Climate Explainer: “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today…”

Guest ” climate splainin” by David Middleton (apologies to Ricky Ricardo)

From The Conversation:

Climate Explained: what Earth would be like if we hadn’t pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
June 23, 2020

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

This week, Climate Explained answers two similar questions.

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

and

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

Earth’s atmosphere is a remarkably thin layer of gases that sustain life.

[…blah, blah, blah…]

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

Author
Laura Revell
Senior Lecturer in Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury

Click here if you want to read all 673 words of mind-numbing drivel.

Which question did this answer?

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

And WTF is “Environmental Physics”? Does environmental “science” have its own unique laws of physics? Rhetorical question.

Anyway… Here are the correct answers to the questions that were actually asked of the climate splainers:

First Question

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

Let’s answer the question arguendo, under the assumption that the so-called consensus position is correct.

This is from IPCC’s AR4 (2007):

Figure 1. Figure TS.23 from IPCC AR4. The lower panel (b) has two curves. The black curve depicts IPCC’s version of observed temperature changes since 1900. The blue curve is what IPCC says the blue curve is how temperatures would have evolved “if humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all”, or at least not very much.

As can be seen in TS.23 (b), according to the IPCC, the human contribution to global temperatures was insignificant before 1975.

This is the cover of the March 1, 1975 Science News magazine:

Figure 2. Science News March 1, 1975

Here is a merger of figures 1 and 2:

Figure 3. How the Current Fake Climate Crisis Saved Us From… That 70’s Climate Crisis Show

“If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all,” it would be colder now than it was when The Ice Age Cometh?

Second Question

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

If all the greenhouse gases were eliminated, Earth would be a cold, lifeless planet… Except for maybe roaches and fungus… and maybe some of those weird extremophiles. So, let’s answer a slightly different question…

My question is what happens when all the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

“What happens when all the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated?” The human race becomes extinct in about 6 months… We all starve to death.

“If we stopped producing fossil fuels today we would all die. We wouldn’t have food. We wouldn’t have transportation. We wouldn’t have heat. We wouldn’t have air conditioning. We wouldn’t have clothes,” he said. “It’s very nice to protest the fact that we have fossil fuel producers in the portfolio, but the real problem is the consumption, and every one of us in the room is a consumer.”

David Swensen, Yale University chief investment office

“What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?” That big orange-yellow ball of nuclear fusion in the sky keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good … I think it’s called “the Sun.”

When the Sun doesn’t cooperate, it doesn’t really matter what we do.

The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.

[…]

[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.

MacFarling-Meure et al., 2006
Figure 4. From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere. A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking

Greenhouse gases can’t trap heat that’s not there. Despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the mid-20th century cooling was so pronounced, that atmospheric CO2 stopped rising, possibly even declined, for at least a decade,

Figure 5. HadCRUT4 global mean temperature anomaly (1944-1978). Y-axis is ℃. Wood For Trees

No one really knows what caused the mid-20th century cooling. Some have attributed it to aerosol pollution, and some have linked it to oceanic circulation. However, it is clear that rising CO2 emissions, not only didn’t prevent it, but the cooling likely enabled the oceans to absorb all of our emissions for over a decade.

Summary

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

It would be colder than this:

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

This:

NASA

And this, but only when it’s cooperating:

Reference

MacFarling-Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006). “Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP“. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.

99 thoughts on “Climate Explainer: “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today…”

  1. “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all” – most of us would not be here.

    • Then add to the massive amount of fish and other species we harvested over the centuries.
      I tend to believe that our planet has always had an over abundance problem as the water levels dropped over the billions of years.

    • We just cut back CO2 production by 20% for three months with zero impact on global CO2 measurements.

      The 1940 to 1980 shows flat CO2 despite a huge increase in CO2 produciton.

      Obviously CO2 is driven by temperature, not the other way round.

      • Note the phrase in the article, “the combined effects ,… are not presently well understood”.

        Whatever happened to “The Science is Settled!”?

        Yeah, that’s been the biggest lie of all

  2. From a National Academy of Science report published on line Nov 10, 2014.

    Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Contributions to Global Warming Under Increasing CO2
    Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.

  3. So from figure 5, between 1945 and 1978 the planet cooled by a whole 0.08 degrees, yet that was enough to spawn the Science News cover (and others)?

    That little change in temperature would not have made such an impression. Figure 5 is a huge lie.

      • Or the media uses hyperbole to sell, it seems that may be a constant bias: Always assume information is peaked to the most sensational, newest, or odd bits.

    • Scarlet
      1940 to 1975 used to have -0.3 degrees C. cooling but that is being gradually “adjusted” to zero. I believe one compilation of the global average temperature is already showing no cooling.

      In government climate junk science it’s easier to predict the future climate (always a crisis) than to predict the past climate (always changing to show more warming, and certainly no cooling periods will be allowed).

      The climate is whatever the bureaucrats tell you it is — a coming crisis — so you must do as they say, without question.

      You might think we’ve been hearing about a coming climate crisis since the 1970s — so where is it?

      It’s still coming … and how dare you question science, you science denier !

      • “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” – George Owell, “1984”

    • Yes, Scarlet, a huge lie, but not by sceptics. The Ice Age Cometh was the product of the same alarum climate folk who changed horses to chase global warming when it became the better bet. Stephen Schneider, Holdren, Ehrlich all touted at the time, the globe is cooling forever and its mankind’s fault.

      How very astute of you to spot an obvious scam like that. Now you know you have the the intellectual, logical tools to also spot the identical scam, by the same people who are pushing manmade global warming, which in 40 years also involved only a piddling few tenths of a degree C! In your heart you are a sceptic! You think for yourself.

      Now, obviously, you aren’t old enough to have experienced the 40 years of cooling, because, indeed it was cold (ask your parents or grandparents). The official temperatures have been fiddled, as is the wont of consensus climate scientists who are impatient with Nature’s slow pace to speed up the horrible plight of the planet.
      I’m going to give you a star for that aspect of your observation, too. The clisci types had to change the real observations so any sensible person would be able to see the cooling had to be a lie!!

      They did this by pushing down the 1930s-40’s 20th Century all time highs by 0.3C (initially – this adjustment is still gradually going on) and tilted the cold end (late 1970s) up. Why? Because you couldn’t have raging heatwaves and droughts in the thirties when CO2 wasn’t significant and 40 years of frightening cooling alarm when CO2 was belching out at a galloping pace.

    • Here you go, Scarlet. This is a link to the US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999).

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

      You can clearly see the falling temperatures from the 1940’s to the 1980’s. Temperatures dropped about 2.5C from 1940 to 1980, and dropped almost 3C from 1934 to 1980.

      The US surface temperature chart is the best representative of the real temperatue profile of the globe, with high temperatures in the 1930’s and low temperatures in the 1970’s.

      The AMO chart looks very similar to Hansen 1999.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/tsgcos.corr_.81.159.104.45.247.15.34.31.png

      The Data Manipulators, in order to cool the 1930’s also had to make the 1970’s look a lot warmer than they were, in order to make their bogus Hockey Stick chart look right. They ended up changing the temperature profile so much that people looking at it today say, “What “Ice Age Cometh?”

      Just another clue showing the Modern-era Hockey Stick chart is bogus. It doesn’t match our written history. It’s science fiction.

  4. I think Roger Pielke Sr view is that land clearing and land use change have contributed to climate change, as much or more than CO2 emissions.
    So it’s possible that without the industrial revolution, humans make have cleared even more land

    • Yes, the biotic pump is very real as all water originates in the oceans changing vegetation and the landscape as it is transported across land before returning to the oceans

  5. Let’s leave out the effects of the Sun….
    Because the Deep State physicists have said the Sun has constant output {even through we can see that all stars are variable}.
    The physicists that “control” the model of the Sun are ignorant. The Core of the Sun is composted of 75% He as per them. Very little H to fuse. So the Fusion must occur in the upper regions of the Core! Not in the center of the Core!!!

    In addition, the Core will NOT produce uniform output. Nothing in the Universe is Uniform! Except the incorrect publications of the Deep State !!!!!!

    Therefore, the model of the Sun, that they use is WRONG.

    Look at the 350 to 400 year cycle of the Sun. They say the Sun is Constant. We say the Sun is Variable. The Deep State physicists are a joke on humanity.

      • No, it changes based on its medium. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 km/s, while the speed of light through a pure diamond crystal is 160,000 km/s, a 40% decrease.

        • How do you know? I mean, if v = s/t and you measure t to be longer what makes you sure that you used the correct s when you conclude that v is smaller?

          • Here’s a useful video from Sixty Symbols I refer science colleagues to quite often when they ask about speed of light; see at 15 mins: https://youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk
            (Polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation).

  6. “Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.”

    ??? Did she hear the question? What transitions? Needed for what? And what the the H*LL does global inequalities have to do with these questions? She seems to be arguing for wealth distribution, but not answering reasonable climate questions. What a dufus. Or socialist…or communist, but certainly not a scientist. Ayn Rand would be proud to include her in an updated copy of “Atlas Shrugged”.

    “And WTF is “Environmental Physics”? Does environmental “science” have its own unique laws of physics? Rhetorical question.”

    Yes, I think that climate pseudo-science DOES have its own unique laws of physics – ones based in faith, leprechauns, and unicorns (oh, and farting out rainbows). That is the only way to make their arguments work. Unfortunately most people are too under-educated by public schools and liberal universities to understand this.

    • Isn’t it obvious that Environmental Physicists work with the alternate laws of Nature that underpin Climate Science.

  7. On this waterplanet with 70% of the surface being water the most important greenhouse og climate gas is of course H2O, water vapor. Methane and CO2 has no important fingerprint here…

  8. There is no way of ever answering that question, because there would be no way to test that hypothesis. We can’t roll back the clock and redo the test, and nor was there an exact Planet B to experiment against. It would have been the same question if my great-great-great grandfather in 1850 LIA conditions had asked what would be the average temperature of the good Earth in 2020 if we raised CO2 levels to 415 ppmv by then. It was and is unknowable, including in reverse. It is all pure speculation.

    Theoretically, the science says there should be a slight warming, but we really don’t understand where we are in the natural variability cycle, and then we don’t really know if there are negative or positive feedbacks in the long term scheme of things. So the only thing we should do is to say let’s run the experiment to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and re-evaluate where things are by 2100 if CO2 gets to 560 ppmv. That should be our level that we slow down CO2 accumulation and then aim to stabilize at 450 ppmv for as long as we can, if only for the biosphere. What is the optimal level, and what is the optimal temperature? By then, we will be utilizing less FF’s anyway, and there will be a decline at least in man made emissions. If it cools due to natural variation, there will be a flat line of CO2 increase or a decrease depending how cool things get and what we emit in the future.

    My gut feeling is that the climate naturally oscillates a few degrees either way of a base line for a 101 different reasons, mainly orbital over ling time periods and always adjusting to changing incoming insolation, and CO2 is just another bit player in that process and mostly reactionary, not leading. Looking at the historical record, we do know that interglacials only last so long before slowly ratcheting down in temperatures over millennia cycles of warming and more colder cooling, until an ice age sticks and this interglacial is over. That is our long term future, maybe in 1,000-1,500 years.

    This obsession with CO2 is getting unhealthy, especially when it is really a metaphor for everything else bad that mankind has done, mainly pollution that FF’s were associated with when this craziness began. If it had been a natural cooling the last 150 years and we put the same CO2 in as we have done, they would be speculating about how much colder it will get if we continue emitting CO2. Some people, like real believers, must have the CO2 ‘done it’ gene. Others are just in it for the power/money and control over peoples lives.

  9. “What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good? …”.
    I see Laura, so a colder climate would be good.

    “If people had not altered the composition of the atmosphere … we would expect the global average temperature today to be similar to the pre-industrial period …”.
    I see, about as cold as it was during the 8.2 cold event or almost as cold as it has been in the past 10,000 years — and that would be good.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg/640px-Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg.png

  10. Apparently, Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury is an undergraduate double major in Physics and Environmental Science.

    Environmental Science at U Canterbury looks like a reasonable minor, nevertheless granted the status of major, but looks to be a field entry when done in conjunction with a hard science co-major.

    Reassuringly, one is not allowed to major in Environmental Science alone. It must always be done in conjunction with a hard science Bachelor’s Degree major.

    • I suspect these degrees are entry to a new field – consulting companies that have to certify, for $$$$, everything from whether frogs in a swamp will be negatively impacted by buildings up the hill to our water licence. For example, this community has been drawing water from an artificial lake for about 80 years. However we will get shut down if the drawings are not made legal. To do this requires an ‘environmental assessment’ done by one of a number of private companies that takes a year and at least $80k. The existence of these companies is based upon recent legislation that included no grandfather clauses for existing water systems so all over BC, community money is pouring into these CONSULTING COMPANIES.

      There are a great number of people who are benefiting from the green scam.

  11. Sent to climate change stuff in NZ:

    Re: a question of climate

    Given “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections,”

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

    on what grounds can anyone suppose that human CO2 emissions have had, or can have, any effect at all on global average temperature?

    Yours,

    Pat

    Patrick Frank, Ph.D.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;
    But as for certain truth, no one has known it.

    Xenophanes, 570-500 BCE
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  12. Let’s see. The models couldn’t predict what’s happened on AGW over the last 20 years.

    So, we’ll use them to predict what didn’t happen anyway. Now, there’s nothing against which to judge the models. Natch.

    The epidemiologist chose poorly trying to predict deaths. They should have gone for predicting the number of asymptomatic infections and recoveries. They’d be styling right now.

  13. You Are Not Causing Global Warming–https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/you-are-not-causing-global-warming/
    Dr. Ed Berry states”Alarmists argue their theory is true as follows:

    The sum of human CO2 has been greater than the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm. Therefore, human CO2 caused ALL the increase.
    The increase in CO2 above 280 ppm follows a similar curve as the sum of human CO2 emissions.

    These alarmist arguments fail out of the gate for the following reasons:

    IPCC’s own data show the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm exceeded the sum of human CO2 emissions before 1960. This proves natural emissions caused the CO2 increase and it proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
    A positive correlation between two trending time series does NOT prove one is the cause of the other. Proper statistics first “detrends” time series data. Then it correlates the data in the time steps. The annual correlation between human CO2 emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO. That means IPCC’s core theory is false.”
    Well worth reviewing in preparation for answering these questions.

  14. Question: What would be the temperature today if humans did not burn fossil fuels?

    Answer: According to Charles Keeling (the Keeling curve man) it would probably be about the same because a role for fossil fuels is not detectable net of tidal cycle forcings that explain all of the millennial time scale warming and cooling cycles of the Holocene including this one.

    Three links below.

    The Holocene
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/

    Keeling Tidal Cycles
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/05/tidalcyclesbiblio/

    No evidence of a role for fossil fuels
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/10/a-monte-carlo-simulation-of-the-carbon-cycle/

  15. “WTF is “Environmental Physics”? Does environmental “science” have its own unique laws of physics?” My thought exactly. I looked it up: interdisciplinary academic field that draws on ecology, geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, engineering, and physics to study environmental problems and human impacts on the environment which seems to me to be so much baloney. On the other hand there is a book entitled Principles of Environmental Physics that looks to like a text book for what used to be known as agricultural meteorology. I guess that re-branding sells books.

    • See my reply to Pat Frank above. This field turns out ‘Environmental Consultants’ who have to sign off on just about anything, from a domestic septic field to a hydroelectric dam and everything in between for $$$$. They even made the local town build a caisson around a new boat launch ramp while the concrete cured to ‘prevent leaching into the sea’. In the old days, you just poured on a neap tide.

  16. Off topic but …

    On yesterday’s Scott Adams podcast, he talks about Michael Shellenberger’s new book ‘Apocalypse Never’. (about 1:05) link

    Adams is very positive about the book as are all the reviews I can find. example

    I did a google for Apocalypse Never on wattsupwiththat.com and was astounded to find that it hasn’t been mentioned yet. Adams says it isn’t out ’til June 30 but he has a review copy. Even so, I’m surprised that it hasn’t popped up on WUWT yet.

    Poverty, not prosperity, is the real enemy of the environment. We use can produce more food using less land and water, move from wood to coal to natural gas to nuclear, and safely capture and contain plastic waste. But all of that will require standing up to the eco-alarmism in the way of environmental protection. (from example link above)

    This could be another big red pill for the masses.

  17. First, average global temperature has no relation to good or bad conditions for life. Only local climate where one lives matters.
    Second, there is a great deal of the planet that is too cold for most life to flourish. There are also areas that are too dry for most life forms, but hardly any that are too hot. So warming tends to increase habitable area.
    Increasing CO2 has clearly also increased plant abundance and perhaps also led to reduction in arid areas.
    So, if human emissions of CO2 have had an effect on local climates it has been primarily to produce improved habitability. We owe it to our descendents to continue to improve global habitability by adding more life sustaining gas to the atmosphere.

    • Exactly. Local/regional temperatures (among some other factors) determine the biome. Have we seen any changes? Expanding deserts, savanna, or chaparral?

    • Current trends in Harris County, which includes Houston, indicate the caseload will triple or quadruple by mid-July, Hotez said, citing modeling by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s PolicyLab. Such a scenario would be “apocalyptic,” he said. “We can’t go there.”

      “…citing modeling by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s PolicyLab…”

      • You can argue about testing. You can argue about models. You can’t argue about people in the ICUs. They are not there for their fun.

          • Have we been talking about Houston? I guess so:

            https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/

            case load:

            Covid-19 total bed occupancy trend

            daily new Covid-19 hospitalizations

            Covid-19 ICU occupancy trend

            total ICU bed occupancy

            With over 200 new admissions per day you don’t need a model to be concerned.

            And it is not the number of tests done, it is the number of tests coming back positive:

          • Even with the recent surge in hospitalizations, the Houston area is just barely above the ICU “no concern” range.

          • Ron:

            And it is not the number of tests done, it is the number of tests coming back positive:

            Your argument is a straw man. It’s too simplistic a view for Texas:

            “Lindsey Rosales, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, confirmed to Just the News this week that the state is categorizing every inpatient in the state with a positive COVID-19 test as a COVID-19 hospitalization.

            ‘The number of hospitalized patients includes patients with a lab-confirmed case of COVID-19 even if the person is admitted to the hospital for a different reason,’ Rosales said.

            Asked if inpatients in the state are tested for COVID-19 whenever they arrive for treatment, Rosales said, ‘Hospitals set their own protocols for determining when and if to test patients for COVID-19.’

            She said the state does not keep track of the patients hospitalized with the coronavirus versus those hospitalized specifically because of it.”

            Thus, in the case of Houston (likely elsewhere in Texas as well), it is NOT the number of tests coming back positive, it’s whether or not hospitalizations are COVID related:

            “Queries to multiple Texas hospital officials this week went unanswered. But leaders of several major hospitals in Houston this week urged the public to remain calm, suggesting that the extent of the outbreak has been overstated.

            At a virtual press conference on Thursday, the chief executives of Houston Methodist, Memorial Hermann Health System, St. Luke’s Health, and Texas Children’s hospitals stated that their hospitals are well-prepared to handle an even greater increase in patients than that which has emerged over the past few weeks.

            The number of hospitalizations are ‘being misinterpreted,’ said Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom, ‘and, quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.’

            ‘We do have the capacity to care for many more patients, and have lots of fluidity and ability to manage,’ Boom said.

            He pointed out that his hospital one year ago was at 95% ICU capacity, similar to the numbers the hospital is seeing today. ‘It is completely normal for us to have ICU capacities that run in the 80s and 90s,’ he said. ‘That’s how all hospitals operate.’

            He noted that around 25% of ICU patients are COVID-19-positive. But the hospital ‘[has] many levers in our ability to adjust our ICU,’ he said, claiming that the hospital capacity regularly reported by the media is ‘base’ capacity rather than surge capacity.”

            https://tinyurl.com/ycrpyumb

          • Asked if inpatients in the state are tested for COVID-19 whenever they arrive for treatment, Rosales said, ‘Hospitals set their own protocols for determining when and if to test patients for COVID-19.’

            Do you actually read what your are quoting for an argument? That statement could also imply there are way more COVID-19 cases in the hospitales than the stats show cause hospitales are not testing everybody.

            Kidney, cardiac, gut, all possible complications of COVID-19 that have nothing to do with respiratory symptoms.

            He pointed out that his hospital one year ago was at 95% ICU capacity, similar to the numbers the hospital is seeing today. ‘It is completely normal for us to have ICU capacities that run in the 80s and 90s,’ he said. ‘That’s how all hospitals operate.’

            So in general your buffering capacity is small. That is exactly what you wanna hear in a pandemic. /irony off

            It is the daily increase in admissions that is of concern cause the normal ICU capacity is nearly at max, water it the emergency plan is kicking in:

            https://www.tmc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/j-TMC-total-icu-bed-occupancy-6-25-2020-1536×864.png

          • Asymptomatic cases generally aren’t hospitalized, much less occupy regular hospital beds. There could be 10 or even 100 asymptomatic cases for every symptomatic case.

            The buffering capacity is the red.

            When hospitalizations began to spike about a week ago, the governor authorized county officials to more tightly enforce social distancing and took other measures to blunt the spike.

            Even with the recent surge in hospitalizations over the past few days, Texas statewide hospital capacity has room to spare.

            Texas Hospitals

            Most of the surge has been in the four biggest cities, where people and businesses had become lax regarding social distancing and other preventative measures. The governor reauthorized county and local officials to tighten up social distancing and mask rules, restricted gatherings back down to 100 from 500 and temporarily suspended many elective medical procedures in Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis Counties.

            Texas Hospitals Regional

            https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

            Even with the recent spike, the vast majority of Texas hospitals are still at Level 5, “Maintain Staffed Beds.”

            Pages from PPT_6.16.20_Page_1

            Pages from PPT_6.16.20_Page_2

            https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PPT_6.16.20.pdf

            Texas is not “in trouble.” Texas is dealing with the pandemic, while reopening its economy in s safe, orderly manner.

          • Do you actually read what your are [sic] quoting for an argument?

            Absolutely not, in fact, “I are” always make it a strict habit to AVOID quoting anything relevant to the topic at hand when I quote something. It’s just so much easier dealing with morons that way.

            That statement could also imply there are way more COVID-19 cases in the hospitales than the stats show cause hospitales are not testing everybody.

            Let’s grant your premise.

            Who cares?

            If there are “way more COVID-19 cases” in the hospital system than are known, they aren’t there for COVID then are they? They’re there for something else wouldn’t you agree?

            And isn’t that the point of the article that I didn’t read before I quoted it to you? That individuals going INTO the Texas hospital system are first going for something OTHER than C-19?

            So in general your buffering capacity is small. That is exactly what you wanna hear in a pandemic. /irony off

            Well my apologies. No doubt you, Ron, are more knowledgeable and experienced in running an “hospitales” than the hospitales CEO’s quoted in the article that I didn’t read before I quoted it.

          • @sycomputing

            Well my apologies. No doubt you, Ron, are more knowledgeable and experienced in running an “hospitales” than the hospitales CEO’s quoted in the article that I didn’t read before I quoted it.

            How many pandemics did he handle before is the question?

            Many clinicians – I should better say many people – have their problem with logarithmic and/or exponential functions.

            The Texas Medical Center has reached 100% ICU capacity:

            https://www.newsweek.com/texass-largest-hospital-reaches-100-percent-icu-capacity-1513481

            From the article:

            If this trend continues, our hospital system capacity will become overwhelmed, leading us to make difficult choices of delaying much-needed non-COVID care to accommodate a greater number of COVID patients,” according to the statement. “We are therefore calling upon the people of Houston to do their part in helping us to slow the spread of this dangerous virus.

          • How many pandemics did he handle before is the question?

            I disagree. That isn’t the question at all. The question is rather, “How many hospitals did you handle before you thought you knew better than the CEO’s of several major hospital networks in Houston Texas?”

            So tell me. What is your experience running a major hospital network in the state of Texas, or anywhere for that matter?

            The Texas Medical Center has reached 100% ICU capacity

            And what does this mean exactly? Are there OTHER hospitals in Houston, or is the Texas Medical Center the only one? Did Newsweek think to interview someone in authority at ALL of the hospitals in Houston in order to get a real-world view of the situation at hand?

            Once again, quoting Marc Bloom (in case you’ll be swayed by individuals who are professionals in their field):

            “The number of hospitalizations are ‘being misinterpreted,’ said Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom, ‘and, quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.’

            ‘We do have the capacity to care for many more patients, and have lots of fluidity and ability to manage,’ Boom said.

            He pointed out that his hospital one year ago was at 95% ICU capacity, similar to the numbers the hospital is seeing today. ‘It is completely normal for us to have ICU capacities that run in the 80s and 90s’ he said. ‘That’s how all hospitals operate.’

            He noted that around 25% of ICU patients are COVID-19-positive. But the hospital ‘[has] many levers in our ability to adjust our ICU,’ he said, claiming that the hospital capacity regularly reported by the media is ‘base’ capacity rather than surge capacity.

            Emphasis added.

            Back to your evidence. Is the Texas Medical Center at base capacity or surge capacity? Does it even matter? If the Texas Medical Center is just one of many hospitals in the Houston area, are we cowering in fear prematurely? How many OTHER Houston hospitals are at any capacity whatsoever? Shouldn’t we take this into account in our disaster planning scenarios, i.e., doesn’t this matter when we’re evaluating the critical nature of the situation? What say you?

            I’ll see your model, and raise you real-world objective evidence.

          • @sycomputing
            I disagree.
            What a surprise. Of course there is also no connection between the ability of many Asian countries to mitigate the pandemic and their experience with SARS and MERS and how badly other countries without these experiences handle it.

            Back to your evidence. Is the Texas Medical Center at base capacity or surge capacity?

            I don’t know. They don’t say it. If you read the charts from David you would know that makes a difference of meagre +20% for most hospitals anyway.

          • What a surprise.

            No one else is.

            Of course there is also no connection between the ability of many Asian countries to mitigate the pandemic and . . . how badly other countries without these experiences handle it.

            Speaking of “no connection between,” you seem to have confused our discussion with another somewhere else. You’re beginning to grasp at straws, Ron.

            I don’t know. They don’t say it. If you read the charts from David you would know that makes a difference of meagre +20% for most hospitals anyway.

            Don’t you think you should ask in order to have the best available data from which to make a decision? That’s what the professionals do. Good thing the professionals running hospitals in Houston are confident about their capacity planning then, wouldn’t you agree?

            “He [Marc Bloom] pointed out that his hospital one year ago was at 95% ICU capacity, similar to the numbers the hospital is seeing today. ‘It is completely normal for us to have ICU capacities that run in the 80s and 90s,’ he said. ‘That’s how all hospitals operate.'”

            Could you provide any evidence of any hospital anywhere in the United States so far that’s NOT had available beds for C-19 patients at any point, any time, anywhere during this pandemic?

            Not just Houston. Anywhere. We have some experience dealing with this now.

        • Am I missing something here? When did Texas hospitals open fully for elective surgeries and treatments? If some of the patients entering the hospital for elective purposes, e.g. cancerous kidney removal, have covid they are apparently being counted as a covid hospitalization thus ballooning the covid numbers by some factor. Do we know what percentage of the total are attributable to this?

        • @David Middleton

          When hospitalizations began to spike about a week ago, the governor authorized county officials to more tightly enforce social distancing and took other measures to blunt the spike.

          Every measure taken takes at least two weeks before you see any effect as many countries have shown. So the peak of the increase is at least one week away.

          Just do the math how much more days you need at the current daily rate.

        • haha, gotta love me some texas screw ups

          Well, that’s just because you’re behaving like a spiteful little hermunculus. Texans won’t hold that against you. We’ll just send you to Austin with the rest of the kids where you’ll be more comfy. 🙂

          “By 8 a.m. Friday, the line of cars waiting at an Austin coronavirus test site snaked out of the parking lot and down the street.”

          Speaking of Austin. Is there another city with a greater number of compressed fools per capita in Texas? For example, did anyone in the line think to try ANOTHER test site?

          https://tinyurl.com/y8pd9bff

          Did professional photographer suddenly turned experienced reporter Miguel Gutierrez Jr. check ALL the sites to see what was happening before he reported his findings? He sure didn’t mention it if he did.

          “Zuniga tried to register for a test at CVS, which is providing free self-swab exams in partnership with the government . . . The website kept crashing and she turned instead to a local clinic.”

          We’re the government, we’re here to help:

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/healthcaregov-plagued-by-crashes-on-1st-day/

          But see there, Zuniga was smart. She went elsewhere and found the desired results!

          “Across the state, test sites are hitting capacity and closing early, and Texans are waiting in hours-long lines to get swabbed.”

          I guess that’s true in Austin where professional photographer recently turned (soon to be) award winning, trusted reporter Miguel Gutierrez Jr. decided to ask (thus why should anyone be surprised), but tisn’t true in, e.g., Johnson county Texas where I am. And we’re just a Podunk conglomeration of rural cowboys.

          L-I-B, whudda thunk we could do it better ‘n ’em smarty pants hippies up ‘er in Austin?

          The wife just yesterday had lunch with a friend who walked into a local clinic Sunday the 21st (that’s right, a Sunday, no weekend closings here I reckon), with no waiting, and got her results back Wednesday the 24th.

          Huh? How could this POSSIBLY be according to this in depth, well researched article from professional photographer recently turned (soon to be ) award winning, trusted and experienced reporter Miguel Gutierrez Jr.?

          Not that the Tribune has a history of finding *good* news about Texas from their professional photographer recently turned experienced reporter stable of authoritorial staff. I’m just not sure that would be the right thing to do from their particular “point of view.”

          But at least there’s lots of evidence to back up our guy, I mean look at ALL the people talking about their horrible experiences on Gutierrez Jr.’s Twitter feed:

          https://twitter.com/mgutierrezjr/status/1276617603151204352

          Anyway, thanks so much for your thoughts and prayers Steven. We lurve you too budrow!

    • More proof that it is the large cities, with their crammed in populations and dirty air that are the problem.

      • Over the past few weeks, I’ve seen a lot of people blatantly disregarding social distancing guidelines and not wearing masks in supermarkets.

        Couple that with the riots and a surge of hospitalizations was inevitable.

    • stay safe in Houston

      Well let’s see how it’s going given the predictions in your source:

      “(Bloomberg) — Houston’s Covid-19 outbreak is accelerating at an exponential pace that will swamp the fourth-largest U.S. city’s medical infrastructure by the Independence Day holiday, less than two weeks away, a leading disease specialist warned.”

      Oopsie, “not even wrong”:

      As of 7/5/2020, 15:15, Available ICU Beds – 1,203

      https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

  18. Earthling2

    Really excellent comment. No one knows.

    The people who REALLY annoy me are the lukewarmers who are supporting the scam with their right wing politics making the gullible believe they are an opposition. They are fundamentally accepting the pseudo scientific nonsense but disagree about the details. They are more dangerous than eco fanatics. They are collaborators.

    • “Theoretically, the science says there should be a slight warming, but we really don’t understand where we are in the natural variability cycle …” (Earthling2 at 3:19 pm).
      Would you classify that comment as “supporting the scam”, from what I’ve read that more or less sums up the view of most posts on WUWT.

      • No. That’s a first class observation.

        That isn’t what I’m talking about. It’s the endless arguments about values for climate sensitivity or feedback etc.

  19. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect the primary greenhouse gas in H2O and mankind has had no real effect on the amount of H2O in our atmosphere. Molecule per molecule H2O is a stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 time more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere then is CO2 so changes in CO2 are insignificant when it comes to the over all radiant greenhouse effect. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero Furthermore, the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system and hence can only be regarded as science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. One can only conclude that mankind’s increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has had no effect on the Earth’s climate.

  20. “Environmental Physics” is apparently a close cousin of “Social Justice”. A pair of words thrown together to cover a void.

  21. The only measurable impact humans may have is changes in temperatures due to land use changes.

    But that has nothing to do with climate

    • It can locally (ie loss of snow cap on Kilimanjaro due to land clearing in the surrounding region reducing humidity/precipitation) but globally, the effects cancel out

  22. Short answer? The same. No different. Zilch, Rien, Zero, Bog all. Diddly, etc. Science n follows.

    Why? Longer answer.

    I will start by trying to make a fundamental scientific point that overtly discredits the whole of the CO2ist GHE control of climate theory at a stroke. Always remembering that there is also no observational evidence for the CO2ist GHE theory, as the observations show the models to be very wrong. Except the Russian’s.

    Because we are having the wrong discussion over an agenda set by the IPPCC that is partial and limited to tiny part of the overall system, that the atmospheric lapse rate or “GHE”, that is the rate of change of temperature to space through the thinning and insulating atmosphere. This is in fact a small part of the climate system, but the IPCC limits discussion of control to this part, the CO2ist “science” of atmospheric models designed to prove CO2 is a causal problem for planetary SST, that in fact is a small part of the much broader Earth science reality that in fact determine’s the global Climate.

    Back off and look at the bigger planetary and solar system Earth SCience picture? As a result of studying the actual observations of the short and long term climate cycles, the longer term Milankovitch period controls of interglacial events, and learning the basics of cosmic ray effects and their shorter term solar driven cycles, and how the overall climate stability of Earth is strongly controlled, I suddenly realised, yesterday, after 4 years of study, that CO2 caused GHE is really just one small effect within the overall lapse rate of the Earth’s thermal gradient to the absolute zero of space provided by the atmospheric insulation, whereas the dominant effect is in fact the control delivered by the cooling and cloud forming response to change of evaporation from volatile oceans.

    GHE is one small effect within a much bigger and dominant system, not an open loop or stand alone effect.

    The IPCC has limited the discussion to this relatively insignificant and inconsequential effect of CO2 on GHE, a small component of the climate system, as if it acted alone. It doesn’t.

    GHE/Lapse rate is a small component of the much bigger picture in terms of the dominant climate control system that has kept Earth’s climate stable within close limits since there were oceans to produce strong matching response to any SST perturbations, from whatever cause.

    That means that even if there is some small GHE change, the dominant control system will neutralise it at the surface by natural feedback, so GHE change will not affect the SST, just the lapse rate in the Troposphere.

    To repeat the answer given earlier, no change due to CO2. Or changing lapse rate profiles either. Back to the big picture

    The planet has proven inherently stable against changes such as asteroids, super volcanoes, annual solar intensity variability of =/-15% every 100Ka Milankovitch maximum (but not solar wind variability).

    How does it do that? The scale here is far greater than the noise of 1 or 2W/m^2 BTW.

    But what then causes the real observed change, long and short term? I suggest actual cyclic changes we see in surface temperature records are caused by the effects the fundamental oceanic control cannot balance out in this way, so instead must set a new equilibrium to rebalance the changed system heat flows.

    The causes, I suggest, are orbital forcings, briefly discussed later, that produce the short and long term cycles in the system equilibrium we observe in fact. There are many scientific papers, observation based, that make these effects very probable as proposed. Change that is proposed and then observed to happen as predicted, versus models that predict changes that are proposed, observed and don’t.

    Again, we are being made to look in the wrong place within the system for what is a non problem for ground level SST when taken in the planetary round. It’s behind you!

    nb: As a key insight, for my thought experiment, it is worth noting, as Alan Simmons has from NASA data, that thermal lagging of planets by their atmosphere, held on under pressure by gravity, also occurs on most other planets and large moons in the solar system, all similar and with the predicted black body Kirchoff radiative surface temperature occurring at around 0.1Bar pressure, regardless of gasses and absolute temperatures, etc. CO2 is not anything special in terms of modifying lapse rate profile. Most gasses that stay gaseous at the temperatures involved will do.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ayvamq0h5bg7ei/Greenhouse_Effect_at_work.pdf?dl=0

    And in fact it doesn’t matter that GHE/Lapse rate changes somewhat. Because the top level evaporative control system will neutralise it at SST level with a change in clouds. The GHE effect will be observable where it happens, but not at the surface where its effect is nullified.

    KEY POINT: GHE AKA lapse rate change is a small part of the overall control of heat flow, controlled by the dominant effect of the evaporative response of the controlling oceans to SST variation. Hence the relatively small range of variability in the absolute zero of space over 500 million years.

    So, given the “GHE” effect is a small effect within a dominant control system that has worked well since we had oceans to maintain our equilibrium, why do huans consider a small change in the small GHE effect by the current organic population of the surface would not be corrected by a few more or less clouds, as has happened for the last 500 million years, perhaps with the loss of the current flora and fauna, but Hey, that’s life in space. The planet can manage its SST. We would do better to adapt to the changes we now know to expect, from the record. Cooling next, 2 degrees over 500 years or so, with some warm intervals.

    The organic stuff like short lived humans comes and goes, and, while the Earth’s dominant systems adapt to the current version of Gaia, it seems to me the organic species on the planet’s surface have little effect on the dominant planetary scale systems that stabilise the climate in space – e.g. in the limiting case Earth will stay stable with oceans but without flora and fauna, whatever the lapse rate curve/GHE and the gaseous mix that produces it. As with the early and very different atmosphere, for example.

    To get a little further into the details. Another thought experiment. Consider the Earth in a circular orbit around a stable Sun. Any “internal” atmospheric effect that the dominant control can return to equilibrium will not require a change in that equilibrium, change in GHE/Lapse rate, accidents to the atmosphere/events, etc. and also external solar intensity change.

    The Earth would experience no orbital forcings so would stay stable and simply decline in energy monotonically as the solar system ages. But that is not the observed case. Because there are other effects that can’t be rebalanced without a new equilibrium.

    ORBITAL FORCING: There are two such effects, now quite well studied, that change the fundamental control system balance in a way that demands a new equilibrium, again delivered by the modification of insolation by clouds, because controlling the proportion of the energy input of solar radiation arriving at the ocean surface remains the dominant planetary climate control – Natural APCC?

    Examples of such causes are:

    1. Cloud formation rate change influenced by cosmic rays as solar wind variations vary the cosmic ray flux, that probably drive the short term cycles of 2 degrees every 1Ka. Again, the effect comes from space and causes the amount of cloud, that modifies insolation, to vary by additional nucleation caused by intense particle showers, outside the natural planetary control of evaporation. So the equilibrium temperature of the global system must change to compensate for this external influence on cloud formation, this is a quick selection:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxtdfkwp9n9cade/Climate%20CHange%20Signatures%20Weiss.pdf?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqq8vmwml8ghnob/Steinhilber%20Graph%202009.jpg?dl=0
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPC7Qy3lzAg

    2. The changing internal heat input from the very long term variable output of submarine volcanoes, very under valued by the wrong in fact “consensus” – that definitely cannot be controlled by evaporation! It varies directly with the orbital forcing of all three Milankovitch cycles, probably by gravitational forces, hence ice ages. Covered here: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379

    I suggest these two sets of external forcings of solar wind and Milankovitch gravitational forcing cycles summed together will replicate the entire ice age SST profile, short and long term.

    And also, that this holistic approach is much closer to planetary climate change reality as we observe it.

    This is Earth Science versus Atmospheric science, considering all the components of the system and their relative contributions to it, in particular not presenting one small and non controlling effect within the whole system, lapse rate AKA GHE, as if it were the controlling system determinant of SST. It ipso facto isn’t. QED.

    In reality GHE is simply an internal heat transfer function within the larger system in control modelling terms. Not a problem.

    In human lifetimes SST doesn’t change because the dominant control is managing minor perturbations to lapse rate and the other atmospheric events, etc. .

    In the longer term the significant factors in change of equilibrium balance are the Sun, oceans, atmosphere, water vapour and clouds. Not the tiny and wholly correctible effect of CO2 within the variable heat transport of the lapse rate effect we call GHE for no obvious reason, as it has nothing to do with a greenhouse, which gets hot because the glass keeps the re radiated convected heat from the floor inside, the IR goes straight back out thro’ regular glass, and this has nothing to do with the lapse rate of a gaseous insulator by IR scattering, etc.. Much as CO2 has almost nothing to do with SST change, in fact.

    That is my theory of everything, which is mine…. 😉 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oh8ia

    EPILOGUE: What do you think? I need to know if anything can be proven wrong in the above. And what more supports it. Not what opinions are. I was aware of the parts of this issue for a while, but have only just put this big picture together. I am sure others cleverer have done similar, but not quantitatively as regards interglacials. My approach is as a physicist and engineer, looking at what the laws of physics will support and the observed facts versus statistical numerical models from theoreticians with little clue of why repeatable observational proof matters in science, so simply guess and force a fit so their predictions don’t match observations – as a consequence of being wrong – indeterminate science.

    I have a broad physicist/engineering empiricist approach, rather than over specialised approach that simply rejecys externalities of substance.

    What’s wrong with my science? There are numbers behind all this, of course.

    • Brian, if CO2 had the ability to cause warming it would be mentioned in specific heat tables, the Shomate equation, or NIST data sheet but it is not.

      • Um, is that correct? I apperas this confirms my conclusion from another direction. Which is a good thing 🙂

        But my point is whatever it is, its too small to affect global SST that is dominantly controlled by the overall feedback system, and that consideration its effect in isolation allows the partial science effect of GHE to be promoted as if it is the controlling effect on climate when it obviously is not.

    • Even with the recent surge in hospitalizations over the past few days, Texas statewide hospital capacity has room to spare.

      Texas Hospitals

      Most of the surge has been in the four biggest cities, where people and businesses had become lax regarding social distancing and other preventative measures. The governor reauthorized county and local officials to tighten up social distancing and mask rules, restricted gatherings back down to 100 from 500 and temporarily suspended many elective medical procedures in Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis Counties.

      Texas Hospitals Regional

      https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

      Even with the recent spike, the vast majority of Texas hospitals are still at Level 5, “Maintain Staffed Beds.”

      Pages from PPT_6.16.20_Page_1

      Pages from PPT_6.16.20_Page_2

      https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PPT_6.16.20.pdf

      Texas is not “in trouble.” Texas is dealing with the pandemic, while reopening its economy in s safe, orderly manner.

        • The dashboard is updated daily around 4 PM.

          As of 4 PM yesterday, Texas had 12,597 available hospital and 1,322 available ICU beds.

          As of 4 PM today, we have 12,398 hospital beds and 1,284 ICU beds available. We’re running out of hospital beds at half the rate COVID patients are being admitted. A weird thing happens at hospitals… Patients get discharged every day.

          At this rate we’ll be out hospital beds in 2 months and ICU beds in 1 month… Then we’ll have to have to begin using surge capacity. We would be at Level 4….

          Since the State has slowed the rate of reopening and reinforced social distancing measures, we are unlikely to get to Level 4. Level 1 would be a serious problem.

          • A weird thing happens at hospitals… Patients get discharged every day.

            You’d think with Ron’s extensive knowledge of running hospitals he wouldn’t need to be told that simple fact. 😉

          • The local DFW news media and Fire Marshal Gump (County Judge Clay Jenkins) keep cackling about Dallas County now having over 20,000 ChiCom-19 cases. However, the county refuses to release the numbers of tests being performed or the number of recoveries. Based on the hospitalization data, the State estimates that over 12,000 of those infected have already recovered, leaving less than 8,000 active cases, few of whom are hospitalized.

      • I have little doubt that when CDC complies its final causes of death tables for 2020, we’ll see a marked drop in some other categories due to the “died with COVID” vs “died of COVID” effect.

        • Agreed David.

          You know, it really would be nice if we could get some good, solid, reliable data on this pandemic. With everything I’m seeing I’m just not convinced we will.

          Hope I’m wrong.

        • “I have little doubt that when CDC complies its final causes of death tables for 2020, we’ll see a marked drop in some other categories due to the “died with COVID” vs “died of COVID” effect.”

          wrong. you dont do much reading do you?

          about 3% is “died with”

  23. I note with amusement your use of the cover of Science News magazine. I subscribed to it for more than thirty years, until I could no longer tolerate its increasingly Leftward tilt, and its refusal to consider the scientific controversy over Global Warming- they had simply gone “all in” for Mann, et. al.

    Likewise, they would not even concede the existence of Intelligent Design.

    What is scientific inquiry for?

    • There is no scientific controversy. The only controversy is the public/government policy the science shows a need for.

      • Which, oddly enough, always points in the same direction: more government, more regulation of commerce, and higher taxes to pay for all the new administrators hired for the new bureaus and their pension needs.

Comments are closed.