I commented on the DOE’s “Critical Review…” report last Tuesday. It has not been posted officially yet. This is from the confirmation e-mail. We’ll see what happens.
==== Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) Document Type: Notice Title: Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate Document ID: DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001
Comment: The Critical Review report is well-written, well-supported, and highly relevant to policy. However, this comment identifies and explores one aspect of the decades-long climate investigation that has not been addressed in this recent work.
The May 23, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Restoring Gold Standard Science” includes a requirement under Sec. 4: “(c) When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
The investigation of Earth’s climate system response to anthropogenic influence, mainly through rising concentration of CO2 and other IR-active gases, has relied on computer simulations of the earth system. These models are time-step-iterated computed representations of the land, oceans, and atmosphere in which incident solar radiation is absorbed or reflected, and in which the surface and the atmosphere (including clouds) end up emitting longwave radiation back to space. The climate state resulting from the computation at each time step is passed to the next. The evolution of a global average surface air temperature is regarded as a key metric. Therefore the propagation of uncertainty must be addressed. The practice has been to pre-stabilize the simulations in a pre-industrial control exercise, and then to apply pre-determined time-scheduled “forcing” scenarios. But this approach does not negate the inherent problem of accumulating uncertainty in the statistical sense of the reliability of the result.
…
To illustrate the critical issue arising from the use of such models for policy guidance, a prompted analysis by the Grok 3 AI agent was performed. The analysis uses the published uncertainty (best case – even if unrealistic) of the geometric average value of Total Solar Irradiance. This uncertainty is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. [1] The external value of TSI is posed in this exercise as the only source of uncertainty as the time steps proceed. The model is otherwise assumed to be perfect in computing a surface temperature response. The resulting uncertainty after only one year of iteration is about +/-4C on a 95% confidence basis. For the details, please see the attached document. This unresolvable buildup of uncertainty is inherent to the time-step-iterated computation and therefore cannot be ignored. It is orders of magnitude too large for reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the hypothesized surface temperature response being investigated. The honest conclusion must be, in this writers view, that none of the time-step-iterated models produces, or has ever produced, any reliable policy-actionable information relevant to anthropogenic warming from GHGs.
P.S. In the published literature, this 2019 paper stands out on this topic -“Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” by Patrick Frank. It is noted that Dr. Spencer posted a critique following its publication, disagreeing with the author. It is hoped that Dr. Spencer and the other CWG authors will take a new look at this issue. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Thank you for considering this comment.
===== (end of comment to DOE)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
(The attached document can be viewed after the comment is posted by DOE. I’ll not link to it here separately.)
Nice! However, this is only one part of the uncertainty. The global temperatures used also have uncertainty at the very start which also contribute to the overall uncertainty of any output. Uncertainties add. always. This means both the input uncertainty and the uncertainty contributed by the model process must be evaluated. It makes the values of anomalies lie far within the uncertainty interval which means you can’t KNOW the true value.
“However, this is only one part of the uncertainty.” Correct. This is an exercise to make the point that even an imaginary model of perfected fidelity to the real climate system is not capable of determining a reliable answer. The implication is that time-step-iterated models should never have been proposed in the first place as an investigative tool concerning “GHG”s.
strativarius
August 24, 2025 2:39 am
The Tick: Update, Introducing Frankenstein and Igor or Eyegore…
Recently, Chris Morrison reported on the Daily Sceptic about a pair of US academics, Professor Parker Crutchfield and Assistant Professor Blake Hereth, both of Western Michigan University, and their lunatic scheme to genetically modify a certain obscure species of tick to deliberately infect innocent Americans with an allergy to red meat and dairy-products, thereby forcibly turning them vegan to save the planet.
Dissecting their careers further, it turns out the idea of using ticks to spread the debilitating disease of veganism is not even half of it. Professor Frankenstein and Igor are qualified experts in the arena of Medical Ethics, specifically a new, little-known sub-field known as ‘moral bioenhancement’. What does that mean? Quite literally, it means the art of chemically modifying humans – in secret, without their prior permission or knowledge – to make them more agreeably Left-wing. – Daily Sceptic
Alarmists have some real rum characters (ne’er-do-wells) in their midst. And for their part, the propaganda struggle goes ever on…
Sounds pretty definitive – causes, no ifs and/or buts. So, how do they know this to be a solid fact? Attribution modelling.
“They plugged that data into a computer model”
Of course they did.
“While Indigenous and Hispanic populations are most affected by pollution from exploration, extraction, transportation and storage, Black and Asian populations are most affected by emissions from processing, refining, manufacturing, distribution and usage.”
Ah, so the bottom line is it’s also very racist.
I modelled output from the Guardian and got a 98% probability that each day will contain utter claptrap dressed up as a scientific scare for public consumption – partnered by the BBC
““While Indigenous and Hispanic populations are most affected by pollution from exploration, extraction, transportation and storage, Black and Asian populations are most affected by emissions from processing, refining, manufacturing, distribution and usage.”
I guess white people are not affected by all that, since they were not mentioned.
This is a family channel, I was trying to keep it civil. Although apparently the civility is only one-sided. It’s only when the gloves come off and we start playing by their rules do we start winning.
Certainly not before the Left can be brought to heel. Beneath all the Marxist trappings, the Left longs for a return to the supposedly bucolic state of primitive man before he (she/it/they) were despoiled by the advent of private property. You know, when people had their beating hearts ripped out of their chests in order to ensure that the Sun would rise in the East, or that the rains would fall, etc. And from what I understand, such primitivism was fairly common everywhere.
My folks pre-Revolution New England, plus lots of Native admixture-you know, frontier and all, so I’m indigenous too…actually as are pretty near any US person who has been here for a couple of generations worth of mixing…we’re very busy mixers…
Well the Asia-Pacific Region was responsible for 52% of world electricity production in 2024 compared to the US and Europe’s 30% and the region also saw 68% of global energy demand increase. This is a trend which is only going to continue.
Figures from latest Energy Institute ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’
Most leftists, and many of them are white, wish white people would no longer exist.
The Left has to have a Demon to fight against, and in the current day, that Demon is White People.
That’s why the part of the article I quoted didn’t address anything about white people because the radical left wants to cancel white people, so they act like they don’t exist in many cases, such as this one.
The more they try to erase us white folks, the more we export from where those other folks came from, often uninvited.
It is self preservation.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
They need to publicize this paper, and demand that their Democrat opponents both condemn it and de-fund the authors of it as well as defunding any organization that supported them.
Tracy Edwards, the yachtswoman, quoted in the Telegraph, talking about her opposition to the inclusion of trans people in women’s sporting competitions:
“I know from sailing with men, when I’ve been the only woman on the boat, that the physical, immediate, explosive power of men can be shockingly extraordinary, and they can summon it at a moment’s notice.
As women, we know this power dynamic to our cost – that you can be fit and strong, but that the bloke can still pulverise you. She is implacable, in the face of constant abuse and belittling by trans activists. “There’s no point arguing with them,” she shrugs. “It’s like explaining the theory of relativity to my dog.”
I blame the places of the origin and dissemination of critical theories – no names mentioned, but lets call them Legion, for they are many and most know who they are.
I was shocked to see the other day that the U.S. military had about 8,000 people who indentified as a different gender from the way they were born. I believe they have all been asked to leave the military by the Trump administration.
The U.S. military needs people in it with their heads screwed on straight. People with trans issues don’t qualify, imo. The U.S. military should not be a social experiment.
It would be a biological male league, since biological women don’t normally try to compete in men’s sports and if they do, they don’t win gold metals.
No, we are mainly talking about biological males competing against biological females, and it should not be allowed.
It’s crazy to try to ruin women’s sports just because a small portion of the population is mentally ill. Treat the illness, but don’t pander to their delusions.
The radical Left hangs its hat on some really strange issues. Next thing you know, they will be promoting illegal criminal aliens.
What I find surprising is that women haven’t been more vocal about the issue. As I understand it, women once knew that it would be rare that any woman wouldn’t be at a serious disadvantage competing against men, except maybe for endurance events. To avoid always losing, they advocated for, and got, women’s leagues. Now, they are back where they started, losing against men — who are not competitive against other men.
I remember 1976 very well, and this summer is nowhere near as warm. It was also much dryer, and came after the very warm year of 1975, The night time temperatures this year were probably warmer due to Urban heat effect, but daytime temperatures were much warmer, London had 55 days over 25 C and 21 days over 30 C in 1976 For 16 consecutive days from the 24th June saw 32 C reached every day somewhere in the UK. I cant remember any cool days during 1976, This year there have been many, especially during August.
The UK population has increased by 20% since 1976.
And we have not built any new reservoirs for most of that time; none since privatisation in 1991 – obviously.
The 1976-77 climate shift refers to a significant warming event in the Tropical Pacific that had global impacts, … etc. {so says Duck Assist} This topic has been reported on numerous times. I suspect here on WUWT, but I haven’t tried today.
I do want to try to be more optimistic but life keeps pushing me back to reality.
It seems to me like we’re in the calm before the storm. The globalist traitors have already lit the fuse on the debt bomb that is going to destroy us, and there’s no way to put it out. Real estate and stock market bubbles have to pop soon.
Why do you think Trump is so upset with the Federal Reserve not lowering interest rates? We have trillions in short term debt that has to be refinanced.
In the USA there are more people aware of the new Cracker Barrel logo than the “debt bomb”.
“soon” is undefined. If over 10 years I will likely miss the fireworks.
Trump is mad at Jerome because Jerome won’t cut interest rates. If Jerome cut interest rates, he would save the United States hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments. Just by waving his interest rate wand.
Jerome made noises last week suggesting there would be an interest rate cut in September, and maybe others later, and the Stock Market gained 1,000 points at one point, and finished at a new record high.
Trump will eventually get all these bottlenecks straightened out.
Trump is taking in a lot of tariff money, too. He’s going to apply that to reducing the debt. Or a taxcut. But I think he should stick to using the money to pay off debt.
I’m not the most experienced world traveler but i did work for about a month in Djibouti. Not sure where Jeffrey Sacks is coming from but “optimistic” is way down the list of words I would use to describe Africa, and in my limited experience I can see why so many are trying to leave.
Following my visit to Vietnam on the U.S. Army Plan I’ve visited a few foreign countries (including both Left Coasts of the U.S.). I assure you that most America locations are far superior to the alternatives.
Thank you for your service. I was too young for service but well remember that period of time. My oldest son is married to a 1st generation Vietnamese girl whose parents emigrated (i.e., escaped) to Hong Kong after the war.
18 of my family members, including my great grand mother, left dysfunctional California, and moved to Idaho.
She said we should have done that 15 years ago.
Either Jeffrey is looking at another Afrika, or (even more disturbing) all those africans leaving are all useless lefties. Why would someone thriving leave his country in the first place?
Day 236 od 2025 and the Sun’s position is a little different to last year.
Today, 40N will experience 1.6W/m^2 down on the solar EMR last year. The maximum difference for fall will be down 2.1W/m^2 on 2024.
By contrast the 40S will get 2W/m^2 more today that the same day last year and the maximum spring difference will be up by 2.4W/m^2.
These differences should result in more early fall snow this year than last in the NH. The SH should enter spring a little warmer and flowering trees coming to life a few days earlier than last year.
I point out these numbers to highlight how much orbital changes impact on solar EMR year-to-year.
With the Sun now moving back toward eEarth’s ecliptic plane there is some prospect for a steel in the temperature trend similar to what was experienced after 1998. Next southern extent is 2040 then it zooms northward to a new peak in 2060.
Rick, not questioning, just curious. If the sun goes back and forth (N-S-N) across the ecliptic, why isn’t it more of a sine wave? what causes all the intermediate ups and downs between the maxima and minima?
I am using the NASA JPL database for position. I have not looked in detail at the cause of the forces out of Earth’s ecliptic. Both Jupiter and Saturn are likely to contribute the most because their ecliptic planes are 2 to 3 degrees different to Earth’s and both are large objects. I have not analysed the frequency components of the N-S movement but I expect it will be a mash of Jupiter’s 4333 earth’s days orbital period (11.8 years) and Saturn’s 10,758 earth days (29.4 years).
I am not completely convinced that JPL have the Sun’s orbit correct. I have found that a near circular orbit of the Sun around the barycentre is a solution to the forces acting on the Sun. And I also believe that the planets apply a rotational torque on the Sun that drives the solar activity due to surface shearing across latitudes. If the orbit is calculated incorrectly then that makes it impossible to determine the torque at the Sun equator.. The JPL orbit is based on the Sun being a point mass and I doubt that is valid for such a large object.
Irrespective of my doubts about the movement of the Sun in the ecliptic, I have greater confidence in the out of plane motion because there is very little torque in that plane..
The N-S motion of the Sun causes significant year-to-year variation in solar EMR at a particular latitude. Consequently it can alter poleward advection measurably from year-to-year. Accordingly, I would not be surprised if Earth experiences another global warming hiatus for the next 15 years.
Rick, I’m not sure if this will help or further confuse, but as we all know, multiple body problems often are mind-bending even with “simple” Newtonian mechanics. I think the complex oscillations in the sun’s “position” are probably due to our using a geocentric coordinate system while dealing with a body (the sun) orbiting the solar system barycenter in it’s own orbital plane which is not exactly the Plane of the Ecliptic. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that for the Earth there are four bodies whose gravity has some significant effect on the Earth’s motion — the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn. No matter where you put the center of your coordinate system and orient its axis, the motion of the other bodies is, I think, going to appear to have complex wobbles.
showing the motion of the sun around the solar system barycenter.
I don’t know whether it’s possible to match it up to your chart. I’m for sure not going to try. But maybe the correlation or lack thereof will be obvious to you.
I have relied on NASA JPL to calculate the Sun position and very appreciative of the Horizons app that makes that data readily available at high time resolution. I do not have the computing power to reproduce these motions.
I have not looked at the Z-axis motion relative to the other two axes but that could be revealing.
I have previously looked at the forces acting on the Sun. I looked at the Z-axis to understand why the solar intensity had changed over the CERES period for the that was published on Sunday.
Rickwill,
I appreciate your posts about this factor and other related orbital considerations. That JPL Horizons web page you have referred to [ https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/ ] will turn out to be very useful in refuting the persistent bleating of the herd: “But what else could it be, but CO2, that is driving the current warming trend?”
What else? I vote for the improvement of air quality following the 1948 Donora smog disaster in Pennsylvania and the Great Smog of 1952 in London. One aspect was the increasing use of hydrodesulfurization (HDS) to reduce Sulfur Dioxide emissions.
Rick The included angle of the Suns disc is O.539 degrees and the fig. 9 variation of .0002 AU up/down on our 1 AU from the Sun is only .0115 degrees or .023 degrees from peak to peak. This would make NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to the amount of sunlight reaching our planet. As viewed from Earth would only be a variation of 4% of the diameter of the Sun…4% of the width of your thumb held at arm’s length if you were a Boy Scout. On a quick calc on 1360 incoming solar, I got 0.4 watts, and it would be 30% less due to albedo. The “official” published “solar constant” has changed by more than that over the last 30 years, so we’re at the limits of our accuracy on this. Your discussion is welcome.
Some time ago here at WUWT there was a note that some thought that IPCC AR7 would attempt to correct the “mistake” made in AR6’s WGI Chapter 12’s finding of no increase in extreme weather nor any attribution to Man-made CO2. Its going to be fun reading how the Computer-Weather Attribution nuts are going to overcome the factual observations that there has been no increases in extreme weather incidents, strength nor duration.
Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2025 5:23 am
With the Climate Liar Empire collapsing under the weight of its’ own lies, I’m thinking maybe they should just go ahead and cancel COP30. I mean, what would be the point of it all now, other than the chance to vacay and party and hobnob and climate grift and virtue signal all in an exotic locale, and all at others’ expense?
Oh wait.
CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:
1) increase command/control by governments, and
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for:
1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and
2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
. At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, kill birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly (c/kWh) to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices (c/kWh) in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the moneyed elites who live in the poshest places.
. Native People Suffer Extra Burdens: Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations, already burdened by the wind/solar/batteries nonsense, and then further burdened by the bureaucrat/moneyed elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, unskilled, ghetto-trash, crime-prone, poor folks, from dysfunctional countries.
Those folks are sucking from the multiple, government-program tits, while making:
1) minimal efforts to produce goods and services; and
2) maximum efforts to be chaotic, culture-destroying burden, the native populations never voted for.
. Minimal Temperature Change due to CO2: The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for about 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
This comment presents an A-to-Z picture to show the extent of the screwing, aka FCOE.
Very few know how to create such an overview, even less have the freedom to show it to others. The real question is affording wind and solar. There is an 11 c/kWh adder, on top of their high c/kWh, made to “look small” due to 50% subsidies.
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people. . Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction .
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems . Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
Remove your subsidy dollars using your vote, none of these projects would be built, your electric bills would be lower.
Ban Corrupt Mail-in Ballots and corruptible Voting Machines; No Valid ID, No Vote.
Total dead (both sides) seems to be about 300,000. Another million wounded. Estimates vary. Still, that’s a lot of mostly young men in a region that didn’t need these extraordinary loses. The big number is the 7,000,000 that have left.
The missing are likely dead, blow to small pieces, that get eaten by scavenging stray dogs and wildlife, so 1.7 million missing and dead, as documented by the Ukraine General Staff. Those documents were hacked by several hackers. Read the article.
The number left since 2014, the year of the violent coup of Kiev, is at least 12 million, about 50% to Russia where they can speak Russian and can easily get a job, the rest to other parts of the world
Kiev has political control of only 20 million people, of which 10.6 million are retired.
Now you know why it needs a ceasefire to rearm, refit, and survive.
Yet they haven’t lost yet.
Russia tried to act like it was still a superpower… and they did it.
This is their latest Vietnam.
They will have to run away eventually.
Ukraine has a Tet offensive within its figurative hands.
Hopefully this year. Maybe next year. But it will come…
Vietnam was a military victory for the United States. Then, after the Peace Agreement was signed with North Vietnam, the U.S. military went home.
South Vietnam was still South Vietnam when the American troops left. South Vietnam was lost because of the depraved actions of people like Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden. Yes, *that* Joe Biden.
The Democrats had control of both Houses of Congress at the time, and they voted to throw South Vietnam to the wolves, by cutting their budget to the bone,overriding the veto of President Ford.
The U.S. military did not lose South Vietnam, it was the delusional Democrats who did that. Democrats screw up national defense every time they are put in charge. They are not fit to govern our country. They, and their stupid decisions, are responsible for the death and displacement of literally millions of innocent people.
The Tet Offensive was a huge failure on the part of the North Vietnamese. As was the Mini-Tet offensive that was launched several months later (that’s when I arrived in Vietnam). The Viet Cong were practically wiped out during the Tet Offensive. They believed their own propaganda and thought they were going to kick the U.S. out of Vietnam (perhaps they were reading the New York Times), and so after hiding within the South Vietnamese society for years, they came out of hiding and were quickly wiped out by American and South Vietnamese forces.
The South Vietnamese population living in the United States are some of the most patriotic Americans you will meet. They understand the situation.
North Vietnam signed a peace agreement, because we were threatening to bomb Hanoi to smithereens with B52s; it would have looked like Dresden, Germany.
North Vietnam knew how unpopular the war was in the US (Johnson increased troops from 35000 to 575000)
Johnson, a Democrat, did not run for a second term.
1966goathead
August 24, 2025 8:51 am
From the EPA’s Climate Working Group: “…..Ambient outdoor air today contains about 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, increasing at about 2 ppm per year....”
2 ppm = 2 divided by 1,000,000 and times 100 = 0.0002% of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere weighs 5,500,000,000,000,000 metric tons.
2% of this is:
0.000002 times 5,500,000,000,000,000 = 11,000,000,000 metric tons.
This is the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere every year and would be required to be eliminated to keep CO2 levels from rising above todays current levels.
Of all of the proposals that I have seen, none of them even come close to eliminate this level of new emissions.
CO2 is a blessing for the world, because it is a vital ingredient for green flora, which supports fauna, and increases crops/acre to better feed 8 billion people.
WE NEED MORE CO2 ppm
Gases are not black bodies and do not radiate IR based on their temperature.
Heat is a form of energy that is based on a difference in temperature. From hot to cold. It is only counted as it crosses the boundary between object and surroundings or object and cooler object. Before crossing it is internal energy (u) after crossing it is again internal energy.
For radiation from a colder object to be absorbed by a warmer object the photon must strike a molecule that is at a lower energy level.
Attached is a chart for nitrogen and oxygen absorption/emission.
From your link:” It is in fact the large abundance of oxygen and nitrogen which compensates for their only weak interaction with infrared radiation through collision-induced absorption bands.”
According to the above any infrared they give off is collision induced and has nothing to do with temperature.
LIFETIME PERFORMANCE OF WORLD’S FIRST OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEM IN THE NORTH SEA https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm
.
Decommissioning has started at the 26-year-old Vindeby offshore project. .
The 4.95 MW Vindeby offshore project was installed in 1991
It was located 1.5 – 3.0 km off the southern Danish coast.
.
1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Turbine System – Denmark
Years of operation: 1991 – 2016 (25y)
Capital cost: 75M Danish Kroner = $13M (1991$) = $23M (2017$)
Number of turbines: 11 each 450 kW
Lifetime generation: 243,000 MWh in 25 y, or 9720 MWh/y
Nameplate capacity: 4.95 MW
Average power output: 1.1 MW
Cost: $13 million/4.95 MW = $2,627/kW (1991$); $4,700/kW (2017$)
Lifetime capacity factor: 1.1/4.95 = 22.2%
Those wind turbines should have had a CF of about 0.30, but significant downtime, due to breakdowns/increased maintenance caused electricity production to be much less.
1) Levelized capital cost, including financing is $53/MWh (1991$), $95/MWh (2017$)
2) Levelized variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM: $68/MWh (2017$), or 6.8 c/kWh
The calculation is using VOM at $130/installed kW-y, per industry data for 2015. See URL
The installed wind turbine capacity in operation was 4950 kW for one year.
VOM was $130/installed kW-y in 2015, or $134/installed kW-y, in 2017, after adjusting for inflation
Annual maintenance of turbines and cabling to shore is 4950 x 134 = $663,300/y (2017$)
Annual electricity production is 9720 MWh/y, as above stated
Levelized VOM is 663,300/9720 = $68/MWh (2017$)
3) Levelized miscellaneous cost, including Owner return on investment: $39/MWh
Total levelized cost = 53 + 68 + 39 = $160/MWh (2017$) See Note
. Not included are the following:
The levelized cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
The levelized cost of any onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about $20/MWh
The levelized cost of a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract/balance the ups and downs of wind output, 24/7/365, about $20/MWh
Cost: $5,000/kW
Capacity factor: 40%
This factor is greater when the system is new, but become less as the years go by, due to increased downtimes for maintenance
Variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM is $130/kW-yr, per industry standard for 2015
Total levelized cost is $150/MWh (2015$), $154/MWh (2017$)
The total levelized cost is reduced with government subsidies by about 40 to 50%.
This enables the Owner to sell his electricity at about 8 c/kWh, or $80/MWh.
This creates the PR appearance of wind being competitive with the levelized cost of fossil fuel and hydro power plants.
.
Conclusions:
1) Whereas, turbines are getting larger, and able to operate at lower wind speeds, and have greater capacity factors, the total levelized cost, $/MWh, has hardly decreased from 1991 to 2015, 24 years.
Longer cabling from turbines to shore, and higher costs of VOM for larger turbines located farther from shore likely
consumed savings from higher capacity factors.
2) Because wind power is weather dependent, offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal power plants, which have:
– Half the cost (about $70/MWh) and
– Are steady and fully dispatchable, and
– Have much higher value to the electric grid.
A very pro-Russian take on Ukraine. Ukrainians do not consider themselves a made-up country. They have long-standing enmity with Russia over Stalin’s Holodomor, for instance.
After the collapse of Czarist Russia, Ukraine nationalists proclaimed Ukraine as a state in 1917, but that state did not last.
The Reds defeated the Whites, and the USSR was established in 1921, along with 15 SSRs; Ukraine was one of those SSRs
Only the USSR Central Committee, led by Lenin, had sovereign powers.
All of the Ukraine SSR land area had been sovereign lands of Czarist Russia for at least since 1783 and longer.
The word Ukraine means borderland.
Later several areas were ceded by defeated European countries to the USSR Central Committee, which added them to enlarge West Ukraine
After the USSR collapsed in 1991, Ukraine declared independence, as did many other SSRs
Westfieldmike
August 24, 2025 2:38 pm
There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of an entire planet. It’s absolute nonsense. Half the planet is not monitored at all. Satellite measurements record ground temperatures. Even those may not be accurate. Ground temperatures are higher than air temperatures.
To claim that they can measure planetary temperatures in small degrees is hilarious.
I commented on the DOE’s “Critical Review…” report last Tuesday. It has not been posted officially yet. This is from the confirmation e-mail. We’ll see what happens.
====
Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Document Type: Notice
Title: Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Document ID: DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001
Comment:
The Critical Review report is well-written, well-supported, and highly relevant to policy. However, this comment identifies and explores one aspect of the decades-long climate investigation that has not been addressed in this recent work.
The May 23, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Restoring Gold Standard Science” includes a requirement under Sec. 4: “(c) When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
The investigation of Earth’s climate system response to anthropogenic influence, mainly through rising concentration of CO2 and other IR-active gases, has relied on computer simulations of the earth system. These models are time-step-iterated computed representations of the land, oceans, and atmosphere in which incident solar radiation is absorbed or reflected, and in which the surface and the atmosphere (including clouds) end up emitting longwave radiation back to space. The climate state resulting from the computation at each time step is passed to the next. The evolution of a global average surface air temperature is regarded as a key metric. Therefore the propagation of uncertainty must be addressed. The practice has been to pre-stabilize the simulations in a pre-industrial control exercise, and then to apply pre-determined time-scheduled “forcing” scenarios. But this approach does not negate the inherent problem of accumulating uncertainty in the statistical sense of the reliability of the result.
continued in the first reply….
…
To illustrate the critical issue arising from the use of such models for policy guidance, a prompted analysis by the Grok 3 AI agent was performed. The analysis uses the published uncertainty (best case – even if unrealistic) of the geometric average value of Total Solar Irradiance. This uncertainty is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. [1] The external value of TSI is posed in this exercise as the only source of uncertainty as the time steps proceed. The model is otherwise assumed to be perfect in computing a surface temperature response. The resulting uncertainty after only one year of iteration is about +/-4C on a 95% confidence basis. For the details, please see the attached document. This unresolvable buildup of uncertainty is inherent to the time-step-iterated computation and therefore cannot be ignored. It is orders of magnitude too large for reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the hypothesized surface temperature response being investigated. The honest conclusion must be, in this writers view, that none of the time-step-iterated models produces, or has ever produced, any reliable policy-actionable information relevant to anthropogenic warming from GHGs.
[1] Loeb, et al, 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml referenced here https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
P.S. In the published literature, this 2019 paper stands out on this topic -“Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” by Patrick Frank. It is noted that Dr. Spencer posted a critique following its publication, disagreeing with the author. It is hoped that Dr. Spencer and the other CWG authors will take a new look at this issue. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Thank you for considering this comment.
===== (end of comment to DOE)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
(The attached document can be viewed after the comment is posted by DOE. I’ll not link to it here separately.)
I changed my mind. Here is the attachment for those who are curious.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j56NA0qRZvVMdosxjzOkLoXvwbKg9Ds1/view?usp=sharing
Nice! However, this is only one part of the uncertainty. The global temperatures used also have uncertainty at the very start which also contribute to the overall uncertainty of any output. Uncertainties add. always. This means both the input uncertainty and the uncertainty contributed by the model process must be evaluated. It makes the values of anomalies lie far within the uncertainty interval which means you can’t KNOW the true value.
“However, this is only one part of the uncertainty.” Correct. This is an exercise to make the point that even an imaginary model of perfected fidelity to the real climate system is not capable of determining a reliable answer. The implication is that time-step-iterated models should never have been proposed in the first place as an investigative tool concerning “GHG”s.
The Tick: Update, Introducing Frankenstein and Igor or Eyegore…
Recently, Chris Morrison reported on the Daily Sceptic about a pair of US academics, Professor Parker Crutchfield and Assistant Professor Blake Hereth, both of Western Michigan University, and their lunatic scheme to genetically modify a certain obscure species of tick to deliberately infect innocent Americans with an allergy to red meat and dairy-products, thereby forcibly turning them vegan to save the planet.
Dissecting their careers further, it turns out the idea of using ticks to spread the debilitating disease of veganism is not even half of it. Professor Frankenstein and Igor are qualified experts in the arena of Medical Ethics, specifically a new, little-known sub-field known as ‘moral bioenhancement’. What does that mean? Quite literally, it means the art of chemically modifying humans – in secret, without their prior permission or knowledge – to make them more agreeably Left-wing. – Daily Sceptic
Alarmists have some real rum characters (ne’er-do-wells) in their midst. And for their part, the propaganda struggle goes ever on…
Air pollution from oil and gas causes 90,000 premature US deaths each year, says new study
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/22/air-pollution-oil-gas-health-study
Sounds pretty definitive – causes, no ifs and/or buts. So, how do they know this to be a solid fact? Attribution modelling.
“They plugged that data into a computer model”
Of course they did.
“While Indigenous and Hispanic populations are most affected by pollution from exploration, extraction, transportation and storage, Black and Asian populations are most affected by emissions from processing, refining, manufacturing, distribution and usage.”
Ah, so the bottom line is it’s also very racist.
I modelled output from the Guardian and got a 98% probability that each day will contain utter claptrap dressed up as a scientific scare for public consumption – partnered by the BBC
“Air pollution from oil and gas causes 90,000 premature US deaths each year”
Name one person.!!
Use of oil and gas products helps many billions of people worldwide to live a functional and enjoyable lifestyle.
Oil and gas products ENHANCE life.
Remove oil and gas and their products, and all modern civilisation would totally collapse.
Then how many deaths would there be. !
““While Indigenous and Hispanic populations are most affected by pollution from exploration, extraction, transportation and storage, Black and Asian populations are most affected by emissions from processing, refining, manufacturing, distribution and usage.”
I guess white people are not affected by all that, since they were not mentioned.
That’s what the loony left call “white privilege.”
Loony is the best description we have, but that pales into insignificance when you consider just how utterly bonkers these people are.
This is a family channel, I was trying to keep it civil. Although apparently the civility is only one-sided. It’s only when the gloves come off and we start playing by their rules do we start winning.
It’s not loony, it’s straight-up evil.
How long before anyone with ancestry back to the original 13 colonies can be called indigenous?
Surely by now…
Certainly not before the Left can be brought to heel. Beneath all the Marxist trappings, the Left longs for a return to the supposedly bucolic state of primitive man before he (she/it/they) were despoiled by the advent of private property. You know, when people had their beating hearts ripped out of their chests in order to ensure that the Sun would rise in the East, or that the rains would fall, etc. And from what I understand, such primitivism was fairly common everywhere.
I’m related to the people who established Jamestown in 1607, so that must make me indigenous.
My folks pre-Revolution New England, plus lots of Native admixture-you know, frontier and all, so I’m indigenous too…actually as are pretty near any US person who has been here for a couple of generations worth of mixing…we’re very busy mixers…
Well the Asia-Pacific Region was responsible for 52% of world electricity production in 2024 compared to the US and Europe’s 30% and the region also saw 68% of global energy demand increase. This is a trend which is only going to continue.
Figures from latest Energy Institute ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’
Those tax-paying white folks mostly live in leafy neighborhoods to escape urban blight.
They die of other diseases, usually self-inflicted.
What is the life expectancy in poor countries in Africa and middle/south America, with minimal use of fossil fuels?
What is the life expectancy, after those African and middle/south American folks come to the US, usually uninvited?
Would that mixing drag down the average US life expectancy?
Most leftists don’t care if whites suffer. In fact they support such suffering.
Most leftists, and many of them are white, wish white people would no longer exist.
The Left has to have a Demon to fight against, and in the current day, that Demon is White People.
That’s why the part of the article I quoted didn’t address anything about white people because the radical left wants to cancel white people, so they act like they don’t exist in many cases, such as this one.
The more they try to erase us white folks, the more we export from where those other folks came from, often uninvited.
It is self preservation.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
“Medical Ethics”
These “people” are about as ethical as Mengele. Actually, considering the scale of their “ethics”, Mengele is small potatoes.
It’s not their careers that need dissecting.
Here’s another opportunity for Republicans.
They need to publicize this paper, and demand that their Democrat opponents both condemn it and de-fund the authors of it as well as defunding any organization that supported them.
Tracy Edwards, the yachtswoman, quoted in the Telegraph, talking about her opposition to the inclusion of trans people in women’s sporting competitions:
“I know from sailing with men, when I’ve been the only woman on the boat, that the physical, immediate, explosive power of men can be shockingly extraordinary, and they can summon it at a moment’s notice.
As women, we know this power dynamic to our cost – that you can be fit and strong, but that the bloke can still pulverise you.
She is implacable, in the face of constant abuse and belittling by trans activists. “There’s no point arguing with them,” she shrugs. “It’s like explaining the theory of relativity to my dog.”
I blame the places of the origin and dissemination of critical theories – no names mentioned, but lets call them Legion, for they are many and most know who they are.
The moustached neo-Nazi in a women’s prison
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/21/the-moustached-neo-nazi-in-a-womens-prison/
When you think it can’t get any more insane, things like that… Crazy.
And “Legion” is another name for the absolute evil demons(?) loose in our world. Said badly, but the point is obvious.
I should think the “trans people” should have their own leagues.
Male
Female
Whatever
A trans guy, with trinkets intact, that says he is a lesbian, getting with a gal that calls herself “he”. That’s just ??????
“That’s just ??????”
It’s crazy, is what it is.
I was shocked to see the other day that the U.S. military had about 8,000 people who indentified as a different gender from the way they were born. I believe they have all been asked to leave the military by the Trump administration.
The U.S. military needs people in it with their heads screwed on straight. People with trans issues don’t qualify, imo. The U.S. military should not be a social experiment.
It would be a biological male league, since biological women don’t normally try to compete in men’s sports and if they do, they don’t win gold metals.
No, we are mainly talking about biological males competing against biological females, and it should not be allowed.
It’s crazy to try to ruin women’s sports just because a small portion of the population is mentally ill. Treat the illness, but don’t pander to their delusions.
The radical Left hangs its hat on some really strange issues. Next thing you know, they will be promoting illegal criminal aliens.
What I find surprising is that women haven’t been more vocal about the issue. As I understand it, women once knew that it would be rare that any woman wouldn’t be at a serious disadvantage competing against men, except maybe for endurance events. To avoid always losing, they advocated for, and got, women’s leagues. Now, they are back where they started, losing against men — who are not competitive against other men.
They have been brainwashed since sexless Sponge Bob
Yes. Leagues that no one will watch, except perhaps for the comedic value.
Suzanne Moore in the daily telegraph has a new definition of “TERF”. Tired of explaining reality to fuc kwits
Sweet.
I raced a 30-ft sloop on Long Island Sound
Female members of crews usually are not up to par, especially when winds and waves are high.
Will the mean summer temperature for 1976 be knocked off the top of the CET?
It’s amazing what a difference a day makes to the outlook forecast, let alone a week, just shows how bad they still are.
By my calculation with the current forecast, summer 2025 will now fall just short, but one unexpectedly warm day or night could make the difference.
The average maximum temperature for 1976 will prevail.
The average minimum temperature for 1976 was not particularly high and will be comfortably beaten by 2025 (which is why the mean is so close).
The UK summer as a whole could well beat 1976, as the worst heat of 1976 was not entirely countrywide.
If you happen to be going by Met Office data you’re wasting your time.
Call it an Amber warning!
Call it a symptom of UK decline
It’s a sign of general science decline- a decline that is hard to hide – without oppression
I remember 1976 very well, and this summer is nowhere near as warm. It was also much dryer, and came after the very warm year of 1975, The night time temperatures this year were probably warmer due to Urban heat effect, but daytime temperatures were much warmer, London had 55 days over 25 C and 21 days over 30 C in 1976 For 16 consecutive days from the 24th June saw 32 C reached every day somewhere in the UK. I cant remember any cool days during 1976, This year there have been many, especially during August.
But Robert, that’s not what UK’s many Class 5 and non-existent weathers site say. 😉
The UK population has increased by 20% since 1976.
And we have not built any new reservoirs for most of that time; none since privatisation in 1991 – obviously.
Yet we needed water rationing in 1976.
Drought Act 1976
Now we have a few areas with hosepipe bans. But no need for Parliament to interfere?
It’s hard for the Met Office to explain.
MrGrimNasty:
The TEMPORARY temperature spike in 1976 was caused by the Aug 1976-Mar 1977 El Nino.
Forget about it!
The 1976-77 climate shift refers to a significant warming event in the Tropical Pacific that had global impacts, … etc. {so says Duck Assist}
This topic has been reported on numerous times. I suspect here on WUWT, but I haven’t tried today.
It occurred to me that we’re living in a democratic western world that is destined to fail.
First you cast your vote with a paper ballot.
Once you realize that it’s good for nothing you vote with your feet, seeking a better place to live.
The time comes when you run out of options, because all places turn out to be the same quagmire. Then you vote with your fists.
Question: why start with paper in the first place? 🤪 sarc
A good leader can make all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, they are few, and far between.
But we have one now! Let’s ride this wave!
Let’s hope 47 makes a true difference, looking good so far, regardless I’ll pass my final judgement in 2028.
I do want to try to be more optimistic but life keeps pushing me back to reality.
It seems to me like we’re in the calm before the storm. The globalist traitors have already lit the fuse on the debt bomb that is going to destroy us, and there’s no way to put it out. Real estate and stock market bubbles have to pop soon.
Why do you think Trump is so upset with the Federal Reserve not lowering interest rates? We have trillions in short term debt that has to be refinanced.
In the USA there are more people aware of the new Cracker Barrel logo than the “debt bomb”.
“soon” is undefined. If over 10 years I will likely miss the fireworks.
Sadly true. But imagine, getting rid of the cracker AND the barrel! Priorities!
As will most of us.
Trump is mad at Jerome because Jerome won’t cut interest rates. If Jerome cut interest rates, he would save the United States hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments. Just by waving his interest rate wand.
Jerome made noises last week suggesting there would be an interest rate cut in September, and maybe others later, and the Stock Market gained 1,000 points at one point, and finished at a new record high.
Trump will eventually get all these bottlenecks straightened out.
Trump is taking in a lot of tariff money, too. He’s going to apply that to reducing the debt. Or a taxcut. But I think he should stick to using the money to pay off debt.
Those savings occur only with newly issued bills and bonds.
The rates of exiting bills and bonds are fixed until maturity.
Reducing federal expenditure by at least $2 trillion to balance the budget would be more important than interest rates reductions.
Jeffrey Sacks thinks Africa is the most optimistic continent
Why are so many trying to leave?
I’m not the most experienced world traveler but i did work for about a month in Djibouti. Not sure where Jeffrey Sacks is coming from but “optimistic” is way down the list of words I would use to describe Africa, and in my limited experience I can see why so many are trying to leave.
What do you call the leader of Djibouti? sheikh Djibouti
Sheikh sheikh sheikh Djibouti!
Sheik Yerbouti, if you’re old enough to remember Frank Zappa.
Following my visit to Vietnam on the U.S. Army Plan I’ve visited a few foreign countries (including both Left Coasts of the U.S.). I assure you that most America locations are far superior to the alternatives.
Thank you for your service. I was too young for service but well remember that period of time. My oldest son is married to a 1st generation Vietnamese girl whose parents emigrated (i.e., escaped) to Hong Kong after the war.
My daughter is part Vietnamese. I didn’t know she existed until about four years ago when she found me using a DNA test.
Now, we live together. She lives in the house next to mine. 🙂
But there are reasons that many of us have left California, and wouldn’t consider NY or Wokachusetts.
18 of my family members, including my great grand mother, left dysfunctional California, and moved to Idaho.
She said we should have done that 15 years ago.
Either Jeffrey is looking at another Afrika, or (even more disturbing) all those africans leaving are all useless lefties. Why would someone thriving leave his country in the first place?
Perhaps they are optimistic because they are planning on leaving.
Trump has tamped down the dysfunctional, Biden-induced exodus, which will take hundreds of $billions to undo during the Trump and Vance eras.
Day 236 od 2025 and the Sun’s position is a little different to last year.
Today, 40N will experience 1.6W/m^2 down on the solar EMR last year. The maximum difference for fall will be down 2.1W/m^2 on 2024.
By contrast the 40S will get 2W/m^2 more today that the same day last year and the maximum spring difference will be up by 2.4W/m^2.
These differences should result in more early fall snow this year than last in the NH. The SH should enter spring a little warmer and flowering trees coming to life a few days earlier than last year.
I point out these numbers to highlight how much orbital changes impact on solar EMR year-to-year.
With the Sun now moving back toward eEarth’s ecliptic plane there is some prospect for a steel in the temperature trend similar to what was experienced after 1998. Next southern extent is 2040 then it zooms northward to a new peak in 2060.
Rick, not questioning, just curious. If the sun goes back and forth (N-S-N) across the ecliptic, why isn’t it more of a sine wave? what causes all the intermediate ups and downs between the maxima and minima?
I am using the NASA JPL database for position. I have not looked in detail at the cause of the forces out of Earth’s ecliptic. Both Jupiter and Saturn are likely to contribute the most because their ecliptic planes are 2 to 3 degrees different to Earth’s and both are large objects. I have not analysed the frequency components of the N-S movement but I expect it will be a mash of Jupiter’s 4333 earth’s days orbital period (11.8 years) and Saturn’s 10,758 earth days (29.4 years).
I am not completely convinced that JPL have the Sun’s orbit correct. I have found that a near circular orbit of the Sun around the barycentre is a solution to the forces acting on the Sun. And I also believe that the planets apply a rotational torque on the Sun that drives the solar activity due to surface shearing across latitudes. If the orbit is calculated incorrectly then that makes it impossible to determine the torque at the Sun equator.. The JPL orbit is based on the Sun being a point mass and I doubt that is valid for such a large object.
Irrespective of my doubts about the movement of the Sun in the ecliptic, I have greater confidence in the out of plane motion because there is very little torque in that plane..
The N-S motion of the Sun causes significant year-to-year variation in solar EMR at a particular latitude. Consequently it can alter poleward advection measurably from year-to-year. Accordingly, I would not be surprised if Earth experiences another global warming hiatus for the next 15 years.
Thanks for the explanation. Kinda out of my wheelhouse.
Yeah, me too. I’m still confused…curious and open minded, but confused.
Rick, I’m not sure if this will help or further confuse, but as we all know, multiple body problems often are mind-bending even with “simple” Newtonian mechanics. I think the complex oscillations in the sun’s “position” are probably due to our using a geocentric coordinate system while dealing with a body (the sun) orbiting the solar system barycenter in it’s own orbital plane which is not exactly the Plane of the Ecliptic. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that for the Earth there are four bodies whose gravity has some significant effect on the Earth’s motion — the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn. No matter where you put the center of your coordinate system and orient its axis, the motion of the other bodies is, I think, going to appear to have complex wobbles.
There’s a really interesting graphic at
https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Solar%20System%20Barycenter.htm
showing the motion of the sun around the solar system barycenter.
I don’t know whether it’s possible to match it up to your chart. I’m for sure not going to try. But maybe the correlation or lack thereof will be obvious to you.
I have relied on NASA JPL to calculate the Sun position and very appreciative of the Horizons app that makes that data readily available at high time resolution. I do not have the computing power to reproduce these motions.
I have not looked at the Z-axis motion relative to the other two axes but that could be revealing.
I have previously looked at the forces acting on the Sun. I looked at the Z-axis to understand why the solar intensity had changed over the CERES period for the that was published on Sunday.
Rick, I’m not entirely sure what you’re up to or what you need, but I wonder if the “Gravity Simulator” at
http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1606055500986_Solar%20Systen%20Barycenter.html
might be useful to you. It certainly looks like it ought to be good for something even if I’m all that clear on what.
Rickwill,
I appreciate your posts about this factor and other related orbital considerations. That JPL Horizons web page you have referred to [ https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/ ] will turn out to be very useful in refuting the persistent bleating of the herd: “But what else could it be, but CO2, that is driving the current warming trend?”
What else? I vote for the improvement of air quality following the 1948 Donora smog disaster in Pennsylvania and the Great Smog of 1952 in London. One aspect was the increasing use of hydrodesulfurization (HDS) to reduce Sulfur Dioxide emissions.
“I vote for the improvement of air quality…” Plausible as a factor, agreed.
Rick
The included angle of the Suns disc is O.539 degrees and the fig. 9 variation of .0002 AU up/down on our 1 AU from the Sun is only .0115 degrees or .023 degrees from peak to peak. This would make NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to the amount of sunlight reaching our planet. As viewed from Earth would only be a variation of 4% of the diameter of the Sun…4% of the width of your thumb held at arm’s length if you were a Boy Scout.
On a quick calc on 1360 incoming solar, I got 0.4 watts, and it would be 30% less due to albedo. The “official” published “solar constant” has changed by more than that over the last 30 years, so we’re at the limits of our accuracy on this. Your discussion is welcome.
I have given a detailed response to this comment on my recent article.
Adding some more heat to the ocean ….https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-powers-ai-boom-with-undersea-data-centers/
Story tip – does the IPCC know WUWT is going offline?
IPCC Likely to Start Blaming Humans For Weather as Friederike Otto Takes Key Role
It’s all change at the IPCC, with the appointment of Attribution Queen Friederike Otto and a troop of fellow attributionists to take charge of writing a new chapter on extreme weather for its forthcoming seventh climate science assessment report.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/08/24/ipcc-likely-to-start-blaming-humans-for-weather-as-friederike-otto-takes-key-role/
Some time ago here at WUWT there was a note that some thought that IPCC AR7 would attempt to correct the “mistake” made in AR6’s WGI Chapter 12’s finding of no increase in extreme weather nor any attribution to Man-made CO2. Its going to be fun reading how the Computer-Weather Attribution nuts are going to overcome the factual observations that there has been no increases in extreme weather incidents, strength nor duration.
With the Climate Liar Empire collapsing under the weight of its’ own lies, I’m thinking maybe they should just go ahead and cancel COP30. I mean, what would be the point of it all now, other than the chance to vacay and party and hobnob and climate grift and virtue signal all in an exotic locale, and all at others’ expense?
Oh wait.
So you mean like the past 29?
But wait, you forgot the high-priced hookers….
You beat me to it.
CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:
1) increase command/control by governments, and
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for:
1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and
2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, kill birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly (c/kWh) to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices (c/kWh) in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the moneyed elites who live in the poshest places.
.
Native People Suffer Extra Burdens: Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations, already burdened by the wind/solar/batteries nonsense, and then further burdened by the bureaucrat/moneyed elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, unskilled, ghetto-trash, crime-prone, poor folks, from dysfunctional countries.
Those folks are sucking from the multiple, government-program tits, while making:
1) minimal efforts to produce goods and services; and
2) maximum efforts to be chaotic, culture-destroying burden, the native populations never voted for.
.
Minimal Temperature Change due to CO2: The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for about 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
This comment presents an A-to-Z picture to show the extent of the screwing, aka FCOE.
Very few know how to create such an overview, even less have the freedom to show it to others.
The real question is affording wind and solar. There is an 11 c/kWh adder, on top of their high c/kWh, made to “look small” due to 50% subsidies.
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
Remove your subsidy dollars using your vote, none of these projects would be built, your electric bills would be lower.
Ban Corrupt Mail-in Ballots and corruptible Voting Machines; No Valid ID, No Vote.
Ukraine has lost over 1.7 million troops (killed, seriously wounded and missing) since February 2022, according to hacked and leaked docs
https://willempost.substack.com/p/ukraine-has-lost-over-17-million?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Total dead (both sides) seems to be about 300,000. Another million wounded. Estimates vary. Still, that’s a lot of mostly young men in a region that didn’t need these extraordinary loses. The big number is the 7,000,000 that have left.
The missing are likely dead, blow to small pieces, that get eaten by scavenging stray dogs and wildlife, so 1.7 million missing and dead, as documented by the Ukraine General Staff. Those documents were hacked by several hackers. Read the article.
The number left since 2014, the year of the violent coup of Kiev, is at least 12 million, about 50% to Russia where they can speak Russian and can easily get a job, the rest to other parts of the world
Kiev has political control of only 20 million people, of which 10.6 million are retired.
Now you know why it needs a ceasefire to rearm, refit, and survive.
Yet they haven’t lost yet.
Russia tried to act like it was still a superpower… and they did it.
This is their latest Vietnam.
They will have to run away eventually.
Ukraine has a Tet offensive within its figurative hands.
Hopefully this year. Maybe next year. But it will come…
The US was defeated in Vietnam, and later in Afghanistan, where it left behind at least $8 billion of modern weapons.
Lest you forget, the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan too.
By hand-held rockets given to Afghanies to destroy tanks and helicopters, as part of Charlie Wilson’s CIA war.
The Soviets, having no defense, quickly cut their losses and left in 1987, three years before the USSR collapsed
Vietnam was a military victory for the United States. Then, after the Peace Agreement was signed with North Vietnam, the U.S. military went home.
South Vietnam was still South Vietnam when the American troops left. South Vietnam was lost because of the depraved actions of people like Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden. Yes, *that* Joe Biden.
The Democrats had control of both Houses of Congress at the time, and they voted to throw South Vietnam to the wolves, by cutting their budget to the bone,overriding the veto of President Ford.
The U.S. military did not lose South Vietnam, it was the delusional Democrats who did that. Democrats screw up national defense every time they are put in charge. They are not fit to govern our country. They, and their stupid decisions, are responsible for the death and displacement of literally millions of innocent people.
The Tet Offensive was a huge failure on the part of the North Vietnamese. As was the Mini-Tet offensive that was launched several months later (that’s when I arrived in Vietnam). The Viet Cong were practically wiped out during the Tet Offensive. They believed their own propaganda and thought they were going to kick the U.S. out of Vietnam (perhaps they were reading the New York Times), and so after hiding within the South Vietnamese society for years, they came out of hiding and were quickly wiped out by American and South Vietnamese forces.
The South Vietnamese population living in the United States are some of the most patriotic Americans you will meet. They understand the situation.
North Vietnam signed a peace agreement, because we were threatening to bomb Hanoi to smithereens with B52s; it would have looked like Dresden, Germany.
North Vietnam knew how unpopular the war was in the US (Johnson increased troops from 35000 to 575000)
Johnson, a Democrat, did not run for a second term.
From the EPA’s Climate Working Group: “…..Ambient outdoor air today contains about 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, increasing at about 2 ppm per year....”
2 ppm = 2 divided by 1,000,000 and times 100 = 0.0002% of the atmosphere.
The atmosphere weighs 5,500,000,000,000,000 metric tons.
2% of this is:
0.000002 times 5,500,000,000,000,000 = 11,000,000,000 metric tons.
This is the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere every year and would be required to be eliminated to keep CO2 levels from rising above todays current levels.
Of all of the proposals that I have seen, none of them even come close to eliminate this level of new emissions.
If a dog is infested by fleas and 1 goes missing, will he notice?
CO2 is a blessing for the world, because it is a vital ingredient for green flora, which supports fauna, and increases crops/acre to better feed 8 billion people.
WE NEED MORE CO2 ppm
Gases are not black bodies and do not radiate IR based on their temperature.
Heat is a form of energy that is based on a difference in temperature. From hot to cold. It is only counted as it crosses the boundary between object and surroundings or object and cooler object. Before crossing it is internal energy (u) after crossing it is again internal energy.
For radiation from a colder object to be absorbed by a warmer object the photon must strike a molecule that is at a lower energy level.
Attached is a chart for nitrogen and oxygen absorption/emission.
This paper claims a small amount of IR absorption by N2 and O2 (a fraction of CH4). Certainly nothing on the order of a Black Body…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
From your link:” It is in fact the large abundance of oxygen and nitrogen which compensates for their only weak interaction with infrared radiation through collision-induced absorption bands.”
According to the above any infrared they give off is collision induced and has nothing to do with temperature.
LIFETIME PERFORMANCE OF WORLD’S FIRST OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEM IN THE NORTH SEA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm
.
Decommissioning has started at the 26-year-old Vindeby offshore project.
.
The 4.95 MW Vindeby offshore project was installed in 1991
It was located 1.5 – 3.0 km off the southern Danish coast.
.
1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Turbine System – Denmark
Years of operation: 1991 – 2016 (25y)
Capital cost: 75M Danish Kroner = $13M (1991$) = $23M (2017$)
Number of turbines: 11 each 450 kW
Lifetime generation: 243,000 MWh in 25 y, or 9720 MWh/y
Nameplate capacity: 4.95 MW
Average power output: 1.1 MW
Cost: $13 million/4.95 MW = $2,627/kW (1991$); $4,700/kW (2017$)
Lifetime capacity factor: 1.1/4.95 = 22.2%
Those wind turbines should have had a CF of about 0.30, but significant downtime, due to breakdowns/increased maintenance caused electricity production to be much less.
1) Levelized capital cost, including financing is $53/MWh (1991$), $95/MWh (2017$)
2) Levelized variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM: $68/MWh (2017$), or 6.8 c/kWh
The calculation is using VOM at $130/installed kW-y, per industry data for 2015. See URL
The installed wind turbine capacity in operation was 4950 kW for one year.
VOM was $130/installed kW-y in 2015, or $134/installed kW-y, in 2017, after adjusting for inflation
Annual maintenance of turbines and cabling to shore is 4950 x 134 = $663,300/y (2017$)
Annual electricity production is 9720 MWh/y, as above stated
Levelized VOM is 663,300/9720 = $68/MWh (2017$)
3) Levelized miscellaneous cost, including Owner return on investment: $39/MWh
Total levelized cost = 53 + 68 + 39 = $160/MWh (2017$) See Note
.
Not included are the following:
The levelized cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
The levelized cost of any onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about $20/MWh
The levelized cost of a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract/balance the ups and downs of wind output, 24/7/365, about $20/MWh
2015 Industry Performance Data for Offshore
Wind (http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/global-costs-analysis-year-offshore-wind-costs-fell).
Cost: $5,000/kW
Capacity factor: 40%
This factor is greater when the system is new, but become less as the years go by, due to increased downtimes for maintenance
Variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM is $130/kW-yr, per industry standard for 2015
Total levelized cost is $150/MWh (2015$), $154/MWh (2017$)
The total levelized cost is reduced with government subsidies by about 40 to 50%.
This enables the Owner to sell his electricity at about 8 c/kWh, or $80/MWh.
This creates the PR appearance of wind being competitive with the levelized cost of fossil fuel and hydro power plants.
.
Conclusions:
1) Whereas, turbines are getting larger, and able to operate at lower wind speeds, and have greater capacity factors, the total levelized cost, $/MWh, has hardly decreased from 1991 to 2015, 24 years.
Longer cabling from turbines to shore, and higher costs of VOM for larger turbines located farther from shore likely
consumed savings from higher capacity factors.
2) Because wind power is weather dependent, offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal power plants, which have:
– Half the cost (about $70/MWh) and
– Are steady and fully dispatchable, and
– Have much higher value to the electric grid.
Great head post image, Charles, well done.
w.
PEACE WOULD BE A BLESSING FOR UKRAINE; HOW UKRAINE WAS CREATED
https://willempost.substack.com/p/peace-would-be-a-blessing-for-ukraine?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
A very pro-Russian take on Ukraine. Ukrainians do not consider themselves a made-up country. They have long-standing enmity with Russia over Stalin’s Holodomor, for instance.
After the collapse of Czarist Russia, Ukraine nationalists proclaimed Ukraine as a state in 1917, but that state did not last.
The Reds defeated the Whites, and the USSR was established in 1921, along with 15 SSRs; Ukraine was one of those SSRs
Only the USSR Central Committee, led by Lenin, had sovereign powers.
All of the Ukraine SSR land area had been sovereign lands of Czarist Russia for at least since 1783 and longer.
The word Ukraine means borderland.
Later several areas were ceded by defeated European countries to the USSR Central Committee, which added them to enlarge West Ukraine
After the USSR collapsed in 1991, Ukraine declared independence, as did many other SSRs
There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of an entire planet. It’s absolute nonsense. Half the planet is not monitored at all. Satellite measurements record ground temperatures. Even those may not be accurate. Ground temperatures are higher than air temperatures.
To claim that they can measure planetary temperatures in small degrees is hilarious.