Category Archives: CO2

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It looks like Chancellor Merkel believes that now that Ex-President Obama has been replaced by President Trump, she is the developed nation’s leader regarding the Paris Agreement.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

What?  Downwelling IR Radiation–Why?  Condensation Nuclei (Cloud?)–How?  Tyndall (Colloid) Scattering




Harvey Not Caused By Man-made Global Warming

Many of the catastrophic warming brigade are shouting that hurricane Harvey is the fruit of global warming tree.  The media, the other branch of the Democrat Party, are saying the same thing.   Joe D’Aleo’s marvelous website, IceCap, provides a chart that will show open minded people that these big hurricanes have been going on for quite a while.   Well before the supposed start of the CO2 caused global warming.   The following chart shows the history of the biggest hurricanes that have hit the US since 1851:

Note that Katrina and Sandy are not on the list.  Hurricanes can be destructive even if they are not 4 or 5 category storms.  Sandy perhaps not even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, caused considerable damage from the storm surge.  Storm surge occurs when a major storm pushes water on  to the shore  at levels well above normal.

Further, how do you account for the fact that the last  hurricane of category 3 or larger to make landfall on the US was 12 years ago.   I guess that means there has been no warming during those 12 years.   But wait,  how can that be because the warmers keep telling me that the “hottest ever years” are now.


Observations Refute Greenhouse Effect of Certain Atmospheric Gases


Guest Posting by

Jerry L Krause   2017

First we need to review a bit of history from the pen of the one who founded this thing we now term physical science.  But before we review what Galileo wrote in Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, we need to consider what the publishers (Elzevir) of his book wrote in their preface to the reader.  According to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times. (as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, 1914)

Many of us have been taught that Galileo refuted a long accepted general idea—that bodies twice as heavy fell twice as fast—of the Greek philosopher Aristotle by dropping, at the same time, bodies of significantly different masses (weights) from high places and observing that they struck the ground at basically the same time.  However, it seems Galileo efforts of demonstration were not readily accepted by everyone.

For Galileo had his character Simplicio state:  Your discussion is really admirable; yet I do not find it easy to believe that a bird-shot falls as a cannon ball.  To which Galielo had the character Salviati reply:  Why not say a grain of sand as rapidly as grindstone?  But, Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lacks a hair’s-breath of the truth and, under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship’s cable.  Several pages Simplicio stated:  The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to be desired: but now I am fully satisfied.  Even after Simplicio accepted that Aristotle’s idea was false, it seems it was not the demonstration which convinced him.  What was it that convinced Simplicio?

Immediately after Simplicio’s concession, Salviati replied:  The facts set forth by me up to this point and, in particular, the one which shows that difference of weight, even when very great, is without effect in changing the speed of falling bodies, so that as far as weight is concerned they all fall with equal speed: this idea is, I say, so new, and at first glance so remote from fact, that if we do not have the means of making it just as clear as sunlight, it had better not be mentioned; but having once allowed it to pass my lips I must neglect no experiment or argument to establish it.  Herein lies the possible answer to what convinced Simplicio.  If we remove no experiment from Saviati’s last statement, we are left with:  I must neglect no argument to establish it.

I have read that Galileo refused to accept the result (that the planets’ orbits about the sun were ellipses) of Tycho Brahe’s very careful naked-eye astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler’s very careful mathematical analysis of Brahe’s observational data.  I have read that Galileo did this because he considered a circle to be a more perfect figure than an ellipse.  Whatever his reason, the observed fact is he was wrong about the ‘shape’ of the planet’s orbit.  Because of some argument he had with himself?

Relative to Saliviati’s previous reply, I question what was so new, and at first glance so remote from fact.  What was the fact that Galileo’s new idea was so remote from?  I have pondered this question and have concluded the fact was the result of this experiment (experience):  hold a ten-pound bag of sugar in one hand and a one-pound package of butter in the other.

But Galileo was not done, after Salviati’s comment, he had his third character, Sagredo, immediately state:  Not only this but also many other of your views are so far removed from the commonly accepted opinions and doctrines that if you were to publish them you would stir up a large number of antagonists; for human nature is such that men do not look with favor upon discoveries—either of truth or fallacy—in their own field, when made by others than themselves.  A bit later Sagredo added:  In this manner he has, as I have learned from various sources, given occasion to a highly esteemed professor for undervaluing his discoveries on the ground that they are commonplace, and established upon a mean and vulgar basis; as if it were not a most admirable and praiseworthy feature of demonstrative science that it springs from and grows out of principles well-known, understood and conceded by all.

The title of this essay is this essay’s sole purpose.  So as I bring measurements (observations) to your attention, we will only consider the observed facts which apply to this purpose.

It is an undebatable fact that certain atmospheric gases have been observed, by instruments, to absorb certain portions of the invisible, to human eyes, infrared (IR) radiation being continuously emitted by the earth’s surface.  And there are many undebatable cases that when radiation is absorbed by matter it is observed to be transformed into a sensible heat (an increase in temperature) of that matter.  So based upon these cases and a radiation balance calculation, it has been long accepted that the result of this absorption of the IR radiation is that the earth’s average surface temperature would need to be about 33 degrees Celsius (33C) less if not for the presence of these certain atmospheric gases.  This is the claimed greenhouse effect (GHE).

Continue reading