JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
From Friends of Science:
Beware The Warrior Accountants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGpmXFrmXQ
130
From Friends Of Science:
15 Minute Cities: The Lockdown “New Normal”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-B_wYYEUk
71
“Deadline 2020” which said the C40 cities should get citizens down to a 2 tCO2e (2 ton carbon dioxide equivalent) footprint”
Two tons of carbon dioxide equivelent?
By co2 equivelent, do they include water vapor, the GHG emitted from the tailpipes of hydrogen powered cars?
30
2 things – to shut down the global economy appears to be good from the – why do they need an economy if the population has been severely reduced? And if anyone does survive, chances are they will be slaves , so meh….
As to a CBDC – it can be probably programeed to geo-fence people such that if you travel more than 15 mins drive from your home, your money wont work. This is one aspect people might not have considered ( Jo, not sure if youve done an article on CBDCs? )
Have you Said something against the govt dont like? Your money gets switched off. Been eating too much meat and not enough bugs ? No meat at the supermarket for you……
So either way, the self procalimed masters of the universe mob have many ways to force people to live in open air gulags by controlling where and what they can spend thier invisible coins ons.
We need to keep cash going, as a CBDC will be a crushing limitation on all of humanity…..
60
“We need to keep cash going, as a CBDC will be a crushing limitation on all of humanity…..”
True, although not necessarily in Govt paper. In the early days people used a whole variety of coins from around the world, and businesses minted their own tokens. Coles, WW, Bunnings and the petrol companies would be likely sources. The nice thing with more than one coinage is that it holds back over-printing as there is no fixed exchange rate.
20
This from b.nice yesterday
https://notrickszone.com/2023/03/23/new-study-atmospheric-co2-residence-time-is-only-5-years-too-short-to-affect-the-climate/
181
Yes, that is the essential fact. It is incredibly important.
The velocity of the massive daily transfer of CO2 into water and out of the water is incredibly high as the total CO2 in the air is enormous and to swap out half of it every five years is a massive exchange.
It’s high enough for oxygen so fish can breathe but CO2 is faster as it is 30x as soluble. You use this rapid exchange as you breathe, O2 in and CO2 out! It’s near instant. How someone can deny it and breathe is beyond my understanding. You are living proof of the speed of the CO2/O2 transfer into and out of salty water. O2 is from solar power, photosynthesis. And you combine it with the plant/animal matter, carbohydrate, as as literal internal combustion engine. CO2 is the exhaust gas.
The short 5 years half life was known in the 1950s. (the IPCC insist it is 80 years!) And it is has really been hidden because it shows the enormous system is rapidly self cleaning of any excess. There is no chance of a large static build up of CO2.
150
But there is more we can say using this extraordinary scientific fact.
Consider Al Gore’s recent “We’re still putting 162 million tons .. every single day“.
But half of the massive 3,140 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere changes every 5 years. So (3,140/2)/(5*365) or 860 million tons per day anyway, every day both in and out of the ocean.
The idea that fossil fuel CO2,any CO2 hangs around for long is ridiculous.
Now another quick calculation. The equilibrium ratio of CO2 between ocean and air is 98:1. Fact.
So that will be the final distribution of the extra fossil fuel CO2 as well. 98% of it will end up in the ocean. And the IPCC agrees. It’s only about speed. They say the half life is 80 years, not 5 years.
Fossil fuel in the air vanishes very rapidly, a balance between the inflow and rapid outflow, leaving a lowly 3% in transit.
This is confirmed by the doubling of radioactive C14 after the atom bomb blasts before 1971, all completely gone from the entire biosphere. And there is only one sink, the deep ocean. This contradicts the IPCC assumption/Bern model that the deep ocean is not involved.
So we have absolute confirmation that the whole atmosphere is extremely rapid in eliminating excess CO2 above the equilibrium value.
And the only reason there is more CO2 in the air is ocean surface warming, following Henry’s Law. We even have a prediction of surface warming from the 200 year De Vries solar cycle. Temperature is dropping rapidly now and unfortunately, CO2 will drop as well, potentially leading to real drop in agricultural output and the conversion of green areas back to desert.
People do not realise, but deserts are generally cold places, not moderated by liquid water. Antarctica is a desert.
210
I have a confirmation fact, a small science story about radio carbon dating.
The measured age of the CO2 at the bottom of the ocean is 350 years. Some conclude that this contradicts the idea that water at the bottom of the ocean can be thousands of years old. I disagree. I argue that CO2 moves quite freely both as a liquid at high pressure and as gas bubbles.
C14 is a radioactive Carbon isotope caused by cosmic rays, neutrons high in the atmosphere. Neutrons stop in water. So in the atmosphere only and over millenia the amount of C14 has been near constant at 1 atom in 1 trillion. This fact is used to date organic material as the CO2 stops being refreshed. Put air in a sealed bottle and the amount of C14 will drop slowly, with half as many C14 atoms, 50% every 5,400 years. Great for archaeology. And there are enough dated artifacts from Egyptian, Greek, Roman history to fine tune this.
How does it work? If the radioactive C14 in the bottle as CO2 has dropped by 1%, the age of the air in the bottle is 1/50th of the 50% which vanishes over 5400, or about 108 years. In this way you can date trees and furniture, anything with carbon.
This was the invention of Radio Carbon dating for which the Nobel prize in Chemistry was awarded to Willard Libby in 1960.
Now back to the CO2 at the bottom of the ocean. It is 350 years old, but it had to be in the air about 350 years ago. That’s a 2% chance, one in 50. So the time to cycle all the CO2 from the bottom of the ocean is about 350/50 or 7 years, confirming the figure.
And the massive speed of absorption of CO2.
100
then why is the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere increasing, and why is that increase in line with human activity?
226
Peter, the Earth started warming before our CO2 emissions rose — possibly due to solar magnetic, spectral changes, cosmic rays, solar wind, geothermal, geomagnetic etc — about which the climate models “know nothing” but assume = 0. That warming causes CO2 to be released from the ocean. But there are bigger effects probably from temperature and ocean current changes and phytoplankton/microbial life blooms.
The increase in CO2 only “matches” human output in the last few decades, and not very well. Before then, CO2 went up and down for 500 million years and it had nothing to do with our SUV’s but tracks very closely behind temperature changes.
It would help if you read this site. Start with the posts of Phytoplankton you commented on but didn’t read.
301
So this is wrong why does the IPCC link co2 with warming, why is the rate so much higher. I notice you provide no links (note:self reference does not count does not count)
For example a simple graph of warming and pre-industrial co2 would strengthen your case
14
An easy, understandable way to demonstrate the disconnect between human emissions and “climate change” is to show long term tide gauge records.
Sydney’s gauge has been in operation since the 1880’s, and shows a constant rate of sea level rise of about 3″ per century, unaffected by increasing carbon dioxide levels during the more recent 75 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-140
50
PF’s link says-
” The lack of additional surface warming in the past decade despite increasing carbon dioxide levels provided some additional support for somewhat lower sensitivity of global temperature to carbon dioxide increases.”
So in their most-scientific most-reasonable voice they have just said that temperature and CO2 levels are not connected, while not admitting they are completely wrong! There’s still a chance of 11deg F warming!
20
“why does the IPCC link co2 with warming”
Because its based on politics, NOT SCIENCE.
You have consistently proven that there is no real science proving at CO2 causes warming.
You haven’t been able to find anything but “assumptions” and models in any IPCC report.
Why do you still believe that nonsense?
40
EPICA Dome ice core is dodgy, the CO2 hockey stick at the end is a standout.
The Eemian Interglacial was warmer than the Holocene, yet CO2 levels were paltry compared to the stick.
So can we deduce that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming and the recent hysteria over the connection between rising CO2 and temperatures is just coincidental.
00
Peter, it’s a cult isn’t it? That’s why you can’t follow” my links, as if the url joannenova.com destroys all the scientific papers?.
If you read my site you’d know I cite the scientific references at the bottom of posts. Open all those pages on Phytoplankton and see the papers listed there.
As for sea level — 12 years ago I posted the graph you want.
I’ve published 4,500 comments of yours, and yet you don’t even read the posts here? I mean, you make a great study of cult psychology. Thank you coming here to demonstrate it. It’s ill-mannered, ignorant and narcissistic — you expect me to personally find you references — and on phytoplankton that come from posts you have probably commented on.
And on sea levels, this data on the rise starting 200 years ago is so old and so well known I’ve mentioned it many times and linked back to that 2011 post, yet it “surprises” you? After years of commenting you don’t even know the most basic skeptical arguments.
But perhaps it’s not a cult for you, I might be wrong. You might be paid to write this rubbish? Is this your job?
30
PF seems to think ocean and land warming, due to solar maxima, doesn’t release CO2.
Certainly he has never been able to prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.
120
“PF seems to think ” –
“Assume” – the word that makes an “ASS” out of “U” and “ME”
50
Be VERY GLAD for that increase in atmospheric CO2,
The world would be a much poorer, hungrier place without it!
Everything relies totally on the fossil fuels that we use to build and sustain that civilisation.
There is absolutely ZERO downside to the increase in atmospheric CO2, which is mostly due to solar warming of the oceans.
160
Peter, are you not aware that the earth is constantly changing due to a wide variety of natural forces and cycles, including Milankovitch cycles and also that the sun is a variable star?
Just about all warmists seem to have an Aristotelian viewpoint that the world is static and never changes, a view which held until Medieval times.
210
DM, his link actually admits that, the first time I’ve seen the Warmists put it on paper.
“including atmospheric dust and volcanic eruptions, amount of forests and other vegetation, and variations in incoming sunlight.”
00
“why is that increase in line with human activity?”
It isn’t.
The total increase in CO2 is a tiny 40% over 250 years.
The population of the planet in 1900 was 1 billion. And no cars, no planes, no electricity, power stations.
Now the human populations is 8 billion, 800% more. And the usage of CO2 generating devices, all electrical devices, cars, planes, ships, trains, factories vastly more, so perhaps 2000%.
I fail to see where a near linear growth in CO2 matches an exponential growth in CO2 emissions.
160
However I can understand why you believe this. Various groups exaggerate this to make them out to be similar. See if you can spot the appalling deceit in this graph from NOAA no less
You tie the end points together and adjust zero and scale until the graphs look the same.
It’s a way of telling lies in a graph and blatant.
The CO2 graph starts 60% up the left hand side. The emissions graph starts at zero. So CO2 has gone up 40%, from 280 to 420 but CO2 emissions have gone from 0 to 35Gigatons! Even from 1900, 3500%, not 40%. So my guess was about right.
Quite unbelievable. This is US tax payers money at work to deceive. Seriously, I cannot believe a scientist prepared this graph. It’s almost criminal.
160
It is what we should expect if the response of the natural system regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide is to increase the sequestration rate of carbon dioxide in proportion to the change in concentration from a natural equilibrium.
It could well be that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a disturbance from a natural (and variable) equilibrium and the system response to an exponential rate of increase of anthropogenic emissions is a linear increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
It is a complex feedback system.
00
Using a longer term perspective than the one from the 1800 s we can see things better.
Yes! It was cool a couple of hundred years ago.
A very Abnormal cool spell.
But! It was warmer at the beginning of the current interglacial about 8,000 years ago.
And! ,The drop in sea levels by approximately SIX metres over the last 7,000 years is incontestable proof of that. Ice has accumulated as oceans have fallen.
Any! Small variations in sea levels that have supposedly occurred are nothing more than minor adjustments and returns to average. The current state of the system is astounding in its high level of INERTIA.
Get that intiya.
100
The issue is that Jo and other commentators here do not understand the concept of residence time and confuse it with CO2 flux.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ef200914u
08
The issue is that CO2 is a massively important part of the atmosphere, and has absolutely ZERO detrimental effect.
It doesn’t matter where it comes from (mostly the oceans due to solar warming), SO LONG AS IT KEEPS COMING !!
point (iv) a very low value for the expected proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh dear, seems that Simon didn’t even read the abstract. !
50
I can read and unlike yourself, I can comprehend.
04
You have proven time after time that you comprehend very little.
read, and at least TRY to comprehend.
“(iv) a very low value for the expected proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Now, where is that scientific evidence for CO2 causing warming
Still MIA.. of course. !
00
Good point.. !
The net flux from humans is tiny compared to the slightly increasing natural net flux, which is driven by solar warming of the oceans.
Thanks for proving everyone else’s points. 🙂
Comprehension of basic maths and science… a struggle for you, it is.
00
And, of course, a net differential flux, over a given time, gives a net differential volume…
… again proving that the clown who wrote it, is very, very confused.
00
Focussing on the Southern Ocean CO2 fluxes, in the Austral winter there is deep vertical mixing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063706001944
00
““(iv) a very low value for the expected proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Why does this seem so very difficult for you to comprehend ?!
It is from your own link, after all 😉
00
ps.. and for the chronically unaware…
the FLOW of atmospheric CO2 through the CARBON CYCLE is what keeps the world alive.
The stronger that flow, the more life is possible on Earth.
00
TdeF: CO2 at the bottom of the ocean may well be 350 years old, but there is more than one way it can get there. If I understand your argument correctly then it is based on CO2 travelling directly between atmosphere and deep ocean. But if the CO2 has been carried to the deep ocean from the Arctic atmosphere by the THC (Thermohaline Circulation) then it could well be 350 years ‘old’ on average.
A report on work by Andrea Fassbender on the movement of ‘carbon’ between atmosphere and deep ocean suggests that there is more ‘carbon’ in the upper ocean and in the deep deep ocean than there is in the middle deep ocean. If (NB. IF!) that is correct, then the THC route for CO2 would be the dominant one.
60
Yes, there are currents which could explain this in some cases.
I am just saying that if the prevailing wisdom of the IPCC is that the CO2 is trapped in deep ocean currents which are thousands of year old, which is their explanation for the deep ocean CO2 being isolated from the atmosphere, then the CO2 in the deep oceans should be thousands of years old. So there is a major contradiction.
And yes, there are two explanations. One covers the whole planet, that of independent CO2 flux from the bottom across the planet, a universal truth. The other is the existence of a specific currents which do not take thousands of years to travel from surface to the depths and back. If the whole ocean is only 350 years in age at depth, then only the first fits the facts.
70
Here is an actual scientific paper on the subject if you want to see what one looks like
and here is a rebuttal to 1.1 and 1.1.1.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
feel free to rebut that here or there. Noting that they happily state that the following are both true
“(A) Predictions for the Global Warming Potential (GWP) by the IPCC express the warming effect CO2 has over several time scales; 20, 100 and 500 years.
(B) But CO2 has only a 5 year life time in the atmosphere.”
but that this is not the logical conclusion
“(C) Therefore CO2 cannot cause the long term warming predicted by the IPCC.”
312
SKS are demonstrably WRONG (as always)
Any extra CO2 we add to the life sustaining carbon cycle is rapidly (within 5 years), mixed in the ratio 98:1 between ocean and atmosphere.
In fact, the ocean actually “disappears” a fair amount through crustaceans life cycle usage
ie, VERY LITTLE human atmospheric CO2 remains.
All the highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 increase has come 98% from the oceans
Sorry that the basic physics of it stumps you and your fellow SKS illiterates.
You should try to read and comprehend TdeF’s comments and the NTZ link, if you are able to.
—
And of course, you should also be well aware by now that there is absolutely no evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has caused the very slight rise in global temperature over the last century.
You should be very glad we are not still back in Little Ice Age conditions. !!
141
From your SKS link..
“Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full”“
Is this written for 5 year olds? It certainly isn’t any sort of science!
—
Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral:..
At least he got that correct..
It means that cows are carbon neutral… so all that nonsense about eating crickets has just been destroyed by their own words.
130
“Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral:..”
Whoever wrote that sentence is a class A moron !!
Fossil fuel formation SUBTRACTS CO2 from the short term carbon cycle.
10
Biological uptake on land is indeed carbon neutral. But biological uptake in the oceans includes the use of carbon in shell-making, most of which ends up sequestered via the ocean floor. This biological uptake has been going on for so many million years that it has created all of the 100,000,000 billion tons of carbon in today’s limestone, chalk, and marble.
50
Maybe we’ve reached the point where we need to release it progressively back into the atmosphere where it’s of more use.
60
KK, we should continue, as China is, to release that sequestered CO2, from coal.
It provides the very useful by-product of electrical energy and fundamental building products like steel.
Admittedly, the cement industry is also doing its bit, using carbon from limestone and coal to help the carbon cycle keep ticking over.
20
This is absolute rubbish! Typical non skeptical science!
The first paper I quoted gives 18 measures in separate papers of the half life/residence time. (Half life is the time to half, residence e-kt, the value of 1/k). Thalf = Tr*ln2 or 1.45*Tr) t1/2=τln(2)
so you have to reduce these numbers by 30% to get the half life.
“Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).”
The first paper quoted give 18 published CO2 residence times from 1958 to 1989, before Global Warming was invented and it became a political issue and a $US1,500,000,000,000 a year business.
Craig (1957) 7 3 a Oeschger et al. (1975) 6–9
Revelle & Suess (1957) 7 a Keeling (1979) 7.53
Arnold & Anderson (1957) 10–20 a *1 Peng et al. (1979) 5.5–9.4
Craig (1958) 7 5 a Peng et al. (1979) 7.8–13.2
Ferguson (1958) 1–8 a Broecker et al. (1980) 6.2–8.8
Bolin & Eriksson (1959) 5 a Delibrias (1980) 6.0
Craig (1963) 5–15 a Quay & Stuiver (1980) 7.5
Bien & Suess (1967) >10 a Siegenthaler et al. (1980) 7.5
Münnich & Roether (1967) 5.4 a Stuiver (1980) 6.8
Nydal (1968) 5–10 a Druffel & Suess (1983) 12.5
Young & Fairhall (1968) 4–6 a Kratz et al. (1983) 6.7
Rafter & O’Brien (1970) 12 a Lal & Suess (1983) 3–25
Machta (1972) 2 a Peng et al. (1983) 8.4
Bacastow & Keeling (1973) 6.3–7.0 a Siegenthaler (1983) 7.9–10.6
Keeling (1973) 7 a Siegenthaler (1983) 6.99–7.54
Broecker (1974) 9.2 a Siegenthaler (1989) 4–9
Broecker & Peng (1974) 5 a * Murray (1992) 5.4
Broecker & Peng (1974) 8 a Segalstad (1992) 5.4
The IPCC claims 80 years half life (close enough to residence time but slightly different).
The mechanism by which CO2 is stored in the ocean is irrelevant, the story of sluggish deep water, an isolated upper layer etc. None of this made up science matters. The residence time given by the IPCC, their gold standard of 80 years by which all ‘greenhouse gases’ are measured is utter rubbish. And they just quote it, not prove it.
150
My own fit e-kt to the C14 graph gives 12.5 years, but you have to halve this because flow is bidirectional, to 6.25 years.(T=9) This is roughly the number accepted in science until 1989. And hidden since then because it destroys the idea that fossil CO2 can remain in the air for thousands of years.
110
By the way, I scoured the 4th IPCC report for this half life and found it was stated categorically at 80 years. But I also found it quoted as ‘thousands of years’. They are both wrong. They have to be or the IPCC would cease to exist. Otherwise they admit CO2 is absorbed so quickly that it cannot accumulate.
60
‘Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean.’
I don’t accept that hypothesis, the Southern Ocean is a major sink and there isn’t a bottleneck.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2813/Southern-Ocean-confirmed-as-strong-carbon-dioxide-sink
80
With the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is absolutely no justification for this “SKS-pseudo-scientist” to make such a gormless anti-science statement.
A nether regions comment, like the 1.5C “limit” they harp on about.
40
Whoever wrote it misunderstood the argument. The serious types do not argue ‘full’. That’s patently ridiculous, childish misunderstanding of the excuse.
The smarter types agree the high speed bidirectional CO2 exchange is undeniably true, but it returns all the fossil fuel CO2 to the air because the capacity of the system if you only include the top 1km of the ocean is 1/35th of the size. Restricted to the smaller container the concentration rises much more which increases outgassing. Once CO2 enters the massive other 3.3km, far from the surface where the concentration rises by less than 1%.
This is an arbitrary reduction of the ocean into two allegedly disconnected halves as far as CO2 is concerned. First they say you have the connected top 100 metres of 3400 metres and secondly the ‘deep’ ocean where CO2 is a liquid and allegedly trapped sloshing around with the deep ocean currents which can take thousands of years to surface. This is a convenient conjecture and puts it on everyone else to prove it is not true.
However the measured age of CO2 at the bottom of the ocean proves this is not true. No surprises there. At 350 years measured age it only take the top 2% of the body of CO2 to reach the bottom of the ocean. So their conjecture is wrong.
The other proof that it is not true is the single exponential decay curve and the rapid vanishing of radioactive Carbon 14 with a half life of 6.5 years. Firstly it is a pure single exponential decay curve, not a compound curve, which destroys the famous Bern model as there is only one massive sink. And secondly the measured half life. CO2 tagged with radioactive C14 totally vanished from the biosphere in fifty years. Gone.
But you cannot expect the people at skepticalscience.com to be skeptical or even understand their own argument. But yes the resort to a childish explanation is laughable.
40
Leaf, was the snark really necesssary?
Tsk.
20
When he/she/they has a total lack of evidence… that is a standard far-leftist fall-back position.
10
And the Esters JGR paper is not about the same subject but “The air-sea gas transfer velocity k is frequently estimated as an empirical function of wind speed.” and the author intends to compare models for the acknowledge transfer time based on eddies.
Empirically you do not care how the transfer happens but how long it takes, the time for half to be exchanged and that is about 5 years. So fossil fuel CO2 is rapidly absorbed, like all CO2. There are massive rivers of CO2 flowing in both directions and human CO2 adds about 20% to the flow, at least in one direction.
The very interesting subject is how windspeed leads to much faster tranfers. You really get that when you breathe. It’s not just that you fill your lungs with O2 and what you get back is less O2 and a lot of CO2, 4-14%. It is that you do it so quickly and that alone vastly speeds the process. And when you need more air, you breathe much faster, not only because it brings in more air but also because it speeds the process of transfer. Which is surprising.
40
TdeF other essential facts are:
(i) CO2 is a simple stable molecule, it does not generate heat in any form so it cannot be the cause of the increase in temperature anywhere,
(ii) historic time series have always shown that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration follow after changes in temperature so it is impossible for the later CO2 change to be the cause of the earlier temperature change.
(iii) this is confirmed by the analysis of climate data which shows that the rate of change of CO2 concentration correlates with the temperature level, consequently local maxima in temperature correspond to maxima in the rate of change of CO2 concentration which must precede maxima in the concentration and thereby lags the temperature,
(iv) the fictitious “greenhouse effect” claims that CO2 re-radiates absorbed heat back to the Earths’ surface making it hotter, but re-radiation takes place in all directions of 3 dimensional space so only a minute amount of radiation absorbed by CO2 will be direction towards the Earth’s surface and that cannot increase the temperature as it is only a minute part of the radiation that left the surface in cooling,
(v) 98 % of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is in the 15 micron band which represents the peak intensity of radiation from a surface at -80 deg.C, a temperature only experienced on occasions in the Antarctic and that definitely does not warm anything down there or elsewhere.
Our problem today is not a climate crisis but an integrity crisis on the part of scientists, politicians, the Main Stream Media and others. The search for Truth has gone, having been replaced by greed, an ambition of gaining wealth and privilege over all of the World’s population at large.
110
Yes, all good points. The narrowness of the absorption band is particularly striking.
Also the fact that this alleged explanation of Infra Red reflection only works if the surface is hot enough to radiate. Which eliminates the 72% of the earth which is covered by cold water. Plus your point that at least half radiates into space.
And hot air, unlike hot water, expands enormously and so rises rapidly, taking the hotter air into the stratosphere where outbound radiation is more successful. Such dissipating convection does not happen in oceans.
Besides, if the whole story was true, the air at night in the desert would be noticeably warmer at night where the alleged blanket would be noticed. That’s just not true.
The fact that the desert with zero humidity can go from +40C to -20C in a day shows you how little heat capacity exists in the ground surface and the air above. You cannot make the air hotter if all the heat leaves every night.
70
where does +40 to minus 20 in a day happen?
20
The average for a desert climate is +39.5C and -4.5C, a range of 43C.
“Many mean annual temperatures range from 20-25° C. The extreme maximum ranges from 43.5-49° C. Minimum temperatures sometimes drop to -18° C.”
Whether you get the two extremes on a single day I do not know, but I have been in places where it is nearly 60C in the day with absolutely zero humidity, in the Sahara for example. You have to drink water continuously. Baghdad as a major city can reach 51C in the shade.
For maximum diurnal range “High desert regions typically have the greatest diurnal-temperature variations, while low-lying humid areas typically have the least. This explains why an area like the Snake River Plain can have high temperatures of 38 °C (100 °F) during a summer day, and then have lows of 5–10 °C (41–50 °F). ”
My point is that this range indicates the speed with which heat leaves the atmosphere. It does not happen in humid areas. Water is the real greenhouse gas, not CO2.
30
Just from the peanut gallery …
considering all the (likely little understood) atmospheric dynamics that affect the planet, and that Big Fire Ball in the sky, the fire ball beneath us, and all the debris in the neigborhood …
the obsession with this one trace gas …
seems like an obsession.
Maybe like, the virus wasn’t the major problem, our reaction to it is going haunt us.
Hmm, almost seems like there is a series of major distractions.
We thought it was the Ringmasters directing the show …
turns out it’s the Clowns.
50
As famous atmospheric Physicist Richard Lidzen suggested, they were just looking for a reason to vilify carbon, so they invented one.
And it’s been very successful, wreaking havoc on Western societies with a fake scare. It’s what all politicians need, a reason for the public to delegate cash and unlimited power, which we saw on full display with the Wuhan Flu. And didn’t they love both?
Is man made CO2 driven tipping point Global Warming true? Not in the slightest. And in 35 years not a single prediction has come true, now including the warming.
I mean it’s pretty outrageous, turning a tiny slow 40% increase in CO2 over 250 years into Climate Extinction. Who would believe that?
60
Furthermore, while a slight increase of absorption around that narrow band has been measured, it is more than compensated for by an increase in outgoing radiation in the atmospheric window.
https://ibb.co/mhyCFky
No energy is being “trapped” (another scientific absurdity from the AGW flunkers.)
40
Rio Tinto’s Australian staff may have had personal data stolen in hack
Personal data of Rio Tinto Ltd’s former and current Australian employees may have been stolen by a cybercriminal group, according to a staff memo seen by Reuters on Thursday.
Payroll information, like payslips and overpayment letters, of a small number of employees from January 2023 had possibly been seized by the group, the memo showed.
The cybercriminal group threatened to release the data onto the dark web while investigations into the incident are ongoing, the Anglo-Australian mining giant added.
“To date, none of the records described above have been released, and we still do not know if the cybercriminal group holds these records or not.”
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/rio-tinto-s-australian-staff-may-have-been-personal-data-stolen-in-hack-20230324-p5cuvy.html
10
German monks create world’s first powdered beer
A monastic brewery near Munich says it’s created the first powdered beer. Just add water, and it’ll froth up, complete with a foamy head and full flavor. The result promises massive savings on transport, because it can be shipped at 10% of the weight.
Klosterbrauerei Neuzelle worked together with “technology partners” and used funding from BMWi to create its first powdered product, a dextrin-rich zero-alcohol beer which has been brewed using conventional methods, then “processed and prepared into a water-soluble beer powder/granulate.”
It’s testing this powder on the market in small quantities until mid-2023, but the plan is to start making alcoholic beers soon, and scale things up – so long as people go for it. And the team believes there’s a chance to ditch traditional brewing techniques as well, compressing the process to minimize the use of raw materials, labor and energy.
https://www.klosterbrauerei.com/shop/Bierpulver/951/951
41
We have the same with orange juice from Brazil. Arrives as a powder and is ‘manufactured’ in Australia by adding water. It says on the side, Made in Australia. And people wonder why there is no Vitamin C.
70
Often Vitamine C is added.
10
When I worked in the industry, orange juice came in from Brazil as frozen juice concentrate. It was also 80% subsidised by the Brazilian govt. It caused havoc with orange industry as the price per bin dropped below cost. Result was that farmers ripped out their orchards.
Problem was though, the reconstituted juice was simply horrible to drink.
30
Gonna make it much easier sneaking beers into the footy.
Security will eventually be suspicious of anyone going to the trouble of having their bottled water on ice.
20
Maybe the monks can develop powdered water.
70
Remember the children’s books of Bottersnikes and Gumbles and “dry water swimming”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottersnikes_and_Gumbles
Might be classic but I think they were culled from the school library
00
Instant beer count me in !
00
“a dextrin-rich zero-alcohol beer ”
Why?
20
For my better understanding how to dry alcohol, an essential part of beer, I read the link, no alcohol in powder beer. 😀
00
Ok count me out then .
00
Good! Means I don’t have to review everything of yours that I might have previously agreed with
00
Alcohol, ethanol, is almost the cheapest chemical to make, no cost. And has no flavor.
It’s why the law insists that it is contaminated with dangerous methanol. You need a special licence to stock or sell industrial alcohol. But if flavor can be maintained, this would work very well. I have been very suprised that the zero alcohol beers are so good. In Russia you can buy Baltica 0, Baltica 1,.. Baltica 7. Baltica 7 is 7% alcohol. And I have not been able to tell the difference in flavor.
10
Friday funny: No meat free options at KFC
https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2H5NGMEvbLR1.jpeg
Sums up these idiots.
110
When will the Woke wake up?
60
I almost had an all-in with a woke-ist at work one day, just by refuting the wokist nonsense….the problem is they cant see woke is a joke.
It takes a special type of stupid to fall for it so deep. As we say in IT, there is no patch of stupidity.
Some people are just intellectual road kill, sad but true unfortunately.
20
They have coleslaw , buns and mash plus lettuce so not true . And as an aside when did chooks start having ribs KFC ?
30
Does this mean that when I go to a vegetarian restaurant, I can complain that there is no meat options?
10
‘Forever Chemicals’ May Reduce Fertility in Women by Up to 40%, Study Finds
A new study led by researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in the US uncovered evidence in a sample of women in Singapore linking plasma concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with an increase in the difficulty of becoming pregnant.
Though the nature of this connection isn’t clear, the results add to growing concerns that concentrations of so-called ‘forever chemicals’ across Earth’s surface are silently putting our health at risk and could do for some time to come.
The team found a drop in fertility of around 5 to 10 percent between the lowest 25 percent of PFAS exposure and the next 25 percent, and so forth into the top quartile.
Ultimately, this amounted to a roughly 30–40 percent reduction on average in the likelihood of becoming pregnant or giving birth within a year of follow-up, in women exposed to a mixture of different PFAS chemicals.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723008835
Factor in the “vaccine” related fertility issues, “vaccine” induced premature aging, diseases and death, transing, declining relationships due to social & economic factors, birth and death rates and then calculate the collapse point.
51
There’s a report available online Why the mRNA Vaccine Is Thought to Cause Infertility, and Why That Isn’t true. That should just about settle the matter, right? But the report says “The authors collected 84 placentas from women who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during pregnancy (vaccine group) and 116 placentas from women who did not receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during pregnancy (control group).” [my bold], and the conclusion of the report is: “In summary, there is no evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines can cause infertility in pregnant women …” [my bold]. Ummm, I thought fertility was a factor in becoming pregnant in the first place. If all women in the trial were already pregnant then how can the trial have been testing fertility??? In any case, the report title is misleading.
160
Its a good way to skew a study, no?
00
All what self named fact-checkers try to tell us is BS^10 !
00
Friday historical curio
In medieval Catalonia (Spain), bankers who became bankrupt, were publicly disgraced by town authorities, and given nothing but bread & water to eat until creditors were paid off. After a year, if bankers failed to paid, they would be beheaded & their property sold off to pay them.
[NOPE! – Jo]
150
Donald Trump says thanks, but no thanks.
00
Gives new meaning to Chapter 11 and being bankrupt while rich.
40
No wonder a banker tax collector created the Doberman Pincer Dog escort.
10
Another thing that we could borrow –
Oath of allegience to kings of Castille (Spain)
“We who are as good as you, swear to you, who are no better than we, to accept you as our king and sovereign lord, provided you observe all our liberties and laws, but if not, not.”
J.H Elliot, “Imperial Spain”
70
Sounds good.
10
We might have some if exploration wasn’t banned in much of Australia (and fracking) and John Howard didn’t give much of our gas supply to the Chicomms at world’s cheapest prices on a bizarre 30 year contract with no provision for inflation or market prices.
https://amp.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html
70
Friday Funny:
.
The circus nearby had a competition to find the best contortionist.
I entered myself and won.
70
The circus was banned from coming into our municipality, the council didn’t want the competition!
70
And Canberra.
30
FWIW
“Albanese’s basic question ‘took months’: The Voice ‘isn’t a referendum, this is an IQ test’ ”
https://youtu.be/q8l3tuqFVsQ
And
“Therapeutic Albo’s crocodile tears for ATSIC 2.0”
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/03/therapeutic-albos-crocodile-tears-for-atsic-20.html
And comments
IIRC there are now some 300-odd “nations” – think what the new organisation chart would look like
50
It’s an attack on the Christian principle underlying all Western democracies, that all men are created equal. That is under the law. And it does not mean everyone is the same, which is ridiculous.
But soon there may be different laws for people with different ancestry. My overriding concern is how this is going to help aboriginals?
What it will certainly do is embed racism in our constitution, a very slippery slope.
100
Will Sth Africa refuse to play cricket here?
80
In today’s woke world, at least one woman candidate for the US Supreme Court refused to define a woman, saying she was not a biologist.
So how is Albanese going to legally define who is an Aboriginal?
I suppose they could ask some professional advice from Professor Bruce Pascoe, a member of at least three aboriginal tribes.
70
TdeF:
I thought 2 tribes had disowned him, so now he has found a third tribe? Or did he just make one up?
40
Do the Irish have tribes?
He probably has more genetic links there!
20
Albo reminds me of a 5 year old who has just dropped the ice cream off the top of the ice cream cone.
Very unedifying and totally PATHETIC!
41
Tony Abbott used to spend two weeks of every year living with aboriginals. Everyone else is just pretending to care. Like they care about the poor in a socialist electricity system.
The Constitution recognizes that all people in the Judeo Christian belief are created equal, under the law. However they are not medically identical!
Alcohol is the great destroyer of full blood aborigines being stone age people because I believe being isolated for 50,000 years on an island in a hunter gatherer world without sugar or grain or fruit trees, alcohol is a new and poisonous substance because they cannot metabolize it, lacking the gene to do so, like 20% of Japanese. It kills them, but the terrible violence comes first with terrible and well known consequences. Or the Bruce Pascoe solution, try to look aborigine.
Giving cash to buy alcohol is like subsidizing chocolates for diabetics. It’s a major medical problem, not freedom. Albo is not freeing aborigines, but creating another deadly trap for aborigines and destroying the anti racism foundations of Australia. The undermining of Western democracies is happening world wide simultaneously and perversely in the name of freedom. Racism is not freedom.
If we are to help bush tribes, we can supply food and medical supplies and education. But alcohol supply should be made as difficult as possible to get, not to punish them but to save them. Having the right to drink yourself to death, which everyone has, should not be subsidized by taxpayers or promoted as ‘freedom’. They did not need Rudd’s ‘Sorry’ and they did not need ATSIC and they certainly do not need to be singled out in the Constitution.
Hopefully we do not all have to learn Aboriginal, have the country renamed and statues of famous aborigines replacing Captain Cook. And it’s insane to have Vietnamese, Germans, French, Chinese, Afghans, the Irish and more saying ‘sorry’. The aborigine industry is an end in itself, like the Maori New Zealand when there is not a single full blood Maori left. They are all New Zealanders.
And it raises and extremely important legal point. For the new Constitution to work, how do you define an aborigine? DNA test? Or is it another woke definition, whatever you feel is right.
100
back on Tuesday we had this depleted uranium discussion-
“Similar complaints during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq led to investigations by the UN and report that depleted uranium is not dangerous, radiation level well within acceptable guidelines.”
Today Ramzan Kadyrov, the supreme commander of sharp comments said-
“It is necessary to show the West on its soil how depleted uranium affects the earth, then all discussions about its safety will disappear.”
Which is quite accurate of course, its always harmless unless its on your soil!
https://twitter.com/colonelhomsi/status/1638917875187449857/photo/1
10
Comment at Moon of Alabama points out that Ukraine using DU means they don’t expect to ever take that land back and farm it again. They will make it as unusable for the Donbass people as they can.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/03/ukraine-open-thread-2023-69.html#comments
10
Hey …
I just realized there are spooky correlations between Net Zero and the Arrest of Donald Trump …
1. It ain’t never gonna happen.
2. Both are the absurd aspirations of the same hysterical and intellectually marginalized contingent of the population.
Either that, or they are two of the three primary strategic psychological focal points manufactured by an obscure global cabal intent on the totalitarian control of humanity. (The Great V being number three.)
Can’t decide.
30
I may be the only gold bug here but Au just broke A$3,000 and about to break US$2,000. I had a couple of expensive experiences in the stock market BEFORE the ’08 collapse and that cured me.
My reduced capital has been exclusively in Au, Ag, buy and forget. I started stacking when Au was A$700/oz. I haven’t become a millionaire but I haven’t had to worry either.
40
You’re not the only one… Who would put their trust in money made by the Govt when you can see they are untrustworthy on everything else they touch!
If it gets too popular they will ban ownership I am sure, just like the 1930s USA when they made gold possession illegal for 40years.
How long before cash is removed as a currency? All Govts are mad keen to do that, they’re so desperate for taxes these days. Rising interest rates will show which ones have been padding their tax incomes with borrowings at a ridiculous rate. Loans that never get repaid, so long as a country can afford the interest payments forever..
30
Gold. US$1,999.51 +7.66 +0.38%
‘Tis an ill wind that blows nobody good.
30
Where do you recommend Australians buy Au and Ag Hanrahan and what are transaction fees on top of the value of the product? And what about other substances such as Pt, Pd, Rh?
10
In Melbourne – Ainslie’s, a great family business who did not require ‘vaccination’ for their employees.
10
FWIW
“Twitter removing freebie ‘Blue Tick Verified’ for the very important people, like ABC personalities.”
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/03/twitter-removing-freebie-blue-tick-verified-for-the-very-important-people-like-abc-personalities.html
Fine detail – notice that Musk’s use of the “two fingered salute” there
30
Risk of using Hydrogen as Poss. Fuel replacement ? https://youtu.be/V1HHvnd22lQ?t=238 well I didn’t know all that – did Mr Bamford? and do you? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/31/jcb-signs-deal-to-import-hydrogen-from-australia-to-uk
10
Very short video.
White House resident Biden is confused and walks away when asked questions.
https://youtube.com/shorts/_zvH-8u4USE
00
FWIW
Those “service industries” won’t like this line of thought
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=248388
00
They couldn’t think of a less lewd and lascivious example?
00
The more conventional example is breaking a window.
10
Ah- separating the ‘bread’ from the ‘circuses’.. All the social media counts as entertainment, so does not have a tangible benefit, as per music and art throughout history.
The Socialists would get around the fall in GDP by assigning a value to all the non-tangibles, like they do to measure which city is the nicest to live in. I’m sure going to a rock concert that cost $100 in a tangible ticket would get you assigned $150 worth of satisfaction, so the official GDP goes up $250…
There was a cute example put up where a traveller arrived in a village and wanted accommodation. The publican said he’d take a $100 deposit and settle the bill in the morning. He nipped off to pay the grocer the $100 he owed him, who whipped around to the butcher and cleared the $100 he owed, and the butcher gave the $100 to the carpenter who gave it to the hardware shop who paid his $100 tab at the hotel.. In the morning the traveller paid his bill & collected his $100 deposit & left. So the GDP went up by several hundred dollars although the village was really no wealthier the next day.
00
State election day here in NSW..
I know my local Nationals candidate personally… good bloke.
And Craig Kelly is standing for the upper house.
51
Why do libs allow themselves to be captured by the likes of Keen and Turnbull? Are they so shallow they are influenced by the ABC?
50
Libs seem to generally be GUTLESS wet rags.
Won’t it be fun if both Craig Kelly and Mark Latham make it into the upper house.
Popcorn futures, anyone 🙂
20
Re buying gold. I’ve used ABC Bullion. They have about a 4% difference between their selling and buying price. You pay more for a more ‘arty’ look; the basic 50 gm ingot style,($4900) is $350 less than the 50gm dividing into 1gm pieces. You can pay for them to store it, or postage and insurance, or pick it up for free yourself. With ID you can purchase any amount you want, and pay by most normal means, it just takes a few days to clear with the bank. You can walk into an office, and pay up to $5000 cash daily, with no ID.
10
I haven’t bought gold as speculation, rather as a fall back in case of total collapse. The market is completely controlled by wealthy speculators. Remember, when everyone else is buying, it is a great time to sell.
10
“The market is completely controlled by… The Futures and the ETF Market” Which is all buying gold as paper and apparently the paper adds up to more gold than exists as a metal.
“The world’s leading benchmark futures contract for gold trades the equivalent of nearly 27 million ounces daily. ” Perth Mint’s record is 63000 ounces, and they are a sizeable player.
It will be interesting to see if the inflation we are going to experience for a couple of years gets past into the gold price.
00
FWIW
“Warren Mundine – Albanese’s so-called Voice a dangerous con-job”
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/03/warren-mundine-albaneses-so-called-voice-a-dangerous-con-job.html
00
Elbo and Bow-wow are on par with the Dodgy Bros. (apologies to the Dodgy Bros)
But at least we knew that the Dodgy Bros were deliberately pretending to be clown-like con-men.
00
Parallel Data Plotting
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/03/the-1-5-c-temperature-fiction-already-exceeded/
00
Hoping this reaches a wider audience, particularly among the young
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/24/professor-peter-ridd-the-worlds-coral-reefs-are-not-declining/
20
FWIW
“Senator Rennick, full interview Dr. John Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8kaXrEQB5M ”
Via a comment at SDA
00
Protestors tossing electric scooters onto the fires they are lighting around France.. makes it very difficult to put the fires out. Maybe Teslas next..
“In Paris alone protestors lit more than 900 fires.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/24/france-protests-why-setting-fire-e-scooters/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-onward-journey
00