This is a page for your use, to try out html tags and see what they look like, to post new ideas, to pass along interesting information, to suggest future topics for discussion, to reach out and contact me directly, the floor is yours.
w.
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Skating Under The Ice 
Hi Willis,
I’ve been reluctant to trouble you, or other commentators I admire, to seek the answer to a question I’ve had for some time.
That question is, “If we define the expression ‘One Industrial revolution’ as the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 released from the start of the Industrial Revolution to today, how many Industrial Revolutions would it take to reach various points of interest?
One and a half degrees of warming, two degrees of warming, the point where increasing temperature is no longer a benefit, and so on.
“Today” keeps changing,so for the sake of consistency, let’s use the date 7 Dec 2022, a date that’s inherently irrelevant save it makes the sums below easier.
I imagine the answer is relatively easy for one with your expertise.
But I’m rude enough to want more than the answer to my question. I want to know how to answer that question, and similar ones like it, for myself.
I’m emboldened by your words:
“… what do I do now that I’ve won?
Over time, my conclusion was simple—I’d give it away. Not so much the physical stuff, although that too, but mostly my knowledge, my skills. When someone wanted to learn something, I’d give my time to teach them. “
So I’m emboldened, but it seems decent to give it a go myself first.
Firstly, I have to acknowledge that I’m after a rough approximation at best, a near-,meaningless one actually.
Total amount of CO2 released since the start of the Industrial Revolution to the present and total temperature change since then, as a measure is ridiculous because 1) it presumes there was no natural change in that time to either temperature or CO2. .2) It likewise it presumes that our global measurements are accurate enough, then and now. 3) It completely disregards the possibility of emergent climate moderating effects such as those you’ve advocated considering.4) It ignores other greenhouse gasses. 5) It ignores non-transient effects of warming. 6) it deals inadequately with the absorption of emitted CO2. 7) Not all fossil fuel is or was coal. 8) There’s undoubtedly other relevant factors I’m ignorant of.
I so acknowledge.
In addition I am going to have to adjust for the fact that the heating effect of additional CO2 is logarithmically less for each given quantity, and the ‘Amount of radiation cooled down
Next,I google the question. I find “Our world in data” gives CO2 data as fossil fuels plus cement, or fossil fuels plus land use changes, but not the total.
(They do have one graph that might interest your readers, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/absolute-change-co2 as at 11 Feb 2022.)
carbonbrief.org gave that figure as 1,374 gigatons of carbon dioxide as at 7 December 2012.
Our world in data says we’re at 34 gigaton per year.
So adding 340 gigatons for the decade to 7 December 2022 brings the numeric definition of One industrial Revolution equal to 1,714 gigatons of CO2 released.**
Asking Google further, it produces the figure of coal burned for CO2 produced at 1,714 gigaton of coal divided by 2.42 is 708.2644 gigatons of coal equivalent. Given the specific uncertainty in the decadal figure I used, (marked **) it seems reasonable to define one industrial revolution as 700 gigatons of coal equivalent.
So presumably the ipcc calculates how many more tones we can emit to get to various temperature outcomes. They will produce a range, and I should work with the median, despite my reservations about institutional motivated reasoning. I go to https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
and find myself at a loss. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Eliminating qualifiers, we see a budget of 580 gigatons of CO2 to reach 1.5 degrees by 2100.So, a third of an Industrial revolution.
I can’t find a carbon budget in their documentation for a budget of 2 degrees. Presumably I’m looking in the wrong place.
Please help me find the right place?
Relatedly, both Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Schellenberger, reformed Greens, assert that the IPCC figures for a temperature rise of eight degrees C would produce a 4 % reduction in GDP. They link to a fire-walled article. I am at a loss as to where to start looking in the IPCC work itself, and if I do, what would the carbon budget be?
The pathway to answer my question has turned out somewhat differently to what I anticipated before I started. I thought I’d need a lot of calculation. Now I realise I need merely find the IPCC carbon budget figures. I’ve looked. Can you give me clues as to where I’m likely to find that information? Heck, if you have a link directly to those answers, I’d appreciate it. That’d be cheating if I were trying to repeat their work; but I’m not. I’m trying to find out what their work says, and to then place it in a context that’s meaningful to me and possibly others.
Thanking you in anticipation
Leo
LikeLike
Leo, from my perspective I fear the answer to your question is that CO2 is not the secret climate control knob … and as a result, your question has no answer.
Me, I think that the temperature of the earth is controlled by a variety of emergent phenomena, NOT by CO2. See here for a further discussion.
Finally, there’s no scientific agreement about the purported relationship between CO2 and temperature. The value for “climate sensitivity”, the amount the temperature is claimed to rise from a doubling of CO2, range from half a degree per doubling to eight degrees per doubling. See here for details.
And thus, even if we were to take the IPCC claim that CO2 roolz climate at face value … your question still has no answer.
w.
LikeLike
Thanks Willis.
You’ve said concisely what I took a verbose paragraph to express.
In fact since my whole enquiry was verbose, turgid text; I apologise. I should have waited till morning and re-written it.
Thanks for the hyperlinks you included in your reply. For some reason, they aren’t working – regardless of the browser I use. If you fix that, I will read what they link to.
While I was trying to “Show my work” above I answered most of my own question.
The only part I couldn’t answer is “Where in the IPCC work can I find their figures for the Carbon Budgets to various ‘targets’?”
LikeLike
Thanks, Leo. Link fixed.
w.
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
Have you written any article that investigates the folly of all electric vehicles by some future date… something along the line of your “Bright Green Impossibilities”? I guess this would include some projection as to the electric vehicle numbers and the electric power needed for some projected usage. This would translate into new electric generation capacity. My guess is that the electric generation needs alone would disclose the folly (not even cosidering the infrastructure changes or fire risk, or battery problems or etc, etc) as staggeringly unrealistic. I would like to see a “back of the envelope” analysis that covers the increased electric generation part of 100% electric vehicles. I have looked through you latest index of articles and couldn’t recognize it if it exsist. I love your articles!!
Regards,
Don Bunker
LikeLike
No full post on that, Don, although I’ve run some numbers. T-I-M-E … never enough.
w.
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
Who has extra time on their hands… only someone who never does anything, I guess, so you definitely don’t qualify. I had a boss once that said it wasn’t productive to go to a dry well for water, that explains why people seek your advice.
I find duck duck sources that say the total miles driven in the US annually is 3.2 trillion. Also that EVs average 3.3 miles per KWH. If the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility produces 18,000 GWH annually (Per Wikipedia), Does the simple math come out to 54 Diablo plants required to drive 3.2 trillion miles?
Don Bunker
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
Just read your latest WUWT article “Transportation By 2050” and it more than satisfied my interest in the subject. Your well runneth over!!! 2250 TWH for EVs vs 2020 total electric generation in USA of 4009TWH or 56%…WOW!
Regards
LikeLike
Happy Birthday Willis! I’d love to be around and have you around for another 75. I’ve got you by 2 years. Technically I’m a war baby, but I identify (<=such nonsense!) as a Boomer. Cherish all your memories, and please keep writing.
LikeLike
Thanks, my friend, always good to see your name pop up.
w.
LikeLike
From your “Shades Of Blue”
“The meter counts turns by the propeller and converts them into “knots”, the usual measure of distance at sea.” Knots? – ‘speed’ maybe? Nautical miles also registered. (No way to add this to the original publication.)
Sextant? I bought the more expensive Davis plastic sextant in the 1970’s to practice with. Our intent was to sail to Australia after my wife’s parents passed on. They both lived for many more years, the trip never happened. We were looking at the Whitby 42, a center-cockpit ketch for the voyage.
More sextant. I spent six weeks in Australia in 1995, basically saying ‘Bye’ to friends and relatives. There was a Royal Australian Navy frigate in a graving dock in South Brisbane, turned into a museum. An octant was on display in one of the cases – labeled as a sextant. Got to talking with the chaps at the front desk on my way out, “That’s how the donor had it labeled in his collection.” Not about to change it. Oh well…..
Digression. Francis Drake circumnavigated and was knighted by Elizabeth I. Francis Chitchester solo circumnavigated and was knighted by Elizabeth II. The same sword was used in both ceremonies.
Birthdays? Had a friend who celebrated the 50th anniversary of her 21st birthday last year. It’s all in how you look at it. Many more to come mate.
LikeLike
Tombstone Gabby March 18, 2022 at 5:03 pm said:
Nautical miles, AKA knots, are a measure of both distance and speed.
Interesting about QEI and QEII using the same sword. I remember when Chichester finished his circumnavigation, I was much impressed.
My best to you,
w.
LikeLike
Ouch.
Chip log – Wikipedia
Search domain en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chip_log
A chip log, also called common log, ship log, or just log, is a navigation tool mariners use to estimate the speed of a vessel through water. The word knot, to mean nautical mile per hour, derives from this measurement method. Contents 1 History 2 Construction 3 Use 4 Origins 5 Accuracy and considerations by the navigator
LikeLike
Ah, my bad, you are 100% correct and my late-night speed-reading was 100% wrong. Well caught.
Fixed, with my thanks.
w.
LikeLike
Cookies tomorrow mate.
Too many times I’ve been reading and run into “knots per hour” – and cringed – a measure of acceleration.(I’m waiting for some ‘scientist’ to come up with “furlongs/fortnight/fortnight” as a measure for acceleration)
Enjoy the cookies…..
LikeLike
Darn, I knew I’d forget something. I’m still working my way through your older posts at WUWT. Came across a prediction.
From: Of Coconuts, the Sun, and Small Isolated Islands – Aug. 9, 2012
“Fortunately, since the Kiwis are putting up the money, none of this really matters. Let me say, however, that my prediction is that in ten years, Tokelau will still be importing fossil fuels for a host of uses, and that much if not all of the solar system will be quietly rusting away … I could be wrong, and I truly hope that I am wrong.”
Getting close to ten years – right or wrong?
LikeLike
Good question, Gabby. I find this:
So it lasted a whole eight years and now it’s getting totally replaced at a cost of $5.7 million … that’s about $4,000 per person, so to duplicate that for the US would cost $1.3 TRILLION … zowie.
I cannot find any figures on total petroleum fuel imports for Tokelau. I do find this from 2016;
Big surprise. Also, the main diesel use isn’t counted in Tokelau. This is the diesel to run the government boat which connects the three atolls … but they buy it in Samoa to save money, and don’t count it in their fossil imports.
Finally, most folks don’t understand just how tiny the country is. The total land area of the three atolls is 4.6 square miles (12 km^2), or about 3,000 acres … a small ranch in Texas.
Moral of the story? If you’re a country the size of a bedsheet, and you can get other countries to buy your renewable energy hardware, you can pretend that it all works …
Regards,
w.
LikeLike
You predicted ten years, the system lasted eight. I’d call that “Right”.
Keep up the good work mate…..
LikeLike
Hello Willis, I am interested in running an Amazon Turk survey of about 300 people asking how much they say they agree with the scientific consensus on climate change and then how much they think unabated warming would cost the world economy in 2100. I expect to use the 3.6% figure from the climate economic models like Nordhaus’
You may discern that this is likely to result in a poll showing a sharp increase in error as a person’s self described agreement with the science goes up. In my opinion this could create a dramatic ‘gut check’ moment if it becomes popularly known – exposing that what people are getting from the headlines is nothing like what can be found at the bottom line of any mainstream science
I wondered if you think WUWT would be likely to post about such a survey. I checked in with their tips section but didn’t get a further response (they thought I wanted to poll WUWT readers). It should be quite reliable at 300 respondents but I see it as a start to try to crowdfund a gold standard poll that would look slick enough for mainstream media to report on and have more cachet as a social media news bit
LikeLike
Willis, your emergent thunderstorm theory strikes me as believable but I’d love to see the calculations, if you have made them, as to how much more energy tropical thunderstorms dissipate to space versus how much the parameterized climate models suggest they do. I’m not sure how possible or easy such an analysis might be, but it seems to me it would allow an assessment of whether climate models are missing something significant in their parameterizations. I suppose you’d have to model global cloud cover impacts unless the climate models specify a certain amount of energy release within the geographic area that would be subject to your thunderstorm cooling hypothesis, in which case a comparison of those regions’ relative radiation/ heat balance between your theory and model paramterizations might be anough. I hope I’m making sense here, I am not a physicist or scientist. Any thoughts about this kind of comparison? Or maybe you’ve made such of not as how I describe?
Second, another blogger, Stephen Wilde, has proposed a theory the UV/ ozone interaction impacts global jet stream shapes such that more global cooling/ heating should take place depending on these factors. Are you familiar with his theory? Do you have an opinion about it? Have you written about it? If so, where?
LikeLike
Willis,
I have followed your work on WuWT for many years – thank you!
I am working on what I think is a pretty exciting new/old technology to help with electricity curtailment and flared natural gas; do you know a retired, hands-on electrical engineer interested in working in this area? Or possibly a chemical engineer.
LikeLike
Wish I did, amigo, but I don’t. You might put out a call for co-authors on Twitter or on WattsUpWithThat.com.
Best of luck,
w.
LikeLike
Does this perchance involve a thermopile?
LikeLike
No, this is a far greater scale. Something that can handle the 12 million megawatt hours that Texas curtails every year.
LikeLike
Willis,
No worries – I’ll try WuWT. Thanks!
LikeLike
Hello Willis! I have a random question. There is a statistical technique which is used to generate more data points in a limited data set. I recall that it is/has been used in global temperature calculation in places like Canada, the Arctic, Africa, etc. where weather stations are scarce. I recall reading a discussion where this technique was used to generate data in the Arctic and similar locations by “projecting” the temperature data for a single weather station out over 1200 miles. Is it the “jackknife” or “bootstrap” technique? If you can explain the technique using small words as simply as possible, I would appreciate it. My recall of statistics I took 40 years ago is fragmentary at best. Thank you!
LikeLike
Dear Willis,
Thanks for all your outstanding exploration and lateral thinking in the climate world – not to mention your superb story-telling.
A question for you about something I’ve been thinking – but don’t have the expertise or knowledge to explore – but wondered if it might interest you or maybe you have already looked at this. It’s something I’ve not heard or read anything on.
Earth’s energy balance and photosynthesis.
Light energy is translated into chemical energy during photosynthesis which means it is captured and stored rather than released as heat energy on contact with the earth’s surface. With the ~20% (or more) increase in global vegetation due to higher CO2 levels presumably there is a 20% (or greater?) increase in the amount of light energy that is stored as chemical energy by biomass as opposed to released at the surface as heat energy.
I wonder if the effect of that is significant (or not) in terms of earth’s energy balance and if it is a way in which higher CO2 levels reduce heating (temperatures) by capture as chemical energy in biomass.
I was fascinated a few years ago reading some older papers reporting studies on leaf temperature which found that trees control the leaf temperature to the optimum for photosynthesis. Primarily by altering the orientation towards the sun and in lower temperatures more light energy is allowed to translate into heat energy to achieve optimum temperature for photosynthesis and in higher temps allowing more water vapour to escape through leaf stomata cools toward the optimum temp.
The potential effect on global energy balances is beyond me ….. but, if it is of interest, I suspect you might be able to figure it out.
with all kind regards
LikeLike
Thanks, Roger.
The thing about photosynthesis is that it’s pretty much steady-state. By that I mean that yes, sunlight is converted to chemical energy. BUT, when the plant dies, the rotting gives off heat … so there’s little net change.
w.
LikeLike
Willis, energy into/ out of biomass is steady state, but only if the biomass is steady state. If the biomass is growing, then isn’t there a net subtraction of radiative energy as it is converted into chemical potential energy? Isn’t the question whether the amount of net radiation=>chemical meaningfully reduces upwelling infrared? Correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
LikeLike
True, JP. However, the amount of energy to change levels of biomass is small and spread out over decades. As a result, compared to the total amount of power flowing through the system every year, it’s lost in the noise.
w.
LikeLike
Many thanks Willis (and JP for your input).
Sorry not to have responded sooner but I’ve spent since Friday in hospital after an emergency admission with quite bad pneumonia and just allowed out this afternoon. I was thinking of what your answers might be during the long hours of the night and you certainly haven’t disappointed.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
Oregon’s first wind-solar-battery facility just came online. They report, “…the renewable energy facility comprises 30 megawatts of massive lithium batteries that can store up to 120 megawatt-hours of power, …powering around 100,000 homes.”
If this battery facility is called upon in a period with no replenishment from wind or solar (sun is not shining and no wind) how many hours of electricity can these 100,000 homes expect?
Thank you in advance,
Martin
LikeLike
Good question, Martin.
A typical US house uses 11,000 kWh per year. That’s about 30 kWh per day, which is about 1.2 kWh per hour
This battery provides 120 MWh for 100k homes. That’s about 1.2 kWh per home.
So it would run these 100,000 homes for about … an hour …
w.
LikeLike
I figured as much.
As always, thank you.
Martin
LikeLike
This short article lays bare the accounting chicanery at the heart of the climate narrative:
https://ddebernardy.substack.com/p/soil-not-oil
In short, carbon accounting rules keep avoidable natural emissions out of view. In particular soil-based emissions tied to canopy loss. These are an order of magnitude larger than emissions tied to fossil fuels. It follows that the carbon hockey stick is soil, not oil.
LikeLike
Willis I tried contacting you years ago about an article in Surfline called “we live on a warming planet”. The data I wanted your comment on was the buoy data showing significant wave heights decreasing around the world since the late 70’s according to the buoy data they analyzed. The reason for following up is UCSD researchers have come out with a study from the “drifter program” showing an increase in tropical cyclone intensity. Which IMHO doesn’t seem to add up. Would be interested on your take.
cheers
Bart
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-of-ocean-currents-reveal-intensification-of-tropical-cyclones-around-the-world
LikeLike
What do you make of this paper on accelerating sea level rise?
Evidence of regional sea-level rise acceleration for the North Sea, David B Steffelbauer, Riccardo E M Riva, Jos S Timmermans4, Jan H Kwakkel and Mark Bakker1 Published 14 June 2022 • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
LikeLike
Don, the problem with all of these studies is that the rate of sea level rise around the world regularly accelerates and decelerates. Thus, their finding of acceleration starting around 1993 is not surprising.
So … is the rate of sea level rise accelerating, decelerating, or relatively steady? Hard to say.
My best to you,
w.
LikeLike
Thanks. I was stimulated to look at the sea rise issue by an article in the Chronical that the airport would be flooded in 30 years. It looks like the Bay stopped rising nearly 40 years ago. But commenters say that the sea rise is accelerating.
LikeLike
2022-12-21
I was updating my records about the sun when I found out NOAA have modified standard for writing their date codes inbedded in the file systems that the SDO has been producing since 2008 or so.
I have been using Solarham as my jump off. It was taken down by hackers but he still produces updates on FB and Twitter. Not the same.
I have no access to the older portions before Dec because SDO transferred all to NOAA.
Just another game they are playing with our freedom.
LeeO
LikeLike
Typical. However, can you now get the info from NOAA?
Regards,
w.
LikeLike
I did find the path. It is a subset of NOAA called NDCD. I found it at the end of a note within the DATA tab at the page used for Solar Synoptic Map.
It wasnt there before. I used to have it at ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa. in the Warehouse.
Their sudden change caught Solarham off guard. Apparently they converted the files (dates) to use the 2022 year instead of just 22 at the beginning. Thanks for the responce.
LeeO
LikeLike
Willis , longtime no speak . From the days of Askoy and the chilled vodka I am still around the rsyc . Picked up your trail from wattsup -have been following for years. hope to chat more. Robert
LikeLike
Hey, Robert, what a wonderful New Years’ surprise! Hope you’re doing well, nothing but good memories of times with you.
Best of the upcoming year to you and yours, stay in touch,
w.
LikeLike
There is an article in today’s Chronicle saying that: “With the warming climate, the state is not only seeing more intense droughts, alongside more intense storms, but more of the precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow.”
Is that true?
LikeLike
Nope. No evidence for that at all.
w.
LikeLike
hey, Willis, Kevin Roche, the Healthy-Skeptic here, check out this new article at NBER, says that large-scale irrigation has a cooling effect. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30966. http://www.healthy-skeptic.com
LikeLike
True. John Christy of UAH MSU temperature fame did some work on this a while back, hang on … OK, it’s at
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=natrespapers
w.
LikeLike
Have you ever discussed the issue of the earth’s internal heat?
A writer I’ve been following due to his analysis of covid issues has written about this. Curious as to your thoughts.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
LikeLike
The amount of geothermal heat coming up from below is tiny, on the order of tenths of a watt per square meter. If it were significant, we’d be able to sleep on the ground and the ocean would be constantly overturning like a pot on the stove, because it would be heated from the bottom.
Don’t think I’ve ever written a post on it, but with ~ 1,000 posts at this time I can’t remember a lot of them. Hang on … nope, nothing directly. But I did get into a debate about it with a somewhat goofy lady named Zoe Phin here.
Best to you,
w.
LikeLike
Climate Signal post on Climate Etc by David M Barnet
Email to Judith Hi Judith
Here is an interesting connection 8 Point No 1 is shown as the 16th but I believe if it is a factor it could extend to the 19th.
Ed
From the Climate Signal post
I have always been fascinated by the fact that the shortest day of the year is around 20th December, while the coldest time is typically towards the end of January. The difference is the seasonal lag. In the case of 1772 to 1776 that coldest date (according to climate) was 19.5 days into January. That represents a lag of about 30 days which is close to π/6 radians.
8 Point Diagram https://www.facebook.com/groups/420503074813651/permalink/2130696187127656/
From: Ed Oberg
Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:03 PM
Subject: .55 x 365 ~ 200 – Now isn’t that a strange coincidence!!!!
To: Judith Curry
July 19
July 19 is the 200th day of the year (201st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar; 165 days remain until the end of the year.
Ed
LikeLike
The discussion a this site (https://www.sciencealert.com/the-mystery-of-earths-uniform-shine-might-at-last-have-a-solution) about why the earth has essentially uniform luminance from space while the southern hemisphere has more ocean water that reflects light than the northern hemisphere reminded me of your tropical cloud hypothesis.
LikeLike
Oops. Should be oceans “absorb” more light not reflect. Re: earth uniform luminance from space
LikeLike
Many folks on WUWT comment on how most of the warming of the earth over the last 70 years has been caused by the decrease of the night time lows at both the poles. Their argument stops there as though that fact alone will be a convincing argument that there is “nothing to worry about”. I think that most of the meat on THAT bone has been left on the bone.
What is the historical temperature change for the last “X” years at the poles alone vs how much temperature change in the balance of the earth alone (without the cooling at the poles)?
Your earth maps showing these numbers would be very instructive, especially if they contained a reminder of the distribution of the earth’s population.
There are so many folks on WUWT that oppose a World Average Temperature as not being useful, perhaps a slightly different World Where People Live Average Temperature would be a bit more meaningful.
Regards,
Don
LikeLike
A new report published jointly today by San Francisco’s Office of Resilience and Capital Planning, Departments of Public Health and Emergency Management finds that city residents are increasingly at risk as heat waves become more severe and frequent.
Is it true that SF heatwaves are more severe and frequent?
LikeLike
🤣
LikeLike
Willis, In The (London) Times today, 25 July, an article headlined ‘Heatwaves “impossible” without climate change’ reported the words of a Dr Friederike Otto of an organisation called the World Weather Attribution project. She stated that the current temperatures in Spain and Greece of 45 degC would be impossible without climate change. Specifically, their computer models showed that the increase in temperature locally in these countries was 2.5 degC over 1850 temperatures, though the global temperature rise was only 1.2 degC. I remember a post by you a while back in which you interrogated the CERES database and found that the majority of the temperature rise (over the last 20 years, I seem to remember) had taken place at night, during the winter and in the Arctic. I assumed this means that the temperature increase during the day, in summer and in temperate countries would be less than 1.2 degC, not 2.5 degC. Did I understand your article correctly and do you think that this is true?
LikeLike
Hello Willis,
I saw a Tweet of yours in the not so distant past that listed the electric requirements of a gas station should it be converted to all electric, with the closing line point out that the overwhelming requirements were for ONE STATION.
I liked the tweet to have it for future reference and today was the day! Until I learned you had be unceremoniously removed from the platform.
Is that information in another location, or can you track it down?
Thanks!
LikeLike
Sorry, Bob, but when the Twittards suspended me I lost all of that.
Grrr …
w.
LikeLike
hey Willis, I saw on WUWT the issue about a publication fee. I am happy to pay those fees for you anytime and do anything else I can to support your work. I have done the same for Roy Spencer. You can find my email in the form below, if you don’t already have it. And I frequently comment on and link to your posts on my blog. Kevin Roche
LikeLike
Kevin, I can’t thank you enough. However, I also can’t ask anyone to pay for my ticket …
Huge props to you,
w.
LikeLike
Willis, have you seen this paper, seems pretty interesting. https://healthy-skeptic.com/2023/10/19/the-truth-about-historical-climate-records/
If you have trouble getting it, you can email me at my email and i will send you a PDF
LikeLike
Thanks, kevin. I fear the author is conflating surface CO2 measurements and background CO2 measurements. They’re very different things. See my post “Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano” for a discussion of the issues.
w.
LikeLike
I assume you saw this report from Norway, a fairly comprehensive exposition of issues in ascribing temperature changes over the last 200 years to CO2 emissions. https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
It is in English. And I am still somewhat confused on the CO2 paper. I assume the “background” rate of anything in the atmosphere and particularly something relatively rather multifactorial like CO2 in terms of sources and sinks, is just the average of the amounts found in various locations. Even somewhat higher in the atmosphere like on the Hawaiian mountains I would guess it isn’t the same around the earth? I thought part of what the author was saying was that CO2 can be highly variable at different locations, horizontally or vertically, and over time. We know the amount of agricultural change in a larger area can impact CO2, for example. Wouldn’t that variability have consequences in terms of the supposed impact of CO2 on climate? Just trying to understand what it means to say the background rate is X and that is what matters for climate. Thank you as always for your wonderful work, which I literally always hope to see when I go to WUWT. And I hope you will get back on Twitter soon.
LikeLike
I have been reading substack posts by Willaim M Briggs, who has helped to demystify the black art of statistics for me. Having just read https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/the-field-of-statistics-is-doomed, I am at a loss to understand what he means with “To fix this, statistical practice must abandon its old emphasis on model fitting, with its associated hypothesis testing, and move to making—and verifying—predictions made on data never seen or used in any way.” I am not qualified to comment on the part before the first hyphen, so would value your reaction to it. However, it’s the part after the last hyphen that has my brain boggled. I could ask him what that means and probably will, but since I am here, maybe you can enlighten me? I am a qualified engineer but cannot recall ever having to design, analyse, repair or scrap anything based on predictions of data “never seen or used in any way.”
LikeLike
John, you say:
The proper way to test any model is that you need to create the model using a given dataset—say, stock market data up to 2017.
Then you test your model on data that your model has never seen or used in any way—say, post-2017 stock market data.
Hope this helps,
w.
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
I am a free lance journalist from the Netherlands and more or less following you for many years. See here a video interview I made with Will Happer, its mostly in English, just to give an impression of my work.
The reason to write you is that Dutch Television has just shown a 6min repo about the Solomon Island (they write Salomon) around which sea level supposedly rises three times faster as elsewhere. No sources are given: according to scientists….
You have lived on those islands, would you mind viewing this clip and comment? They claim the islands will have to be abandoned in several decades if sea level keeps on rising.
The video is here:
Of course I’ll gladly translate any pieces you dont understand, but I assume that is not necessary.
Many thanks in advance,
Theo Richel
theo@richel.org
LikeLike
Willis I have enjoyed your posts on wuwt for years. I was talking to an alarmist friend and he said Greenland is melting, it is the hottest year ever, and the gulf stream was going to cease and the British Isles would freeze ! We are both 68 years old. I told him there is an El Nino going on so we are having a mild winter. The gulf stream is still strong. And any melting in Greenland is such a tiny % of its total mass that there is nothing to worry about in the next 30 years that we might be lucky enough to last. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/if-greenland-is-catastrophically-melting-how-do-alarmists-explain-nasas-growing-greenland-glacier/
Any thoughts or updated insight on this post of yours for 2019?
Thanks
Jim Murphy
LikeLike
See my post “Where Is The Climate Emergency”?
w.
LikeLike
Thanks Willis!
LikeLike
Willis, I just found your blog site and I’ve been jogging through your older posts. The four regarding British Columbia’s carbon tax were very amusing. I have no time for carbon taxes or people that believe the CO2 is anything other than a harmless beneficial gas, but I think you missed an important cause of the BC tax. Federal law indicates that unless a Province has a carbon tax then the Feds will impose one and the tax revenue goes to the Feds not the Province. Although I think the entire exercise is a waste of time and, as you set out, a tax on the poor, I would rather, if my pocket is to be picked, that my pocket be picked by the Province. I believe and I may be entirely wrong on this, the BC tax is less than the Federal tax which is set to increase again in April. The proponents of the scheme may think it is meant to reduce fuel usage I believe its real purpose is to stick it to the Feds.
LikeLike
Hi Willis,
I keep hearing that the ocean is absorbing most of the heat from global warming. I have read several of your articles arguing about whether or not it is possible for the atmosphere to heat the ocean. And I agree with you on this – of course it is. Any sea breeze cooled by the ocean tells us that the ocean is sucking heat out of the atmosphere. What I have not been able to discover in your articles or any others is this: How much heat can the ocean actually take out of the atmosphere?
Obviously water has a much higher specific heat capacity than air. The claim that the oceans (surface of the ocean) have warmed by 1 degree when the atmosphere has only warmed by 1.5 degrees intuitively seems false to me. I mean I guess it depends how deep we measure. Of course the very top layer would easily warm by 1 degree. But down to 700m? I would love to see one of your ballpark calculations here. How much could the oceans actually warm due to a 1.5 degree warming of the atmosphere. I imagine it is much smaller than we are lead to believe but I could be wrong.
LikeLike