Global Warming - Discussion-Rant

[golftdibrad1]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/22/ ... my-health/

Mother Earth: “I am smiling in 2025 because the Great Orange one, a.k.a. President Donald Trump, has improved the state of my health. Trump’s America First energy policy prioritizes readily accessible fossil fuels, which means less resource-intensive emphasis on solar, wind, and electric vehicles.

I hope all other Western nations follow President Trump’s energy policies. I would much rather have energy production in Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States than importing energy from countries that abuse Mother Nature with lower environmental standards, not to mention lower human rights. My message is simple: Follow Trump’s lead and continue to extract fossil fuels from my bountiful reserves! Quite simply, if you poke holes in me, life-giving energy flows from me.

Already, my vital signs are improving. Even NASA says that carbon dioxide, the gas of life that humans exhale from their mouths, is greening my body.

I am perplexed why any of my human inhabitants who claim to be concerned about ‘global warming’ are pushing the idea that solar, wind, and EVs are somehow better for the environment.

I, Mother Nature, have long known that so-called renewable energy digs deeply into my ground with mining for rare Earth metals. (Not to mention the impacts on animal species like marine mammals and birds due to wind power.) The human residents who needlessly fear CO2 need to understand that restrictions on energy in Western economically developed democracies mean higher CO2 emissions globally as the developing world picks up the slack with lower standards and primitive technology.

One final word: I have been around for eons of time, and one thing is beyond dispute: Climate changes with or without your SUVs. There is no climate crisis! Stop the climate crap! After all, it is not nice to fool Mother Nature!

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/ ... 2025-04-28

[golftdibrad1]

rEcOrD hIGhS


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/01/ ... dishonest/

[golftdibrad1]

UHI effect is real.

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

This is an important article talking about climate sensitivity to CO2, and how the estimates are all far off observed data that we have a quarter century of good satellite observations to lean on.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/29/ ... sensitive/

The autour notes in an important comment the following:

“It is generally accepted that in the absence of feedback, a doubling of CO2 will cause a forcing of ∆Q ≈ 3.7 Wm−2 and will increase the temperature by ∆T0 ≈ 1.1 K (Hartmann, 1994; Schwartz, 2007)

So I looked at Hartmann. He uses the same formula I used, but with a temperature of 255K, the theoretical temperature of a superconducting blackbody, and an emissivity of 0.9. This gives ~ 1.1°C per 2xCO2.

However, when we substitute the real temperature and emissivity of the Earth, we get the numbers that I show above.

What is the reasoning behind using the 255K (-18°C) temperature of a theoretical blackbody superconducting earth for the no-feedback calculation? Why would we not use actual conditions?

I think we know the answer to the question... to make climate sensitivity to CO2 look 2-3x worse than it really is.

[golftdibrad1]

bye felicia! Climate.gov is no more

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/11/ ... -alarmism/

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09023-w

Thats Nature you guise, like THE science journal publishing this.

Rivers and streams are an important pathway in the global carbon cycle, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from their water surfaces to the atmosphere1,2. Until now, CO2 and CH4 emitted from rivers were thought to be predominantly derived from recent (sub-decadal) biomass production and, thus, part of ecosystem respiration3,4,5,6. Here we combine new and published measurements to create a global database of the radiocarbon content of river dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), CO2 and CH4. Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2 emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment lithology and biome. This previously unrecognized release of old, pre-industrial-aged carbon to the atmosphere from long-term soil, sediment and geologic carbon stores through lateral hydrological routing equates to 1.2 ± 0.3 Pg C year−1, similar in magnitude to terrestrial net ecosystem exchange. A consequence of this flux is a greater than expected net loss of carbon from aged organic matter stores on land. This requires a reassessment of the fate of anthropogenic carbon in terrestrial systems and in global carbon cycle budgets and models

1.2 Pg of carbon per year, or Peta grams, thats 10^15 power. Thats 1.2 giga tons metric. The entire cycle is ~200 giga tons, so thats half a percent we didnt know about till today. Humans are responsible for 35-40 Gt of that, so 3.2% of our known emissions is this new thing we didn't even know about till this paper. Oh, and since its OLD carbon, it throws into question all the radioisotope data 'proving' the increases in atmospheric co2 are solely anthropogenic.

more in depth analysis here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/16/ ... ty-secret/

To call climate science “settled” in the wake of this paper is not just intellectually lazy—it’s laughable. It’s the scientific equivalent of declaring victory halfway through a chess match while ignoring that your queen is missing and half your pawns are spies. The river CO2 study is not a minor correction. It’s a flashing red light that we’re still flying blind.

Couldn't say it better myself.

[golftdibrad1]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/17/ ... n-apology/

how science is supposed to work; when new evidence is presented you re-evaluate assumptions.

To those contributors whose submissions I rejected on the basis that they did not sufficiently address the isotope argument: I owe you an apology.

You raised objections in good faith. Many of you suspected that natural processes were more complex and underappreciated than the models allowed. This paper has proven that instinct correct. You didn’t need to disprove the Δ¹⁴C narrative outright; you simply needed the science to catch up to the question.

It just did.

Confidence Requires Humility

This study is a stark reminder that confidence in science is no substitute for humility in the face of uncertainty. That applies as much to editorial policy as it does to modelers, activists, or policymakers. In this case, the error was not in demanding rigor—but in assuming it had already been achieved.

Carbon isotope ratios remain valuable tools, but they are no longer unimpeachable witnesses. They are part of a broader, far more uncertain picture of how carbon moves through the Earth system—a picture we now know was missing a major river-fed chapter.

A Final Word

The takeaway is simple: no one gets to claim the science is settled when it just got rewritten.

And so, to every researcher, independent thinker, or persistent submitter who brought forth alternative views and was met with the standard rebuttal—“Come back when you’ve dealt with the isotope ratios”—you were due more openness than you received.

For that, I offer a strong, clear, and unreserved apology.

[golftdibrad1]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 25GL114882

Abstract
Recent Earth energy budget observations show an increase in the sunlight absorbed by the Earth of 0.45 W/m2 per decade, caused primarily by a decrease in cloud reflection. Here we decompose the solar radiative budget trends into general circulation and cloud controlling process components. Regimes representing the midlatitude and tropical storm zones are defined, and the trends in the areal coverage of those regimes which are potentially induced by circulation changes are separated from trends in the cloud radiative effect within each regime which are potentially induced by changes in local cloud controlling processes. The regime area change component, which manifests itself as a contraction of the midlatitude and tropical storm regimes, constitutes the largest contribution to the solar absorption trend, causing decreased sunlight reflection of 0.37 W/m2 per decade. This result provides a crucial missing piece in the puzzle of the 21st century increase of the Earth’s solar absorption.

Key Points
Satellite observations show that in the past 24 years the worlds storm cloud zones have been contracting at a rate of 1.5%–3% per decade
This contraction allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface and constitutes the largest contribution to the observed 21st century trend of increased solar absorption
Plain Language Summary
Analysis of satellite observations shows that in the past 24 years the Earth’s storm cloud zones in the tropics and the middle latitudes have been contracting at a rate of 1.5%–3% per decade. This cloud contraction, along with cloud cover decreases at low latitudes, allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. When the contribution of all cloud changes is calculated, the storm cloud contraction is found to be the main contributor to the observed increase of the Earth’s solar absorption during the 21st century.

virtually all the warming has nothing to do with human activity.

[golftdibrad1]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/06/24/phony-alarmism/

perhaps we shouldn't be as concerned about ocean pH levels as even I considered an issue worth expressing concern over.