Are you sure? The propagation of EM waves is controlled by the complex dielectric constant of the conductor, which can vary with the frequency of a fluctuating EMF. However, are you sure that the release of electrons at the terminal end isn’t impacted by the voltage gradient?
About step-iterated models, I asked Grok, the X AI agent:
“Consider a time-stepped Earth climate model. The time step is 30 minutes. The model assumes a constant value of total solar irradiance at 1361 W/m^2. The absolute uncertainty of this value, arising from instrument limitations, is +/- 0.5 W/m^2. The corresponding geometric global average is 340 W/m^2 with an uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2. This epistemic uncertainty influences the change in forcing at each step. The climate state result from each step, including surface temperature, is passed to the next, so that this epistemic uncertainty accumulates in the series of steps. Albedo is a variable, computed at each time step. Using a no-feedback transient surface temperature response to radiative forcing of 0.2K/(W/m^2), please determine the uncertainty of the global average surface temperature one year following the initialization of the model, arising only from this specific external source of uncertainty. Use the RSS method for propagating the surface temperature uncertainty through the steps. Assume the model’s computations are exact. This exercise is not intended to evaluate the physical damping effects of feedbacks or thermal inertia, or any coding or tuning within the model for stability – only the buildup of numerical uncertainty through the steps of computation is of interest.”
Final Answer from Grok, after analysis:
“The uncertainty in the global average surface temperature after one year, due to the epistemic uncertainty in total solar irradiance, is approximately ±3.44 K.”
So there’s a fundamental problem with the step-iteration climate simulation approach. We don’t know the strength of the incoming sunlight precisely enough to ever compute a reliable answer to the question of climate system response to incremental longwave radiative effects.
Even perfect models performing perfected physics won’t do it with sufficient resolution. It will still be a blurred result, arising from inherent limitations of measurement.
Fortunately for Earth, ice controls the energy uptake and energy loss.
The shutters go up, reflective ice in the sk, when the solar EMR at top of the atmosphere reaches 425W/m^2 when ocean surface hits 30C and the blanket goes on, sea ice, when the ocean surface reaches minus 1.7C; usually around solar EMR of 220w/m^2.
So there is a narrow allowable temperature range of minus 1.7C to 30C. And these limits are active and visible somewhere every day of every year.
Earth’s energy balance is the result of a self-regulating system. It has had wider and narrower range because the limits are a function of air pressure but reasonably stable over 4Ga.
The notion that a minute amount of CO2 can upset these regulastying processes is beytond absurd. Only simpletons could believe such nonsense.
44 TW is meaningless, just a number. A percentage would be useful, or other TW numbers for comparison, and TW over what period? “My house used 204 kW! ZOMG”
As for energy balance, the fact that Earth has supported life for 3+ billion years, complex life for several hundred million years, and hominids for several million years, is all the proof I need to know that the Earth has a pretty damned stable energy balance, 44 TW or not, and climate alarmunism is a fraud.
44 TW is 44 trillion joules per second. What has period to do with it? You can work it out over any period, just like any competent 12 year old. What this means is that the Earth is cooling at something like one to four millionths of a K per annum.
You should be aware that Earth has been in at least four Ice Ages* prior to the current one, with the intervals between those—periods of hundreds of millions of years—being characterized by the total absence of year-round ice coverage at both of Earth’s poles.
*Named previous Ice Ages on Earth:
— Huronian
— Cryogenian
— Andean-Saharan
— late Paleozoic
“How about the utter uselessness of “global average surface temperature”?” Of course. But the point is about the models, which are useless in any case, even if some think it important to be concerned about it.
How are clouds treated in these calculations? I watch the weather report on the TV everyday. Satellites show the earth is covered by large amounts clouds, which are always moving and control the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The clouds also bring enormous of water from the oceans onto the land,
Thank you for your reply. The hypothetical model is posed as a perfect computed representation of the climate system, which would include clouds and every other variable. The point is that no matter how realistic a model might ever become, the external uncertainty from the instrument measurement of TSI is involved at all time steps and carries forward to accumulate as the iteration proceeds.
And clouds are the least reliable variable in the various climate models because there aren’t any computers fast enough to handle energy exchanges in clouds at the same spatial resolution as the other variables; therefore, they have to be parameterized at an unknown cost to accuracy in exchange for speed.
“So there’s a fundamental problem with the step-iteration climate simulation approach.”
A climate model iterating every 30 minutes is more like a weather forecast. While TSI is variable on a daily basis, as the LASP TCTE instrument showed with it’s 6-hour TSI data, any weather model will likely use daily TSI, if it uses TSI, so TSI wouldn’t change as a model input every 30 minutes.
Using weather models to forecast the climate is folly as you and Grok showed.
Using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation yields a more acceptable average T uncertainty of ±0.0223K, using your TSI and associated uncertainty, if the climate model iterates once annually.
“Even perfect models performing perfected physics won’t do it with sufficient resolution. It will still be a blurred result, arising from inherent limitations of measurement.”
Even the climate data is fuzzy. When everything is fuzzy, use fuzzy logic.
You could assume TSI measurements day to day will tend to be consistently biased in one direction due to sensor exposure degradation and other physical issues that change slowly day to day, so one data from one day and the next will have similar biases, and so on. Then measurement differences over time would tend to cancel out the TSI uncertainties moreso than not – not perfectly however.
Thank you for your reply. Please don’t miss the essential point here. Even if the TSI were in fact a constant value as posed, we know that value only to within +/- 0.13 W/m^2 for the geometric global average. The 30-minute time step specified for this exercise represents how a typical climate model is set up to run. Some are shorter intervals, some perhaps a bit longer. In any case, this is not about variation of the values of TSI at all, which of course would change everything. So I posed this exercise to highlight the unresolvable buildup of uncertainty not from the model itself, but from the one most essential external input taken as a constant.
What was Grok trained on? How do you know the answer is right?
When you ask AI chatbots a question, you must have enough knowledge to evaluate the answer. You can also get different answers by asking it questions such as what about X? Or what about Y?
“How do you know the answer is right?”
In this case, it is easily computed. The 0.2K/(W/m^2) response function * 0.13 W/m^2 gives a temperature uncertainty of 0.026K at each step. There are 17,520 steps in a year. The root-sum-square result is sqrt(17,520 * 0.026^2) = 3.44K.
Grok and other AI agents seem to be pretty thoroughly trained from statistics methods and practices to answer questions like this. Nothing is guaranteed, of course.
Edit: I just queried the Perplexity AI with the exact same question. Same answer “After one year, the global average surface temperature uncertainty, arising solely from the epistemic uncertainty in the solar constant, is ±3.44 K (rounded to two decimal places).”
Oh, and “When you ask AI chatbots a question, you must have enough knowledge to evaluate the answer.” Completely agree.
I was curious, and wasted a minute or two asking perplexity about probably the simplest equation I know which can produce chaos, and predictability thereof.
Key Takeaway
The logistic equation (continuous) is predictable, while the logistic map (discrete) can be chaotic. Chaos theory reminds us that not all deterministic systems are predictable-a foundational insight for fields like climate science, cryptography, and complex systems analysis.
Interesting that “climate science” was included as needing reminding about unpredictability. The IPCC accepts that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but the ignorant and gullible still carry on as though it is – without being prepared to come out and say so!
I haven’t interacted with Grok but I’ve used a few others. Given the number of clearly incorrect responses I’ve gotten, I don’t trust it for anything more than a google search summary, or suggestions for dinner.
If I wrote my code based on the AI suggestions I get for THAT, I would never produce anything usable.
AI chatbots are just going to give you a consensus result based on the phraseology of your questions to it. Excellent if you need to know what the consensus is…..not so good if you already know the consensus and are concerned it is lacking…
“The corresponding geometric global average is 340 W/m^2 with an uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2.”
All true, as best I understand it . . . but you didn’t go far enough.
Your value was for top-of-atmosphere (TOA) average solar irradiance. What really counts is terms of Earth cooling or warming over any sufficiently long time period qualifying as “climate” is the balance of net radiation absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere and surface versus the net radiation Earth emits to space from its atmosphere and surface.
Trenberth-type calculations of Earth’s power flux imbalance show something like 1 W/m^2 of excess global average radiation with an estimated uncertainty band of about +/- 1 W/m^2 on that.
However, the short-and long-term variation in global cloud coverage make that stated “imbalance” calculation and its error band essentially meaningless!
Global cloud coverage is estimated to account on average for about half of Earth’s total albedo of about 0.30, or about 15% of the average of 340 W/m^2 of time- and surface area-averaged incoming solar radiation at TOA, or about 51 W/m^2. Therefore, just a 1% variation in cloud coverage albedo would be equivalent to about (0.01*51) = 0.5 W/m^2 in the net energy Earth receives from the Sun.
The current global cloud coverage ranges from 56 to 73% “depending on the minimum optical depth considered (lower when optical depth is large, and higher when it is low, such that subvisible cirrus clouds are counted).” (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover ).
Additionally, “Earth’s cloud coverage has been measured by several NASA satellites, including the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICEsat), which has provided the most accurate figure to date. ICEsat’s measurements show that, on average, 70 per cent of the world is covered by cloud at any time. “This figure can vary by up to 30 per cent from day to day depending on weather conditions. For example, at higher temperatures there would be more evaporation and an increase in the moisture in the air that can condense into clouds. Annually, cloud cover varies by only a few per cent on average across the year, since the hydrological cycle is a closed system.”
(ref: https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24632872-100-how-much-cloud-cover-is-there-readers-give-their-answers/ )
[my bold emphasis added]
But even this is not the full story because a decrease in average cloud cover not only results in an increase in thermal energy Earth absorbs from the Sun, it also results in an overall increase in thermal energy Earth radiates in LWIR directly to deep space, the latter even occurring at nighttime.
It’s complicated.
So, bottom line, our current calculations of Earth’s “energy balance” (actually its energy flux balance) are not refined enough to determine over any period of, say, five or more years if Earth surface temperature should be warming or cooling.
That’s as good as any explanation for why UAH GLAT temperature trending shows Earth on an average warming rate of about 0.15 deg-C/decade despite Trenberth-type calculations showing that Earth should be cooling at about 1 W/m^2 (yeah, apples and oranges on the units . . . sorry).
Thank you for your reply.
“It’s complicated.” No kidding. That’s why I simplicated (I know, it’s a made-up word) the question to isolate the known uncertainty of one key input to the models. That uncertainty applies at all time steps. “…but you didn’t go far enough.” I went exactly as far as necessary to make the point about the step-iterated models. “What really counts is terms of Earth cooling or warming…” I don’t take issue with what you’ve described. But my post was not about the real climate system. It was about the influence of uncertainty in a single essential external constant within a step-iterated model of the sort used to support the consensus climate claims of detection, attribution, and projection.
That’s where I got the word! At least, from secondary mentions in the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) publications. I have been a member since 1995 when I first took flying lessons.
David,
I for one greatly appreciate the consequential comments that you contribute. An uptick is inadequate reward.
Yes, it is indeed complicated, a reason why I do not dive in boots and all with comments how I see it. However, I can comprehend the serious problems that arise when an issue is treated with soft science inaccuracy instead of hard science rigidity. You are a rare hard science commenter here.
BTW, by coincidence, I browsed YouTube last night and chanced upon Richard Feynman live lecturing in 1964 on The Character of Physical Law. His Lecture 6 of 7 in this series was about uncertainty, a topic poorly understood in climate research. He is so essentially correct about how to do hard science (physics emphasis) that his lectures should be underpin modern first year physics lectures and more.
Geoff S
Thank you for this supportive reply, Geoff. For years now, I have seen the good “hard science” sense in your posts and comments. I’ll have to look up that Feynman video.
All the best to you.
And, likewise, thank you for replying to my comment.
I think we both are more in agreement than disagreement.
My comment that “you didn’t go far enough” was specific to your response about the request of Grok to “consider a time-stepped Earth climate model”. Obviously, any climate model of Earth cannot stop at TOA solar radiation.
But I do fully appreciate your point that just a limited physical example can reveal the inherent failings of ANY time-stepped model (even if run on a supercomputer) that may be due to unavoidable propagation of errors/uncertainties.
Quondam
May 11, 2025 3:28 am
Kelvin was first to realize a relationship existed between atmospheric thermal gradients, entropy and convection. He supposed thermal gradients reflected an isentropic equilibrium he labeled “Convective Equilibrium”. It was soon realized that such an equilibrium would allow a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the adiabatic lapse rate, g/Cp, remains the favored explanation for thermal gradients. Is there an alternative interpretation?
From an old textbook of grad-school days, Fluid Mechanics: Volume 6: Landau, LD, Lifshitz, E.M.
§4. The condition that convection be absent A fluid can be in mechanical equilibrium (i.e. exhibit no macroscopic motion) without being in thermal equilibrium. Equation (3.1), the condition for mechanical equilibrium, can be satisfied even if the temperature is not constant throughout the fluid. However, the question then arises of the stability of such an equilibrium. It is found that the equilibrium is stable only when a certain condition is fulfilled. Otherwise, the equilibrium is unstable, and this leads to the appearance in the fluid of currents which tend to mix the fluid in such a way as to equalize the temperature. This motion is called convection. Thus the condition for a mechanical equilibrium to be stable is the condition that convection be absent. It can be derived as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dT/dz > -g/Cp (4.5)
Convection comes to an abrupt halt at the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere. Is the adiabatic lapse rate a ‘tipping point’ for which convection abruptly ceases when lapse rates (-dT/dz) drop below g/Cp? What would be the convective energy flux for an atmosphere constrained to the adiabatic lapse rate (§56) ?
Nevertheless, the adiabatic lapse rate, g/Cp, remains the favored explanation for thermal gradients. Is there an alternative interpretation?
The observed lapse rate is just the decrease in air temperature with altitude. Pretty obvious, given that the surface is hotter than outer space, and thus the air closer to the surface should be hotter than the air closer to outer space.
The calculated theoretical lapse rate obviously depends on surface temperature, density gradient, atmospheric depth, etc. If it differs from observation, the theory is wrong.
Meteorologists use radiosondes to measure the environmental lapse rate and compare it to the predicted adiabatic lapse rate to forecast the likelihood that air will rise.
They then forecast a “likelihood”, which says a lot. Not surprisingly, a good, experienced forecaster often gets it right. Probably more than I do by looking out the window, and comparing today to yesterday, or last year, or something.
Thanks. I rarely bother with YouTube, but worth it on this occasion.
My takeaways – no greenhouse effect, no heat trapping, the heat of the day is lost at night, and lapse rate calculations are not reflected by reality.
There may be a simple (ish) explanation for the phenomena which puzzle them, but my opinion is based on speculation, and worthless unless supported by observations. Of course, I can’t be bothered seeing whether my speculation is correct, because nothing will change.
No need for “pervection”. As they indicate, Occam’s razor can be used to ignore “pervection”. Not looking for an argument – I accept my opinions are worth precisely what you just paid for them.
No I think its the change from a condensing GHG to a non condensing GHG that defines the change.
The dynamic state of the atmosphere is defined by the buoyancy of air due to temperature gradiant and MC which changes due to condensation snow rain etc
Peace Would be a Blessing for Ukraine https://willempost.substack.com/p/peace-would-be-a-blessing-for-ukraine?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
.
The Ukraine Armed Forces, led by the nationalist Azov Battalions (with many NAZI tattoos) bombed the eastern Oblasts from 2014 to 2022, causing many thousands of deaths and severely wounded, because the ethnic-Russian people objected to the US/EU-instigated/financed Coup d’Etat in Kiev in 2014, with about 100 dead and seriously wounded, and did not want to be ruled by the NAZI-idolizing, nationalist clique installed by the US/EU, after the Coup.
. Oligarch Plundering and Minsk Agreements
Ukraine’s oligarchs invested nothing in eastern Ukraine for decades, but plundered its wealth as much as possible, so after the Coup in 2014, those ethnic Russian people resisted the Ukraine regime:
.
1) To gain the autonomy to end the plundering, and
2) To end Kiev’s “Erase Everything Russian Program”, which forced them to give up their Russian culture, language, religion, Russian language media, such as TV, radio, books, etc. That program was in violation of the Minsk I and Minsk II Agreements, EU and UN laws.
.
Ukraine oligarchs somehow acquire “ownership” of anything worthwhile in Ukraine. For example, Poroshenko, a former President, the Chocolate King with factories in Russia, claimed he owned a shipyard in Crimea, but did not have a paper trail of the transaction. Accordingly, Russia confiscated it after annexing Crimea in 2014.
.
When, after 8 years of Ukraine bombing the east, causing many thousands killed and seriously wounded on both sides, Russia gave them a chance to vote, four Oblasts voted to rejoin Russia by over 90% in 2022, as did Crimea by 96% in 2014.
. Minsk Agreements
Merkel and Hollande, who purposely failed as guarantors of the Minsk Agreements, by 1) ignoring the ethnic-cleansing in the east and 2) slow-walked the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, to give Ukraine time to train and arm with US/EU provided instructors, weapons and ammo.
.
However, those Agreements would not have worked for the ethnic Russians in the east, because there were no restrictions on Oligarchs to prevent them from plundering East Ukraine.
. Creating Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine Independence
The borders of the Ukrainian SSR were determined by the USSR Central Committee, headed by Lenin, in Moscow. The Committee had sovereignty over all 15 SSRs of the Soviet Union. It could alter borders, as needed. It dealt with foreign governments, as needed.
.
When the Czarist Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, Ukraine nationalists declared independence in 1918, and proclaimed the Ukrainian People’s Republic, but this period was short-lived.
.
The Committee created the “Ukrainian SSR” (which was not a sovereign, independent country) in 1922, by putting together various lands that by 1991, the year of the start Ukraine independence, had been part of Russia for more than 200 years:
.
1) In the east, Novorossiya (excluded Crimea until 1954), which provided access to the Black Sea
2) In the center, the former Zaporizhian Cossack Hetmanate, stretching from beyond Kiev in the west to beyond Kharkiv in the east.
3) In the west, land areas ceded by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Rumania, by treaty to the USSR from 1939 to 1948.
.
Ukraine remained within the USSR until 1991, when it declared independence again, a move ratified in a referendum and widely recognized by the international community.
hmmm… maybe in ’43, we should have made peace with Germany and Japan- after all, the Austrians speak German- so it should be part of the Reich- and what’s so bad about part of France and Poland also being part of the Reich? After all, peace is a blessing. And, maybe we should have given Hawaii to Japan and let them keep much of China, Indonesia and even parts of Australia. Seems fair to me. /s
These words were written in April 1320 after 24 years of war, and with many more left. Anyone who hasn’t lived through a war of survival will not understand why peace may not be all it seems to those struggling to survive. It is part of a much longer document sent to the Pope and we’ll worth a read.
But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic.
Catherine the Great annexed the Crimean Tatar Khanate from the Ottoman Empire in 1783.
This area was part of Russia from 1783 to 1991, or 208 years
She founded Odessa in 1794 on the site of the Ottoman Empire, OE, fortress town Khadzhibei.
She annexed most of the eastern parts of the PLC during the three partitions of Poland.
These partition areas were part of Russia starting from 1775 to 1991, 216 years.
Poland, as a sovereign state, ceased to exist for 123 years, from 1795 to 1918.
Ukraine did not exist as a sovereign state until 1991
Prior to that it is “Ukrainian SSR”, one of 15 SSRs of the USSR
. Russian Lands to Central and Eastern Ukraine SSR
The Central Committee of the USSR established the borders of the Ukraine SSR in 1922
It transferred lands (formerly the Crimean Tartar Khanate) to give the Ukraine SSR access to the Black Sea
It placed the Azov Sea area under joint control with the Ukraine SSR
It added Crimea to the Ukraine SSR in 1954, as part of the 300-y celebration of the Pereyaslav Treaty of January 1654.
. Russian Lands to Western Ukraine SSR
Western Ukraine is mostly made up of lands ceded by various countries to the USSR:
1) Poland ceded Eastern Galicia and Volhynia to the USSR in 1939
The USSR added those lands to the Ukraine SSR in 1939
2) Czechoslovak ceded Transcarpathia to the USSR by treaty in 1945.
The USSR added it as Zakarpattia Oblast to the Ukraine SSR in 1946
3) Rumania ceded Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the USSR.
The USSR added them to the Ukraine SSR in 1940 and 1948 .
The USSR lasted from 1922 to December 26, 1991
The Ukraine SSR declared independence on August 24, 1991, which was affirmed by a referendum on December 1, 1991, where 90% of voters supported independence. Ukraine finally became a sovereign country at the end of 1991
It became a vassal state of the US/EU, which are using it as an attack dog to weaken Russia
It turned out the sanctions backfired on the EU, made it less competitive on world markets, but strengthened/united the Russian people
Russian companies are making the products and software Russia used to import or were supplied by Western companies, which is what Trump aims to achieve for the US with tariffs.
Gregory,
If it had not been for AI, my many questions would not have yielded the right answers.
The so-called sources have been rewritten for political purposes to distort the real picture.
Historical maps and images have been altered/relabeled by experts to support invented narratives. My article displays one such an image
Those NAZI-tattooed battalions were operating autonomously, like brigands/outlaws
Poroshenko was told by Brussels to have them within the command structure of the Ukraine Armed Forces. That veneer actually increased their “effectiveness”, because they were getting better pay, arms and ammo.
strativarius
May 11, 2025 4:06 am
Wakey, wakey!
Wind Theft
Wind Farms Accused of Stealing Each Others’ Wind
We have seen wake effects for years, and knew they happen,” project lead Pablo Ouro, a civil engineering researcher at the University of Manchester, told the BBC. For the UK to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, “we need to have three times more capacity than we have now.” “[Some of] these turbines are going to be operating very close to those that are already operating https://apple.news/A70hGnKatQxWpDJJb9YZ1gQ
Competitive yachtsmen try their hardest to do it. News item title “Thinker, slayer, wind thief, sailor.”
The best place to put your wind turbine is to windward of your competition. No surprise there.
Even at three times installed wind capacity, MW, the whole system would be as vulnerable as Spain, especially when W/S output is horse excrement, aka near-zero/minimal/near nada, etc.
Thanks to this site for keeping the “scary graph” article at the top, the comments are edifying for me. In the end, those who want us to rely on GAT are exposed as activists.
Do they do this in real life? Do they notice prices at grocery go up, but accept the manager’s “explanation” that, based on data the store keeps, global average prices are actually down??!!
Happy Mother’s Day to all the ladies that visit and opine on this site. We can’t continue without you. May you have a blessed day.
abolition man
May 11, 2025 7:09 am
A Johns Hopkins University study claimed that approximately 10% of deaths in the US are the result of medical error. While this figure has been disputed by many as being too high, I would venture to claim that it is in fact substantially too low!
There are over 100 recent randomized controlled trials of the low carb/ketogenic diet (LC/KD), looking at the various health benefits of LC/KD; including lowered rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer. The effect on Type 2 diabetes mellitus is of particular interest. Several studies of LC/KD on diabetics found a 60-75% rate of reversal/remission. If these studies are correct, then another 6-8% needs to be added to the iatrogenic deaths for improper treatment of diabetes alone! How much more would a proper human diet contribute to reductions in heart disease and metabolic syndrome, which is associated with nearly ALL degenerative disease, and LC/KD is now being explored as an adjuvant treatment for cancer as well!
Color me skeptical, but it would seem that a change in diet alone; a diet that is almost the complete opposite of the US Government recommendations, could reduce death and disease by 25-30%, possibly more! Of course, it might have a substantial negative effect on the profit margins of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, so I suppose it is rather unpatriotic of me to raise the issue!
I think your 25-30% estimate to be significantly low. The metabolic change that occurs when the body is burning ketones is massive and totally dismissed by “modern medicine”, although apparently Australia recognizes the effects on type 2 diabetes. Youtube is full of videos of doctors from all varied specialties that have come to the conclusion that constantly eating carbs is the problem. There is no monetary incentive to reduce inflammation over the long term by changing diets. Modern diets fuel modern medicine profits.
Could it be that without lowering carbs, bariatric surgery has no long term benefit!?
Of course, most people would get the same weight loss without surgery if they followed a LC/KD; but where’s the profit in that!?
I agree with you, Nick! I personally believe that the figure is closer to 50%, especially when you look at the benefits of operating on ketone bodies, and autophagy, that can only come from intermittent fasting! It is sad to think that only a small percentage of medical doctors, and YouTube influencers, are leading the charge against corporate interests for healing Western democracies from the effects of the junk we are encouraged to consume!
Its basically saying that pregnant women have no common sense and don’t know what air-conditioners are.
ThurstonBT
May 11, 2025 9:52 am
Can anyone point to a URL(s) for good, well-sourced graph of surface temperatures from 1000BC to current?
Does anyone have any references to well-documented issues, for surface temperatures, in concatenating proxy-based temperature estimates with instrument-based direct measurements?
willhaas
May 12, 2025 1:41 pm
At the heart of this entire problem is the question of the climate sensivity of CO2. I believe that there is plenty of scientific rationale to conclude that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero. What do you thing?
Saving net zero
‘I can save Britain from Spain-style blackouts’ Interview: City financier Edi Truell has a plan to safeguard UK power – involving Icelandic volcanoes
Power generated by Icelandic volcanoes and sent at hyper-speed down a 400-mile subsea high-voltage cable could help save Britain from Spain-style blackouts, one of the City’s most prominent financiers has said…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/11/edi-truell-plan-save-uk-blackouts-undersea-cables-iceland/
Bonkers.
Not an obvious target for Russian sabotage, honest, comrade.
I have a plan too. Build new gas and coal fired power stations. And fuel them with our own hydrocarbon resources. And sod net zero.
Makes sense to me. The establishment still doesn’t get it. And they have polls to back them up
Polls show that voters back action on the climate crisis. Support for net zero outweighs opposition by two to one
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/may/11/will-labour-stick-with-or-abandon-net-zero
And yet anti net zero Reform won at the ballot box.
I don’t believe a word I read in the Guardian. It ceased being a decent newspaper a long time ago, probably when they left Manchester.
“Hyper-speed”? The guy’s more in love with hyper-adjectivity than objectivity.
sent at hyper-speed down a 400-mile subsea high-voltage cable
What does that mean? Electricity only travels at one speed.
Are you sure? The propagation of EM waves is controlled by the complex dielectric constant of the conductor, which can vary with the frequency of a fluctuating EMF. However, are you sure that the release of electrons at the terminal end isn’t impacted by the voltage gradient?
Not if they’re hyper electrons.
Just send money.
About step-iterated models, I asked Grok, the X AI agent:
“Consider a time-stepped Earth climate model. The time step is 30 minutes. The model assumes a constant value of total solar irradiance at 1361 W/m^2. The absolute uncertainty of this value, arising from instrument limitations, is +/- 0.5 W/m^2. The corresponding geometric global average is 340 W/m^2 with an uncertainty of +/- 0.13 W/m^2. This epistemic uncertainty influences the change in forcing at each step. The climate state result from each step, including surface temperature, is passed to the next, so that this epistemic uncertainty accumulates in the series of steps. Albedo is a variable, computed at each time step. Using a no-feedback transient surface temperature response to radiative forcing of 0.2K/(W/m^2), please determine the uncertainty of the global average surface temperature one year following the initialization of the model, arising only from this specific external source of uncertainty. Use the RSS method for propagating the surface temperature uncertainty through the steps. Assume the model’s computations are exact. This exercise is not intended to evaluate the physical damping effects of feedbacks or thermal inertia, or any coding or tuning within the model for stability – only the buildup of numerical uncertainty through the steps of computation is of interest.”
Final Answer from Grok, after analysis:
“The uncertainty in the global average surface temperature after one year, due to the epistemic uncertainty in total solar irradiance, is approximately ±3.44 K.”
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1920920553092710601
So there’s a fundamental problem with the step-iteration climate simulation approach. We don’t know the strength of the incoming sunlight precisely enough to ever compute a reliable answer to the question of climate system response to incremental longwave radiative effects.
Even perfect models performing perfected physics won’t do it with sufficient resolution. It will still be a blurred result, arising from inherent limitations of measurement.
Comments welcome.
Fortunately for Earth, ice controls the energy uptake and energy loss.
The shutters go up, reflective ice in the sk, when the solar EMR at top of the atmosphere reaches 425W/m^2 when ocean surface hits 30C and the blanket goes on, sea ice, when the ocean surface reaches minus 1.7C; usually around solar EMR of 220w/m^2.
So there is a narrow allowable temperature range of minus 1.7C to 30C. And these limits are active and visible somewhere every day of every year.
Earth’s energy balance is the result of a self-regulating system. It has had wider and narrower range because the limits are a function of air pressure but reasonably stable over 4Ga.
The notion that a minute amount of CO2 can upset these regulastying processes is beytond absurd. Only simpletons could believe such nonsense.
“Earth’s energy balance is the result of a self-regulating system.” Agreed. This is important.
David, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and currently loses about 44 TW.
What “energy balance” do you mean? I can’t see any. Maybe I don’t understand you?
44 TW is meaningless, just a number. A percentage would be useful, or other TW numbers for comparison, and TW over what period? “My house used 204 kW! ZOMG”
As for energy balance, the fact that Earth has supported life for 3+ billion years, complex life for several hundred million years, and hominids for several million years, is all the proof I need to know that the Earth has a pretty damned stable energy balance, 44 TW or not, and climate alarmunism is a fraud.
44 TW is 44 trillion joules per second. What has period to do with it? You can work it out over any period, just like any competent 12 year old. What this means is that the Earth is cooling at something like one to four millionths of a K per annum.
You said –
I agree with your sentiment.
Your car’s top speed is 100 miles?
A watt is a joule per second – it is a rate.
Thank you.
Is it?
“Fortunately for Earth, ice controls the energy uptake and energy loss.”
A statement not supported by rational science. That is, when Earth has been between Ice Ages, was its energy balance totally out of control???
We’re not between ice ages, we’re in an ice age.
Did I claim differently?
You should be aware that Earth has been in at least four Ice Ages* prior to the current one, with the intervals between those—periods of hundreds of millions of years—being characterized by the total absence of year-round ice coverage at both of Earth’s poles.
*Named previous Ice Ages on Earth:
— Huronian
— Cryogenian
— Andean-Saharan
— late Paleozoic
Or people on the make.
“The uncertainty in the global average surface temperature…”
How about the utter uselessness of “global average surface temperature”?
“How about the utter uselessness of “global average surface temperature”?”
Of course. But the point is about the models, which are useless in any case, even if some think it important to be concerned about it.
How are clouds treated in these calculations? I watch the weather report on the TV everyday. Satellites show the earth is covered by large amounts clouds, which are always moving and control the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The clouds also bring enormous of water from the oceans onto the land,
Check climate4you.com and its climate + clouds button and you will see that cloud cover has declined in recent years by a few percent.
Yep, cloud cover decrease => slight warming.
Thank you for your reply. The hypothetical model is posed as a perfect computed representation of the climate system, which would include clouds and every other variable. The point is that no matter how realistic a model might ever become, the external uncertainty from the instrument measurement of TSI is involved at all time steps and carries forward to accumulate as the iteration proceeds.
And clouds are the least reliable variable in the various climate models because there aren’t any computers fast enough to handle energy exchanges in clouds at the same spatial resolution as the other variables; therefore, they have to be parameterized at an unknown cost to accuracy in exchange for speed.
“So there’s a fundamental problem with the step-iteration climate simulation approach.”
A climate model iterating every 30 minutes is more like a weather forecast. While TSI is variable on a daily basis, as the LASP TCTE instrument showed with it’s 6-hour TSI data, any weather model will likely use daily TSI, if it uses TSI, so TSI wouldn’t change as a model input every 30 minutes.
Using weather models to forecast the climate is folly as you and Grok showed.
Using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation yields a more acceptable average T uncertainty of ±0.0223K, using your TSI and associated uncertainty, if the climate model iterates once annually.
“Even perfect models performing perfected physics won’t do it with sufficient resolution. It will still be a blurred result, arising from inherent limitations of measurement.”
Even the climate data is fuzzy. When everything is fuzzy, use fuzzy logic.
You could assume TSI measurements day to day will tend to be consistently biased in one direction due to sensor exposure degradation and other physical issues that change slowly day to day, so one data from one day and the next will have similar biases, and so on. Then measurement differences over time would tend to cancel out the TSI uncertainties moreso than not – not perfectly however.
Thank you for your reply. Please don’t miss the essential point here. Even if the TSI were in fact a constant value as posed, we know that value only to within +/- 0.13 W/m^2 for the geometric global average. The 30-minute time step specified for this exercise represents how a typical climate model is set up to run. Some are shorter intervals, some perhaps a bit longer. In any case, this is not about variation of the values of TSI at all, which of course would change everything. So I posed this exercise to highlight the unresolvable buildup of uncertainty not from the model itself, but from the one most essential external input taken as a constant.
What was Grok trained on? How do you know the answer is right?
When you ask AI chatbots a question, you must have enough knowledge to evaluate the answer. You can also get different answers by asking it questions such as what about X? Or what about Y?
“How do you know the answer is right?”
In this case, it is easily computed. The 0.2K/(W/m^2) response function * 0.13 W/m^2 gives a temperature uncertainty of 0.026K at each step. There are 17,520 steps in a year. The root-sum-square result is sqrt(17,520 * 0.026^2) = 3.44K.
Grok and other AI agents seem to be pretty thoroughly trained from statistics methods and practices to answer questions like this. Nothing is guaranteed, of course.
Edit: I just queried the Perplexity AI with the exact same question. Same answer “After one year, the global average surface temperature uncertainty, arising solely from the epistemic uncertainty in the solar constant, is ±3.44 K (rounded to two decimal places).”
Oh, and “When you ask AI chatbots a question, you must have enough knowledge to evaluate the answer.” Completely agree.
I was curious, and wasted a minute or two asking perplexity about probably the simplest equation I know which can produce chaos, and predictability thereof.
Interesting that “climate science” was included as needing reminding about unpredictability. The IPCC accepts that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but the ignorant and gullible still carry on as though it is – without being prepared to come out and say so!
What was Grok trained on?
I haven’t interacted with Grok but I’ve used a few others. Given the number of clearly incorrect responses I’ve gotten, I don’t trust it for anything more than a google search summary, or suggestions for dinner.
If I wrote my code based on the AI suggestions I get for THAT, I would never produce anything usable.
AI chatbots are just going to give you a consensus result based on the phraseology of your questions to it. Excellent if you need to know what the consensus is…..not so good if you already know the consensus and are concerned it is lacking…
All true, as best I understand it . . . but you didn’t go far enough.
Your value was for top-of-atmosphere (TOA) average solar irradiance. What really counts is terms of Earth cooling or warming over any sufficiently long time period qualifying as “climate” is the balance of net radiation absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere and surface versus the net radiation Earth emits to space from its atmosphere and surface.
Trenberth-type calculations of Earth’s power flux imbalance show something like 1 W/m^2 of excess global average radiation with an estimated uncertainty band of about +/- 1 W/m^2 on that.
However, the short-and long-term variation in global cloud coverage make that stated “imbalance” calculation and its error band essentially meaningless!
Global cloud coverage is estimated to account on average for about half of Earth’s total albedo of about 0.30, or about 15% of the average of 340 W/m^2 of time- and surface area-averaged incoming solar radiation at TOA, or about 51 W/m^2. Therefore, just a 1% variation in cloud coverage albedo would be equivalent to about (0.01*51) = 0.5 W/m^2 in the net energy Earth receives from the Sun.
The current global cloud coverage ranges from 56 to 73% “depending on the minimum optical depth considered (lower when optical depth is large, and higher when it is low, such that subvisible cirrus clouds are counted).” (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover ).
Additionally,
“Earth’s cloud coverage has been measured by several NASA satellites, including the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICEsat), which has provided the most accurate figure to date. ICEsat’s measurements show that, on average, 70 per cent of the world is covered by cloud at any time.
“This figure can vary by up to 30 per cent from day to day depending on weather conditions. For example, at higher temperatures there would be more evaporation and an increase in the moisture in the air that can condense into clouds. Annually, cloud cover varies by only a few per cent on average across the year, since the hydrological cycle is a closed system.”
(ref: https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24632872-100-how-much-cloud-cover-is-there-readers-give-their-answers/ )
[my bold emphasis added]
But even this is not the full story because a decrease in average cloud cover not only results in an increase in thermal energy Earth absorbs from the Sun, it also results in an overall increase in thermal energy Earth radiates in LWIR directly to deep space, the latter even occurring at nighttime.
It’s complicated.
So, bottom line, our current calculations of Earth’s “energy balance” (actually its energy flux balance) are not refined enough to determine over any period of, say, five or more years if Earth surface temperature should be warming or cooling.
That’s as good as any explanation for why UAH GLAT temperature trending shows Earth on an average warming rate of about 0.15 deg-C/decade despite Trenberth-type calculations showing that Earth should be cooling at about 1 W/m^2 (yeah, apples and oranges on the units . . . sorry).
Thank you for your reply.
“It’s complicated.”
No kidding. That’s why I simplicated (I know, it’s a made-up word) the question to isolate the known uncertainty of one key input to the models. That uncertainty applies at all time steps.
“…but you didn’t go far enough.”
I went exactly as far as necessary to make the point about the step-iterated models.
“What really counts is terms of Earth cooling or warming…”
I don’t take issue with what you’ve described. But my post was not about the real climate system. It was about the influence of uncertainty in a single essential external constant within a step-iterated model of the sort used to support the consensus climate claims of detection, attribution, and projection.
One of the early figures in aircraft design, Bill Stout, said his design approach was to “simplicate and add lightness”.
That’s where I got the word! At least, from secondary mentions in the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) publications. I have been a member since 1995 when I first took flying lessons.
Erik, I like adding lightness. I have noticed that if I add too much using my lathe, I can’t seem to take it away!
Damn! I obviously need a lightness remover.
David,
I for one greatly appreciate the consequential comments that you contribute. An uptick is inadequate reward.
Yes, it is indeed complicated, a reason why I do not dive in boots and all with comments how I see it. However, I can comprehend the serious problems that arise when an issue is treated with soft science inaccuracy instead of hard science rigidity. You are a rare hard science commenter here.
BTW, by coincidence, I browsed YouTube last night and chanced upon Richard Feynman live lecturing in 1964 on The Character of Physical Law. His Lecture 6 of 7 in this series was about uncertainty, a topic poorly understood in climate research. He is so essentially correct about how to do hard science (physics emphasis) that his lectures should be underpin modern first year physics lectures and more.
Geoff S
Thank you for this supportive reply, Geoff. For years now, I have seen the good “hard science” sense in your posts and comments. I’ll have to look up that Feynman video.
All the best to you.
And, likewise, thank you for replying to my comment.
I think we both are more in agreement than disagreement.
My comment that “you didn’t go far enough” was specific to your response about the request of Grok to “consider a time-stepped Earth climate model”. Obviously, any climate model of Earth cannot stop at TOA solar radiation.
But I do fully appreciate your point that just a limited physical example can reveal the inherent failings of ANY time-stepped model (even if run on a supercomputer) that may be due to unavoidable propagation of errors/uncertainties.
Kelvin was first to realize a relationship existed between atmospheric thermal gradients, entropy and convection. He supposed thermal gradients reflected an isentropic equilibrium he labeled “Convective Equilibrium”. It was soon realized that such an equilibrium would allow a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the adiabatic lapse rate, g/Cp, remains the favored explanation for thermal gradients. Is there an alternative interpretation?
From an old textbook of grad-school days,
Fluid Mechanics: Volume 6: Landau, LD, Lifshitz, E.M.
§4. The condition that convection be absent
A fluid can be in mechanical equilibrium (i.e. exhibit no macroscopic motion) without
being in thermal equilibrium. Equation (3.1), the condition for mechanical equilibrium,
can be satisfied even if the temperature is not constant throughout the fluid. However, the
question then arises of the stability of such an equilibrium. It is found that the equilibrium
is stable only when a certain condition is fulfilled. Otherwise, the equilibrium is unstable,
and this leads to the appearance in the fluid of currents which tend to mix the fluid in such a
way as to equalize the temperature. This motion is called convection. Thus the condition
for a mechanical equilibrium to be stable is the condition that convection be absent. It can
be derived as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
dT/dz > -g/Cp (4.5)
Convection comes to an abrupt halt at the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere. Is the adiabatic lapse rate a ‘tipping point’ for which convection abruptly ceases when lapse rates (-dT/dz) drop below g/Cp? What would be the convective energy flux for an atmosphere constrained to the adiabatic lapse rate (§56) ?
The observed lapse rate is just the decrease in air temperature with altitude. Pretty obvious, given that the surface is hotter than outer space, and thus the air closer to the surface should be hotter than the air closer to outer space.
The calculated theoretical lapse rate obviously depends on surface temperature, density gradient, atmospheric depth, etc. If it differs from observation, the theory is wrong.
No mystery, heat flows from hot to cold.
Another major contributor to lapse rates is amount of H2O in the atmosphere..
There are some nice complicated formulae linking the whole lot together. 🙂
Or you could just measure it with a radiosonde.
From Wikipedia –
They then forecast a “likelihood”, which says a lot. Not surprisingly, a good, experienced forecaster often gets it right. Probably more than I do by looking out the window, and comparing today to yesterday, or last year, or something.
You might be interested in this analysis of balloon data.
https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=1431
Thanks. I rarely bother with YouTube, but worth it on this occasion.
My takeaways – no greenhouse effect, no heat trapping, the heat of the day is lost at night, and lapse rate calculations are not reflected by reality.
There may be a simple (ish) explanation for the phenomena which puzzle them, but my opinion is based on speculation, and worthless unless supported by observations. Of course, I can’t be bothered seeing whether my speculation is correct, because nothing will change.
No need for “pervection”. As they indicate, Occam’s razor can be used to ignore “pervection”. Not looking for an argument – I accept my opinions are worth precisely what you just paid for them.
Thanks again.
No I think its the change from a condensing GHG to a non condensing GHG that defines the change.
The dynamic state of the atmosphere is defined by the buoyancy of air due to temperature gradiant and MC which changes due to condensation snow rain etc
Are you disagreeing with something I said? You say “its the change [ . . . ] that defines the change”.
Sorry, but I don’t understand. Are you talking about the lapse rate?
Peace Would be a Blessing for Ukraine
https://willempost.substack.com/p/peace-would-be-a-blessing-for-ukraine?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
.
The Ukraine Armed Forces, led by the nationalist Azov Battalions (with many NAZI tattoos) bombed the eastern Oblasts from 2014 to 2022, causing many thousands of deaths and severely wounded, because the ethnic-Russian people objected to the US/EU-instigated/financed Coup d’Etat in Kiev in 2014, with about 100 dead and seriously wounded, and did not want to be ruled by the NAZI-idolizing, nationalist clique installed by the US/EU, after the Coup.
.
Oligarch Plundering and Minsk Agreements
Ukraine’s oligarchs invested nothing in eastern Ukraine for decades, but plundered its wealth as much as possible, so after the Coup in 2014, those ethnic Russian people resisted the Ukraine regime:
.
1) To gain the autonomy to end the plundering, and
2) To end Kiev’s “Erase Everything Russian Program”, which forced them to give up their Russian culture, language, religion, Russian language media, such as TV, radio, books, etc. That program was in violation of the Minsk I and Minsk II Agreements, EU and UN laws.
.
Ukraine oligarchs somehow acquire “ownership” of anything worthwhile in Ukraine. For example, Poroshenko, a former President, the Chocolate King with factories in Russia, claimed he owned a shipyard in Crimea, but did not have a paper trail of the transaction. Accordingly, Russia confiscated it after annexing Crimea in 2014.
.
When, after 8 years of Ukraine bombing the east, causing many thousands killed and seriously wounded on both sides, Russia gave them a chance to vote, four Oblasts voted to rejoin Russia by over 90% in 2022, as did Crimea by 96% in 2014.
.
Minsk Agreements
Merkel and Hollande, who purposely failed as guarantors of the Minsk Agreements, by 1) ignoring the ethnic-cleansing in the east and 2) slow-walked the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, to give Ukraine time to train and arm with US/EU provided instructors, weapons and ammo.
.
However, those Agreements would not have worked for the ethnic Russians in the east, because there were no restrictions on Oligarchs to prevent them from plundering East Ukraine.
.
Creating Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine Independence
The borders of the Ukrainian SSR were determined by the USSR Central Committee, headed by Lenin, in Moscow. The Committee had sovereignty over all 15 SSRs of the Soviet Union. It could alter borders, as needed. It dealt with foreign governments, as needed.
.
When the Czarist Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, Ukraine nationalists declared independence in 1918, and proclaimed the Ukrainian People’s Republic, but this period was short-lived.
.
The Committee created the “Ukrainian SSR” (which was not a sovereign, independent country) in 1922, by putting together various lands that by 1991, the year of the start Ukraine independence, had been part of Russia for more than 200 years:
.
1) In the east, Novorossiya (excluded Crimea until 1954), which provided access to the Black Sea
2) In the center, the former Zaporizhian Cossack Hetmanate, stretching from beyond Kiev in the west to beyond Kharkiv in the east.
3) In the west, land areas ceded by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Rumania, by treaty to the USSR from 1939 to 1948.
.
Ukraine remained within the USSR until 1991, when it declared independence again, a move ratified in a referendum and widely recognized by the international community.
I agree. Who wouldn’t?
hmmm… maybe in ’43, we should have made peace with Germany and Japan- after all, the Austrians speak German- so it should be part of the Reich- and what’s so bad about part of France and Poland also being part of the Reich? After all, peace is a blessing. And, maybe we should have given Hawaii to Japan and let them keep much of China, Indonesia and even parts of Australia. Seems fair to me. /s
Oh well, if you believe war would be a blessing for Ukraine, I agree. Who wouldn’t? If you say I can’t agree with both opinions, I agree.
How does that sound?
Do you really believe that nonsense?
Eric, do you think that preferring peace to war is nonsense?
Good for you. I don’t.
These words were written in April 1320 after 24 years of war, and with many more left. Anyone who hasn’t lived through a war of survival will not understand why peace may not be all it seems to those struggling to survive. It is part of a much longer document sent to the Pope and we’ll worth a read.
But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
and these words have also been immortalised –
Oh well, if you put it that way, I suppose I have to admit I prefer peace on my terms. You?
Peace on what terms?
Peace on what terms?
Reversing this…
Original Source:
Pravda, 27 February 1954, p. 1.
Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic.
Source: Current Digest of the Soviet Press (Columbus, Ohio: AAASS, 1954), Vol. 6, p. 23.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/the-gift-of-crimea/the-gift-of-crimea-texts/transfer-of-crimea/
Hence the ethnic Russian problem
Catherine the Great annexed the Crimean Tatar Khanate from the Ottoman Empire in 1783.
This area was part of Russia from 1783 to 1991, or 208 years
She founded Odessa in 1794 on the site of the Ottoman Empire, OE, fortress town Khadzhibei.
She annexed most of the eastern parts of the PLC during the three partitions of Poland.
These partition areas were part of Russia starting from 1775 to 1991, 216 years.
Poland, as a sovereign state, ceased to exist for 123 years, from 1795 to 1918.
Ukraine did not exist as a sovereign state until 1991
Prior to that it is “Ukrainian SSR”, one of 15 SSRs of the USSR
.
Russian Lands to Central and Eastern Ukraine SSR
The Central Committee of the USSR established the borders of the Ukraine SSR in 1922
It transferred lands (formerly the Crimean Tartar Khanate) to give the Ukraine SSR access to the Black Sea
It placed the Azov Sea area under joint control with the Ukraine SSR
It added Crimea to the Ukraine SSR in 1954, as part of the 300-y celebration of the Pereyaslav Treaty of January 1654.
.
Russian Lands to Western Ukraine SSR
Western Ukraine is mostly made up of lands ceded by various countries to the USSR:
1) Poland ceded Eastern Galicia and Volhynia to the USSR in 1939
The USSR added those lands to the Ukraine SSR in 1939
2) Czechoslovak ceded Transcarpathia to the USSR by treaty in 1945.
The USSR added it as Zakarpattia Oblast to the Ukraine SSR in 1946
3) Rumania ceded Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the USSR.
The USSR added them to the Ukraine SSR in 1940 and 1948
.
The USSR lasted from 1922 to December 26, 1991
The Ukraine SSR declared independence on August 24, 1991, which was affirmed by a referendum on December 1, 1991, where 90% of voters supported independence.
Ukraine finally became a sovereign country at the end of 1991
Ukraine finally became a sovereign country at the end of 1991
There is unfinished business…
and ceased to be in 2014.
It became a vassal state of the US/EU, which are using it as an attack dog to weaken Russia
It turned out the sanctions backfired on the EU, made it less competitive on world markets, but strengthened/united the Russian people
Russian companies are making the products and software Russia used to import or were supplied by Western companies, which is what Trump aims to achieve for the US with tariffs.
I don’t know. What do you suggest?
+10: Obvious observations to anyone who knows the history of the region.
Thank you, Gregory.
My money-making job was energy systems, but my hobbies still are history, economics, finance, and crosswords.
Gregory,
If it had not been for AI, my many questions would not have yielded the right answers.
The so-called sources have been rewritten for political purposes to distort the real picture.
Historical maps and images have been altered/relabeled by experts to support invented narratives. My article displays one such an image
A lot of words to justify imperial revanchism and state-sponsered slaughter.
“state-sponsored slaughter.”
Which is what the Ukrainian Azov brigades had been doing in Donetsk and Luhansk
Those NAZI-tattooed battalions were operating autonomously, like brigands/outlaws
Poroshenko was told by Brussels to have them within the command structure of the Ukraine Armed Forces. That veneer actually increased their “effectiveness”, because they were getting better pay, arms and ammo.
Wakey, wakey!
Wind Theft
Wind Farms Accused of Stealing Each Others’ Wind
We have seen wake effects for years, and knew they happen,” project lead Pablo Ouro, a civil engineering researcher at the University of Manchester, told the BBC. For the UK to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, “we need to have three times more capacity than we have now.”
“[Some of] these turbines are going to be operating very close to those that are already operating
https://apple.news/A70hGnKatQxWpDJJb9YZ1gQ
It isn’t a huge island.
Competitive yachtsmen try their hardest to do it. News item title “Thinker, slayer, wind thief, sailor.”
The best place to put your wind turbine is to windward of your competition. No surprise there.
Even at three times installed wind capacity, MW, the whole system would be as vulnerable as Spain, especially when W/S output is horse excrement, aka near-zero/minimal/near nada, etc.
Get enough wind farms near each other and you’ll get The Great Stilling.
Ah , green poly ticks ….
https://freebeacon.com/energy/hawaii-sues-oil-industry-for-causing-climate-change-but-spares-states-largest-refiner-whose-executives-donate-to-dems/
Thanks to this site for keeping the “scary graph” article at the top, the comments are edifying for me. In the end, those who want us to rely on GAT are exposed as activists.
Do they do this in real life? Do they notice prices at grocery go up, but accept the manager’s “explanation” that, based on data the store keeps, global average prices are actually down??!!
Happy Mother’s Day to all the ladies that visit and opine on this site. We can’t continue without you. May you have a blessed day.
A Johns Hopkins University study claimed that approximately 10% of deaths in the US are the result of medical error. While this figure has been disputed by many as being too high, I would venture to claim that it is in fact substantially too low!
There are over 100 recent randomized controlled trials of the low carb/ketogenic diet (LC/KD), looking at the various health benefits of LC/KD; including lowered rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer. The effect on Type 2 diabetes mellitus is of particular interest. Several studies of LC/KD on diabetics found a 60-75% rate of reversal/remission. If these studies are correct, then another 6-8% needs to be added to the iatrogenic deaths for improper treatment of diabetes alone! How much more would a proper human diet contribute to reductions in heart disease and metabolic syndrome, which is associated with nearly ALL degenerative disease, and LC/KD is now being explored as an adjuvant treatment for cancer as well!
Color me skeptical, but it would seem that a change in diet alone; a diet that is almost the complete opposite of the US Government recommendations, could reduce death and disease by 25-30%, possibly more! Of course, it might have a substantial negative effect on the profit margins of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, so I suppose it is rather unpatriotic of me to raise the issue!
I think your 25-30% estimate to be significantly low. The metabolic change that occurs when the body is burning ketones is massive and totally dismissed by “modern medicine”, although apparently Australia recognizes the effects on type 2 diabetes. Youtube is full of videos of doctors from all varied specialties that have come to the conclusion that constantly eating carbs is the problem. There is no monetary incentive to reduce inflammation over the long term by changing diets. Modern diets fuel modern medicine profits.
Post-bariatric diets are high in protein and lower in carbs than regular American diets (or the “recommended” diet)
Why might that be?
Could it be that without lowering carbs, bariatric surgery has no long term benefit!?
Of course, most people would get the same weight loss without surgery if they followed a LC/KD; but where’s the profit in that!?
I agree with you, Nick! I personally believe that the figure is closer to 50%, especially when you look at the benefits of operating on ketone bodies, and autophagy, that can only come from intermittent fasting! It is sad to think that only a small percentage of medical doctors, and YouTube influencers, are leading the charge against corporate interests for healing Western democracies from the effects of the junk we are encouraged to consume!
Oh noes!: Unseen consequences of climate change on pregnancy
What a load of extreme garbage.
Its basically saying that pregnant women have no common sense and don’t know what air-conditioners are.
Can anyone point to a URL(s) for good, well-sourced graph of surface temperatures from 1000BC to current?
Does anyone have any references to well-documented issues, for surface temperatures, in concatenating proxy-based temperature estimates with instrument-based direct measurements?
At the heart of this entire problem is the question of the climate sensivity of CO2. I believe that there is plenty of scientific rationale to conclude that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero. What do you thing?