The Great Barrier Reef in north east Australia regularly has coral bleaching. This is caused by heating of direct sunlight and in the shallower waters. Direct sunlight is short wave radiation which penetrates water. The atmosphere, long wave radiation does not penetrate water
Speaking of direct sunlight, I have not had time to look at any climate metrics this whole year, and much to my surprise, cycle 25 has dropped in intensity by 50% (top plot F10.7). And Atmospheric Transmission (Plot 2 Mauna Loa) indicates about 3 months ago; the Northern Hemisphere began experiencing the effects of volcanic ash from the Ruang eruption.
You would have to look at the UAH Anomaly description, to see the baseline. You should know that already without asking.
Atmospheric Transmission, Again a standard metric that has been recorded for decades.
The F10.7 is a radio frequency, I assume it is based on Amplitude in an am based modulator that digitizes the solar signal. Don’t care, its a standard dataset that has been recorded for over a century to gauge the relative strength of the solar signal used by many instruments to calibrate to this day. Look up the F10.7
Again ENSO ONI, do I need to tell you what those units are?
Didn’t I read an article very recently about a location on the north coast of New Guinea where CO2 is bubbling up from an old volcano, and the Ph was 6 point something, and the coral was doing quite well?
I would like someone to explain the existence of the Amazon Reef System given that list. For example, the water flowing out of the Amazon River actually IS acidic.
This is the alarmists and political activists in NOAA controlling the narrative of AGW.
Ordinary rain water is more acidic than sea water, and it’s questionable that this has any harmful biological effects. Marine biologists don’t agree with NOAA on this matter.
Corals are sensitive to unusual conditions such as warm or cool water temperatures, low salinity, and pollution. In the case of stressful temperatures, the algal symbiont becomes toxic to the coral animal. The coral animal responds by expelling the symbiotic partner from its tissues as a survival strategy during the heatwave.
It’s interesting to note that cool water, low salinity, and pollution, all become a “heatwave” in the final sentence.
The Great Barrier Reef water temperatures vary between about 24 C and 32 C. One paper in Nature shows that for one species of coral, found at both extremities of the reef, possessed the ability to survive temperatures over 39 C.
The reasons are not clearly understood. One hypothesis is that certain colonies have adapted to higher temperatures. Possibly like different colonies of humans?
Evolution seems to press on, regardless. There are corals in the Arctic and the Antarctic which might well be annoyed if transported to waters of 20 C. Not exactly heatwave conditions for Barrier Reef corals which thrive at 24 C.
I’d say panicking unduly IS the modus operandi. Millions of years of climate variability to which corals naturally had to adapt to. What are the chances of a slight change in temperature or ocean ph level being a cause of massive extinction? Apparently very high if you believe the alarmistas. That does not make any sense..
Whatever one thinks about radiative transfer can be tested against what is being observed from space. The atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own performance as a longwave emitter and as a controller of the “atmospheric window” through the formation and dissipation of clouds. That is why I encourage others to consider the Band 16 visualizations from NOAA. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
And whatever one thinks about the output of the longwave emitter, it is also important to understand what is happening dynamically between the surface and space. The atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own performance as an energy converter, and the computed representation of it from the well-known physics of compressible fluids is a good approximation. https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Connect the dots, and one realizes how unsound it has been all along to attribute any of the reported warming trend, or any trend of any climate metric, to incremental concentrations of CO2. No one knows that. And there is no good reason to assume that the static radiative effect is capable of more than a negligible, undetectable influence on the end result.
This is why it is important, in my view, for skeptics of climate alarm to stop going along with the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the issue in respect to the IR-active non-condensing gases.
Bullseye, David. However on the “stop going along” concept…. I think “denying” the validity of the “forcing” + “feedback” framing is missing a good opportunity to show how negligible it is…and identifying the negligibility enables many of the Carbmageddon-claiming crowd to re-look at their “scientific” numbers and change their “you’re a flat-earther-and-I’m-more-gooder-than-thou”philosophy.
Thanks for this reply. I understand your point, but I see it this way: Conceding at the outset that the change in CO2 concentration should be treated as a climate “forcing” is the first step in the circular exercise using models. The simulation is first stabilized by tuning, then the prescribed CO2 “forcings” are applied using the same sort of radiative transfer computations from which the static radiative effect was estimated to begin with. So the model becomes a mere extrapolator of the assumed “warming” influence, with a boost from the modeled “feedbacks.” There is no diagnostic power at all for reliable attribution in the full exercise of generating scenarios.
Raimund Müller
June 15, 2025 3:12 am
About the residence time.
In the 2007 WGI, the IPCC defined the residence time according to the Berne Model.
The IPCC states that natural CO2 has a residence time of approximately four years. Only for CO2 from anthropogenic sources can no fixed residence time be assigned; according to the IPCC, this is not possible. This cannot be justified physically, but follows from the Berne Model, the basis of all IPCC models. Here, a CO2 pulse is released into the atmosphere. This results in various residence times. The 2007 IPCC report assigns a distribution to anthropogenic emissions: 33.8% remain in the atmosphere for 18.5 years, 25.9% remain for 172.9 years, 18.6% remain for 1186 years, and 21.7% remain in the atmosphere indefinitely. A change in these parameters would significantly alter climate models.
If that were the case, according to my calculations, ignoring Henry’s law and biomass growth, the CO2 concentration would have to be 475 ppm (Eff cum = 141 ppmv and ELUC kim = 54 ppmv). If we assume a biomass increase of 44% according to NASA and Tiexi, Cheng, the CO2 concentration would have to be 560 ppmv today according to the Berne Model. This hypothesis is therefore not conclusive based on the measured data.
Assuming a residence time of 3.9 years – as done in my paper, and using the data from the Global Carbon Budget, the cumulative anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere from fossil fuels would be approximately 37.7 GtC (12.7%) and the cumulative ELUC would be approximately 12 GtC (4%) for 2020. This would amount to 49.7 GtC, or 16.7% of the increase in CO2. This puts the anthropogenic share of the increased CO2 at 16.7%. 83.3% has other causes.
My question:
I could no longer find any statement on the residence time in the AR6 WGI Chapter 5. Is this topic being ignored?
I could no longer find any statement on the residence time in the AR6 WGI Chapter 5. Is this topic being ignored?
It is an overcast Sunday afternoon here, and I have too much time on my hands …
I found the following in section 5.2.4 of the AR6 WG-I report, on page 713 :
CO2 has multiple residence times in the atmosphere – from one year to many thousands of years (Box 6.1 in Ciais et al., 2013) …
It turns out that “Ciais et al., 2013” in a reference to the AR5 WG-I assessment report.
A screenshot of “Box 6.1, Table 1” from page 472 of that report is attached below.
The current IPCC position is that you can select pretty much any “atmospheric residency time / lifetime” for CO2 that your heart desires, and it will be “correct”.
.
Assuming a residence time of 3.9 years – as done in my paper …
“I could no longer find any statement on the residence time in the AR6 WGI Chapter 5. Is this topic being ignored?”
I don’t think they like us to talk about the residence time, although I prefer to call it the turnover time as I think it more accurately describes it. It is the inverse of the turnover rate.
I also use 3.9 years for my calculations.
After the first couple of reports the IPCC started using the term “lifetime” for residence time, aka turnover time. I think this is deliberate to cause confusion.
Near the bottom of the left hand column of page 8 of the first assessment report FAR) of the IPCC they say “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years”
This is the only place I can find them explicitly stating that it is about 4 years.
However, we can calculate the turnover time value used by the IPCC by dividing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the amount they say is total emissions (both natural and anthropogenic).
On page 700 of AR6 there is a graph Figure 5.12, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 870Pg CO2.
Total emissions, if I have added them up correctly is 226.9 Pg CO2/yr.
If we divide 870 Pg by 226.9 Pg/yr we get a lifetime estimate of 3.83years.
So even if they say the lifetime/ turnover time/residence time is 100 years, the value they use is “about 4 years”
Well, as Koonin has showed the first report was more honest. Over time they filtered out both the anomalies and troublesome statements so they wouldnt be confronted by those who actually read them. It is after all, politically motivated.
Earth’s average is emission temperature is 255K. The vast majority of atmospheric emissions are from H2O. Water vapour at 255K cools to ice. So nearly all atmospheric emission will be coming from ice. The sub 100micron ice descends at about 4cm/s so it take some three days or so for the deflation of the atmosphere to drop the ice formed at the top of a convective tower to reach the LFC, which will be under 5000m.
It is the solidification of water that causes the clouds and controls Earth’s energy balance.
At 200K the partial pressure of H2O is less than 1Pa. The H2O concentration by weight at the temperature is around 20ppm. That is the point where there are few H2O molecules to emit long wave energy and is about as cold as the tropopause gets.
Ice dominates Earth’s energy balance whether it is on land, on water or in the atmosphere. The notion of “greenhouse gasses” is unscientific tripe. EMR responses gasses that are losing energy to space will be forming ice particles from any of the water present, which can cause cooling down to 200K.
Ice (0C) emits 315 W/m^2, ocean surface at 30C emits at 460 W/m^2. We haven’t considered yet the back radiation from surroundings. So your theory is dubious….much more likely that it is SW reflection of incoming sunlight from cloud cover and release of IR to outer space from cloud tops…that controls the planets temperature….and cloud cover is controlled by evaporation from the surface of the planet below.
Back radiation from cold to hot simply doesn’t happen, Thermodynamics Law 2! This is the fallacy at the heart of the whole con. Remember, real science is dead, pseudo-science is much better!
You didn’t pay attention much in heat transfer class. Or maybe confused what your physics professor said and your engineering professor said. Let’s take a situation you will find in any basic heat transfer textbook.
The heat radiative transfer between two parallel plates is
q = σ * (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) / (1/ε₁ + 1/ε₂ – 1)
What is sometimes referred to as the “back radiation” is the – T₂⁴ part of that. You are not likely to find an engineering textbook that uses the name “back radiation”. Doesn’t break the 2 nd law of Thermodynamics cuz T1 is always higher than T2.
A warmer T2 just reduces how much net heat moves from T1 to T2 by the amount of “back radiation” from T2, until T2 is the same Temp as T1 at which point q is then zero. If T2 continues to get warmer due to say internal heating, heat then flows the other way….So invoking the second law isn’t going to get even part marks on your heat transfer exam….
”back radiation” is always the amount of electromagnetic radiation going the “wrong way” if you apply the second law only to “back” radiation and not the net of “fore + back” radiation.
Of course if someone is saying net heat actually flows from cold to hot, as opposed to a warmer “cold” simply reducing the rate of transfer from “hot” to “cold”…they ARE WRONG at the many particle, many photons level that the laws of thermodynamics apply to. They can be correct at some single photon, single particle interactions that physicists sometimes delve into.
The logic is unassailable. If the radiation from T2 is “added” to T1, then the temperature of T1 will increase, thereby increasing the radiation going to T2, raising T2’s temperature, rinse and repeat. There is no possibility that thermal equilibrium will ever be achieved. In essence, a self-generation of new energy. If only that was true!
It is the solidification of water that causes the clouds and controls Earth’s energy balance.
If you believe that the Earth was formed in a molten state, it fairly obvious that it has cooled to its present temperature. Water did not exist li liquid form until the coldest part of the molten surface dropped below the boiling point of water.
After that, the planet continued to cool, so even with 100% of the H2O in the atmosphere, cooling continued unabated.
If you believe Fourier and Fourier’s Law, the Earth loses all the heat it receives from the Sun to outer space, plus a little bit of remnant heat as the Earth cools.
If you believe Newton, and his Law of cooling, the Earth continues to cool.
If you believe geophysicists who calculate that the Earth losing about 44 TW, then the Earth is cooling.
If you choose to believe in any mythical “energy balance” that shows otherwise, that’s your choice, but you are practising religion, not science.
No GHE. Adding H2O or CO2 to the air does not make the surface hotter. Rather the complete opposite, according to experiment and observation.
This YouTube junkie has noticed recently the huge increase in videos about AI, especially some about how AI can produce almost realistic videos. A popular trend on YouTube is AI videos starring Bigfoot- which are hysterically funny. I haven’t yet played with AI but intend to do so soon. On a more serious level are many videos about the implications of AI to our economies and jobs. Some suggest AI will be running everything.
As far as in-person, but I think eventually “AI” will come up with whole sports games to view. As far as prostitution, all they need is a viable android.
Fabulous! And the song is great; I would take it for mine. Are the song and singing AI generated? (I used to play mountain 5 string and sing the old songs.)
The big problem with “AI” and these sorts of things is consistency. The bigfoots all look a little different, even though it’s supposed to be the same one.
Yes, my YouTube feed now recommends for my viewing, complete junk about UFO sightings, Pyramid construction fantasies, Sabine Hossenfelder’s latest clickbait….not even worth checking YT any more. I think the onslaught of AI vids should finish its transition into a cyber “Checkout aisle” media, far removed from its original “post your home shot vid here” concept.
My biggest problem with YT creators, is the prolific use of fake thumbnails. Clickbait things that aren’t in the video, aren’t even real. I make it a point to go in and give them a thumbs down, if I’m of the mood.
There is now lots of junk on YouTube- but it also still has a lot of very good channels on every conceivable topic. I pay for Premium to get rid of YouTube’s adds- but now as soon as any channel builds up enough subscribers, they add their own- which I dislike. If that channel is only so-so, I unsubscribe. I suppose everyone has to make some $$$. However what’s disgusting is when they pretend they use the product. What really amazed me is that Joe Rogan even does this on his YouTube channel and he’s extremely wealthy. I like his shows but to see a multi millionaire pretending to use some lame product to make a few more bucks seems absurd to me. Also, I also detest all the AI- used as fillers in videos. On the other hand, AI is getting better so maybe someday it won’t be obvious that it’s AI.
You don’t need Youtube Premium to get rid of ads.
Just download the Brave browser from the Playstore, type in the Youtube homepage, make thumbnail and/ or link it to your homescreen. You then also have the choice of signing in. Still no ads..
I get Zero ads. The only time a video is halted is when the presenter him or herself is doing a slot.
I used to use Adblockplus which did the same thing until it didnt. Then i moved to Brave, about a year ago and it’s all fine. But i also did quite a few things in settings to unlink the Google connections on my phone. That might have a positive influence on the Youtube function. I do get recommended videos because when signed in Youtube knows by default what im watching..
Just try my suggestion. Very easy to do..just make sure you go to the official desktop Youtube site:
m.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/
Over the last couple days, Grok and I (well, 90% Grok) created a Python app for Windows. We went through many iterations, adding features, fixing bugs, all without me knowing a speck of Python.
I asked Grok for the code for the basic concept, and it spit it out in a matter of seconds. Now we’re up to about 1000 lines of code. It’s pretty amazing.
My next step is to have it create an Android app, then I sell it on Google Play, and retire.
AI doesn’t exist, the rest is simply mathematics. Intelligence is not an ability to draw, it is knowing what to draw with no instructions. Intelligence is invention, artificial has none at all.
I’m betting that it is democrats that will continue to go too far in their continued support of open borders, human and drug trafficking, illegal immigration, illegal voting, encouraging riots, attacks on federal and local law enforcement, doxxing of agents, etc., and even rogue elements physically attacking members of their own party like what happened in Minnesota.
Trump has even softened his stance on targeting illegals by renewed focus of ICE on the worst criminal offenders, giving leeway to farm and hospitality workers, etc.
‘I’m betting that it is democrats that will continue to go too far”
You will win that bet. The radical Democrats have gone off the Deep End. It’s disturbing to see so many people living in the Democrat Delusion. They are truly divorced from reality.
“You will win that bet. The radical Democrats have gone off the Deep End.”
Wait what… Remind me who just got shot by a right wing nutter? Remind me who just held a massive bloviated military parade at huge expense to the tax payer? Remind me who just accepted a gift of a plane from a foreign country at huge expense to the taxpayer? One that will have a life in the air for the US people of about a year. How come people don’t consider these things going off the deep end. Why aren’t the last two fine examples of waste, fraud and abuse or going “off the deep end?”
That would be the US Military, holding a parade in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army (formed June 14 1775 https://www.army.mil/1775/timeline.html)
Yep thats the one. Last thing the country needs is a North Korean, Russian style, strong man, my missile is bigger than yours show, as the president sends troops where they are not wanted inside his own country. The guy is such a thin skinned, wannabe dictator.
You do realize that NK and Russia are not the only countries with militaries that do parades? Military parades are NORMAL in most countries, including this one. A parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army, something that has nothing to do with Trump (unless you believe he arranged to be born on June 14 so that it would coincide) is absolutely a normal thing. But you are so Trump-obsessed you can’t see that.
As for sending troops (to protect federal assets) – I suppose you would prefer the chaos of the 2020 riots?
Peace through strength buddy and Trump did give the death cult 60 days to do a peace deal and join the civilised world but they obfuscated stalling for time as usual thinking they were dealing with another Autopen- ‘Nothing to do with us’: United States responds to Israel-Iran war
Trump the peacemaker and nothing to do with him 🙂
Hows that peacemaking going with Israel and Iran? Oh and while you are at it…. he said he would finish the war in Ukraine in a day. And didn’t he say there are no new wars on his watch?
You’re not seeing the big picture here simple. Remember Trump swanning around the Arab states and even Syria seemingly onboard? What have they all got in common in the ME? They want to get on making dough and nobody wants a nuclear arms race and here’s the opportunity with Hamas and Hezbollah neutered. Which just leaves the Houthi Gulf shipping problem which Trump promptly fixes (any objections China?). Now for Iran and those nukes knowing Israel has the capability and is prepared to wear the flak.
Howsabout 60 days to cook up a peace deal Mullahs playing good cop knowing bad cop Israel is ready and willing with the big stick. The IRGC is suddenly all alone and can’t expect much resourcing from Putin and the gang as they’re busy with European expansion concerns. Matter of fact Israel whacking the IRGC helps cut off resources for Russia you’ll note.
No boots on the ground for the US here and if the Israelis manage to foment regime change in Iran then the US has no need for boots on the ground anywhere in the ME at all in future. Zelensky and Ukraine is Europe’s problem remember but hey if Iran can’t help out Putin then consider it an incidental favour Euro folks and the Gulf is open for shipping all your Asian goodies.
Can Israel manage it? We’ll see about that with the number of missiles Iran can keep sending but at present Israel has free sky reign over Iran with jet strikes and Mossad deep in enemy territory no doubt with plenty of assistance from local regime changers. Oh and the good cop has reminded the Mullahs he has the same truncheons as the bad cop should they be ungrateful for his peaceable efforts.
You never want to underestimate this man Donald J Trump and be bamboozled by his words as he has a habit of bringing opponents to their knees if they do. Gaza would make a nice seaside resort. Chuckle.
Not a bad salespitch. However, only a small amount of people will actually buy that flawed product. Reality bites, unless you are blind and/ or drugged.
You should all be ashamed for supporting this website which silences different opinions. This is not a skeptic website, but an echo chamber that brainwashes you.
The problem is most people do not know how to formulate a question to an AI system
The more exact/narrow the question, the better the result, has been my experience.
.
I instantly find good answers that would take a laborious search of many, sometimes dubious sources.
It helps if you know the subject.
Regarding history, many sources are altered by experts to re-write history with a political viewpoint, which is spread with help of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media foghorn
“This is not a skeptic website, but an echo chamber that brainwashes you.”
So, given that statement, why do you bother reading WUWT, much less taking the time to post comments here?
Do you have a subconscious desire to be brainwashed? . . . /sarc.
Finally, the fact that your post has obviously not been censored FALSIFIES your assertion that WUWT “silences different opinions”.
If, perchance, you are obliquely referring to WUWT moderators deleting postings of AI-generated spam (as noted separately by Charles Rotter), that’s a completely different matter since inanimate AI bots can’t form opinions.
Did we not all see Anthony praising Willie Soon for having published a paper with Grok as the first author? So AI is good if it is prompted to lie about facts, but it is spam if it is left to answer unbiased? you are hypocrites pals… hypocrites
Duhhhhh . . . the WUWT website is not Willy Soon, although like most civil persons he is allowed to post significant articles and general comments here.
You are very confused, and thus your statements are just illogical.
And please provide evidence—any objective evidence at all—to support your currently specious innuendo that Willie Soon “prompted Grok AI to lie about facts”. Waiting . . . (but not too long, of course!)
Finally, IMHO, if you need a good definition of hypocrite, just look in the mirror.
To be fair while some here don’t want to hear a differing opinion, that is not the line usually taken by those who run this place. This is coming from someone who has been known to get the occasional down vote because I like to question.
When you get down to it, it’s Anthony’s site, he can do whatever he likes. The point you’re missing is that he allows all sorts of dissenting opinions. If yours are being trashed, perhaps the problem is you.
I guess you have no idea what the difference between a differing opinion and disinformation is. And in which universe is this a justification for WUWT to sensor and silence differing opinions? Don’t you realise that they silence all of us who reveal the faults in the many nonsense people post?
Simon has a good point here, JK. He’s been around a long time and rarely posts in agreement, yet we still see plenty from him, and he keeps on going. (Like the Energizer Bunny – and I mean that positively 🙂 )
But he clearly posts his own thoughts, and doesn’t spam.
Disinformation is a euphemism for lying, i.e., that is KNOWINGLY stating wrong information. Wrong information should be proven by resources that can be evaluated for why it is wrong.
In the end, to prove disinformation, one needs to show that the person making the wrong assertion is doing so KNOWING that it is wrong. Proving the motivation is damn hard to do.
It was relatively simple to recognize AI writing style in those comments, even later when you tried to put non AI wrappers around it.
Post your own writing and comment away.
Hell, go ahead and use AI to think for you then rewrite it.
strativarius
June 15, 2025 5:28 am
Campus Bulletin
Cambridge, alma mater to some of our most famous traitors and general lunatic asylum, has pushed the DIE envelope further. In British science merit comes a poor last in the qualities required of a job candidate, what really counts are: your biological sex and your skin colour. Which identity group you represent.
Cambridge University ‘Discriminates’ Cambridge University has been telling departments to ensure every interview shortlist includes a candidate from an “under-represented group”. The “diverse recruitment framework” further encourages recruiters to readvertise positions if the longlist of candidates “is not diverse”, such as if it is all white or male.
Prospective employers know by now that quality of the crop of Cambridge graduates is not anymore what it used to be and look elsewhere. Once that word gets out the prospective students will look elsewhere too.
Well Harry, since you’ve been gone, after trying to make an L.A. connection, you just ended up lost in Hollywood, trying to catch the rainbow, wed to a jealous lover (even if she can go all night long), in the eyes of the world, far from being the man on a silver mountain, your problems are difficult to cure, and you may have to admit I surrender, before you end up at the gates of Babylon.
It doesn’t matter if this is a hoax, or just a joke. What matters is whether they can impress a dumbfek bureaucrat with terms like ‘specially designed chamber’ or ‘liquid absorbent’ or just the word ‘innovative’.
Israel is attacking the nuclear weapons program of the Mad Mullahs of Iran, and there has been much handwringing on American tv, with the main topic being how will Israel destroy the deeply buried nuclear facilities, with one facility supposedly 2500 feet underground?
Most of the handwringing seems to be over whether the United States will get involved, because the U.S. is the only one with 15-ton bunker busters bombs and the means to deliver them. Israel doesn’t have an airplane that can drop such a big bomb.
I think the conversation has ignored the fact that buried facilities all have to have Doors on, or near the surface. So, if they want to neutralize the underground facility, all they have to do is shut the Door with explosives, and no one goes in or out, and you don’t need a 15-ton bomb to shut the door.
Of course, the Mad Mullahs might try to fix the Door, but when they do, just go bomb the Door again. And since Israel has air superiority over all of Iran now, there is nothing the Mad Mullahs can do to prevent the destruction of the doors.
Israel does not need the U.S. to enter the war, they can handle the buried facilities all on their own. That ought to calm the Nervous Nellie’s in the United States who obsess over “Forever Wars”.
Of course, if the Mad Mullahs attack Americans in the region then all bets are off.
Ah yes, the ‘mad mullahs’. Another derogatory term to dismiss yr enemy. Enough mad individuals in the US senate to worry about.
I mean: have you seen dr.Strangelove?
course, the Mad Mullahs might try to fix the Door, but when they do, just go bomb the Door again. And since Israel has air superiority over all of Iran now, there is nothing the Mad Mullahs can do to prevent the destruction of the doors.
It didn’t work for North Korea or Pakistan. Why should it work for Iran?
I was just reading how the major security concern at the G7 conference is how to protect delegates from bears….I know when walking the trails out there, CO2 is the least of your worries…
The notion that warmer waters are killing coral reefs (bleaching) doesn’t make any sense.
If anyone wants to claim otherwise, I’d like to hear why.
The Great Barrier Reef in north east Australia regularly has coral bleaching. This is caused by heating of direct sunlight and in the shallower waters. Direct sunlight is short wave radiation which penetrates water. The atmosphere, long wave radiation does not penetrate water
I would bet money that direct sunlight has been penetrating shallow water in the tropics for well over 4 billion years.
Here’s NOAA’s page on How does climate change affect coral reefs?
Their list doesn’t include sunlight:
Warming Ocean
Sea Level Rise
Changing Storm Patterns
Changes in Precipitation
Altered Ocean Currents
Ocean Acidification
NOAA tells us we can help by purchasing energy efficient lightbulbs
Steve
Somebody should investigate….who has some money?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2025/06/12/re-visiting-the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
Speaking of direct sunlight, I have not had time to look at any climate metrics this whole year, and much to my surprise, cycle 25 has dropped in intensity by 50% (top plot F10.7). And Atmospheric Transmission (Plot 2 Mauna Loa) indicates about 3 months ago; the Northern Hemisphere began experiencing the effects of volcanic ash from the Ruang eruption.
UAH Global #3
ONI Enso #4
Nice graph, what are the units for the “Y” axis?
Donkey power per square axe handles?
Angels per pinhead.
You would have to look at the UAH Anomaly description, to see the baseline. You should know that already without asking.
Atmospheric Transmission, Again a standard metric that has been recorded for decades.
The F10.7 is a radio frequency, I assume it is based on Amplitude in an am based modulator that digitizes the solar signal. Don’t care, its a standard dataset that has been recorded for over a century to gauge the relative strength of the solar signal used by many instruments to calibrate to this day. Look up the F10.7
Again ENSO ONI, do I need to tell you what those units are?
Your graphs show the past. Chaos at work, with precisely no predictive ability.
I hate to ask, but why are you bothering to show the past?
If that’s a complete list, it doesn’t include preventable problems, like agricultural runoff.
“Ocean Acidification”
Didn’t I read an article very recently about a location on the north coast of New Guinea where CO2 is bubbling up from an old volcano, and the Ph was 6 point something, and the coral was doing quite well?
As we don’t know what your reading list is, we really have no idea if you read that article very recently or not !! (:-))
WUWT and Climate Dispatch.
Technical and political aspects respectively.
Here at WUWT – but published 13 years ago. It was a live link in a recent article.
Search”The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume”
I would like someone to explain the existence of the Amazon Reef System given that list. For example, the water flowing out of the Amazon River actually IS acidic.
This is the alarmists and political activists in NOAA controlling the narrative of AGW.
Ordinary rain water is more acidic than sea water, and it’s questionable that this has any harmful biological effects. Marine biologists don’t agree with NOAA on this matter.
It’s interesting to note that cool water, low salinity, and pollution, all become a “heatwave” in the final sentence.
The Great Barrier Reef water temperatures vary between about 24 C and 32 C. One paper in Nature shows that for one species of coral, found at both extremities of the reef, possessed the ability to survive temperatures over 39 C.
The reasons are not clearly understood. One hypothesis is that certain colonies have adapted to higher temperatures. Possibly like different colonies of humans?
Evolution seems to press on, regardless. There are corals in the Arctic and the Antarctic which might well be annoyed if transported to waters of 20 C. Not exactly heatwave conditions for Barrier Reef corals which thrive at 24 C.
More information needed before panicking unduly.
I’d say panicking unduly IS the modus operandi. Millions of years of climate variability to which corals naturally had to adapt to. What are the chances of a slight change in temperature or ocean ph level being a cause of massive extinction? Apparently very high if you believe the alarmistas. That does not make any sense..
STORY TIP
But extracting the metals required for renewables/net zero/EVs IS damaging coral reefs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k36v50zvro
The originator of the ‘ocean acidification’ myth, Ken Caldiera, freely admitted that he invented the term to “sound scary”.
To say the oceans are becoming “less caustic” just does the same ring to it. 😎
(20) Net Zero Impossible – No Nation has the Money, the Skilled Workforce or the Materials to Achieve Net Zero – “It’s an Engineering Fantasy” – And it Cannot be Financed either – Welcome to Global USSR
Whatever one thinks about radiative transfer can be tested against what is being observed from space. The atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own performance as a longwave emitter and as a controller of the “atmospheric window” through the formation and dissipation of clouds. That is why I encourage others to consider the Band 16 visualizations from NOAA.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
And whatever one thinks about the output of the longwave emitter, it is also important to understand what is happening dynamically between the surface and space. The atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own performance as an energy converter, and the computed representation of it from the well-known physics of compressible fluids is a good approximation.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Connect the dots, and one realizes how unsound it has been all along to attribute any of the reported warming trend, or any trend of any climate metric, to incremental concentrations of CO2. No one knows that. And there is no good reason to assume that the static radiative effect is capable of more than a negligible, undetectable influence on the end result.
This is why it is important, in my view, for skeptics of climate alarm to stop going along with the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the issue in respect to the IR-active non-condensing gases.
Thank you for listening.
Bullseye, David. However on the “stop going along” concept…. I think “denying” the validity of the “forcing” + “feedback” framing is missing a good opportunity to show how negligible it is…and identifying the negligibility enables many of the Carbmageddon-claiming crowd to re-look at their “scientific” numbers and change their “you’re a flat-earther-and-I’m-more-gooder-than-thou”philosophy.
Thanks for this reply. I understand your point, but I see it this way: Conceding at the outset that the change in CO2 concentration should be treated as a climate “forcing” is the first step in the circular exercise using models. The simulation is first stabilized by tuning, then the prescribed CO2 “forcings” are applied using the same sort of radiative transfer computations from which the static radiative effect was estimated to begin with. So the model becomes a mere extrapolator of the assumed “warming” influence, with a boost from the modeled “feedbacks.” There is no diagnostic power at all for reliable attribution in the full exercise of generating scenarios.
About the residence time.
In the 2007 WGI, the IPCC defined the residence time according to the Berne Model.
The IPCC states that natural CO2 has a residence time of approximately four years. Only for CO2 from anthropogenic sources can no fixed residence time be assigned; according to the IPCC, this is not possible. This cannot be justified physically, but follows from the Berne Model, the basis of all IPCC models. Here, a CO2 pulse is released into the atmosphere. This results in various residence times. The 2007 IPCC report assigns a distribution to anthropogenic emissions: 33.8% remain in the atmosphere for 18.5 years, 25.9% remain for 172.9 years, 18.6% remain for 1186 years, and 21.7% remain in the atmosphere indefinitely. A change in these parameters would significantly alter climate models.
If that were the case, according to my calculations, ignoring Henry’s law and biomass growth, the CO2 concentration would have to be 475 ppm (Eff cum = 141 ppmv and ELUC kim = 54 ppmv). If we assume a biomass increase of 44% according to NASA and Tiexi, Cheng, the CO2 concentration would have to be 560 ppmv today according to the Berne Model. This hypothesis is therefore not conclusive based on the measured data.
Assuming a residence time of 3.9 years – as done in my paper, and using the data from the Global Carbon Budget, the cumulative anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere from fossil fuels would be approximately 37.7 GtC (12.7%) and the cumulative ELUC would be approximately 12 GtC (4%) for 2020. This would amount to 49.7 GtC, or 16.7% of the increase in CO2. This puts the anthropogenic share of the increased CO2 at 16.7%. 83.3% has other causes.
My question:
I could no longer find any statement on the residence time in the AR6 WGI Chapter 5. Is this topic being ignored?
Best regards
Raimund
In my eyes, without scientific base, the Berne model is BS.
There is no reason for nature to make differences handling natural and anthropogenic CO2.
The alarmistas always go on about C12 vs C14. I see that as: id like a steak but if none available i settle for a cheaper cut.
I have enjoyed Salby’s review of the Berne model starting at about 55 min in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohF6K2avtY
It’s sad that Salby’s life passed too soon. His work threatened the narrative, so he was attacked by the university.
It is an overcast Sunday afternoon here, and I have too much time on my hands …
I found the following in section 5.2.4 of the AR6 WG-I report, on page 713 :
It turns out that “Ciais et al., 2013” in a reference to the AR5 WG-I assessment report.
A screenshot of “Box 6.1, Table 1” from page 472 of that report is attached below.
The current IPCC position is that you can select pretty much any “atmospheric residency time / lifetime” for CO2 that your heart desires, and it will be “correct”.
.
1 < 3.9 < “many thousands”.
Your assumption is “consistent with” the IPCC.
I don’t think they like us to talk about the residence time, although I prefer to call it the turnover time as I think it more accurately describes it. It is the inverse of the turnover rate.
I also use 3.9 years for my calculations.
After the first couple of reports the IPCC started using the term “lifetime” for residence time, aka turnover time. I think this is deliberate to cause confusion.
Near the bottom of the left hand column of page 8 of the first assessment report FAR) of the IPCC they say “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years”
This is the only place I can find them explicitly stating that it is about 4 years.
However, we can calculate the turnover time value used by the IPCC by dividing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the amount they say is total emissions (both natural and anthropogenic).
On page 700 of AR6 there is a graph Figure 5.12, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 870Pg CO2.
Total emissions, if I have added them up correctly is 226.9 Pg CO2/yr.
If we divide 870 Pg by 226.9 Pg/yr we get a lifetime estimate of 3.83years.
So even if they say the lifetime/ turnover time/residence time is 100 years, the value they use is “about 4 years”
Well, as Koonin has showed the first report was more honest. Over time they filtered out both the anomalies and troublesome statements so they wouldnt be confronted by those who actually read them. It is after all, politically motivated.
Earth’s average is emission temperature is 255K. The vast majority of atmospheric emissions are from H2O. Water vapour at 255K cools to ice. So nearly all atmospheric emission will be coming from ice. The sub 100micron ice descends at about 4cm/s so it take some three days or so for the deflation of the atmosphere to drop the ice formed at the top of a convective tower to reach the LFC, which will be under 5000m.
It is the solidification of water that causes the clouds and controls Earth’s energy balance.
At 200K the partial pressure of H2O is less than 1Pa. The H2O concentration by weight at the temperature is around 20ppm. That is the point where there are few H2O molecules to emit long wave energy and is about as cold as the tropopause gets.
Ice dominates Earth’s energy balance whether it is on land, on water or in the atmosphere. The notion of “greenhouse gasses” is unscientific tripe. EMR responses gasses that are losing energy to space will be forming ice particles from any of the water present, which can cause cooling down to 200K.
Ice (0C) emits 315 W/m^2, ocean surface at 30C emits at 460 W/m^2. We haven’t considered yet the back radiation from surroundings. So your theory is dubious….much more likely that it is SW reflection of incoming sunlight from cloud cover and release of IR to outer space from cloud tops…that controls the planets temperature….and cloud cover is controlled by evaporation from the surface of the planet below.
Back radiation from cold to hot simply doesn’t happen, Thermodynamics Law 2! This is the fallacy at the heart of the whole con. Remember, real science is dead, pseudo-science is much better!
You didn’t pay attention much in heat transfer class. Or maybe confused what your physics professor said and your engineering professor said. Let’s take a situation you will find in any basic heat transfer textbook.
The heat radiative transfer between two parallel plates is
q = σ * (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) / (1/ε₁ + 1/ε₂ – 1)
What is sometimes referred to as the “back radiation” is the – T₂⁴ part of that. You are not likely to find an engineering textbook that uses the name “back radiation”. Doesn’t break the 2 nd law of Thermodynamics cuz T1 is always higher than T2.
A warmer T2 just reduces how much net heat moves from T1 to T2 by the amount of “back radiation” from T2, until T2 is the same Temp as T1 at which point q is then zero. If T2 continues to get warmer due to say internal heating, heat then flows the other way….So invoking the second law isn’t going to get even part marks on your heat transfer exam….
”back radiation” is always the amount of electromagnetic radiation going the “wrong way” if you apply the second law only to “back” radiation and not the net of “fore + back” radiation.
Of course if someone is saying net heat actually flows from cold to hot, as opposed to a warmer “cold” simply reducing the rate of transfer from “hot” to “cold”…they ARE WRONG at the many particle, many photons level that the laws of thermodynamics apply to. They can be correct at some single photon, single particle interactions that physicists sometimes delve into.
The logic is unassailable. If the radiation from T2 is “added” to T1, then the temperature of T1 will increase, thereby increasing the radiation going to T2, raising T2’s temperature, rinse and repeat. There is no possibility that thermal equilibrium will ever be achieved. In essence, a self-generation of new energy. If only that was true!
If you believe that the Earth was formed in a molten state, it fairly obvious that it has cooled to its present temperature. Water did not exist li liquid form until the coldest part of the molten surface dropped below the boiling point of water.
After that, the planet continued to cool, so even with 100% of the H2O in the atmosphere, cooling continued unabated.
If you believe Fourier and Fourier’s Law, the Earth loses all the heat it receives from the Sun to outer space, plus a little bit of remnant heat as the Earth cools.
If you believe Newton, and his Law of cooling, the Earth continues to cool.
If you believe geophysicists who calculate that the Earth losing about 44 TW, then the Earth is cooling.
If you choose to believe in any mythical “energy balance” that shows otherwise, that’s your choice, but you are practising religion, not science.
No GHE. Adding H2O or CO2 to the air does not make the surface hotter. Rather the complete opposite, according to experiment and observation.
This YouTube junkie has noticed recently the huge increase in videos about AI, especially some about how AI can produce almost realistic videos. A popular trend on YouTube is AI videos starring Bigfoot- which are hysterically funny. I haven’t yet played with AI but intend to do so soon. On a more serious level are many videos about the implications of AI to our economies and jobs. Some suggest AI will be running everything.
Bill Gates says only 3 jobs will survive AI
https://jasondeegan.com/bill-gates-predicts-only-3-jobs-will-survive-ai-a-grim-outlook-for-the-future-of-work/
Midwives, Priests and Undertakers.
I think pro sports and prostitution…
As far as in-person, but I think eventually “AI” will come up with whole sports games to view. As far as prostitution, all they need is a viable android.
Link to a good Bigfoot funny video?
Here’s one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4CT5dZe8ZA
lots of them- commenters suggest new scenarios, then the creator creates them
there are now several Bigfoot channels- some better than others of course
Fabulous! And the song is great; I would take it for mine. Are the song and singing AI generated? (I used to play mountain 5 string and sing the old songs.)
Maybe CFACT needs music videos to go with their three AI generated poems:
https://www.cfact.org/2025/03/04/ai-emulates-abstract-thinking-about-kipling-lady-gaga-and-the-rolling-stones/
It was pretty darn funny. And the one with his alien friend Zorp. Thanks Joseph, for giving me more useless things to do. 😉
The big problem with “AI” and these sorts of things is consistency. The bigfoots all look a little different, even though it’s supposed to be the same one.
I view it as a cartoon so that does not matter.
Yes, my YouTube feed now recommends for my viewing, complete junk about UFO sightings, Pyramid construction fantasies, Sabine Hossenfelder’s latest clickbait….not even worth checking YT any more. I think the onslaught of AI vids should finish its transition into a cyber “Checkout aisle” media, far removed from its original “post your home shot vid here” concept.
My biggest problem with YT creators, is the prolific use of fake thumbnails. Clickbait things that aren’t in the video, aren’t even real. I make it a point to go in and give them a thumbs down, if I’m of the mood.
There is now lots of junk on YouTube- but it also still has a lot of very good channels on every conceivable topic. I pay for Premium to get rid of YouTube’s adds- but now as soon as any channel builds up enough subscribers, they add their own- which I dislike. If that channel is only so-so, I unsubscribe. I suppose everyone has to make some $$$. However what’s disgusting is when they pretend they use the product. What really amazed me is that Joe Rogan even does this on his YouTube channel and he’s extremely wealthy. I like his shows but to see a multi millionaire pretending to use some lame product to make a few more bucks seems absurd to me. Also, I also detest all the AI- used as fillers in videos. On the other hand, AI is getting better so maybe someday it won’t be obvious that it’s AI.
You don’t need Youtube Premium to get rid of ads.
Just download the Brave browser from the Playstore, type in the Youtube homepage, make thumbnail and/ or link it to your homescreen. You then also have the choice of signing in. Still no ads..
Well, that would save me about $15/month – but it won’t stop the embedded adds or what they call sponsors.
I get Zero ads. The only time a video is halted is when the presenter him or herself is doing a slot.
I used to use Adblockplus which did the same thing until it didnt. Then i moved to Brave, about a year ago and it’s all fine. But i also did quite a few things in settings to unlink the Google connections on my phone. That might have a positive influence on the Youtube function. I do get recommended videos because when signed in Youtube knows by default what im watching..
Just try my suggestion. Very easy to do..just make sure you go to the official desktop Youtube site:
m.youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com/
I actually found a good use for “AI”.
Over the last couple days, Grok and I (well, 90% Grok) created a Python app for Windows. We went through many iterations, adding features, fixing bugs, all without me knowing a speck of Python.
I asked Grok for the code for the basic concept, and it spit it out in a matter of seconds. Now we’re up to about 1000 lines of code. It’s pretty amazing.
My next step is to have it create an Android app, then I sell it on Google Play, and retire.
AI doesn’t exist, the rest is simply mathematics. Intelligence is not an ability to draw, it is knowing what to draw with no instructions. Intelligence is invention, artificial has none at all.
Of course- but whatever it is or whatever we want to call it- it is amazing. What it’ll ultimately be useful and valuable for is another question.
Newsom Rallies the Resistance to Trump
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/gavin-newsom-donald-trump-immigration-riots-california-stephen-miller-ice-9d16d88e?st=t7cJTi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I’m betting that it is democrats that will continue to go too far in their continued support of open borders, human and drug trafficking, illegal immigration, illegal voting, encouraging riots, attacks on federal and local law enforcement, doxxing of agents, etc., and even rogue elements physically attacking members of their own party like what happened in Minnesota.
Trump has even softened his stance on targeting illegals by renewed focus of ICE on the worst criminal offenders, giving leeway to farm and hospitality workers, etc.
‘I’m betting that it is democrats that will continue to go too far”
You will win that bet. The radical Democrats have gone off the Deep End. It’s disturbing to see so many people living in the Democrat Delusion. They are truly divorced from reality.
“You will win that bet. The radical Democrats have gone off the Deep End.”
Wait what… Remind me who just got shot by a right wing nutter? Remind me who just held a massive bloviated military parade at huge expense to the tax payer? Remind me who just accepted a gift of a plane from a foreign country at huge expense to the taxpayer? One that will have a life in the air for the US people of about a year. How come people don’t consider these things going off the deep end. Why aren’t the last two fine examples of waste, fraud and abuse or going “off the deep end?”
Oh dear, our resident colluuuusion expert appears….yawn. Dems are violent. They eat their own kind on Bluesky and in the wild.
who just held a massive bloviated military parade
That would be the US Military, holding a parade in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army (formed June 14 1775 https://www.army.mil/1775/timeline.html)
Yep thats the one. Last thing the country needs is a North Korean, Russian style, strong man, my missile is bigger than yours show, as the president sends troops where they are not wanted inside his own country. The guy is such a thin skinned, wannabe dictator.
You do realize that NK and Russia are not the only countries with militaries that do parades? Military parades are NORMAL in most countries, including this one. A parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army, something that has nothing to do with Trump (unless you believe he arranged to be born on June 14 so that it would coincide) is absolutely a normal thing. But you are so Trump-obsessed you can’t see that.
As for sending troops (to protect federal assets) – I suppose you would prefer the chaos of the 2020 riots?
“Remind me who just got shot by a right wing nutter?”
You mean the guy who had zero social media presence? Right wing? Not even.
Let’s wait and see.
lol…colllusion
You mean the guy who had zero social media presence
Are we talking about the guy who was a Walz appointee and shot someone who voted WITH Republicans?
Read some new info on the MD shooting. I still want to see more, but it looks like Simon may actually have a point in this case.
Peace through strength buddy and Trump did give the death cult 60 days to do a peace deal and join the civilised world but they obfuscated stalling for time as usual thinking they were dealing with another Autopen-
‘Nothing to do with us’: United States responds to Israel-Iran war
Trump the peacemaker and nothing to do with him 🙂
Hows that peacemaking going with Israel and Iran? Oh and while you are at it…. he said he would finish the war in Ukraine in a day. And didn’t he say there are no new wars on his watch?
You’re not seeing the big picture here simple. Remember Trump swanning around the Arab states and even Syria seemingly onboard? What have they all got in common in the ME? They want to get on making dough and nobody wants a nuclear arms race and here’s the opportunity with Hamas and Hezbollah neutered. Which just leaves the Houthi Gulf shipping problem which Trump promptly fixes (any objections China?). Now for Iran and those nukes knowing Israel has the capability and is prepared to wear the flak.
Howsabout 60 days to cook up a peace deal Mullahs playing good cop knowing bad cop Israel is ready and willing with the big stick. The IRGC is suddenly all alone and can’t expect much resourcing from Putin and the gang as they’re busy with European expansion concerns. Matter of fact Israel whacking the IRGC helps cut off resources for Russia you’ll note.
No boots on the ground for the US here and if the Israelis manage to foment regime change in Iran then the US has no need for boots on the ground anywhere in the ME at all in future. Zelensky and Ukraine is Europe’s problem remember but hey if Iran can’t help out Putin then consider it an incidental favour Euro folks and the Gulf is open for shipping all your Asian goodies.
Can Israel manage it? We’ll see about that with the number of missiles Iran can keep sending but at present Israel has free sky reign over Iran with jet strikes and Mossad deep in enemy territory no doubt with plenty of assistance from local regime changers. Oh and the good cop has reminded the Mullahs he has the same truncheons as the bad cop should they be ungrateful for his peaceable efforts.
You never want to underestimate this man Donald J Trump and be bamboozled by his words as he has a habit of bringing opponents to their knees if they do. Gaza would make a nice seaside resort. Chuckle.
Not a bad salespitch. However, only a small amount of people will actually buy that flawed product. Reality bites, unless you are blind and/ or drugged.
I wrote a new post with a recommendation for some urgent required research for an extended UHI. If some of you have some funding?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2025/06/12/re-visiting-the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
You should all be ashamed for supporting this website which silences different opinions. This is not a skeptic website, but an echo chamber that brainwashes you.
You’ve been clearly told that we don’t accept AI generated spam.
The problem is most people do not know how to formulate a question to an AI system
The more exact/narrow the question, the better the result, has been my experience.
.
I instantly find good answers that would take a laborious search of many, sometimes dubious sources.
It helps if you know the subject.
Regarding history, many sources are altered by experts to re-write history with a political viewpoint, which is spread with help of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media foghorn
Don’t forget Wikipedia! (AI’s older brother.)
I’ve seen J K make the same claim before and your same response.
Makes me wonder if “J K” is the AI, an AI that doesn’t seem to “learn”. 😎
so you baptise my criticisms as spam. you are a joke
That’s Father Rotter please.
I prefer the “Right Reverend Rotter”. 😎
King John, please.
So, given that statement, why do you bother reading WUWT, much less taking the time to post comments here?
Do you have a subconscious desire to be brainwashed? . . . /sarc.
Finally, the fact that your post has obviously not been censored FALSIFIES your assertion that WUWT “silences different opinions”.
If, perchance, you are obliquely referring to WUWT moderators deleting postings of AI-generated spam (as noted separately by Charles Rotter), that’s a completely different matter since inanimate AI bots can’t form opinions.
Did we not all see Anthony praising Willie Soon for having published a paper with Grok as the first author? So AI is good if it is prompted to lie about facts, but it is spam if it is left to answer unbiased? you are hypocrites pals… hypocrites
hypocrites
Duhhhhh . . . the WUWT website is not Willy Soon, although like most civil persons he is allowed to post significant articles and general comments here.
You are very confused, and thus your statements are just illogical.
And please provide evidence—any objective evidence at all—to support your currently specious innuendo that Willie Soon “prompted Grok AI to lie about facts”. Waiting . . . (but not too long, of course!)
Finally, IMHO, if you need a good definition of hypocrite, just look in the mirror.
To be fair while some here don’t want to hear a differing opinion, that is not the line usually taken by those who run this place. This is coming from someone who has been known to get the occasional down vote because I like to question.
Tell JK what it’s like for differing opinions over at “Skeptical” Science? Or Realclimate? Or The Guardian?
Not talking about SS or RC we are talking about WWUT.
We’re talking about censoring differing opinions. That doesn’t happen here. It happens constantly at those other “consensus” places.
so you are fine with dictators in WUWT silencing opinions for as long as you don’t like these opinions? then you are another brainwashed hypocrite!
That makes no sense……. I was acknowledging that WUWT doesn’t sensor dissenting opinions
you are wrong
When you get down to it, it’s Anthony’s site, he can do whatever he likes. The point you’re missing is that he allows all sorts of dissenting opinions. If yours are being trashed, perhaps the problem is you.
I guess you have no idea what the difference between a differing opinion and disinformation is. And in which universe is this a justification for WUWT to sensor and silence differing opinions? Don’t you realise that they silence all of us who reveal the faults in the many nonsense people post?
Simon has a good point here, JK. He’s been around a long time and rarely posts in agreement, yet we still see plenty from him, and he keeps on going. (Like the Energizer Bunny – and I mean that positively 🙂 )
But he clearly posts his own thoughts, and doesn’t spam.
I would love to know why expressing a different opinion is marked as spam in this echo chamber of disinformation.
expressing a different opinion is marked as spam
Doesn’t happen to Simon. Or Nick. Or many others. Maybe you should consider what you are doing differently.
Agreed.
hitting the nail in the head. think about it
The big problem with “disinformation” is –
who gets to decide what it is?
reality
Disinformation is a euphemism for lying, i.e., that is KNOWINGLY stating wrong information. Wrong information should be proven by resources that can be evaluated for why it is wrong.
In the end, to prove disinformation, one needs to show that the person making the wrong assertion is doing so KNOWING that it is wrong. Proving the motivation is damn hard to do.
It was relatively simple to recognize AI writing style in those comments, even later when you tried to put non AI wrappers around it.
Post your own writing and comment away.
Hell, go ahead and use AI to think for you then rewrite it.
Campus Bulletin
Cambridge, alma mater to some of our most famous traitors and general lunatic asylum, has pushed the DIE envelope further. In British science merit comes a poor last in the qualities required of a job candidate, what really counts are: your biological sex and your skin colour. Which identity group you represent.
Cambridge University ‘Discriminates’
Cambridge University has been telling departments to ensure every interview shortlist includes a candidate from an “under-represented group”.
The “diverse recruitment framework” further encourages recruiters to readvertise positions if the longlist of candidates “is not diverse”, such as if it is all white or male.
Groupthink
“…interview panels should be “diverse both in gender and race” and composed of individuals who have taken training courses in equality, diversity, inclusion and unconscious bias. …”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/15/cambridge-university-discriminates-against-white-job-seekers/
Things are getting worse.
Prospective employers know by now that quality of the crop of Cambridge graduates is not anymore what it used to be and look elsewhere. Once that word gets out the prospective students will look elsewhere too.
“your biological sex”
Is there non-biological sex?
In the UK today is “Father’s Day”.
So this one could be what Harry said to Chas…
Well Harry, since you’ve been gone, after trying to make an L.A. connection, you just ended up lost in Hollywood, trying to catch the rainbow, wed to a jealous lover (even if she can go all night long), in the eyes of the world, far from being the man on a silver mountain, your problems are difficult to cure, and you may have to admit I surrender, before you end up at the gates of Babylon.
“Video unavailable”
Story tip. Apparently gasoline can be made out of air. Can’t wait to invest. /sarc.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/compact-machine-turns-air-ready-to-use-gasoline
I wonder how much energy is used to produce a gallon of the stuff.
It doesn’t matter if this is a hoax, or just a joke. What matters is whether they can impress a dumbfek bureaucrat with terms like ‘specially designed chamber’ or ‘liquid absorbent’ or just the word ‘innovative’.
You forgot subsidies 😀
“I feel that with a government grant I could make my walk a lot more silly.”
Even uses dish soap for detergent additives.
Is that thin air or hot air?
Israel is attacking the nuclear weapons program of the Mad Mullahs of Iran, and there has been much handwringing on American tv, with the main topic being how will Israel destroy the deeply buried nuclear facilities, with one facility supposedly 2500 feet underground?
Most of the handwringing seems to be over whether the United States will get involved, because the U.S. is the only one with 15-ton bunker busters bombs and the means to deliver them. Israel doesn’t have an airplane that can drop such a big bomb.
I think the conversation has ignored the fact that buried facilities all have to have Doors on, or near the surface. So, if they want to neutralize the underground facility, all they have to do is shut the Door with explosives, and no one goes in or out, and you don’t need a 15-ton bomb to shut the door.
Of course, the Mad Mullahs might try to fix the Door, but when they do, just go bomb the Door again. And since Israel has air superiority over all of Iran now, there is nothing the Mad Mullahs can do to prevent the destruction of the doors.
Israel does not need the U.S. to enter the war, they can handle the buried facilities all on their own. That ought to calm the Nervous Nellie’s in the United States who obsess over “Forever Wars”.
Of course, if the Mad Mullahs attack Americans in the region then all bets are off.
Ah yes, the ‘mad mullahs’. Another derogatory term to dismiss yr enemy. Enough mad individuals in the US senate to worry about.
I mean: have you seen dr.Strangelove?
It didn’t work for North Korea or Pakistan. Why should it work for Iran?
Let’s not but say we did.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-liberals-clean-energy-crusade-has-been-a-super-disaster
Some stories I’ve been accumulating:
If we report the emissions, less actually occur?
https://apnews.com/article/epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reporting-pollution-indiana-f950d8bb3a33582a7d8b6fd5ce2ab2b7
Even wind turbine owners are responsible for noise and other complaints:
https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/judge-shuts-down-turbines-over-noise-and-slams-unimpressive-wind-farm-owners/2-1-1829784?zephr_sso_ott=HWS28d
The head of Toyota believes that hybrid vehicles are better the pure EVs for emissions:
https://www.motor1.com/news/762063/toyota-says-hybrids-cleaner-evs/
Lawfare over rivers and water ways never ends:
https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/15/colorado-river-gary-wockner-water-activisim-conservation/
How quaint, the EPA has announced a “renewable” fuel blending standard…
https://www.kcrg.com/2025/06/14/epa-proposes-historic-renewable-fuel-blending-standards/?outputType=amp
I love how when we can avoid all pollution we’d live forever:
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-tiny-toxic-track-smaller-air.amp
Greenpeace is concerned about its own carbon emissions?
“It’s a long way to go, a lot of carbon to burn, to stand in a parking lot an hour’s drive away from where leaders are actually meeting,” ….
What is the world coming to? :-o)
G7 protesters organizing, say upcoming summit fails to address real-world problems | CBC News
I was just reading how the major security concern at the G7 conference is how to protect delegates from bears….I know when walking the trails out there, CO2 is the least of your worries…