David Dibbell

Are emissions of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat "trap" explains what is being observed. This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16. NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the "atmospheric window" part of the infrared spectrum. The "brightness temperature" color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed. So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is in response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. The dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG "forcing") experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space. So as I see it, this implies that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been measured, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.

@ChrisMartzWX Sure, there's no denying that incremental CO₂ increases the IR absorbing power. What's the end result? @tim_dunkerton says Dynamics is King. He's not wrong. The influence is negligible as energy conversion dominates in the general circulation.

Most people, including just about all of the ICC16 presenters, don’t deny that increasing the carbon dioxide (CO₂) level has some warming effect on the lower atmosphere. I certainly don’t and never have. Our point is: WHO GIVES A SHIT!? It’s not that much, and it is not something to spend time worrying about unless you are a moron. It also has not been 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 that all of the warming since, say, 1850 has been due to CO₂ forcing. The only alleged “evidence” comes from computer model simulations where the modelers back out the estimated forcing coefficients by setting the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) to 0 W/m² because they assume [without any logistical reason] that there was no EEI prior to industrialization. They then jack up the CO₂ concentration to demonstrate that it causes warming. Well, no shit. But that is circular reasoning, not science. As for the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, I actually do have a slide about it in my ICC16 presentation. Unfortunately for you, though, I will not be telling you what you want to hear. That relationship is not remotely useful for computing rainfall or rainfall rate for flash flooding, especially over land areas. The equation says that for every 1°C increase in air temperature, the equilibrium vapor pressure increases by ~7%. But that tells us nothing about the rate at which rain or any other form of precipitation will fall from a cloud, much less how much will over a given area. A lot of other factors are at play. Also, lapse rate feedback, especially over the mid-latitudes and tropics, yields a more stable troposphere (the mid-upper troposphere should warm more due to a GHG forcing), so upward motion is reduced, which yields slower updrafts, and less efficient rainfall production. This is where having an actual degree in meteorology actually helps with one’s physical understanding.

@SpeakerJohnson Welcome to His Majesty King Charles! There is no climate crisis. British meteorology experts Sir George Simpson and Prof. David Brunt knew in 1938 why there was no good physical reason to expect emissions of CO2 to drive a "warming" trend. More here. #comment-4174555" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/ope…

It is my distinct honor and great privilege to invite His Majesty King Charles III, The King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to address a Joint Meeting of Congress. Our two nations share one of the most consequential partnerships in history, and together we will mark the historic milestone of America’s 250th year of independence.

@OwenGregorian @JackPosobiec I read this in the audio voice from Pink Floyd.

@JackPosobiec How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?

No meat today

@ChrisMartzWX "Fossil Fuels for Cuba!" - paraphrasing "Big Oil" activist Greta Thunberg. You can't make this up. facebook.com/reel/445043353…

It has been really funny watching leftists find out that communism doesn’t actually work.

@patfrank830 @its_The_Dr Interesting. A 1954 model year Corvette would have been originally built with a 6-cyl engine. This one may have been converted to a small-block V8 sometime later. I too would have loved to hear it start up! Or possibly this car is a 1955 model delivered in late '54(?).

@its_The_Dr Wonderful story. Great rescue. Peggy's joy is poignant. Her husband, wherever he might be would cheer. The car they married in. My only regret is not hearing that baby start up; 4-barrel carb., and all.

@xiaowang1984 1 kWh = 3412 BTU. 1 therm = 100,000 BTU (HHV). $1.50/100000*3412= 5.1 cents per kWh worth of fuel energy. At 85% furnace efficiency, this is equivalent to 6 cents per kWh for heating.

Quick question. How many cents per kwh is $1.50 a therm

@TopAlliedAceWW1 @ChrisMartzWX Grok says those unreadable lines of words are a quote from one of his own speeches in 2015. Inspiring? No. x.com/i/grok/share/3…

@ChrisMartzWX I call it the Tower Of Babble.

Obama’s Presidential Center has got to be one of the ugliest buildings ever designed.

@ClimateDepot No matter what the CCP says about targets, "leading" global "climate" "governance" (whatever that is!), the real indicator of their intentions is the planning and construction of coal-fired and nuclear power plants. Everything else is window-dressing.

China announces new climate targets in 5-year plan | China is targeting a 17% cut in carbon intensity under its 15th five-year plan, it announced Thursday, as the country declares its ambition to “lead global climate governance.” Semafor semafor.com/article/03/05/…

@ThomasSowell Her point on "climate" claims - "their stupid fake models" - good point. Did ANY of the step-iterated models ever possess ANY diagnostic or prognostic authority about the influence of rising pCO2? No. It was a circular exercise all along. regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ…

Megyn Kelly: "Professionally, I feel in love with Trump... because I believed him that he would close the border. I believed him that he would fight back against the gender madness."

@MatthewWielicki Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt responded in 1938 to Guy Callendar's proposed attribution of warming to rising pCO2: A surface temperature response cannot be determined from the radiative effect, considering the dynamics of the circulation. #comment-4058322" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/ope…

Dropping tomorrow: What if the warming signal isn’t just about CO₂… but about energy actually reaching the surface? A new paper finds ~+4 W/m² per decade increases in surface solar radiation over Germany since the 1990s. That’s measured incoming energy. Not a model. Not a scenario. If climate is an energy balance problem, this raises a serious question: Are we attributing warming to the wrong variable?

@SecretaryWright Great, let's seriously push for REcarbonization here in NY by resuming natural gas development and building new CCGT power plants. We have ample deposits right under our feet in a large part of the state. Whatever federal leverage can be applied will be worth it. Thank you!

Increased natural gas production enables a more stable grid and lower prices for all Americans. President Trump has unleashed American energy production and the best is yet to come.

@AlexEpstein "Recarbonize!" follows the idea of "arguing to 100" instead of "arguing to zero". x.com/i/grok/share/d…

@AlexEpstein Let's start promoting recarbonization in the U.S., starting with CA and NY and other states that are deep into the anti-fossil fuel movement! E.g. resume natural gas development here in NY, where ample deposits of natural gas are right beneath our feet.

Even European politicians like the French President Macron are realizing that a "100% renewable" electric grid is a recipe for disaster. It's time for all politicians in the US to see the light, too.

@RyanMaue Let's recarbonize the economy now to better prepare for eventual depletion of natural deposits! Sooner or later, we'll probably need lots of nuclear power to convert coal, biomass or other carbon sources to liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon fuels.

The "Government's Power to Fight Climate Change" never legally existed. Trump returned executive authority from EPA to "regulate the climate" back to Congress to settle (or not) as a Major Question. Decarbonizing U.S. economy was not authority delegated to EPA by Congress.

@RogerPielkeJr Good points. The incremental IR absorbing power of emissions of CO2 and/or water vapor is vanishingly weak in the context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. Is harmful influence on "climate" trends to be expected at all? No. regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ…

The Water Vapor Problem The weak point in EPA greenhouse gas regulation rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-water-va…

@patfrank830 Thank you for your response! Much appreciated.

@DavidDibbell 1/n Hi David - Over all, good. I'd suggest only one change, here: "Since the TSI uncertainty is uncorrelated across time steps, each step introduces a small, independent random perturbation to the temperature change." The true future state is unknown.

"Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections" peer-reviewed and published in 2019 frontiersin.org/journals/earth… has now reached 185,041 views and downloads. #totalviews/views" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">loop-impact.frontiersin.org/impact/article…

@curryja Thank you for this reference and for the explanation. In related news, the docket for the DOE "Critical Review" report has now resumed posting numerous comments made last year, including mine. Interesting. regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ…

The EPA ruling is available. The EPA is declining to issue a finding on the science. The rescission is based strictly on the legal argument that the EPA never had authority to regulate GHGs and the recent SCOTUS rulings forbid the EPA staff from improvising rulemaking authorities that properly belong to Congress. "We received comments in support of this alternative basis, including from commenters asserting that the EPA compiled and analyzed the scientific record unreasonably in 2009 by severing the analysis of endangerment and contribution and issuing findings separately from emission standards and from commenters asserting that the scientific record did not then, or does not now, provide the certainty necessary to make such findings. We also received comments in opposition to this alternative basis, including from commenters asserting that the scientific record supporting the findings is “overwhelming” and has been strengthened in the intervening years. Although the Administrator continues to harbor concerns regarding many of the scientific inputs and analyses underlying the Endangerment Finding, we are not finalizing this alternative given our conclusion that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate in response to global climate change concerns under CAA section 202(a)(1). The legal interpretation finalized in this action means that we cannot resolve remaining scientific controversies in this regulatory context and renders it unnecessary and inappropriate to invoke the Administrator’s authority to exercise judgment on these questions under that provision.." In other words, they lack regulatory authority over climate-related emissions, and they likewise lack regulatory authority to resolve scientific questions concerning climate change. epa.gov/regulations-em…

@JonathanTurley "And they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly... Hills, that is..." It's in Cookeville, Tennessee. nextdoor.com/neighborhood/b…

The California exodus continues as Democrats seek to trap wealthy taxpayers with a retroactive tax. They are engineering a type of reverse Gold Rush as up to a trillion dollars leave the state with a line of U-Hauls heading for the nearest border... jonathanturley.org/2026/02/13/eat…

@JunkScience I don't understand. Was this docket not the proposed action to eliminate GHG emission standards for power plants? I filed a comment back in July. regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ…

Just to be clear, the imminent endangerment finding rescission does not apply to power plants, just vehicles. It's a big deal, but not the whole shebang by a long shot. The WSJ is giving everyone the wrong idea with its photo of power plants. The Trump EPA has yet to propose to get rid of the EF for power plants.