I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful.  That after a few hundred years of a period of Enlightenment there was a transition back to a period of ignorance.   This must especially be the case when it comes to how they explain that energy moves in the atmosphere, especially heat.

It doesn’t matter whether I am referring to the right or left of politics, they are choosing to be political rather than thoughtful.  Of course there are always exceptions, and I have particularly enjoyed recent email exchanges with Christopher Game.

It doesn’t matter whether they are referring to convection or some other method of energy transfer, the modern scientist, especially the consensus scientist, but also for example, Peter Ridd, usually insist on referring to it as heat.

After Will Happer visited Australia last year and gave his lectures about ‘integrity in science and attacks on carbon dioxide’ at the invitation of the Institute of Public Affairs, I was curious to know where he sourced the key charts that he showed, specifically charts about expected radiant energy loss from Earth at different wavelengths.  There was no attribution, and Happer was vague when I emailed him.  For sure the charts had been redrawn, but from where was he sourcing the essence of this narrative and these numbers.

Eventually I found versions of key charts in a book by one of his colleagues from Princeton University, S. George Philander.

There is a chart on page 113 of this same book (Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming) that Happer didn’t show in his presentation that purports to show ‘heat that Earth radiates to space’ as relatively constant never mind the latitude.

I have been thinking about this issue of where most radiant energy is lost, from which latitudes and how.

It is my understanding that an altitude of about 5 kilometres the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that ‘heat’ can be radiated freely to space irrespective of the latitude.

I also understand that at this altitude the temperature is rather cold, that it will be well below zero degrees Celsius, which begs the question of why it is referred to as heat loss at all.   I guess all of this is in keeping with the underlying paradigm that is about average temperatures and overheating.

The Lake Placid Solar Power Plant is located in Highlands County, Fla., and suffered damage during Hurricane Milton. The facility opened in December 2019 and is 45 megawatts, which is enough to power more than 12,000 homes at peak production. 

https://news.duke-energy.com/file/dji-20241010111433-0006-w?action=

Looks like tornado damage, but can’t find a news story about it ~cr.

From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Cliff Mass

The Seattle Times had a startling revelation on its front page last Sunday:  the top of Mount Rainier is shrinking due to global warming (see below).  

According to this article, the frozen ice cap at the summit is melting “as the atmosphere warms.”   Unfortunately, this claim is false and can easily be shown to be untrue.  Another error-filled article by the Seattle Times Climate Lab, a journalistic enterprise funded by climate activists.

Why is this claim obviously false? 

Because the top of Mount Rainier is so high that temperatures at the crest are consistently below freezing, even with a warming planet.  

In addition, the added moisture associated with global warming would tend to INCREASE the amount of snow at that elevation (warm air can contain more water vapor than cooler air).

Let me demonstrate that the top of Rainier is not melting from global warming.

The crest of Mount Rainer is 14,410 ft above sea level.   The nearest upstream upper-air observation location is the NOAA/NWS radiosonde launching site at Quillayute, located on the northern Washington coast.  Below is the climatology of the melting level at this location, with the melting level being the elevation at which the temperature falls to freezing.  Above the melting level, temperatures are below freezing.  The red line is the elevation at the top of Mt. Rainier.  This graph is based on over 50 years of data.

Notice something in the figure?   The freezing level is virtually always below the top of Mt. Rainier (the crest of  Mt. Rainier is below freezing nearly all the time).

Has the freezing level ever reached the top of Rainier?   Yes, but not recently.

The following figure shows the daily climatology of the freezing level of the air approaching western Washington (again based on the radiosonde sounding at Quillayute).  The horizontal red line shows the elevation of the top of Mt. Rainier.  The light red line shows the daily highest freezing level.  The black line is the daily average freezing level, which is around 2000 ft during the winter and 6000-8000ft in summer.

Between November 1 and April 1, the snow accumulation season, the freezing level has only reached the crest of Mt. Rainier twice.  Over the summer about 20 times.

Now the key point,  All these above-freezing temperatures at the creest were in the historical past, with NO RECENT cases.   Let me prove this to you.

Here are all the dates when the freezingly level at Quillayute ascended above the top of Mt. Rainier.

Twenty-six dates.   The most recent was 2006, 18 years ago.

Let me repeat.  18 years ago.

Most of the “warm” events were in the 1950s and 1960s.  There is no trend toward more above-freezing temperatures at the top of Mt. Rainier.  In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite.

Thus, warming temperatures are not the cause of reduced snow at the top of our favorite mountain.

The claims of the Seattle Times front-page article are demonstrably false.  Global warming is NOT causing loss of snow at the top of Mt. Rainier.

Now, let me be clear, warming lower down on Mt. Rainier (say at 6000 ft) is happening and that could impact snow and glaciers well down the mountain.  BUT NOT THE CREST AS DESCRIBED IN THE ARTICLE. 

If snow/ice is being lost at the top of Rainier it has to be for other reasons, such as less precipitation, strong winds, or human impacts.   

The Seattle Times Climate Lab repeatedly publishes climate-related articles that are incorrect.  Articles that  hype or misinform about climate change.  The Seattle TimesClimate Lab is supported by outside money, groups with a climate advocacy agenda.

Our region deserves factual, rigorous journalism on this important subject. Climate Lab is failing to provide it.