Category Archives: CO2

Green Energy Train To Energy Poverty

The Claim: Europe and Australia are benefiting from their green energy policies. We should follow their example.

The Facts: The Ice Cap blog refutes that claim in a posting titled:“Green Energy Train To Energy  Poverty”.

Joseph D’Aleo shows that green energy is pricing the Europeans out of a number of markets and is wreaking real damage on their poorer citizens.

Two of the many  charts that  D”Aleo uses to make his case are as follows:



And the following chart equates the amount of installed wind and solar renewable energy with the cost of electricity:


Read D’Aleo’s full posting by clicking here:



Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 2

The previous posting,  “Does the Greenhouse gas effect really exist–Part 1”,  looked at measured radiation of longwave infrared (IR)  that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect.

There is another way to demonstrate the  greenhouse gas effect using the SURFRAD data.  I have selected SURFRAD data for the year 2016 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Desert Rock, Nevada sites

Some thoughts about the following charts 1B and 3B.  These charts plot  the radiation data—both solar short wave and the Earth’s longwave IR plus the net Solar and net longwave IR.

Charts 2B and 4B show air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and albedo.  These data are not used in the analysis but might prove valuable to someone interested in deriving a better understanding of the energy balance.

Figure 1B Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD:  Radiation Chart For 2016

Different from the earlier chart in Part 1 which showed a 24 hour continuous plot of data, the following 4 charts are the daily data in a given month combined and  the mean extracted for each data set.

Continue reading

Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 1

Does one have to deny that the so-called green house gases (GHG)s have an effect on global temperatures to be a skeptic?  Many of the big-league skeptics believe that the GHGs do play a part in global temperature.  So maybe not.

The following is a quote from Climate Change Reconsidered II** :

“ As carbon dioxide concentrations increase so too does the intensity of back radiation at the surface across the active wavebands of CO2, and because this radiation emanates from a lower and warmer layer of the atmosphere, the magnitude of the back radiation increases. Consequently, the net infrared radiation emanating from the surface is reduced, causing a rise in temperature that generates increased heat exchange and evaporation. This surface warming also contributes to an increase in convective instability”.

So, hold on and let me explain why I believe this.

First, a look at the big picture.   The Sun’s surface is somewhere about 5500 C.  Radiation goes out in all directions with some of it directed toward Earth.  This is Earth’s principal source of energy.  This radiation travels 93 million miles in about 8 minutes to reach Earth.  It loses much of its strength in the journey, but at the top of our atmosphere, its strength is nominally 1365 watts per square meter.  The Sun’s radiation mainly consists of photons of visible light, ultraviolet and infrared.  The full force of the Sun’s radiation seldom reaches the Earth surface because of clouds, reflection off snow and ice, scattering in the atmosphere for example and the angle that the Sun’s rays strike the surface.  Further complicating this topic is the fact on average, the Sun only shines on any place on Earth for more than 12 hours per day.

Many charts showing the Earth’s average energy budget use 340 w/m²  because when you factor in the length of the day and the spherical geometry of the Earth the effect is about ¼ the energy at the top of the atmosphere at noon.  While the Energy budget charts are useful, I believe they get in the way of understanding the GHG effect.  So, the following will uses actual measured radiation data and not the hypothetical 340w/m².

To get an idea of what happens at the surface, lets take a look at the data collected by the Surface Radiation Project. The Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) was established in 1993 through the support of NOAA’s Office of Global Programs. The SURFRAD mission is clear:

“its primary objective is to support climate research with accurate, continuous, long-term measurements of the surface radiation budget over the United States”. 

SURFRAD currently has 7 operating stations.  These stations are very well equipped. They can measure upwelling and downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling IR, temperature, RH, wind speed, cloud cover, UVb  and several others.   The SURFRAD website allows you to make charts of the collected day.  For starters I have plotted some data from the Desert Rock, Nevada SURFRAD site.

Figure 1A

Continue reading

Paris Agreement—Are the Germans Leading the Developed Nations?

It looks like Chancellor Merkel believes that now that Ex-President Obama has been replaced by President Trump, she is the developed nation’s leader regarding the Paris Agreement.

So, is Germany leading the way? The Chancellor’s plan “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energy) has set out goals with a timetable to reduce CO2 emissions and switch the national’s energy supply to renewables that can replace fossil fuels. The table below summarizes these goals:

The Greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals are spelled out in the table. The goals, for the years 2014 through 2050, are shown as an amount of reduction based away from the1990 emissions of CO2.  That was the year of the reunification of East and West Germany.  The goal in 2050 is a minimum reduction of greenhouse gases of 80 to 95%.

Continue reading

Major Hurricane Landfalls In Florida—1900 To 2017

This posting is a reblog of Dr Roy Spencer’s posting “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming“.   It is part a pitch for his new book that is a “putdown”  to those the would-be prophets of global doom. 



September 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.




In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.

For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.

I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed on climate change. Regarding Hurricane Irma which recently terrorized Florida, you might be surprised to learn that it is consistent with a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:

Continue reading

REDUX: What?  Downwelling IR Radiation   Why?  Condensation Nuclei and/or Cloud?   How?  Tyndall Scattering and/or Downwelling IR Emission?

The posting (with the same title on September 7)  was taken removed for further review at Jerry L Krause’s request while he reexamine one of his premises.  He has brought it back with comments, changes and dialogue which I think you will find most interesting.  So,  be enlightened, entertained and take his challenge.


Guest Posting by Jerry L Krause   2017

Author’s Note:  A fact is that CB posted my previous essay with a very similar title which contained a gross error.  He offered to take down this essay but I consider even a greater error is to hide one’s errors.  Buckminster Fuller considered we can only learn from our errors.  For just because an idea worked when tested in a given situation, it might have worked for a different reason (idea) than that being considered.  So, he concluded it is very important for humans to share with others that which they clearly have found does not work.  Because of the gross blunder I had recognized, I began to ponder what other errors I might have made.  And I have concluded there were.  So while the title is similar, it needed to be modified a bit.  So, I concluded that the beginning of my essay needs to be totally different.

At some early time I believe prehistoric people observed clouds to frequently form and dissolve again, without any precipitation occurring, just as we do today.  And from the beginning I believe all human babies began to drink their mother’s milk in order to survive.  And later in these babies’ lives many began to drink the milk produced by other animals as I have.  So what these early humans, and many since, likely have observed, if they noticed things, applies to the natural phenomenon we term Tyndall scattering or the Tyndall effect or colloidal scattering

But it is an all too common observation that we don’t notice common everyday observations (things).  To support this idea, I ask a few questions which only each individual reader can answer.  First, do you know what the phenomenon we term the Tyndall scattering (etc.) is?  If your answer is: no, you cannot know what these prehistoric people could have seen that could have been related to Tyndall scattering.  If yes, the second question is: do you know how, what these prehistoric people could have seen, applies to the natural phenomenon of Tyndall scattering?  And if your answer is no, you cannot know how this natural phenomenon applies to the observation of the invisible (to our eyes) downwelling longwave infrared (IR) measured by an instrument of the SURFRAD project at seven locations in the USA.  And if your answer is yes, do you know how this natural phenomenon applies to the observation of the invisible (to our eyes) downwelling longwave infrared (IR) measured by an instrument of the SURFRAD project ( at seven locations in the USA?  And if your answer is yes, you can read what follows and help me discover any errors which still exist by making comments.

Continue reading

Repeal The Endangerment Finding–Talk To The RINOs

Somehow, I am on Climate Home’s email list.  The news in this edition is several months old, but a couple of its postings bother me a lot.  While the postings do not address repeal of the Endangerment Finding, they do leave me wondering how committed are the Congressional Republicans to the draining of the EPA swamp”?

Several years ago, a hearing before the Supreme Court was being conducted, that wanted CO2 to be added, as a pollutant, in the Clear Air Act. Congress had passed and the President had signed the Clear Air Act into law a number of years prior to the case in question.  Despite the fact that the legislative body of the US Government had considered CO2 and had rejected it being included, the Supreme court said that the EPA should determine if CO2 was a danger to the nation.  The EPA cherry picked the science from the IPCC, in particular, and announced that indeed CO2 was endangering the nation.  So, the Supremes, ignoring the separation of powers, said ok, it’s now the law of the land that CO2 is a pollutant. From that moment, the EPA has been writing the laws about CO2. They have carte blanc to do whatever they want. 

By now the Trump Administration should have acted to repeal this inclusion of CO2 on several bases.  One: the science is bogus and two: the Supremes overstepped their Constitutional authority.

Continue reading