2 concentrations decrease and CO2 increases.
Not only is it not possible for your hypothesis to be proven, it has been disproven. Sorry, you don’t understand.
Burl,
There is a reason you can’t find it. I never said it, and it is not my belief.
My belief is in the physical causality explanation that has been developed over 200 years of investigations by physical scientists, and not the hypothesis of a retired engineer with unspecified field. I find the correlation of GAST and SSAT with CO2e as supporting evidence for the accepted physical causality.
Also I find the lack of temperature correlation for SO2 with temperature (1950-1980 vs 1980-2010) to be dispositive of the hypothesis that A-SO2 can explain all warming.
If I failed to answer you previously, I apologize. Now, I just recently asked you what kind of engineer you were, I don’t find “IBM Engineer (ret.)” terribly enlightening. I don’t seem to find your answer, maybe you could repeat it.
BA:
I had a degree in Electrical Engineering, and was hired by IBM to help build their first transistorized computer.
Like you, I became interested in Climate Change after I retired.
Unlike you, however, I developed my understanding of our climate by determining the cause of each increase or decrease in average anomalous global temperatures, which turned out to be the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere (Four causes).
You, on the other hand, search the literature, and base your understanding on what others have written, without doing any original work—and most of those references are simply WRONG!
AS ARE ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS THAT YOU HAVE REFUTED MY ANALYSIS.
Burl, thanks.
Might explain why you don’t understand the difference between proof and disproof in science.
Burl,
This is what original work looks like:
https://mega.nz/file/IvVzTTgA#cp-CCfdj589Dww9_8PhU1uey2VV1ma5n5yZaRlrjknA
Quantitative and disproves your hypothesis
BA:
“Quantitative and disproves your hypothesis”
NO, Quantitative and PROVES my hypothesis!
SO2 aerosol levels were 151.51 Megatons in 1980, and they fell to 97.0 megatons in 2010, a decrease of 54.1 megatons.
As they fell, temperatures ROSE from 0.423 deg. C in 1980 to 0.68 deg. C in 2010, an increase of 0.257 deg. C.
Q.E.D.
Burl,
1950-1980. SO2 went up and temperature also increased. You cherry-picked that out of your analysis because it disproves your hypothesis. Part of real science, is trying to disprove your own hypothesis, not trying to hide its deficiencies.
Give it up Burl, you are wrong and publishing it some place where you can buy a DOI for $30 doesn’t make it right. Repeating the same denial over and over again doesn’t make it correct, either.
Not interested in further. But it is entertaining to watch somebody who claims to have been an engineer in the mid 1950s (must be going on 90 by now if that is true) behaving like a 2nd grader caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar.
BA:
No, I have NOT cherry-picked the data. My “hypothesis” is that all of our modern warming , since 1980, has been due to decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, as is shown your graph., rather than to rising levels of CO2.
You are correct when you say that SO2 aerosol levels rose between 1950 and 1980, but NOT correct when you say that temperatures rose during that time.
They were -0.227 deg. C. in 1950 and 26 years later, in 1976, they were -0.216 deg. C., an increase of 0.011 deg. C, well within the margin of error. The 1970’s were also a period where there were fears of a new Ice Age, due to the LOW temperatures.
You are desperately trying to convince yourself that I am wrong, like a “two-year old”, but are just showcasing your incompetence.
Burl,
Sorry for the slow response.
Even if you were right and that your cherry-picked 1976 shows no significant change in temperature since 1950, How do explain that increasing A-SO2 emissions from ~60 MT/yr to ~150 MT/yr has no noticeable effect. That would still disprove your hypothesis – NO EFFECT FROM LARGE INCREASES IN A-SO2 emissions.
As for cherry-picking, I picked 1950-1980 because it is symmetric (increasing) with the decreasing period 1980-2010, and decadal A-SO2 was available from OurWorldinData . You, however, cherry-picked 1976 as your end point because it is the lowest teperature value available in the vicinity – the very definition of cherry-picking. Guess what – you still are disproven – see the first paragraph. Secondly, if you treat the temperature data as a climatic trend (31 point symmetric average) it becomes apparent that there was indeed a modest but significant T increase from 1950-1980. disproven again.
https://mega.nz/file/RzNVkaoD#WE2NMseirWVZnP7VO_ySLwVRkBp-k-y1QPFDybyHRtI
Bab is a liberial who supports the notion that AGW is a dire threat to humanity. He posts the liberal academica positions that parrot these posirions.
It seems strange that during the period of the greatest warming, humanity has prospered the most and grown the most. Bab is probably having a tough time adjusting to the Trump win.
No, I think humanity is a dire threat to humanity.
The prosperity and growth is primarily due to rapid post-WW2 technology development, and it’s ability to deplete non-renewable resources, as well as support larger population growth. I find it no surprise that it correlates with this “period of the greatest warming”.
Thanks, for your other thoughts.
Channelling Paul Ehrlich
“No, I think humanity is a dire threat to humanity.”
Why force higher costs on humanity in order to reduce CO2 if it is not a high threat?
“If”
Oh, it’s a high threat, and only one of many, just not a dire one, we have a few decades (best guess) to respond to it effectively. I would call nuclear weapons and weaponized biologics much more dire threats, because of their unpredictability and high nonlinearity, if initiated. OTOH, climate is reasonably predictable and constrained – at least on decal time sales. But best get with it – the longer you wait, the harder it will be to deal with it.
B A Bushaw: part quote “The prosperity and growth is primarily due to rapid post-WW2 technology development, and it’s ability to deplete non-renewable resources, as well as support larger population growth. I find it no surprise that it correlates with this “period of the greatest warming “.
From ice core data ( see link below) polar warming at appox 6800bce and then at 2346bce was likely as now, or possibly more since the data in that region is averaged. It was not CO2 since the levels there were lower than today’s.
I cannot say what the change was due in 6800bce, but I know now in detail what it was due in 2346bce (and the abrupt change in trend took less than 24 hours – a near millennial cycle driver).
Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
Note that in benevolent times population growth was as fast as the agrarian cycle and its technology allowed.
There is a DETERMINISTIC relationship between the planet spin (N), the planet average surface specific heat (cp), the planet Corrected Effective Temperature (Te.correct) and the satellite measured planet average surface temperature (Tsat).
(Tsat) /(Te.correct) = (β*N*cp)^1/16
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
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.
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thanks for including units.
Other comments:
Justify using Cp for liquid water when it is less than 70% of the surface and the other 30% is considering land, ice, sea ice, all with lower heat capacities).
Justify using the (real) whole earth albedo, when you assume liquid water covered planet.
Derive your adjustable constants, Φ and β, and (they are not universal) and give uncertainties on those derived values.
“Earth is a smooth rocky planet,” – incorrect
“cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.”
Unjustified and unquantified assumption, as described above, particularly since it is a major component of your addition to the simple disk- vs. sphere-area model, which is:
(β*N*cp)^(1/4)
Before continuing, please explain again the physical causality for why it is raised to the 1/4 power, and give the uncertainty on the fit constant.
Thank you, B A, for your response.
I’ll try to analize the New equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
1). It works for all planets and moons.
2). It is based on satellite measured data: the average temperatures, the average Albedo”a”, the rotational rates “N”, the average specific heat “Cp”, on the “Φ” -factor, which is the drag coefficient analogue, and on the S-B sigma “σ”.
Now, the
Φ (1-a) S
is the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux W/m2 on the simple disk, it is the amount of EM energy which interacts with surface matter.
Next,
“Unjustified and unquantified assumption, as described above, particularly since it is a major component of your addition to the simple disk- vs. sphere-area model, which is:
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ”
Yes, “it is a major component of your addition to the simple disk- vs. sphere-area model, which is:
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ”
Yes it is, it is a major component.
–
“Before continuing, please explain again the physical causality for why it is raised to the 1/4 power, and give the uncertainty on the fit constant.”
It is raised to the 1/4 power, because the N and the Cp “forcing” the incident EM energy/surface matter interaction process at that 1/4 power.
In our world the emitted EM energy is the absolute temperature (the heat intensity) raised to fourth (4) power T ⁴.
–
“Justify using Cp for liquid water when it is less than 70% of the surface and the other 30% is considering land, ice, sea ice, all with lower heat capacities).”
Yes, “the other 30% is considering land, ice, sea ice, all with lower heat capacities”
The Cp is a measured property of various materials. Also it can be used when comparing different surfaces, because when comparing surfaces, those with a higher Cp have more atoms streched on the skin surface layer, so the Cp is used here as a quantitative comparison between the different surfaces number of atoms per unit area (atoms/m2).
(atoms/m2) it is a surface’s property to interact with incident EM solar energy, when it is higher, the interaction process is more intense.
(land, ice, sea ice, all with lower heat capacities)
I’ll explain, it is about the (atoms/m2), so land is mostly wet – wet after rain, vast forests, grass and plants covered areas, snow, ice and sea ice – all have almost the same (atoms/m2) surface numbers, as the water has.
So, it is the surface of planet Earth, wich has
an average Cp = 1 against the Moon’s average Cp = 0,19 and the rest planets and moons their respective Cp, which all are taken in comparison their respective different numbers.
–
“and give the uncertainty on the fit constant.”
The fit constant, you mean the constant β .
It is determined empirically.
Please, explain what uncertainty to give? It is happening that way.
Thank you, B A, for your questions and for your interest.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, get back to me when you can provide uncertainties for derived constants and input variables. We can continue to discuss physical causality after that.
As for the uncertainty in empirically determined β, simply determine it separately for each of the celestial bodies that you have considered, and do statistical analysis on the various results.
Thank you, B A, for your interest.
My research is complete.
It has proven there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Christos
I am glad your research is done – congratulations. Unfortunately you have proven nothing, and without uncertainties it is not even science. Let us know if you ever publish someplace where astrophysicists will look at it.
I expect you have terminated the research because you are starting to understand that many of your assumptions do not apply to “living” planets, and thus your derivation can’t say anything meaningful about the earth’s temperature. And, you don’t like being called on it. I was trying to help, but if it caused you to stop, that’s OK – probably saved you a lot of time and having to learn new stuff that might conflict with your preconceived notions.
Ciao
Christos, Never mind. The average Cp of earth is not 1.
Of course,
because Earth’s surface has five plus times (5+) more atoms streched per m² to INTERACT with solar EM energy than Moon’s surface has:
Cp.earth /Cp.moon =
= 1 /0,19 = 5,26
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Average Cp of earth’s condensed surface is not 1, closer to 0.7. Garbage in garbage out.
You completely ignore heat conductivity which is equally important to Cp in controlling surface heat fluxes (heat redistribution). GIGO (this is a fundamental failure)
Earth is not a smooth rocky body. GIGO
electromagnetic radiation propagation is not described by viscous fluid dynamics. You constant, Φ = 0.47, implies that 53% of light that would geometrically impinge on the earth’s occlusion disk is somehow magically diverted away from hitting the earth and it’s atmosphere and somehow curves around the earth to avoid it. Com’on be serious. GIGO
You say you determined the so-called “universal” constant (beta) empirically, but it has no uncertainty; that is impossible. GIGO
The circulation of surface fluids, (the convective and advective heat fluxes) are not addressed. GIGO.
The circulation of surface fluids, (the convective and advective heat fluxes) are not addressed. GIGO.
You give no uncertainties throughout, either calculated or estimated, and do no error propagation. GIGO
That your mythical earth, with all the above assumptions, is actually so close to earth’s real temperature kinda indicates your dead-world formulation is incorrect; or you are very lucky and all the neglected effects cancel out; but you’d have to show that with a quantitative analysis. Keep in mind, the null hypothesis (seting known factors to zero) is extremely unlikely as it a single possibility among infinitely many other possibilities than are not null.
I think that is all, until you can provide a realistic error propagation and uncertainties for your results for earth, as well as other planetoids.
Yes, the average specific heat capacity of the earth is greater than that of the moon, but it is much less than 1. (much closer to 0.7). The “everything is wet all the time” hypothesis doesn’t work. First, it is simply not true – not in all the large deserts and anyplace significant below 0 C (the Cp of ice is half that of liquid H20). Second, while we quote material specific heat capacities, the object heat capacities, C (mass x Cp), are what is important for examining heat flux behavior. C for a thin layer of water is quite small, but its heat conduction, k, is quite high, and with a small distance to cover, C will be dominated by the underlying material.
Thank you, B A, for your interest.
I need to explain more about the planets and moons surfaces Cp.
It is a property the materials have. And the materials with lower Cp have less atoms per unit volume.
When with higher Cp there are more atoms per unit volume.
So, the Cp of a material is an indicator of the numbers of atoms on the very skin layer of the material’s surface.
When we compare the two surfaces their Cp values, we also compare the numbers of atoms the surfaces have.
–
“(the Cp of ice is half that of liquid H20). ”
True, it is half when we warm ice, compared to water.
But it is almost the same number of atoms on the surface of ice and on surface of water, when we count the (atoms/m2).
–
It is the solar EM energy interaction with surface’s matter, what is important, the interaction with the number of hitted by EM energy atoms, and not the heat absorbing property.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The research is done already some six years ago.
Thank you, B A, for your interest and for your help.
You are helping very much by showing me the points I need to explain more.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can start by reading “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”, by Richard Feynman – he has a knack for making difficult physics understandable. If you like it, perhaps pick up the 3 volume: “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”. They should help your intuitive understanding of modern physics, without having to dig into some of the more difficult mathematics.
The 3-Volume is on line:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
Cp is measured with respect to unit mass, not atom number. electromagnetic interactions with condensed matter penetrate further than the first mono-layer.
Thank you, B A.
“Cp is measured with respect to unit mass, not atom number. electromagnetic interactions with condensed matter penetrate further than the first mono-layer.”
–
Of course.
Yes they penetrate further, and they interact according with the number of atoms they are hitting on.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, EM radiation interacts with electrons not atoms.
“No, EM radiation interacts with electrons not atoms.”
Of course…
The number of electrons is equal to the number of protons in the atoms, not the number of atoms. Glad we were able to clear up those points.
Yes, the (number of atoms/m2 )*(number of electrons in atoms).
Specific heat capacity / SI unit
J⋅kg⁻¹⋅K⁻¹
Trying to understand microscopic interactions that lead to the measured values is interesting, but does not change the measured macroscopic values that are used in calculating earthly heat fluxes. Quantum electrodynamics gives the best description of light-matter interactions if you are looking for detailed mechanisms. Remember things like lattice vibrations, phonons, molecular and lattice electron delocalization, etc. If you wish to address physical causality, please use modern physics instead of intuition derived from pre-quantum physics.
Yes, thank you, B A.
“If you wish to address physical causality, please use modern physics instead of intuition derived from pre-quantum physics.”
–
Of course I will use modern physics. Will you please help me use modern physics, because you know much better the modern physics?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
See above: B A Bushaw | November 13, 2024 at 1:36 pm |
Christos,
In addition to specific heat capacity, your hypothesis should also include heat conductivity, k, and the derived thermal diffusivity. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity
Thank you, B A.
“You can start by reading “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”, by Richard Feynman – he has a knack for making difficult physics understandable. If you like it, perhaps pick up the 3 volume: “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”. They should help your intuitive understanding of modern physics, without having to dig into some of the more difficult mathematics.”
Natural gas rules! From the article …
State-owned PGE, the largest power producer in Poland, said the 1,366-MW PGE Gryfino Dolan Odra power station has entered commercial operation. The facility is now the country’s largest gas-fired power plant.
Officials on Nov. 8 said the station will supply about 5% of Poland’s electricity. PGE officials said the plant is “one of the most modern in Europe.” The investment “will strengthen Poland’s energy security and ensure a stable energy supply for more than 3 million households,” Dariusz Marzec, PGE’s CEO, said during Friday’s launch ceremony.
SOURCE:www.powermag.com/poland-brings-countrys-largest-gas-fired-power-plant-online/
Jiri,
No, I generally do not read FAQs, if the one I asked has already answered my question. It disagreed with your value, and I referenced it. Get over it.
Jiri, I didn’t give a value. I cited a reference to one. You haven’t done that. Lies don’t cut it. Can’t fix stupid. I don’t envy you.
Whatcha gonna do when the gas is gone, or the last bits become too expensive to extract.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8
That might happen in 2207. I envy your problems.
Jiri, either you didn’t read the rather short link, can’t do arithmetic, or just make up numbers out of thin air. I don’t envy you.
BA, you don’t bother about frequently asked questions. This one is #10 in “Other FAQ” in your link. I still envy you.
Jiri,
No, I generally do not read long lists of FAQs, if the one I asked has already answered my specific question. It disagreed with your value, and I referenced it. Get over it.
You disagree with your own values. My envy is doubled.
Names, identifiers,
… Groups, beliefs… They all change so often. Their names must change like, global warming becomes climate change and climate change. Catastrophes have now become, communist facilitators.
Global warming alarmists want to ignore natural factors causing warming and refuse to admit that actual warming is far slower than they’ve predicted, preferring to rely instead and adopt climate policies that rely on inadequate models.
CO2 is essential to life- it is plant food that Climatists label a pollutant, despite the fact all life on Earth would not exist without it. ‘Photosynthesis is a blessing… is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide… [and] has not increased natural disasters.’
Climatists have no regard for scientific and economic reality Climatists lie about there being a climate emergency when the facts show, there is no cause for panic. (Inspired by and quoted in part, 500 scientists’ letter, responding to Greta Thunberg’s crazed litany to the UN in 2019)
‘There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts
‘AS THE LATEST U.N. climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.
‘The group has sent a European Climate Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
‘Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”
‘The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”.
~ ECD Press Briefing, 2020
What is meant by ‘unfit for their purpose’ in this context means- global warming alarmists were were caught lying out their proverbial arses.
Currently, two stationary upper lows are seen in southern Europe, which will provide storms over the Mediterranean, with the low over France moving over Spain and then into the Atlantic in the next few days. A repeat of the situation that caused flooding in Spain.
Nullschool.
https://i.ibb.co/nwjjzj9/Screenshot-2024-11-12-08-17-44.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/11/13/1500Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-345.47,47.10,1223
That’s incredible. How long before we can spin the Earth and find out what’s happening on 5th and Broadway in San Diego California right now… ?
Wagathon
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/11/14/0800Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-126.61,43.42,1223
More than 219 people have drowned and another 80 are still missing after the devastating floods in Valencia, Spain. The UN expert climate scientists say that shutting coal plants and building windmills is the best way to stop floods.
Matt Ridley is wondering if removing 133 dams had anything to do with it, or if perhaps they should have built the big dam that was approved in 2001 but stopped by the Socialists in 2004:
Dam shame: what really caused Valencia’s floods?
Matt Ridley, The Spectator
… Valencia had a similarly terrible flood in 1957, in which 81 people died, long before climate change became the go-to excuse for any bad weather. After that flood, to prevent a recurrence, the Spanish government built a string of dams in the hills to hold back water and diverted the Turia river away from the city. For more than six decades the system worked well. Why did it fail this year? Because the unusually warm sea made for an unusually bad storm, say some. Yet charts of rainfall in Spain show no trend towards a higher frequency of more extreme downpours…
Indeed, 24 hour torrential rainfall records back to 1940 don’t sing the Climate Change song. Since 1982 human emissions of CO2 have grown from a cumulative total of 640 billion tons up to 1,800 billion tons and it hasn’t made the slightest difference to downpours.
This is from Jo Nova’s site. The post got stuck in moderation for some time. Can’t post a link, or comment will get eaten.
News that Britain now has the highest industrial energy prices in the world, has fallen out of the world’s top ten manufacturers, faces power rationing and is spending over £3bn a year to import electricity marks a damning indictment on a generation of flawed and misguided energy policies.
As the world’s green A-listers gather this week in Azerbaijan for COP29, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is probably right to claim that the world increasingly looks at the British energy model; but I would argue it is more in bewilderment and curiosity rather than any desire to copy or follow it. Energy policies here have wreaked havoc on consumers and firms for a generation and there is no end in sight.
Yep, green energy is killing the economies of Britain and Germany.
SOURCE:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/12/our-soaring-reliance-on-foreign-power-exposes-energy-scam/
Well without clean energy you get a polluted environment like
India’s & Pakistan’s smog. India’s capital city of Delhi had the worst air quality on Tuesday with the air quality index over 1,100, according to live rankings by Swiss group IQAir, which tracks global air quality. For context, American cities inundated with wildfire smoke in recent years have seen air quality indices of around 500, and any reading above 300 is considered hazardous to a person’s health, according to IQAir.
Which country do you think has a higher quality of life?
“Growing pollution in Pakistan’s Punjab province has sickened 1.8M people in a month, officials say”
https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-smog-punjab-huge-population-affected-304b37e0e98cf734d40a37a5ec908bd3
“According to the Environmental Protection Department in Punjab, Multan — a city in the province — remained the most polluted city on Tuesday, with air quality index readings of about 700. Anything over 300 is considered hazardous to health.
Authorities have ordered the mandatory wearing of face masks, but that has been widely disregarded. The government has also said that it is looking into methods to induce artificial rainfall to combat the pollution.”
There is a say to burn coal without real pollutants and even without CO2 emissions. No excuse not to. And we don’t have a choice but to burn nat gas.
“Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals”
David-Dan Nguyen, MDCM, MPH1,2; Anju Murayama3,4; Anna-Lisa Nguyen, BHSc5; et al
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2824834
Sorry, It is behind a paywall and the linked abstract says nothing about payments. All it says is, “Reviewers of leading medical journals MAY have industry ties due to their academic expertise.” (Duh)
Sorry about that … this is the only except I have, which is a partial page:
https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1856431670397682162
Interesting, though.
Sorry, I don’t look at X. But I would like to know if “payments to reviewers” really means “has received research grants from” – they are quite different things.
There were: general payments, research payments, travel/lodging fees, consulting fees, speaking fees, food/beverage, grants not related to research, education fees, charity, gifts, and on. Best I can do for you, Bruce.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know global warming is a hoax and a scare tactic: this is easily accessible knowledge to all but those presiding over the dropout factories of America’s failed government-education complex.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know global warming is a hoax and a scare tactic.” Correct, willful (or real) ignorance or self-deception are quite sufficient.
Precipitation is beginning in California.
https://i.ibb.co/Sr9W6js/Screenshot-2024-11-13-16-55-18.png
This is how a hoax dies: a consensus voted for Trump– and, poof! Climate change catastrophism is dead; and, now… global warming alarmism is way passé. In an odd turn of events, the Trump-hating Left is the new Confederacy.
It’s a real disaster. Granada in the center.
https://i.ibb.co/fpbZbb7/Screenshot-2024-11-13-22-00-26.png
If you are a died in the wool AGW global warming alarmist, do you see all these people as had it coming or put more CO2 into the air to provide the energy needed to help folks out and clean things up? It is past time for all the global warming alarmists to buy into the world as it is and realize that, sh*t happens!
This is the result of blocking the jet current in the north and attempting to return to a latitudinal course with changes in solar wind strength over periods of about two weeks.
If you are a dyed in the wool AGW contrarian, it is time to buy into the world as it is (face reality instead of being willfully ignorant) and realize that sh*t is happening. And, there is high probability that it will get worse, both economically and ecologically, if you say “that’s the way the world is” and do nothing except complain about the complainers.
The lesson to be learned is that reasearchers who are biased towards their preconceived notions are not really scientists at all. Climatologists with ideologically-motivated preconceptions who wrap up their superstitions and opinions about AGW in the trappings of science may be frauds, hoaxters and flimflammers but they are not scientists.
The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, is so long (~8k pages), as to make complete reading and understanding impossible for all but the most devoted, of any viewpoint. Here is a more tractable, but reasonably detailed description of major findings.
https://www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings
Just like the Summary for Policy Makers it ignores all of the low confidence remarks in the bowels of the full report.
1 trillion US dollars ($) per year?
The purpose of IPCC and the 10-item summary linked above is to frighten the people who don’t understand this stuff to perhaps make them more easy to control. Carbon dioxide change doesn’t cause significant temperature change because carbon dioxide change follows temperature change. Some other items in the predominance of evidence are listed at Sect 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dan my first question was:
“OK, specific quotes:
” (10.866 – 10.558)/36 = 0.008555 days = 12.3 minutes longer each year compared to the previous year. ”
Can you put uncertainties on those numbers?”
So you can report numbers to 5 significant digits, but can’t calculate their uncertainty? In other words, you don’t know if your result has any statistical significance whatsoever.
—————
Second:
“Much of the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere is redirected to water vapor molecules via thermalization.”
What does “much” mean, and how do you come to that conclusion? My understanding is that almost all excited CO2 at lower tropospheric pressures is deactivated by collisions, not radiative decay – as you say, “via thermalization” where all the gas is heated equally – water doesn’t take up more than about 4% (high humidity) of the radiant energy absorbed by CO2.
Your answer:
Perhaps you are not familiar with the term thermalization as applied to the action of ghg and non-ghg molecules in the atmosphere. It is described in more detail at Sect 4 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Collisions are part of thermalization.
Perhaps I am familiar – reread my question above. But you can’t even say what “much” means? Or can’t admit it is incorrect?
Thanks, Dan, Since you miss on the first two. I’m not interested.
As for this, your most recent comment:
“Carbon dioxide change doesn’t cause significant temperature change because carbon dioxide change follows temperature change.”
BS – CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. It both causes warming and is released by warming. It both leads or follows temperature changes, depending on the circumstances.
“The purpose of IPCC and the 10-item summary linked above is to frighten the people who don’t understand this stuff to perhaps make them more easy to control.”
Sorry, not interested in conspiracy theories. The purpose and charter of IPCC is to do a deep dive into AGW and report their finding. I’m sorry their findings scare the contrarian crowd so much that they have to invent excuses for why it can’t be true, you included.
BAB “What does ‘much’ mean”
Fair question, I’ll take a shot at quantifying. I don’t know how to show graphics at this blog so use Fig 1 and 1.5 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Take a photon of energy at 667 wavenumber absorbed by a CO2 molecule. It’s not clear what you mean by ‘deactivated by collisions’. The energy is conserved, collisions are the mechanism of gas phase thermal conduction wherein the energy is shared with surrounding molecules, some of which are water vapor. Schwarzschild’s equation [40] accounts for this by assuming that “as radiation passes through an isothermal layer, its monochromatic intensity exponentially approaches that of blackbody radiation corresponding to the temperature of the layer.”
As shown in Fig 1.5 (which is for a typical line-of-sight), WV can radiate to space from low in the troposphere. So, energy absorbed by CO2 molecules can be conducted to WV molecules which can radiate the energy to space.
As shown on Fig 1.5, the energy absorbed by CO2 and NOT radiated to space by CO2 is indicated by the notch above about 150 mW/m2/cm-1 and between about 600 and 740/cm up to about 350 mW/m2/cm-1. This energy didn’t just disappear. It was conducted to WV molecules which radiated it to space. Comparison of the areas on the graph indicates that ‘much’ is roughly half.
I agree that CO2 increase is essentially all a result of feedback from temperature increase. About 97 % of CO2 increase is natural so what else. CO2 is IR active so of course it contributes to warming in the troposphere. But at the surface, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules about 8000/430 = 18.5 to 1 so not a lot. Radiation from the stratosphere and above is almost all from CO2 which counters the warming from CO2 in the troposphere. The preponderance of evidence, some documented at Sect 2 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com , is that CO2 change doesn’t cause significant net temperature change.
I am not interested in conspiracy theories either. The comment re IPCC is my conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. A key insight was acquired by the discovery that water vapor has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback from average global temperature increase.
“The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation” John Clauser (Nobel laureate, 2022, physics)
Dan,
“About 97 % of CO2 increase is natural”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
Never mind, I understand where your misrepresentation comes from (reservoir exchange), I’m not interested.
Clauser is projecting, and you are making an appeal to false authority.
Thanks anyway – let me know when your manuscript is published.
Pingback: Tether Investigation Report Rattles Crypto Markets
What better guarantee of objectivity and transparency could we hope for than dedicated global warming alarmists gathering in Monaco in 2016 to charter a course that Leftist politicians will approve. Receipts from the gaming industry funds this 700 year old monarchy which has been ruled by the Grimaldi dynasty since 1419. Monaco’s vision of sustainability is being a favored destination for the world’s rich and famous and royals and upper class.
“The problem with science,” says William A. Wilson (Scientific Regress), “is that so much of it simply isn’t.”
There is some interesting discussion on the MJO phases in relation to the European flood episodes, on this winter forecast video:
https://www.youtube.com/live/tQLyyHh3HJM#
Pingback: MANIPULACE: Atribuční studie služkou zelené politiky