Global CO2 Emissions are Tracking Well Below the Climate Scenarios Used to Scare People

June 30th, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

One of the main complaints rational people have had about global warming projections is that the “baseline” scenarios assumed for future CO2 emissions are well above what is realistic. As Roger Pielke, Jr, has been pointing out for years, the U.N. IPCC continues to make these exaggerated scenarios a high priority, and it looks like the next IPCC Assessment Report (AR7) will continue that tradition.

While Roger doesn’t believe there are nefarious motives in this strategy, I do: The IPCC knows very well that as long as climate models are run that produce extreme amounts of climate change, few people will question the assumptions that went into those model projections. Peoples’ careers now depend upon the continuing fear of a “climate crisis” (which has yet to materialize).

But I haven’t been able to find a good, recent graph showing how actual global CO2 emissions compare to those scenarios. So I made one. In the following plot I show estimates of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use through 2023, and EIA projections every 5 years from 2025 through 2050 (green). Also shown are the latest (AR6) SSP scenarios that come closest to the AR5 RCP scenarios. (In order to get the SSP scenarios to line up pretty well with the actual emissions in the early years I had to subtract the SSP land use CO2 emissions from the SSP total CO2 emissions values).

While an emissions scenario like SSP5-8.5 has been widely used to scare humanity with climate model projections of extreme warming, this plot shows the last several years of global emissions (through 2023) suggest the future will look nothing like that scenario.

(And, it should come as no surprise that “Net Zero” emissions by 2050 is a delusion.)

I encourage everyone to subscribe to Pielke’s The Honest Broker substack, where he discusses this and related issues in great detail.


255 Responses to “Global CO2 Emissions are Tracking Well Below the Climate Scenarios Used to Scare People”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    But I havent been able to find a good, recent graph showing how actual global CO2 emissions compare to those scenarios.

    https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following

    Don’t you consult your colleagues in the field? Like one of my professors used to say, working in a vacuum sucks.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      What’s with your headline picture? No self-respecting cowboy would get caught out in the open during a lightning storm. Those two should be down in an arroyo or up against a rock cliff wall, preferably with considerable overhang.

      Real cowboying is not that romantic.

      • Roy W Spencer says:

        Seems to me no self respecting cowboy would go running to mommy just because of lightning. I don’t. But there is a message in the picture, if you think about it. Examine what is going on there.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Have you ever been struck by lightning?

        –Are you seriously asking that question? In 2022, 19 people in the U.S were struck and killed by lightning. In that same year, 7,508 pedestrians were struck and killed by cars. Do you run and hide from cars? Or do you take your chances and cross the street? I live in a tornado prone area, but I don’t go hide in the closet when there is a tornado warning, because I know the chances of taking a direct hit from a tornado are very small. I’d rather watch the show. But since you apparently speak for cowboys, maybe they are a different breed than I assumed they were… — Roy

      • Nate says:

        Lightning, shmightning, a few million extra volts now and then just makes you tough!

        –The vast majority of people struck by lightning survive. Most of the few who die (19 in the U.S. in 2022) could have been revived by people nearby. -Roy

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Dr Spencer,

        Sounds like reckless behavior IMHO.

        I lived in tornado alley for 30 years, in southwest Kansas and North Texas, and I always heeded the warnings. If your home takes a direct hit you’ll have a better chance of survival in the more structurally sound areas of the house which normally aren’t “the closet” or wherever it is you “watch the show.

        I don’t presume to “speak for cowboys,” but I’ve had a second home in Wyoming since 1974. I can’t say that I’ve ever met a single person who didn’t show proper respect for the danger and the power of lightning strikes. Go hiking in the Bighorn Mountains and you’ll see innumerable instances where lighting strikes have split boulders and/or trees.

        Lastly, you cannot compare getting run over by a bus with recklessly exposing oneself to a lightning strike or a tornado bringing down your house on top of you and your family.

        Besides, do you not look both ways when crossing the street? It’s the same heuristic as not sitting out in the open during a lightning storm, no?

      • Nate says:

        If doesn’t kill you, do you end up with a super power?

        According to Wikipedia

        “Lightning strikes can produce severe injuries in humans, and are lethal in between 10 and 30% of cases, with up to 80% of survivors sustaining long-term injuries”

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        Essentially, according to Dr. Spencer’s estimates, human emissions in 2050 will still be about 4% of total emissions. Seems like much ado about nothing.

      • Hans Erren says:

        You can flood a leaky pool with a trickle of water.
        It’s the mass balance, not the inflow that counts.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        Hey, you’re right. It is the mass balance that counts. Dr. Ed Berry has three papers that explain it fully.

      • Anthony Matthews says:

        Could the big ongoing Spike in the Global temperature, which seems to originate in early 2022, be due to the release of gases from the North stream pipe line incident.

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I had not seen that, thanks. It’s over a year old, and doesn’t have the SSP scenarios on the graph, but it still makes the same case. I knew Zeke has published on this very issue, but had not seen this website. But then, a lot of my fellow skeptics don’t follow my blog, either. (BTW, Zeke isn’t a skeptic).

  2. Nate says:

    Even though the developing world is still growing its energy use.. Seems to suggest that all the efforts to transition to renewables are actually making a difference…

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I wouldn’t go that far… the biggest advances have been from fracking and other technological improvements which have changed the economics of coal vs. natural gas, and continuing improvements in energy efficiency, which will happen in free market economies anyway.

    • The energy transition is moving slower than a sloth on a hot day.

      The Energy Institute produced a Statistical Review in June 2023 (covering 2022), and on June 20, 2024 added a Statistical Review covering 2023.

      The 4,748 TWh of almost entirely solar and wind power generated in 2023 came to all of 17.1 EJ, which is just 2.7% of the 620 EJ of world primary energy consumption.

    • Nate says:

      C’mon people, the fastest growing electricity sources are solar and wind at the moment And in the Great plains wind power is often the largest source.

      In Europe lots of growth in renewables and reduction in use of Russian gas.

      In China, an actual effort to add
      renewables.

      — Globally, the fastest growth in electricity sources is FOSSIL FUELS. We need more nuclear, not piddly bird-choppers and forest-destroying solar “farms” which can’t hope to displace more than a tiny fraction of the world’s energy needs. -Roy

    • Nate says:

      You are right about coal to natural gas, but how we doing on growth of atm methane?

      • Methane is a bit player, with short residence time in the atmosphere. -Roy

      • Nate says:

        Its forcing is hardly a bit player, looks like ~ 1/3 of CO2. Matters if we are concerned about exceeding thresholds and tipping points.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1979-_Radiative_forcing_-_climate_change_-_global_warming_-_EPA_NOAA.svg

      • Swenson says:

        “Matters if we are concerned about exceeding thresholds and tipping points.”

        I’m not. Are you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if you care or not about methane, whether it’s in the sea floor or in our ruminants’ digestive tracts.

      • Swenson says:

        Your worthless opinion has been duly noted and ignored.

      • Its residence time is short, but its forcing potential per unit time is hundreds of times that of CO2. My understanding from all reading that has crossed my path is that it is well-worth reducing methane emissions as they yields a significant reduction in overall forcing, and do so fast.

      • Clint R says:

        Nate and Elliott continue to be confused by the cult “science”. The concept of “radiative forcing” originated with the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more “forcing” of global temperatures, ie more “heating”. But that ain’t science.

        Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can NOT raise surface temperatures. CO2 is a radiative gas. CO2 emits energy to space. So adding more CO2 means more emission to space. That would result in cooling, if anything.

      • Jack Dale says:

        Methane is NOT a bit player

        Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 16 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.

        https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane

        As well when methane gives up its residence in the atmosphere, it becomes CO2.

        methane + oxygen → carbon dioxide + hydrogen

      • Nate says:

        Clint-bot repeats his silly never supported talking points.

        Nobody buys his crap, particularly not Roy Spencer.

      • Clint R says:

        Nate, you childishly trip over your own nonsense, again.

        If you believe CO2 can raise surface temperatures, please provide the relevant physics.

        This should be good….

      • Nate says:

        Roy has provided it several times. You claimed he is not an expert.

        Bwa ha ha!

      • Clint R says:

        Child, Dr. Spencer has explained his position before.

        He can explain it, but you can’t understand it. That’s why you’ve got NOTHING.

        Not my problem.

      • Nate says:

        Not difficult to understand his assurance that there is a GHE and it is increasing.

        But you still deny it, claiming he does not understand the physics, like you do!

    • Ken says:

      ‘Cmon people, the fastest growing electricity sources are solar and wind’

      Any reliable source of data says that hydrocarbons are growing and growing faster than solar and wind.

      Wind and Solar can’t do:

      Concrete
      Iron
      Plastic
      Ammonia

      If wind and solar can’t do 4 pillars of civilization then its pointless.

      • Willard says:

        Once again Kennui willingly confuses Net Zero with Zero CO2.

        Let’s hope he wasn’t an accountant in his active life.

      • Electric-arc smelters are already in use for steel manufacture, as you are aware. There’s no reason that the same operating principles could not be applied to the furnaces used to produce cement. The Haber-Bosch process, likewise, requires heat and pressure, not oil. It can be driven by renewable energy.

        As for plastic, the oil used to provide feed-stock is not emitted into the atmosphere until such time as the plastics are burnt. And in any case, there is nothing to prevent us getting feed-stock from plant oils, once the oil runs out.

      • Nate says:

        Ken in 1900 would be saying electric lighting will never catch on.

        In 1920 he would be stickin with his horse.

        Today he is still pining for incandescent light bulbs.

      • Tim S says:

        Elliot, with respect because you are so smart and well informed, you do not understand furnace heat transfer at all. All fired equipment include hot water heaters and the gas stove in your house depend on radiant heat transfer from the combustion gases, typically referred to as flue gas. Hot air does not work very well. In my opinion, this is the most obvious evidence of the effect of radiant heat transfer in the gas phase.

        I challenged Gordon and he never got back to me. Get an industrial heat gun, often used in the plastics industry. Try boiling a pan of water with a heat gun. Get back to us with the results.

      • Hans Erren says:

        Willard do you want to pay dinner for the SCIENTISTS that promote absolute zero co2 by 2050 when 20 GtCO2/y is sufficient to stabilise the CO2 level in the atmosphere?

        BTW therefore it is the Chinese with their coal promotion in 2000 who are directly to blame for the continuing rise of CO2 in the atmosphere where all other industrialised countries reduced emissions?

      • Willard says:

        Hans do you ever wonder what would happen if geophysicists knew that you spend your work breaks talking behind their BACKS?

        I mean, you owe them your livelihood.

      • Tim S – You’re right to say that I don’t understand the physics of furnace heat transfers, but I have good information that not only electric-arc but also induction furnaces are in industrial use. Iceland, in particular, with its excess of renewable energy, is using electric furnaces on a large scale to essentially export its energy in the form of metal parts and goods.

        Electric-arc furnaces are said to range up to 400 tonnes and to be especially useful for smelting scrap.

      • Nate says:

        “China directly to blame for the continuing rise of CO2 in the atmosphere where all other industrialised countries reduced emissions?”

        China became the dominant global manufacturer of all the stuff we wanted to buy.

        Whereas Europe and US shifted to service industries. Our energy needs per $ of GDP plummeted.

      • Tim S says:

        Elliot, this is fairly simple. Air provides very poor heat transfer. Industrial furnace that burn fuel have bare tubes in the lower “radiant” zone and finned tubes in the upper “convection” zone where the temperature is low enough that radiant heat transfer has diminished. Finned tubes actually obstruct radiant heat transfer.

        Electric resistance heaters and electric-arc smelters work by direct contact. Electric water heaters have the heating element directly in the water. They tend to foul very easily in hard water because all of heat transfer is in a small ares. On-demand water heaters seem to have solved that problem, but I am not familiar with their construction.

      • Tim S says:

        I also need to explain to the genuine deniers that the combustion gas (flue gas) is about 75% nitrogen, and 25% water vapor and CO2 in approximate equal proportions. It is those “greenhouse gases” that provide the radiant heat transfer, and it is their high percentage along with the high temperature of combustion that makes for the very high rates of radiant heat transfer in the gas phase with fired equipment.

        Climate is entirely different with a massively larger volume and lower concentrations, but the basic principles are the same. The other effect is that exchange between molecules in the atmosphere is just as important as exchange with the surface of the earth.

      • Bill hunter says:

        The regulatory system around renewables is the cause of inflation. Anybody knows who lived through the last inflation spiral in the early 70’s that we need an administration to stop this nonsense or its going to get a whole lot worse.

        Of course our ”fake” liberals in this forum don’t really care about liberal values and continue to aggressively widen the wealth gap of those with vs those without. It may not even be trickling down to them yet but they believe it will eventually as they have positioned themselves at the outlet of the gutter.

      • Nate says:

        “Anybody knows who lived through the last inflation spiral in the early 70s:

        Connected with the large spikes in the price of oil due to international events.

        Back then the industrial economy was more strongly tied to energy costs.

  3. Ken says:

    Nix Net Zero

  4. barry says:

    AR6 projected a decline in global CO2 emissions in the near future. Looks like those grim predictions of the future have worked.

    Happily, the steady transition to renewables has not ushered in economic armageddon. Seems the alarmists were wrong.

    • Seems the alarmists were wrong.

      Yes, going by the graph posted by Dr. Roy it seems on the face of it that action is working. And as you say, the economic apocalypse predicted by the alarmists has failed to materialise as renewables have taken off. The Keeling Curve still has me a bit worried. It could indicate that carbon emissions from soil degradtion, forest and peat fires or some other feedback are taking over from fossil fuels. But the general picture seen above the line is good news.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.

  5. bobdroege says:

    Looking at the chart, we diverged from the worst scenario only in about 2010.

    Looks like some people are listening and taking action.

    Have we slowed down enough to keep from going over the cliff?

    Time will tell.

    • I am inclined to technological optimism, but political pessimism. The picture painted by Dr. Roy’s graph suggests we’re going the right way. I believe that we are starting to see explosive growth of renewables. Photovoltaics, in particular, will follow a Moore’s Law-type curve of yield per unit price.

      You’ll notice that I say elsewhere that we are in a VSH scenario. That’s because I find it hard to be sure which way things will eventuate. We’re at an inflection point, effectively in a race between technological take-off and rapidly-changing climate. The game is very much open.

  6. gbaikie says:

    Apparently, China has been building a lot very energy efficient Coal power plants. Without these better coal powerplants, they would have had burn a lot more coal to get the same amount of electrical power.

    Though China is digging deeper and deeper, which is higher energy cost of getting coal.

  7. Atmospheric CO2 is rising at about +2.5 ppm a year. At that rate it will take168 years for CO2 to double from 420 to 840 ppm

    The ACTUAL TIMING of CO2 x 2 IS A GUESS

    The important number is how much a dooubling of CO2 plus various feedbacks will affect the global average temperature in 100 to 200 years.

    No one knows

    Guesses range from +0.5 to +5 degrees C.

    The growth rate of CO2 does not affect the guesses of what CO2 does to the climate in the long run

    The growth rate of CO2 only affects how fast the atmospheric CO2 level will double.

    If Nut Zero has any effect on CO2 emissions, they might cause less than a +2.5 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 every year. On the other hand, developing nations using more coal might increase the CO2 rise rate to +3 ppm a year.

    I am certain the future climate will be warmer,
    unless it is cooler … but I prefer warmer.

    • Nate says:

      “June 30, 2024 at 9:30 AM
      Atmospheric CO2 is rising at about +2.5 ppm a year. At that rate it will take168 years for CO2 to double from 420 to 840 ppm”

      The key milestone is doubling of preindustrial, which is to 560 ppm, coming soon to an Earth near you, or not if we choose an alternate route.

      • The ANNUAL growth of atmospheric CO2 BEFORE THE 1960s WAS TOO SLOW TO BE RELEVANT.

        The amount of CO2 in the air in 1850 is an educated guess/

        The average temperature in 1850 is a completely worthless wild guess with little data outside Europe and the US, with especially poor coverage of the S.H.

      • Nate says:

        Regardless, that is the milestone that is used by everyone.

        The amount of CO2 on the air back then is measured in ice cores.

        But I agree that the recent change in temp and co2 are better for comparing to models.

      • Tim S says:

        Who are “we”? China is now up to 33% of world-wide emissions.

      • Willard says:

        1 – 1/3 = 2/3

      • Tim S says:

        I have an anecdote I would like to share. My local government posted an article in a news letter listing the money, yes money being invested to combat climate change and protect our citizens. I took the opportunity to ask one of the officials in a personal conversation if they were aware that CO2 circulates around the world. This individual was outraged that I would ask such a question because “we must show leadership and it starts here”.

      • Willard says:

        That reminds me of this funny story.

        Once upon a time, there was a a guy who stopped paying the bridge toll. He made it to the news. Freedom Fighters turned him into a hero. The guy became a celebrity on cable news.

        Then everyone stopped paying their fare. The corporation that ran the bridge went bankrupt. To pay themselves, creditors sold the bridge for parts.

        And that’s how cable news guys started to blame the gubmint for everything.

        Thank you.

    • Ken says:

      CO2 IR Spectrum is saturated. 0.5C is probably a high estimate.

      560 ppm is going to be another non-event right up there with Al Gore’s predictions of ice free arctic by (insert year here).

      • Entropic man says:

        Ken

        We’ve been over this before. The CO2 part of the IR spectrum is only saturate close to the spot wavelength of 15 micrometres.

        Band spreading causes atmospheric CO2 to absor*b between 13 and 17 micrometres. Most of the band is unsaturated and increasing concentration makes the band wider.

        As a result there is a continuing correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing IF absor*btion.

      • Ken says:

        ‘Weve been over this before.’

        Ayuh. You’re still wrong.

        ‘Band spreading causes atmospheric CO2 to absor*b between 13 and 17 micrometres. Most of the band is unsaturated and increasing concentration makes the band wider.’

        What you’re suggesting is that CO2 will alter its absor8ption spectrum characteristics as its concentration increases.

        Physical properties of CO2 (or any other molecule) aren’t likely to change in order to abso*b a wider bandwidth of IR.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        “The CO2 part of the IR spectrum is only saturate close to the spot wavelength of 15 micrometres.”

        Completely irrelevant. You seem to be talking about absorp‌tion spectra. Maybe you don’t realise that if matter absorbs energy, and rises in temperature, then if it hotter than its environment, it immediately radiates energy at wavelengths dependent on its temperature – and nothing else, if below excitation levels.

        It doesnt what blocks IR – CO2, blankets, or tablets of gold – less energy reaches a thermometer, reducing its temperature. Do you disagree? If so, why?

        You can refuse to say if you prefer.

      • Entropic man says:

        Ken

        “What youre suggesting is that CO2 will alter its absor8ption spectrum characteristics as its concentration increases. ”

        It does exactly that. In a mixed atmosphere the surrounding molecules cause a GHG to absorb IR in a band either side of the spot wavelength. The higher the GHG concentration, the wider the band. For GHE saturation the signature is that it absorbs all of the upwelling radiation from the surface and reradiate half of it upwards.

        You can see these effects on the outward longwave radiation spectrum. The spot wavelength for CO2 is wavenumber 675, at which the OLR is about half the SB emission. Saturated.

        Either side of that, the band is not saturated and more than half the SB radiation ends up directly or indirectly reaches space.

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        Ill just point out that during the night, the surface cools.

        All, repeat all, of the radiation leaving the surface is lost to space. The temperature falls.

        No GHE.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        I disagree and here is why.

        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/683

        You see a very small part of the light from the Sun is in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs.

        But a bigger chunk is absorbed by CO2 in the outgoing infrared from the surface.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation

        Making more energy reach the thermometer.

      • Ken says:

        ‘It does exactly that.’

        Hitran doesn’t support that notion.

        Here is Happer and Wijngaarden analysis:

        https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/figure-1.png

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby,

        You wrote –

        “Making more energy reach the thermometer.” Is your ignorance greater than your gullibility or vice versa.

        You are talking gibberish, trying to appear intelligent.

        Unfortunately for you, increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source and a thermometer does not increase the energy reaching a thermometer. No magical GHE.

        Get rid of the atmosphere entirely, and surface temperatures on the Moon reach in excess of 125 C. If you really believe that CO2 insulation has magical properties, and transmits more energy than it receives, you are simply insane.

        Keep trying to deny reality. Keep refusing to describe the GHE. Nobody can complain about what you don’t say, can they? That only makes you look stu‌pid, not smart.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “Making more energy reach the thermometer. Is your ignorance greater than your gullibility or vice versa.

        You are talking gibberish, trying to appear intelligent.”

        Your inability to understand does not make it gibberish.

        ‘Unfortunately for you, increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source and a thermometer does not increase the energy reaching a thermometer. No magical GHE.’

        There is insulation by CO2 of the Suns rays, and there is insulation by CO on the infrared emitted by the Earth.

        “Get rid of the atmosphere entirely, and surface temperatures on the Moon reach in excess of 125 C.”

        What? The Moon already has no atmosphere.

        “If you really believe that CO2 insulation has magical properties, and transmits more energy than it receives, you are simply insane.”

        I have never stated that CO2 works by magic, you don’t understand it, so you think it’s magic, it is not, it works by the known laws of physics.

        “Keep trying to deny reality. Keep refusing to describe the GHE. Nobody can complain about what you dont say, can they? That only makes you look stu‌pid, not smart.”

        I can’t teach a kindergartener Calculus, just like I can’t describe the GHE to you in a way that you would understand it.

        But I can describe it in a way that a smart person would understand it.

      • Swenson says:

        “There is insulation by CO2 of the Suns rays, and there is insulation by CO on the infrared emitted by the Earth.”

        Yes. The atmosphere. You are a fo‌ol – putting insulation between a heat source and a thermometer does not the thermometer hotter.

        Ask the other children in your kindergarten. Keep refusing to describe the GHE – nobody can find fault with what you don’t say, can they?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Those who build igloos do not care about making thermometers hotter. They make themselves warmer by living in them. You can choose to live on ice at the mercy of the elements if you so please. It is a free world.

        Cheers.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        That’s right, the atmosphere makes the surface hotter, because it has CO2 in it.

        It’s not magic, like you and your cargo cult think it is.

        Just normal physics.

    • Atmospheric CO2 has already increased from 280ppm to 420ppm. That’s an increase of 50%, and as you indicate it’s almost all happened since the 1960s. That would give us a maximum of 60 years based on the average rate over that time. However, the growth has until now been exponential. The time to yield a doubling, based on BAU, would therefore be rather less than 60 years.

      I might also add that the symptoms of change in terms of extreme weather are already very apparent, surprising even the most pessimistic expectations for this level of increase.

      All this presumes that tipping points in terms of carbon emissions, such as forest fires and soil degradation, are not crossed during the ensuing 60-or-fewer years.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        I’ll just point out that during the night, the surface cools.

        All, repeat all, of the radiation leaving the surface is lost to space. The temperature falls.

        No GHE.

    • Jack Dale says:

      840 ppm can be deadly. Remember ocean pH levels.

      “The majority of extinction events occur in the CO2 concentration range of 7001,100 ppmv.”

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003336

      • Tim S says:

        I read somewhere that most plants on earth evolved in very high levels of CO2. I hope this is not a military secret, but I am told by a reliable source that submarines operate about 3,000 ppm and the sailors do just fine once they get used to it. Puts new meaning to term fresh air.

      • Swenson says:

        “Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm”

        No extinction events noted.

        Maybe next year?

      • Willard says:

        Contrarians have told But Plant Food so many times already-

        https://climateball.net/but-life#plant-food

        It still only deserves one line in the Bingo.

      • Tim S says:

        I do not usually respond to Willard’s nonsense, but this one is just too funny. Evolution has nothing to do with food production.

      • Willard says:

        TS is mocking this:

        Me: So are you worried about the climate impacts on agriculture?

        David Lobell: Yes. I think the evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas. So there’s definitely a reason that we that we continue to work on how to adapt to these changes.

        https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food

        So who’s right, yet another O&G engineer who’s a pompous twat most of the time, or David Lobell, a MacArthur genius grant recipient, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and an all-around good guy?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  8. Willard says:

    “But RCPs” will never get old:

    Just as I thought I was out the ClimateBall Gods pull me back in. The but RCP flythe club got the best of me. For the time lost I found talking points for my Bingo. More on this project in due time. Here are the main ones:

    1. 8.5 is bollocks
    2. 8.5 is not BAU
    3. The IPCC calls 8.5 BAU
    4. The IPCC uses it as such
    5. Centuries or millennia separate 8.5 and when we might see 8.5W/m2
    6. We never were on an 8.5 path
    7. Only using 8.5 is bad science
    8. Without 8.5, there is no huge alarm
    9. Dont present a < 1% scenario like the IPCC does
    10. It is not about blame

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/

    As for Junior, he got owned once again:

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:vyrvsq3myrvh4io5auwkwy3r/post/3kv6hirf3hb2c

    • Ken says:

      No peanut butter for you.

      • Willard says:

        The whole meme was already tired in 2020, Kennui.

        Please don’t make me sadz.

      • Ken says:

        You are already sadz. Boring sadz.

      • Willard says:

        No, my dear Kennui. You are. Besides being lazy and bitter.

        Climateball could be fun, but you are too afraid to lose to make any effort. You’d rather have otters going down swinging. They’re all gone now.

        So either you work on your recruitment techniques, or you RTFR.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

        You are an idio‌t.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Nobody cares if this is the last day of the “nobody cares” theme of the month.

        You used two sentences. In them there were two banned words.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

        You are an idio‌t.

        Why are you babbling about “banned words”? If they appear, they obviously are not “banned”, are they? Maybe you should employ Elliott Blockhead’s “blocker” so you don’t have to see anything with which you disagree.

      • Willard says:

        You’re playing dumb once again, Mike.

        The I-word has been banned because Richard abused it.

        The T-word has been banned because Graham abused it.

        And you’re consistently using both.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tr‌o‌lling.

        You are an id‌io‌t.

        Why are you babbling about “banned words”? If they appear, they obviously are not banned, are they? Maybe you should employ Elliott Blockheads “blocker” so you dont have to see anything with which you disagree.

      • Willard says:

        Youre playing dumb once again, Mike.

        The I-word has been banned because Richard abused it.

        The T-word has been banned because Graham abused it.

        You are consistently using both, and more. .

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    https://www.weatherzone.com.au/
    High pressure is crossing the Great Australian Bight after a cold front swept over southeastern Australia this weekend. While high pressure is common after a cold front, this particular high pressure system will stall, as it becomes a blocking-high over Tasmania from Tuesday morning.

    You can see the high pressure system stall over the Apple Isle during the week below, with the centre (marked with a red ‘H’) remaining virtually stationary for nearly 7 days.What weather will this high bring across Australia?

    High pressure is often associated with clear skies and light winds. So, for most of Tasmania, as well as large parts of Victoria and southern NSW, this high will bring a run of sunny days, but cold frosty nights. Launceston is forecast to fall below zero degrees for the next 7 or 8 mornings in a row.

  10. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    At least 427 people have died over four days in just one city in Pakistan due to the lethal heatwaves scorching south Asia this summer.

    The non-profit Edhi Foundation said it received 427 bodies in four days until Tuesday in Karachi, the countrys biggest city and financial centre.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/pakistan-karachi-heatwave-temperature-death-toll-b2569734.html

    Don’t be too scared – they’re just brown, homeless people anyway.

  11. Tim S says:

    I think the analysis of carbon emissions and emission reduction should look at the long game. Eventually, the fossil fuels will be gone. What then?

    I have a much bigger concern for fake climate experts such as Bill Weir and Bill Nye, and real experts such as Michael Mann who go on television to talk about what “we” can do to stop the “climate crisis”. If we means the USA, then what about the other 90% of emissions that originate from other countries? Assuming they actually know the facts, what are these people trying to sell?

    • Entropic man says:

      At the risk of being labelled a doomster I think it’s already too late to stop climate change.

      If you do the physics you find that the CO2 already released has committed us to 1.7C global warming by 2040.

      Realistic (ie politically possible) emission scenarios predict doubling to 560ppm by the 2070s with 3C warming soon after.

      In a world drifting to the Right and obsessed with short term growth these dates may even be optimistic.

      • Michael van der Riet says:

        “Obsessed with short term growth.”

        Yes, let’s delay the upliftment out of poverty of all those deplorable Asians and Africans for as long as possible. A hundred years would be an acceptable long term goal, to put standard of living parity with the West forever out of reach.

        “Obsessed with short term growth.” Got any more platitudinous clichs for us?

      • Clint R says:

        Ent believes: “If you do the physics you find that the CO2 already released has committed us to 1.7C global warming by 2040.”

        Well Ent, “do the physics”. Show us how CO2 can produce 1.7C warming. And, you can’t use the bogus CO2 equation because it ain’t science. (You won’t find it in any credible physics textbook.)

    • Entropic man says:

      ” I think the analysis of carbon emissions and emission reduction should look at the long game. Eventually, the fossil fuels will be gone. What then? ”

      The fossil fuel lobby tell us that we can’t run a civilization without fossil fuels.

      When the fossil fuels run out, civilization will therefore collapse.

      • Swenson says:

        “When the fossil fuels run out, civilization will therefore collapse.”

        My crystal ball shows otherwise. I win. You lose.

        Bad luck.

      • When the fossil fuels run out, civilization will therefore collapse.

        And this is why I insist that a transition is both required and inevitable even if global warming were not to exist. We are already at peak oil, with ERoEI approaching unity. The remaining oil will increasingly be required for industrial feed-stock, so burning it is insanity. Coal reserves are large enough to commit us to climate-driven collapse, but even without climate they will also be eaten through in logarithmic time.

        Carrying on like this is insane. Fortunately, the energy transition is likely to come along all by itself, as renewables increasingly out-compete fossil fuels.

      • Clint R says:

        Elliott, if you are afraid fossil fuels will run out, then you need to be a fanatical advocate of nuclear.

        Solar and wind are fine, except when it’s dark or the wind is not blowing.

      • Tim S says:

        Elliot, now you can impress all of your friends. Peak oil referred to pumping liquid crude oil out of the ground. That came and went. Fracking changed everything. There is also tar sands which is so thick it requires strip mining and local processing in order to pump it.

    • barry says:

      “I have a much bigger concern for fake climate experts such as Bill Weir and Bill Nye, and real experts such as Michael Mann who go on television to talk about what ‘we’ can do to stop the ‘climate crisis’. If we means the USA, then what about the other 90% of emissions that originate from other countries? Assuming they actually know the facts, what are these people trying to sell?”

      Rhetorical questions follow assumptions like cats follow laser pointers.

    • If we means the USA, then what about the other 90% of emissions that originate from other countries?

      I think we can agree that any problem where all the participants sit in a circle and point to the person to their left, saying, “I won’t act until he does,” is fated never to be addressed. The average American or European contributes, and has historically contributed, tens of times to the problem what the average African or South Asian has. Also four times what the average Chinese does. The only solution that remotely address the injustice, and therefore the only solution that is remotely likely to meet with compliance, is for those who personally contribute the most to the problem to act with the greatest urgency.

      • Swenson says:

        EB,

        I think we can all agree that the GHE is a myth. You agree, I believe.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I believe we agree that physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries–not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer.

      • Tim S says:

        That is the wrong example. The current situation is everybody sitting in a room and saying “you started it, so you fix it, and please pay us for the damage you have done”.

        Europe and the USA are already reducing from peak levels. The combined population of China and India is almost 10 times the USA. Those countries are growing. India has one of the fastest growth rates in the world, and they want more.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        The majority rules? Democracy?

        What’s wrong with that?

      • Willard says:

        And so TS takes principles as examples.

        The abstract operational stage always takes a bit longer to acquire for engineers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  12. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    RCP8.5 was a worst case scenario.

    The purpose of a worst case scenario is to forecast the outcome if nothing is done about the problem.

    RCP8.5 forecast the outcome if the Right and the fossil fuel lobby prevailed – Unlimited fossil fuel burn, unlimited emissions and no renewables.

    Fortunately serious attempts were made to limit emissions and RCP8.5 was avoided.

    In the UK Report 19 predicted that left alone Covid 19 would kill 500,000 people. Very simple epidemiology. Covid-19 had a 1% death rate and would infect 70% of the population. If nothing was done total deaths would be 70 million 0.7 0.01 =490,000.

    In practice lockdowns, masks and vaccination reduced the total UK deaths to 140,000, about 30% of the worst case.

    For the US the worst case was 340 million.70.01=2.4 million and the actual total deaths was 1.1million or 46% of the worst case.

    Shows what happens when you listen to the business lobbies and a certain D. Trump rather than the scientists. It cost you an extra 320,000 deaths.

    Returning to climate, SSP5-8.55 is what would be happening if nothing was done. SSP2-4.5 is what we have, by considerable effort, achieved so far by doing something about the problem.

    • Ken says:

      Fortunately serious attempts were made to limit emissions and RCP8.5 was avoided.

      Bull hockey.

      See Mauna Loa data. Emissions keep going up exponentially. China in particular but USA and emerging economies all demand more energy.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      One minor problem might be that the concentration of any gas at all in the atmosphere has no warming effect on the temperature of the surface.

      Obviously, anything which blocks radiation from the Sun will reduce the temperature of the surface. Examples would be clouds, roofs, CO2, H20, particulate matter and so on.

      The atmosphere as a whole results in about 30% of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface, but of course some GHE cultists believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!

      Silly, arent they? One GHE cultist (you) said “The GHE is a stack of blankets.”

      Sun blankets, possibly? First find on the internet –

      “Sun blankets
      A good sun blanket is the ideal companion for the beach, the outdoor pool or an afternoon in the park. It is made of UV-protective material and blocks UV-rays with UPF 50+ / 98 percent UV-protection.”

      Did you mean electrically heated blankets, perhaps? No GHE. it’s a myth – no matter how many people “believe”.

    • What we should hope to see at this point is exactly what Dr. Roy claims – i.e. that action on emissions should by now see CO2 concentrations starting to track below the worst case. I’ll defer to the experts on whether this is really happening, but I can only observe that the Keeling Curve doesn’t look to me as though it has passed a point of inflection. I agree that it looks more like a VSF scenario.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent is a “master” at fudging numbers.

      He’s also the one that claims passenger jets fly backward.

      He’ll do anything to support his false beliefs.

  13. I’ve been trying to post this piece about the disasters in Switzerland but I can’t get it past the filters. In case anyone is labouring under the misconpception that they “failed to materialise”. Here’s a link instead:

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7213198983664435200/

    • Swenson says:

      EB,

      Yes, I agree that “disasters in Switzerland” is overhyped nonsense.

      Thanks for pointing it out.

  14. A combination of climate change and mismanagement of water is driving Sicily to desertification:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/01/drought-leaves-sicilian-farmers-facing-uncertain-future

    • Entropic man says:

      They’ve been told for years that the downwelling Hadley circulation currently dessicating the Sahara is due to move Nortwards over Southern Europe. Does nobody in government listen to warnings?

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        “Does nobody in government listen to warnings”

        Warning! Warning! The sky is falling!

        Should the government listen?

      • I increasingly suspect not. Everything about this crisis has the smell of opportunities wasted and warnings ignored.

      • Swenson says:

        “Everything about this crisis has the smell . .. “.

        Sure does – smells of del‌usion, gullibility, and ignorance.

  15. Climate crisis produces more wonky vegetables in the Netherlands:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/29/its-not-beautiful-but-you-can-still-eat-it-climate-change-leads-to-more-wonky-vegetables-in-netherlands

    One obvious way to fight the current polycrisis would be to prevent waste, and route more of this “imperfect” produce into the human food chain.

    • Swenson says:

      “One obvious way to fight the current polycrisis would be to prevent waste, and route more of this “imperfect” produce into the human food chain.”

      No polycrisis. No GHE.

      You are an idio‌t .

    • Clint R says:

      Elliott, finding a bunch of links to support your false beliefs ain’t science. I could waste time finding an equal amount of links “proving” Earth is cold.

      Here’s just one, from earlier this year:

      https://www.npr.org/2024/01/13/1224616521/extreme-weather-us-blizzard-flooding-storms

    • The Great Walrus says:

      E. Bighead:

      Do you actually believe the climate fiction routinely spewed by the Grauniad? And yet you claim to be a scientist? What are your other “go-to” sources? the NY Times? the Washington Post? Bwah-hah-hah. You have severely shot yourself in the foot.

      Meanwhile, up here above the Arctic Circle, ice is everywhere, so haulouts are great fun. Too many polar bears, though (our mortal enemies).

  16. Entropic man says:

    Oh sh*t.

    Another step on the road to a Trump dictatorship.

    • Yes, but you currently have King Biden. Who can have Trump hanged, drawn and quartered at any point in the next six months and suffer no consequences whatsoever. So get lobbying.

      • Swenson says:

        At least you agree that you are both ignorant and gullible.

        That’s a start.

      • Tim S says:

        I have a prediction. Biden will resign before the convention, Kamala Harris becomes president and there is a brokered convention just like the smoke filled room era not that long ago.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-filled_room

      • I can see something like that happening. At the moment the Queen is apparently pushing him to stay the course, but he’s already at a stage where he could be in the middle of the street asking where his front door is at 3am six weeks from now. I’ve seen it happen. The risk to the country is immense. Something has to change.

    • Ken says:

      When did upholding democracy mean silencing everyone who doesn’t agree?

      • Willard says:

        March 23 1933, the Enabling Act becomes law in Germany, giving the chief executive power enforce his own laws without checks and balances. The passing of the Act marked the formal transition from democratic republic to totalitarian dictatorship. 6 months later, it was a 1 party state.

        Kennui is all for it, as long as it means he pays less taxes. Not that he pays much. His rent is tax efficient.

      • When did upholding democracy mean silencing everyone who doesnt agree?

        Since the hacks on the Supreme Court ruled that Biden can do so without consequences.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Hurricane Beryl, a Category 4, is already in the Caribbean Sea.

  18. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Why does UV radiation shorter and 240 nm and ozone production in the upper stratosphere fall.
    Excess kinetic energy warms the stratosphere as molecular oxygen decays and collides with other molecules. This conversion of UV light into kinetic energy warms the stratosphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png

  19. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Oh Canada, you warmed by 2 degrees
    True human cause, not the sun’s command…

    https://bsky.app/profile/simondonner.bsky.social/post/3kwailjzlse2g

    • Ken says:

      Every degree of warming means we can grow food 1 degree further north.

      Warming is good for Canada.

      • Willard says:

        Kennui still fails to RTFR:

        Challenges

        Increased temperatures, longer growing seasons, shifting precipitation patterns and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events from climate change will bring challenges to Canada’s agricultural sector. In most of Canada, springs will be wetter, summers will be hotter and drier, and winters will be wetter and milder. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will increase reliance on irrigation and water-resource management, notably across the Prairies and the interior of British Columbia where moisture deficits are greatest, but also in regions where there has not traditionally been a need to irrigate. In many parts of the country, wetter than normal springs will present challenges such as the need to delay seeding. Flooding and other extreme events, including wildfires, may result in loss or relocation of livestock and damage to crops; and increased frequency and intensity of storms could result in power outages, affecting livestock heating and cooling systems as well as automated feeding and milking systems.

        A rise in the incidence of days over 30 C will bring challenges to both crop and livestock producers. Some crops, such as canola and wheat, are particularly vulnerable to heat stress during the flowering period, and high temperatures can result in lower weight gains in livestock, reduced reproductive capacity, reduced milk and egg production, and in extreme cases, livestock mortality. Longer, warmer summers and milder winters will result in greater overwinter survival of pests and diseases, as well as a northward expansion of pests and diseases not currently found in Canada. Additional pest pressures can impact both crop and livestock production and could potentially affect the marketability/acceptability of Canadian exports. Plant protein may decrease in the future under higher atmosphere CO2 resulting in lower grain quality.

        https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/environment/climate-change/climate-change-impacts-agriculture

        And after 2C comes 3C, then 4C, etc.

        It’s Net Zero or Bust.

      • Swenson says:

        Don’t be stu‌pid, Willard.

        There is no magic GHE which has miraculously emerged at some unspecified time to reverse four and a half billion years of planetary cooling!

        Why do you refuse to even describe this wondrous planet heating “effect”? Is it a deeply hidden cult secret, perhaps?

        [laughing at donk‌ey]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You’re using a third forbidden word, the S-word.

        Tsk-tsk.

        It’s “#8204;” with an amperstand before, right?

      • Swenson says:

        Dont be stu‌pid, Willard.

        There is no magic GHE which has miraculously emerged at some unspecified time to reverse four and a half billion years of planetary cooling!

        Why do you refuse to even describe this wondrous planet heating “effect”? Is it a deeply hidden cult secret, perhaps?

        [laughing at donk‌ey]

      • Willard says:

        You copy-pasted your comment, Mike.

        You had to enter your &-#8204; on your tablet, yet you forgot to enter the missing symbol.

        Why is that?

      • Ken says:

        I’m for ‘bust’

        Net zero means nothing but a return to serfdom and slavery.

      • Willard says:

        Kennui will bust soon enough.

      • Swenson says:

        “You copy-pasted your comment, Mike.

        You had to enter your &-#8204; on your tablet, yet you forgot to enter the missing symbol.

        Why is that?”

        What are you babbling about, fo‌ol?

        Given up on promoting a mythical GHE, have you?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Playing dumb again, Mike?

        You’re still using your HTML trick to spam the T-word.

      • Swenson says:

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Entropic man says:

        The way things are going that’s probably bust.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Entropic Man, please stop trolling.

  20. Congratulations to the new member of the international club of monarchies. Your new King has about half a year to have the Antichrist killed as an “official act”, thus avoiding all consequences. I suggest you get lobbying.

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It was another chilly morning for parts of the country, with temperatures dropping below 0℃ in parts of Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. ❄️
    A large slow-moving high pressure system in the Great Australian Bight will strengthen and move near Tasmania on Tuesday and will remain stationary until the weekend.
    This high pressure system will bring frost and fog patches and will cause temperatures to drop 2-6℃ below average in many states and territories this week.
    For the latest forecasts and for more information visit http://www.bom.gov.au or the BOM Weather app.

  22. Bindidon says:

    Whether the UAH 6.0 LT anomaly for June will be higher, the same, or lower than the preceding one, I can predict that poster Richard M will write

    “As I predicted… ”

    in any case, followed by a piece of text that perfectly matches the alternative that has occurred.

  23. dK_ says:

    Thanks, and I endorse your opinion of the Honest Broker.

    It might be more fair to say that CO2 accumulation hasn’t matched up with the scare stories. We should not fall into the semantic trap, set by the propagandists, of referring to the atmospheric content as emissions – implying that all is caused by human industrial processes.

    Anthropogenic ’emission’ of CO2 has always been an estimate, based on estimated consumtion of petroleum and coal fuel, and the actual sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide has always been in contention.

    CO2 accumulation could never match up to the propaganda – it is based on a false premis.

    An aside: if you feel like crowing, you might revisit the status of the Colorado River basin. IMO, at least a pat-on-back is in order, for your sane analysis in the face of the insanity of the ‘permadrought’ hysterics.
    We could easily be on our way to fill both lakes Mead and Powell by next spring.

    • Swenson says:

      After all, mankind is just relocating carbon from where Nature stored it, back into the atmosphere from whence it came.

      In the past, when carbon levels in the atmosphere were obviously higher than now, the planet still managed to cool to its present temperature, showing that higher atmospheric carbon levels don’t result in warming at all!

      • dK_ says:

        Warming results in higher carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

  24. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    “Over the past year, weve experienced the hottest year on record, the hottest ocean temperatures on record and a seemingly endless string of heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires and storms, said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. Now we are finding that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing faster than ever. We must recognize that these are clear signals of the damage carbon dioxide pollution is doing to the climate system, and take rapid action to cut fossil fuel use as quickly as we can.”

    Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 program that manages the institutions 56-year-old measurement series, noted that year-to-year increase recorded in March 2024 was the highest for both Scripps and NOAA in Keeling Curve history.

    “Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever,” said Keeling. “Each year achieves a higher maximum due to fossil-fuel burning, which releases pollution in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel pollution just keeps building up, much like trash in a landfill.”

    https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-carbon-dioxide-levels-surge-faster-than-ever

    • Swenson says:

      Good to know, but why I dont know.

    • Clint R says:

      I wonder if Spinrad (Bachelor of Arts) could tell us how CO2 can warm the surface?

      Don’t hold your breath….

      • Swenson says:

        Sample of idio‌tic GHE cult thinking in link –

        “Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 acts like a blanket in the atmosphere, preventing heat radiating off of the planets surface from escaping into space.”

        Complete nonsense, of course. Nothing at all has stopped the planet cooling.

        Each night, the surface cools, making a mockery of the NOAA idiocy. Their belief in magic is not supported by reality.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn uses his &-#8204; trick again to inject the I-word.

        No honor.

      • Swenson says:

        Oh dear, Willard is showing his desperation.

        Refuses to describe the GHE, won’t or can’t say why, carries on like a fanatical GHE cultist.

        What a donk‌ey!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn uses his &-#8204; trick again to inject the T-word.

        No honor.

      • Swenson says:

        Oh dear, Willard is showing his desperation.

        Refuses to describe the GHE, won’t or can’t say why, carries on like a fanatical GHE cultist.

        Next thing, he’ll go blubbering to his big brother Roy, demanding that he beat me up!

        What a donk‌ey!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Next thing, Mike Flynn uses his &-#8204; trick again to inject the T-word.

        No honor.

      • Swenson says:

        Oh dear, Willard is showing his desperation.

        Refuses to describe the GHE, wont or cant say why, carries on like a fanatical GHE cultist.

        Next thing, hell go blubbering to his big brother Roy, demanding that he beat me up!

        What a donk‌ey! Can’t even come up with a good ad-hom – how inept is that?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        And so Mike Flynn uses his &-#8204; trick again to inject the T-word.

        No honor.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  25. Willard says:

    Mike Flynn goes for Step 1 – Pure Denial.

    Puffman goes for Step 2 – Sammich Request.

    Who will go for Step 3 first?

    It’s a bit early for Mr. Asshat.

    • Swenson says:

      Willard is an idio‌t – believing in a GHE, and refusing to say why!

      Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn keeps using an HTML trick to write the I-word.

      Just click CTRL-U to see which one.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard is an idio‌t believing in a GHE, and refusing to say why!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling. .

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn uses the “‌” trick again to insert a forbidden word.

        He also chickens out at calling Roy the same.

        Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

      • Swenson says:

        “He also chickens out at calling Roy the same.

        Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.”

        Ooooooh! I’m scared, so scared! Willard is reading minds again!

        Willard is an idio‌t believing in a GHE, and refusing to say why!

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Go ahead, Mike –

        Drop the I-word on Roy.

      • Swenson says:

        “Go ahead, Mike

        Drop the I-word on Roy.”

        What are you talking about, idio‌t?

        Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        You’re playing dumb again, Mike.

        Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

        When will you use the I-word against him?

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        “Youre playing dumb again, Mike.

        Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

        When will you use the I-word against him?”

        Oooooooh! Still refusing to describe the GHE? Trying to blame Dr Spencer for your ineptitude?

        Keep trying, dummy.

      • Willard says:

        And so Mike Flynn is playing dumb again.

        Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

        Had he any honor, he would use the I-word against him.

        Mike Flynn has no honor.

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker wrote –

        “Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.” Good for Roy! Is that Roy Rogers, Roy Rene, or maybe even Dr Roy Spencer?

        You need to be a bit clearer, if you want to avoid being called a slimy piece of rubbish.

        I’ll assume that you think Dr Spencer is an idio‌t for not doing as you wish, but of course you wont actually say directly what you want him to do, nor why you want him to do it.

        Is that because you really are a slimy piece of rubbish, or do you have some other reason? Go on, refuse to say anything useful at all. It suits you.

        Yes, Im laughing at your pa‌thetic attempts to get me to criticise Dr Spencer on your behalf. You said “Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.”. What particular mental aberration makes you believe that I value your opinion? Are you quite mad? Only joking, I know you are.

        Carry on being an idio‌t. You can probably move up to being an object of derision, if you put a bit of effort in. You don’t need to thank me, it’s my pleasure.

  26. barry says:

    Swenson,

    Apparently you didn’t make it past the 2nd paragraph in the first link. I’ve quoted the relevant parts below. And you can check the other links yourself if you have the stamina to read them in full.

    “The temperature of any object represents a balance between energy gained and energy lost by that object. Temperature is an energy balance issue… if more energy is gained than lost, temperature goes up. If more energy is lost than gained, temperature goes down. Understanding this is fundamental to understanding weather and climate, as well as the following discussion.

    The atmosphere contains ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs), which means gases which are particularly strong absorbers and emitters of IR radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the main GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Absorp.tion and emission of IR go together because anything that is a good absorber of IR is also a good emitter, although in general the rates of absorp.tion and emission are not the same since absorp.tion is mostly temperature-independent but emission is very temperature-dependent…

    As the Earth’s surface absorbs sunlight it warms up. As it warms up, it emits more and more IR energy, limiting its temperature rise (remember ‘energy balance’?).

    If the atmosphere could not intercept (absorb) any of that surface-emitted IR energy, the energy would readily escape to outer space and as a result it has been estimated that the Earth’s average surface temperature would be only about 0 deg. F…

    The IR absorp.tion coefficients at various wavelengths, temperature, and pressures have been measured for water vapor, CO2, etc., in laboratories and published for decades.

    This absorp.tion means the atmosphere also EMITS IR energy, both upward and downward. And it is that DOWNWARD flow of IR energy (sometimes called ‘back radiation’) which is necessary for net warming of the surface from the greenhouse effect.”

    • barry says:

      Roy continues”

      “(Technical diversion: This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion.)…

      Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will rise… even if the energy input is the same. Extremely high temperatures can even be created with very little energy input… even from a tiny battery… if you can reduce the rate of energy loss to near zero…

      Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist.”

      Do you see any flaws in Roy’s description of the GHE, Swenson?

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        What description?

        “Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space . . .”.

        Looks like an irrelevant analogy about something not supported by fact, to me. The surface cools at night, and the planet has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of constant sunlight. No heating at all.

        Insulation heats nothing. As a matter of fact, insulation is generally used to keep things cold! Refrigerator and freezers use insulation for this purpose.

        I can’t see where anybody at all has described the GHE in any scientific way, presumably because either the GHE is a myth, or its worshippers are simply refusing to divulge the description on religious grounds – as you apparently do.

        Maybe you have found a description but are refusing to divulge it, for reasons you don’t want to disclose. Is that it?

      • The whole “net flow” issue scrambles their brains.

      • Swenson says:

        Elliott Bignell, in his usual dim‌witted fashion, wrote –

        “The whole “net flow” issue scrambles their brains.”, which is completely meaningless.

        Like many fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to accept that the Earth is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, he burbles about “brain scrambling”!

        As far as I am aware, Dr Spencer does not deny that the Earth has cooled, showing that it has emitted more energy than it received, or that the measured net loss of energy from the planet is of the order of 44 tW.

        I don’t believe Dr Spencer considers his brain particularly scrambled, and the efforts by the idio‌tic Bignell and others to use sly appeals to his authority to bolster their refusal to describe the “greenhouse effect” is just path‌etic.

        Facts remain facts, whether or not people believe they are. The GHE is speculation, and its present adherents are so unsure of themselves that they refuse to describe it, throwing that responsibility onto others!

        A pack of fo‌ols. There is no GHE.

      • barry says:

        I’ve described the GHE many times just as Roy has, as quoted above. It’s not my problem if you avoid dealing with the substance of the description in favour of the analogy. That just exposes your intellectual decrepitude.

      • barry says:

        “The whole ‘net flow’ issue scrambles their brains.”

        Yup, along with “back radiation,” which our resident atmospheric physicist has no problem with.

      • Swenson says:

        “Ive described the GHE many times just as Roy has, as quoted above”

        I cannot see a description at all. You obviously are having hallucinations.

        Carry on.

      • Swenson says:

        “Yup, along with “back radiation,” which our resident atmospheric physicist has no problem with.”

        Is this “back radiation” part of the GHE description which you refuse to divulge? Can’t say? Won’t say?

        You are not implying that the Earth is getting hotter, are you? Due to some “back radiation” which was not present for four and a half billion years? That would just be silly, wouldn’t it?

        I don’t blame you for refusing to describe a mythical effect which denies reality. A wise move.

        Carry on refusing.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        “Insulation heats nothing. As a matter of fact, insulation is generally used to keep things cold! Refrigerator and freezers use insulation for this purpose.”

        Steam pipes are also insulated, but not to keep them cold.

      • Swenson says:

        Bumbling bobby.

        You wrote –

        “Steam pipes are also insulated, but not to keep them cold.”

        This is news to you? Well, here’s some more news – steam pipes are insulated to keep the external face of the insulation as cold as possible – you wouldn’t want people getting burnt, would you? The colder the outside, the better the insulation.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        That’s a whole word salad, are you into the ale again?

    • Clint R says:

      barry, are you back again to prove how incompetent you are?

      The fact that you have to hide behind Dr. Spencer reveals how immature you are. Dr. Spencer has called himself a “Lukewarmer”. Are you now a Lukewarmer? If so, then you need to be attacking the empty-headed alarmists here, rather than real Skeptics.

      Grow up and get your facts right, child.

      • Willard says:

        Luckwarmers only hold that climate sensitivity is less than 3C per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Puffman.

        Sky Dragon cranks are light years away from that position, whereas the received view is 2-4 C per doubling, with 3C as the central value.

        Get a grip.

      • Clint R says:

        Child, if you believe CO2 can raise surface temperatures, you’re welcome to provide the relevant physics.

        This is not an invitation to start showing crap against the wall. You get ONE chance, so don’t screw up….

      • Willard says:

        Roy already did that many times, Puffman.

        Contrarians are not all cranks. You’re a crank. A Sky Dragon crank.

        Sky Dragon cranks were uninvited years ago. You were banned a few times. You came back under many sock puppets over the years.

        Here you are, trying to pretend that you’re on Roy’s side.

      • Clint R says:

        Also Nate, silly willy can’t help you.

        He’s even more immature than you are….

      • Swenson says:

        “Here you are, trying to pretend that youre on Roys side.”

        Is that Dr Roy Spencer, or some other Roy? You just can’t bring yourself to be clear, can you?

        Is that why you refuse to describe the GHE? Worried that your description might be so vague as to be completely useless?

        The world wonders.

      • Swenson says:

        Worried Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Luckwarmers only hold that climate sensitivity is less than 3C per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Puffman.

        Sky Dragon cranks are light years away from that position, whereas the received view is 2-4 C per doubling, with 3C as the central value.

        Get a grip.”

        Accept the reality that the Earth is cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.

        No “climate sensitivity”. No “doubling”. No “received view”, or “luckwarmers”, for that matter.

        You are one very ignorant and gullible cultist.

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A tiny town located on Tasmanias Central Plateau just registered Australia’s first -10C of the year as southern Australia starts to feel the icy chill of a unusually strong mid-winter high pressure system.

  28. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Hurricane Beryl is moving rapidly westward and will reach the Gulf of Mexico over the Yucatan.

    https://i.ibb.co/x15D3y3/goes16-ir-02-L-202407020625.gif

  29. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    The island of Ireland is now much more likely to experience heatwaves and record-high temperatures of 33C, according to research from Maynooth University in County Kildare.

    The study, led by Professor Andrew Parnell of the Hamilton Institute, suggests that what was once a one-in-180 year event has now become a one-in-nine year event.

    Scientists investigated the frequency and increases in extreme temperatures in Ireland – north and south – from 1931 to 2022.

    The significant increase in the likelihood of extreme heatwaves underscores the need for the island to prepare for rising temperatures and their potential impacts.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2v0elxywedo

    • Entropic man says:

      I can confirm. Ireland has seen several new temperature records in recent years. Overall it is getting warmer and wetter here.

      The rainfall pattern is also changing. There is less of the miserable drizzle. Fewer wet days and more intensive rainfall when it comes.

      • gbaikie says:

        Ireland has average yearly temperature of about 10 C, China is about 8 C.
        Recently Ireland yearly temperature was over 11 C [2006}:
        https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-region/ireland

        And during little ice age it’s average was about 9 C.

        The average global yearly land temperature is about 10 C and average global ocean temperature is about 17 C, giving us an average global temperature of about 15 C.
        Merely due to higher average, the ocean increases global average temperature.
        Land surfaces warm up quickly during the day, and rapidly cool during night whereas ocean surface temperature do not varying much between day and night, though ocean regions changes temperature. And because oceans will warm in summer, this is large factor that makes land areas warmer during the summer.
        But as weather can prove, if have cool weather in summer the land takes a while to warm up, so, not just limited to warmer oceans in summer. {or land area can retain some heat].

      • gbaikie says:

        Of course a significant factor in regards to Ireland is the Gulf Stream. If you can call an average of 10 C, warm. The tropical waters warming the Gulf Stream, warms Ireland by about 10 C.
        Or without it, Ireland average temperature would be about 0 C.

  30. Entropic man says:

    Ken says:
    July 1, 2024 at 9:28 AM
    It does exactly that.

    Hitran doesnt support that notion.

    Here is Happer and Wijngaarden analysis:

    https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/figure-1.png

    Ken, that’s a very useful graph. It tells us that a doubling of CO2 concentration produces direct warming of 3W/m^2.

    Secondary forcing such as extra water vapour increase that to 3*3=9W/m^2.(Climate sensitivity 3).

    The generally accepted figure is that 1W/m^2 increases global average temperature by 0.25C. The temperature rise becomes 9/4=2.25C.

    That sounds about right. The estimated warming due to the rise to 560ppm from 280ppm is 3C and the logarithmic effect would reduce that for higher concentrations.

    • Clint R says:

      Sorry Ent, but you’re wrong again. Those values come from the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. Any time you see such nonsense, you should run for the door.

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      What equation shows the influence of CO2 on four and a half billion years of global cooling?

      How does CO2 affect cooling at night?

      You won’t or cant say, is that it? Super secret hidden GHE cult knowledge, I suppose.

      Carry on refusing to accept reality. You don’t need my help to be a laughing stock.

    • Ken says:

      There is no evidence to support Secondary forcing. Climate models are not evidence; just theory. Climate models are profoundly wrong.

      0.25C/ Wm-2 means 3 Wm-2 will result in 0.75 C.

      I’d like the source of the 0.25C/Wm-2 claim.

  31. Entropic man says:

    Ireland is at about 54N latitude and averages between 9C and 10C.
    Anyone have the overall average temperature for 54N? Same latitude so Hudson’s Bay ands the Baltic, oth of which freeze in Winter. No polar bears, though, except in Belfast Zoo.

  32. Swenson says:

    I had to laugh – just a wee bit.

    Earlier, Willard wrote –

    “And so Mike Flynn is playing dumb again.

    Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

    Had he any honor, he would use the I-word against him.

    Mike Flynn has no honor.”

    Unfortunately, Willard’s disdain for clarity clearly indicates that if Dr Spencer had any honor, he would “use the I-word against” Mike Flynn. Willard then goes on to say that, like Dr Spencer, Mike Flynn also has no honor! As if either Mike Flynn or Dr Spencer are likely to place a high value on Willard’s opinions!

    Cryptic innuendo is not making Willard look any more intelligent than he is.

    Will‌ard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn plays dumb again.

      He knows the I-word.

      He knows that Roy believes in the greenhouse effect.

      He won’t call Roy the I-word.

      No honor.

      Simples.

Leave a Reply