The sunspot count is highly correlated to the square of the variation in velocity of the Sun from average velocity; making time adjustment. The CoG of the Sun does not move very fast. Top speed is just under 16m/s or 58kph.
The velocity of the spin of the Sun at the Equator is probably the speed of sound (pressure waves) in the surface of the Sun.
I expect the Sun has been spun up under the influence of gravity primarily from Jupiter and the very small orbital radius causing torque on the Sun due to non-spherical distortion under the whirling force. The axis of rotation is likely an arc rather than a straight line.
I doubt the time shift between the velocity and sunspot count is entirely due to Earth observation rotating around the Sun. I expect there is a resonant condition that tunes around the average velocity and is disturbed when the velocity varies from the average and upsets the high velocity circulations across the surface and just below. The core is known to spin much faster than the surface and that is consistent with higher acoustic velocity in the higher density zone.
With a regression coefficient of 86%, I am confident that the next peak in sunspot count in the mid 2030s will be higher than the present peak. Time will tell.
Unfortunately for your explanation Rick the delayed TSI peak is not a result of the Earth moving.
TSI has been known since the mid-2000s (see Preminger etal) to lag sunspot number (and also F10.7cm solar flux), correlating slightly better with F10.7cm except for instances of high SN or F10.7 with large area sunspots which drives TSI down (ie see Oct 2003 sunspot darkening effect on TSI).
SORCE TSI peaks consistently followed the F10.7cm peaks during SC#24 with the exception of late 2013/early 2014 large area sunspots. My 2018 AGU graph:
28th October 2025 Solar average 1362.78 w-m2, for this date 1380w-m2. Earth emitting 1355.16w-m2 30th October 2025.
342.68 w-m2 (-15.56 w-m2 directly to space)
677.58 w-m2 (+81.64w-m2 latent heat), Total excess (759.23w-m2) heat for (40°N to 40°S) above 342.68w-m2
-595.94 w-m2 Outgoing Convection, IR (528w-m2 IR, 32w-m2 UV, 35.94w-m2 Convection.
-81.64 w-m2 Outgoing Latent heat
This is non – cosine latitude area weight adjustment
Earth’s global mean surface temperature 5.03°C Cosine latitude area weight adjustment is a method used in climate science to include a weight adjustment based on area size of the latitude. Polar regions have smaller areas.
90 x cos(90) = 0 x -12.9°C = 0
80 x cos(80) = 0.174 x -13.1 = -2.27°C
70 x cos(70) = 0.342 x -8.9 =2.04°C
60 x cos(60) = 0.5 x 0.1 = 0.05°C
50 x cos(50) = 0.643 x 6 = 3.86°C
40 x cos(40) = 0.766 x 14.5 = 11.11°C
30 x cos(30) = 0.866 x 20.6 = 17.84°C
20 x cos(20) = 0.940 x 28.4 = 26.69°C
10 x cos(10) = 0.985 x 28.0 = 27.57°C
0 x cos(0) = 1 x 25.9 = 25.9°C 10 x cos(10) = 0.985 x 24.5 24.13°C 20 x cos(20) = 0.940 x 23.2 21.8°C 30 x cos(30) = 0.866 x 19.8 17.15°C 40 x cos(40) = 0.766 x 11.7 8.96°C 50 x cos(50) = 0.643 x 4.9 3.15°C 60 x cos(60) = 0.5 x -1.2 -0.6°C 70 x cos(70) = 0.342 -14.4 -4.93°C 80 x cos(80) = 0.174 -30.3 -5.26°C 90 x cos(90) = 0 x –30.9°C = 0°C 388.5w-m2. 15.1°C
13.67°C 1979-2000 climatology So here is the truth as to how the global mean temperature your told is calculated. I don’t use this adjustment and the data is use fits with the total solar irradiance range. Currently the sun is moving closer to the earth and will reach the closest distance on Jan 4th. Then will distance will increase for six months. Increasing land and snow ice will decrease earths emitted radiation creating upto 90 watts negative imbalance. Next year will reverse and by July, imbalance will be positive 90 watts. Cycle repeats into fall and spring. The climatology for the baseline 1979-2000 has been adjusted down and does not fit reality. TSI isn’t 1360w-m2, your +2w-m2 out in that graph. .
The standard deviation of the distribution of temperatures.
The tropics has an average temperature of 26 degrees, with a standard deviation of -15.4 degrees towards the poles. A distribution of 5.2 degrees per 10th latitude (8 x 10° latitude) towards the higher latitudes in the poles. 41.4 degrees per hemisphere (both make up 70%) of the proportional temperature 120 degrees, that of the total solar irradiance.
This is a uniform distribution, land snow / sea ice as well as ocean temperature oscillations alters this slightly over a century.
“climate change” is often confused with weather. Alarmist often pick what is climate and what is weather.
The cosine adjustment has the average at lower latitudes, increases average by 10 degrees and 55 watts. Models are made of grids, higher latitudes has smaller grids sizes, so justification is model geometry of the earth. The former does not justify the adjustment, only the latter.
Model geometry of the earth only applies to solar irradiance not Celsius temperatures. Kelvin means absolute zero at 90 degrees latitude. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of speed of sound molecules that do not cease motion at the poles.
You misunderstood what I was asking. What is the standard deviation of the temperature distribution at a given latitude and around the earth, that is, not at a single point under the sun.
Averages ignore the gradients involved with both time and location. You have a start by recognizing that a cosine function is involved for one variable – insolation.
Much has been made from the recent Bill Gates memo in which he backs off the “climate disaster” part of his messaging. OK, but that is not the whole story. He still clings to the core claim about CO2, CH4, and N2O as harmful, and is just polishing the outside of a bucket of slop when he deletes the crisis language.
I went to the Gates memo a few days ago and read a lot of it. He is still pushing feed additives and a vaccine to reduce methane from cattle.
No, a thousand times NO. Leave the cows alone! And stop blaming the farmers!
Here is a copy-and-paste quote of the agriculture section of his memo.
===========
Agriculture (19 percent of global emissions)
Much of the emissions from agriculture comes from just two sources: the production and use of fertilizer, and grazing livestock that release methane.
Farmers can already buy one replacement for synthetic fertilizer that’s made without any emissions, and another that turns the methane in manure into organic fertilizer. Both are selling at a negative Green Premium. Now the challenge is to produce them in large quantities and persuade farmers to use them. (Pivot Bio, Windfall Bio)
Additives to cattle feed that keep livestock from producing methane are nearly cheap enough to be economical for farmers, and a vaccine that does the same thing has been shown to work. It’s now moving into the next stage of development. (Rumin8, ArkeaBio)
Another source of methane is the cultivation of rice, one of the world’s most important staple foods. Companies are helping rice farmers around the world adopt new methods that both reduce methane emissions and increase crop yields. (Rize)
One stubborn problem is that some of the nitrogen in fertilizer seeps into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. It’s very dilute, which makes it hard to capture.
================
That said, I have no problem with Gates’ promotion of advanced nuclear fission power generation systems. But not because “climate change is serious” in the sense of the claimed impact of emissions of CO2 and other IR-active trace gases.
I just learned 41.7 million people were enrolled in SNAP, and the cost was $99.8 billion in 2024, per USDA
How many of those are illegal aliens?
The USDA has $5 billion in contingency funds reserved for emergencies
Two judges ordered the USDA to use contingency funds for SNAP.
Democrats not voting on a clean CR to end the shutdown is an action of will, not emergency.
The law says, the USDA cannot spend any of its contingency funds, unless authorized by Congress, but the Democrats do not want to vote to pass a clean CR to restart the government.
Elon Musk said the reason the Democrats are not voting for the CR is because they want $1.4 TRILLION to restore subsidy programs, including healthcare/COVID emergency measures, and for other programs that are a magnet for illegals from all over the world.
He said Democrats want to convert these illegals to voters to cement a permanent majority.
There would be Communist Mayors in New York City and every other Democrat city.
The magnet only works because of the subsidies.
Corrupt Argentina emptied its jails and told its criminals and dysfunctional folks to go to the US and ply their trade there.
It will take tens of $billions to get rid of them, especially after Madero said he does not want them back..
Wind, solar and batteries cannot be built without subsidies.
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
.
If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
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:
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. . Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit 10%; Federal tax credit of 30%; State tax credit; other incentives up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation to write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction . Utilities forced to pay at least: 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind 10 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from largersolar 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 far-flung 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 means 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 means 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 .
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.
Europe has near-zero, real-growth GDP. Its economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
A Pakistani male, 32 years old, dressed in fancy, traditional, Pakistani garb, as if he is an important person, walks several paces in front of his 24 year-old wife, who pushes a baby carriage with 2 children, with 2 on each side holding on, a total of 6 children.
He has to attend Norwegian classes to receive a signature from the teacher to continue to receive free housing, free food, free healthcare, and a free allowance for incidentals, etc.
He has to go for interviews for jobs, but he has no education, no experience. He gets a signature from the employer to continue to receive subsidies.
He came as a “refuge” to Norway, at 22 years old, did not speak a word of Norwegian, married a Pakistani bride, 14 years old, brought in from Pakistan by the Norwegian government. She was pregnant a few weeks after the wedding and produce 6 kids in 10 years. Each child receives a government allowance.
Norway is rich, has a $2 trillion pension fund, invested in world equities for 5 million people, of which 500,000 are “refugees”. The Norwegian government rakes off a percentage of the total each year.
The Norwegian government brings in “refuges” to satisfy Brussels, which means Norway can trade in the EU as if a member, and well-off Norwegians can have vacation houses in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece, etc., but it also means Germans (WWII invaders) can have vacation houses in Norway.
People are adamantly opposed to anything Trump says or proposes – not because his ideas are wrong, but because they suffer from TDS. The opposition is to the messenger, not the message.
Nope. I oppose Trumps crazy ideas and immoral practices on merit. It is just there is so much to choose from. And cry me a river. When a democrat president is in power there is no a single positive thing said here about them.
Your point is well taken. Human behavior is the same in both directions. The difference I see is that under the previous administration. the politicians, press, academia and the influencers were pretty much all in favor of the Democrats and President Biden, with some small pockets of disagreement online, such as here in WUWT. During the campaign, that same group of folks were loudly opposed to Trump, while extolling the virtues of the Dems, Biden / Harris, academia, the press and the influencers, while opposed to Trump. Yet he won.
Van Jones made a good point on CNN last night – that Trump had some good ideas, but executed them badly. In my opinion, turning Elon Musk loose with a sledge hammer, rather than a scalpel, was a really bad idea. Turning ICE officers loose to treat people violently, and to be targeting anyone who even looked like an illegal immigrant, even though they might well be in the US legally, was a bad idea.
Lastly, prolonging the shutdown and trying to blame it on the Democrats has backfired badly, as seen in yesterday’s election results. There was a map of Virginia voting posted on the internet this morning, and the Democrat vote was heavy just outside DC, where many Federal workers have not received a paycheck in quite a while. People almost always vote their pocket books, and they did yesterday. So, good ideas, badly implemented.
If things don’t change soon, the Dems will take the US House and Senate in 2026.
I have to go to his website and explain to him that the reason for the low concentration of methane in air of 1.93 ppmv is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. There are many million discharges of lightning every day. (See Wikipedia). Discharges of lightning generate ozone which would oxidize methane to carbon dioxide and water.
Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of cold water can contain up to 35 mls of methane. In cold polar water, methane would slowly diffuse to the ocean floor. There under high pressure methane would form solid clathrate known as methane ice. The polar waters are quite large and absorb much methane.
We really do not have worry about the minor trace greenhouse gas methane.
“. . . the reason for the low concentration of methane in air of 1.93 ppmv is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning.”
Harold, you present an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately it is completely wrong.
There is a physical parameter, called the “flammability limit” range, for various fuels-in-air combinations that determines if a given fuel can ignited, and therefore combust, in air at near STP conditions.
Here is what Google’s AI has to say on this matter” “The flammability limits for gaseous methane in air are approximately 5% to 15% by volume. This means that a mixture of methane and air is only capable of burning or exploding when the methane concentration is within this range. Concentrations below the lower limit are “too lean,” and concentrations above the upper limit are “too rich,” lacking sufficient oxygen to combust.”
and the same AI says this: “Methane concentrations measured directly over swamps can reach up to approximately 40 ppmv, which is significantly higher than the global atmospheric background of around 2 ppmv.”
For reference 5% gaseous methane by volume is the same as 50,000 ppmv . . . way, way, way above 1.93 or even 40 ppmv.
“The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”
— attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley
I just checked. The average voltage of a lightning discharge is 300 million volts. The voltage range for lightning discharges is from 100 million to 1 billion volts and will generate lots of ozone.
I’ll ask Copilot: Does a discharge of lightning initiate combustion of methane in the atmosphere?
I still believe that a discharge of lightning will cause combustion of a molecule of methane. However, due the very low concentration of methane there will be no propagation of combustion.
Copilot search result: A discharge of lightning does not cause oxidation of methane. A lightning discharge causes the production of hydroxy radicals from water molecules. The hydroxyl radicals can then attack methane to generate a methyl radical the first step in its eventual oxidation to carbon dioxide and water.
Actually, there is not much info on if a discharges of lightning causes combustion of methane.
I did find that a discharge of lightning generates a few kilograms of ozone. I did find a paper that investigated the oxidation of methane by ozone, but it is behind a paywall. However, the abstract reports that methane is oxidized mostly to carbon dioxide and water.
How do we get the correct/actual CO2 science out to the genera public as well as ignorant policy leaders? CO2 can not warm the Earth, it only slows the natural cooling processes.
“Climate Change” is under scrutiny but the whole “CO2 drives temperatures” perception has to be broken. In the end we know the sun and ocean determine Earth temperatures. CO2 is a beneficial, trailing indicator of those temperature changes.
Here is a start. In my view, the strongest demonstration of the vanishingly weak influence of incremental CO2 is from the modelers themselves – in the computation of hourly values of energy conversion within the general circulation from the ERA5 reanalysis. More here in a formal comment to the EPA.
There are many good arguments from respected scientists that there is no harm or danger from rising CO2 levels. But often this comes along with a concession that CO2 does indeed drive at least *some* warming. The energy conversion concept and computations from the ERA5 model refute the core claim more effectively, in my opinion, by showing that there is no good reason to expect ANY “warming” as an end result, or ANY perceptible influence on trends of any climate variable.
I hope to get this message from sound science across more widely.
“out to the genera(l) public” Ask Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish to write songs. The “general public” is clueless about CO2 science and are happy. About half the public listen to Taylor and Billie.
“…nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas…” __________________________________________
Google says the global warming potential (GWP) of nitrous oxide is 265 to 310 times that of carbon dioxide. What Google doesn’t say is how that translates into actual global warming. The reason for that omission is that the warming by 2100 from any increase in nitrous oxide would be a tiny fraction of a degree.
Forget about the term “global warming potential (GWP)” in objective scientific discussions because “climate scientists” long ago decided that a value for such could not be assigned to water vapor because—now get this—“it serves to amplify the effects of other greenhouse gases.” While such a statement may be true on the surface, it overlooks the fact that H2O molecules by themselves are very strong absorbers of Earth-radiated LWIR because they are unsymmetrical molecules with a permanent dipole moment, unlike the CO2 molecule.
In terms of the actually-realized effect of intercepting LWIR from Earth’s surface and converting that energy into heat warming the atmosphere, water vapor alone accounts for ~50% of all such greenhouse effect warming, whereas CO2 accounts for ~20%.
Hint:
— the concentration of water vapor in Earth’s troposphere typically averages at about 4,000 ppmv (0.4%), but can be ten time higher at 40,000 ppm in hot, high RH air at low altitudes over Earth’s tropical regions, compared to
— the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s troposphere is currently uniform at about 425 ppmv, compared to
— the concentration of N2O (nitrous oxide) in Earth’s troposphere is currently uniform at about 0.3 ppmv.
“— the concentration of water vapor in Earth’s troposphere typically averages at about 4,000 ppmv(0.4%),” But it varies strongly with altitude, at the tropopause it’s about 5ppm whereas CO2 is still over 400ppm!
Most of the “greenhouse gases” effect occurs in the lower third of the troposphere due to the very short absorption path of LWIR in the mix of relative high density gases that exist there, excluding the relatively narrow emission frequency band known as the “atmospheric window”.
Copilot agrees with your 50/20 but adds: As CO₂ levels rise, temperatures increase slightly, which allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. This creates a positive feedback loop, doubling or more the warming effect of CO₂ alone. [science.nasa.gov]
So, your numbers (≈50% for water vapor and ≈20% for CO₂) are broadly consistent with scientific estimates for their share of the natural greenhouse effect, but the critical point is that CO₂ drives the long-term change, while water vapor amplifies it.
“. . . but the critical point is that CO₂ drives the long-term change, while water vapor amplifies it.”
Are you really asserting that if CO2 (and all other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere excluding water vapor) remained at fixed concentration levels and yet average atmospheric water vapor concentration in the lower troposphere increased by, say, 20% over 100 years, there would be no additional global warming caused just by the increase in water vapor? Really???
I expect it would be difficult to find a species of animal with an alimentary canal that doesn’t fart. Even fish fart, you can google that. The idea that cattle emitting methane (Cow Farts) was initially laughed at, but the left and the so-called mainstream media* kept at it for so long that it’s widely accepted by a lot of people that shouldn’t that methane is a problem acerbated by cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies. It fits the definition of “The Big Lie” perfectly.
*They are, by the way, trying to rebrand themselves as the “Legacy Press”
Have we not had cows, bison and similar rudiment animals for all of human history? Are they really adding to climate change? Have their numbers really changed over time in order to constitute a change in emissions, or is this just another false climate change construct to change our behaviour and restrict our choice?
One way to look at the issue is to consider that if cows weren’t utilizing the vegetation suitable for grazing, then other wild ruminants would be. Prairie grasses, in particular, have a fixed carrying capacity. Too many animals and the grazers will move or starve. If humans have replaced bison, deer, and antelope with cows, it isn’t the same as repurposing the land as in growing corn and soy beans.
I wonder if you looked at another month when the anomalous temperature was more than 1C higher. Say April 2024. What threshold does Grok believe is bad. April 2024 is much closer to what models predicted.
October this year was bound to be relatively low temperature simply because it is an anomalously low month for solar intensity in the NH; daily ToA intensity down more than 2W/m^2 on 2024. See attached that I published a while back.
There are already numerous snowfall records due to the increased fall advection. Iceland set new record snowfall. Himalayas has set new early snowfall record across India, Tibet and China. Lots of rain in Alaska that will go up and come back as snow soon enough. SH increased heating season warming just bringing more rain to Australia rather than temperature and pulling out of cold August.
Imagine there’s no DST
It’s easy if you try
No more pushing buttons
No more asking why
Imagine all the people
Living on Standard Time
You…You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
Someday you will join us
And the world will be as one.
I gather that you live near in the tropics or subtropics. DST doesn’t make much sense in San Diego or Honolulu or Key West. On the other hand, those of us who live near the Canadian border really don’t need the hour of sunshine in June between 0400 and 0500. I think most folks up here would rather have that hour in the evening. Why don’t we just change permanently to a different (more Easterly) time zone? For one thing if we did, we’d have kids riding bicycles to school well before dawn in Autumn and Winter. Given the driving skills of the average driver and current automated driving systems that’s really not all that great an idea.
If Florida, Louisiana, Texas et. al. don’t like DST, why not just do as Arizona does? Opt out of the Uniform Time Act and stay on Standard time the year round.
One of the arguments against permanent DST is that of kids going to school in the dark in Autumn and Winter. No matter where people live, the arguments for switching to permanent Standard Time are far more compelling. The whole idea of DST was (and still is) that of “saving energy”. Maybe it did originally, but it no longer does.
I live in the U.K. and was at school when there was an experiment not to switch from British Summer Time, keeping the clocks at GMT+1 throughout the year. I lived in the English Midlands with a latitude of 52 degrees and longitude of 1 degree West (approximate values). The sun didn’t rise until approximately 8:45, if I remember correctly, just about the time school started, thus I was leaving home in pitch black, although it was light when I was going home at 15:50.
In Scotland the sun wouldn’t rise until approximately 9:45. The experiment was scheduled to last 3 years, but IIRC it was abandoned after 1 year.
Yes, same here except I lived a bit further north (~53.5ºN) sunrise as late as 9am. The reaction to the experiment was very negative in the north particularly in Scotland.
“if we did, we’d have kids riding bicycles to school well before dawn in Autumn and Winter. Given the driving skills of the average driver and current automated driving systems that’s really not all that great an idea.”
In Hanoi they have primary school starting early, and high school starting late. Both groups use the same facilities, but at different times of the day.
High schoolers much prefer the late start! It’s amazingly effective.
Nice . . . but there are time zones a-plenty to deal with before “the world will be as one.”
Darn.
Jonathan Cohler
November 2, 2025 3:31 am
Why doesn’t anyone here ever discuss the obvious elephant in the room?
The undisputed PROVEN MATHEMATICAL FACTS that “Global Mean Surface Temperature” (GMST) is completely physically meaningless as proven by Essex et al. (2007) — entirely undisputed in the peer reviewed literature for more than 18 years. [Please no responses about non-peer-reviewed blog posts and subject-changing drivel.]
Not to mention, the later paper, Essex and Andresen (2018), which proves that there is no such thing as TEMPERATURE in the “slow time” regime in which climate lives.
Please READ the papers before responding. I am interested only in serious discussion not anti-math, anti-science, political drivel and appeals to authority.
“Yes, the global average temperature construct is abject nonsense.”
Well, perhaps so is the 98.6°F temperature stated to be the average for a health human body . . . but that hasn’t stopped physicians and mothers from using that construct as a useful benchmark.
Ask your doctor two questions. 1. Is 98.6F considered to be an optimum temperature for all human bodies? 2. Will the doctor prescribe a heavy dose of penicillin for a temperature of 98.61F?
Can the doctor even read an LIG thermometer to an accuracy of +/- 0.005F? If not then how would he know your temperature actually went up by .01F?
Since the current long term average typically beings around 1900 or 1951, the use of LIG thermometers is a major factor in determining the average.
I am interested only in serious discussion not anti-math, anti-science, political drivel and appeals to authority.
There’s your problem. You are trying to get zealots to reason. You have no hope of understanding their view.
I do not need to read the papers to diagnose your lack of understanding of zealots. In fact, you could read those papers every day and be none the wiser about zealots.
It may give you clues on how to present a case – finding the right crack to insert a convincing wedge.
My bent is toward derision but it is not particularly effective because it ends up being a confrontation. Bill Gates’ defection is a recently developed wedge that you might exploit.
No, your statement “There’s your problem. You are trying to get zealots to reason” is incorrect. I never said that I was addressing zealots. Indeed, I expressly said the OPPOSITE. I am addressing the majority of the people who follow and publish on WUWT! Not zealots. I don’t care about nor do I have ANY interest in what Zealots think.
I am interested in the large numbers of people here who claim to be serious, scientific, and interested in this topic.
And yet NOBODY has EVER discussed it here. NOBODY. Zip.
Why doesn’t anyone here ever discuss the obvious elephant in the room?
Your opening statement is wrong. Numerous people have discussed the relevance or otherwise of a GMST.
It is quite clear to me that anyone wanting to understand Earth’s climate needs a comprehensive understanding of ice forming and loss processes. In the link I state this:
Efforts to understand the inherent stability of Earth’s climate and the basis of climate trends without a deep understanding of ice accumulation and loss from land; sea ice growth and all ice melt on oceans and ice nucleation, sublimation and terminal velocity in the atmosphere are doomed to fail. Ice dominates Earth’s radiation balance by orders of magnitude over any gas including water vapour.
And this single chart shows why understanding ice is so important to Earth’s climate:
?quality=75&ssl=1
The coming sea level drop of 110m or so along with 800m high ice plateaus on land north of 40N will have far greater consequence for humans than a few degrees in the temperature they experience.
But air temperature combined with wind, rain, humidity is what humans experience where the live. So temperature is important to humans – climate not so much.
“A naive view suggests that the simple mean is always the appropriate scalar summary for any set of data, including temperature data. But this is untenable for reasons more general than those related to the thermodynamic issues discussed above.
Data have no intrinsic meaning. The context establishes the meaning. It also establishes whether the numbers themselves are used or some other numbers derived from the raw data.”
This is basically what I have characterized as statisticians view of “numbers is just numbers”. You can find the average of any set of “just numbers”. That doesn’t mean the average has any relationship to physical reality.
Essex (2007):
“Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning”
If the sum of the data is meaningless then the average is also meaningless. You can’t add the temperature in Topeka, KS (27F) with the temperature in Holton, KS (36F) – current temperatures – and get a total of 63F. 63F is just physically meaningless meaning the average derived from that total is also meaningless.
What that data describes is part of a gradient between the two locations. But there is no way to determine the “average” value of that gradient. There is no way to determine the physical mid-point of the gradient either.
Anyone that has ever done any cross-country hiking using a topographical map should understand this. You simply can’t take the altitude of PointA and the altitude of PointB and calculate the mid-point altitude (PointA + PointB)/2 – a type of “average” – to figure out how much energy will be expended over the hike. You can have lots of up’s and down’s between PointA and PointB that actually determines the energy required. Atmospheric temperature is exactly the same.
from Essex (2018):
“The fundamental finding of this study is that while wind persists in slow time (the climate perspective), temperature does not. Hence any conclusions based on an extrapolation of short laboratory time measurements of temperature are ill founded: We are not measuring the right things.”
This is not unexpected. Wind is an extensive property. Temperature is an intensive property.
which proves that there is no such thing as TEMPERATURE in the “slow time
Not exactly true. There is no such thing as an average temperature. Temperature is also not a good proxy for heat. As the first paper explains, Q ≠ T.
As has been explained here before, the temp in Miami vs the temp in Las Vegas does not address the amount of “heat” contained in the atmosphere at each location.
sherro01
November 2, 2025 3:40 am
In my Australia, sunny blue skies and a lot of country astride the Tropic of Capricorn favour solar electricity. Nuclear is banned after a shonky trade with greens that should never have become law. Coal, until year 2000 or so, was the reason we had been attracting industry with the cheapest and most reliable grid electricity in the world.
Colleague Rick Willoughby has produced some advances here and in a recent long face-to-face with him.
1. Rooftop solar, long subsidised and growing, is now the cheapest and dominant daytime source of electricity. There is no point in building or using solar farms. Existing ones are stranded assets.
2. Likewise, windmills are stranded assets in the day. They are being turned off. There is no point in keeping them going, unless the owners are getting paid monies to keep them going by compensation money for having no production, but have continuing costs to stay open.
3. The electricity from the large east Australian grid named NEM has been purchased less and less because off-grid rooftop is diminishing the market for grid. Grid is also diminishing because large plant like aluminium refineries and smelters is departing because grid electricity market cost has increased sharply.
4. Attention then falls on what happens at night. Windmills still have a place despite their intermittency, but that intermittency requires backup. Backup nuclear is out, coal is demonised, the current flavour of the week is either grid batteries or gas fired generators or demonised coal, mainly brown coal. Exiting hydrocarbon plant is being closed down and even dynamited soon after, or being kept going under conditions it was never designed for, which was continuous output near stated maximum. Heavy switching to offset renewables intermittency has costs including higher wear and tear. Operators tend to spend less to maintain demonised plant that governments tell them will soon be shut down.
Grid battery use is growing because it is not yet demonised by governments here. It is very costly, tends to catch fire and typically combats grid intermittency from minutes to a few hours. Breaks of up to a week need to be planned. No approved answer, apart from paying users to shut down from minutes to hours in times of stress, has been put forward AFAIK.
……
Rick will correct me if I have this wrong.
……
In short, the simple pre-2000 generation from coal close to the generators and often close to big city users was world class competitive.
Then our governments destroyed it by belief in stories like global warming and climate change, leading to compulsory policies like ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ whatever that means. The main change was to renewables, mainly windmills and solar farms and rooftop solar and batteries.
Governments have, in the last month or so, started the retreat from net zero. The National Party, junior in the Federal Opposition, has announced junking net zero.
It has taken 20 years of severe economic damage, but the wheel has turned.
Watch the excuses and hand-wringing as the followed money dries up and blame starts flying. Amusement awaits. Geoff S
Federal Opposition, has announced junking net zero.
Geoff
Junking NetZeor is not enough and will not garner my vote. There are three clear steps.
Declare the climate scam ended. Remove all artificial imposts around CO2.
Only permit dispatchable generators to bid in the NEM and extend bidding intervals from the present 5-minute to at least 24 hour.
Cast both their ABC and CSIRO adrift to fend for themselves. These two organisations have done unmeasurable damage to the Australian economy through their bad science and propaganda.
I will continue to vote One Nation. Malcolm Roberts is the only politician in the whole country who is able to articulate any knowledgeable detail on the climate scam.
“Breaks of up to a week need to be planned”. I have been beating on my Federal Labor MP for years on this issue. The worst-case design requires us the find backup for up to 3 days of 5% wind on cold winters nights that end at 0800 when some solar might kick in. And then repeat this for up to 3 weeks. Late May / early June 2024 demonstrated what a real wind drought at night means. Back up with batteries means we need a solar system that can cover the usual daily electricity needs plus enough juice to charge up an enormous number of batteries in the 8 hours that the sun might be shining OR deliverability of gas to replace the equivalent of all the coal that we currently use. Oz may have a lot of gas but getting the flow required for those short periods is the problem. I.e. the difference between energy and power i.e. mech engineering 101, that virtually no politicians in Oz seem to understand, rears its inevitable head. My MP’s latest response suggested that he is starting to understand a little.
strativarius
November 2, 2025 3:52 am
Britain one of least ‘nature-connected’ nations in world
Nature connectedness is a psychological concept that measures the closeness of an individual’s relationship with other species. – The Guardian
After plans were approved to build [Solar Farms] on farmland the size of 2,000 football pitches, residents say the Government is destroying the area – Telegraph
Surge in rooftop blazes sparks concern over Miliband’s solar panel boomFires have risen at a faster pace than installations, analysis finds – Telegraph
The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the UK’s power grids and is overseen by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has issued switch-off orders to solar facilities this year, new research reveals. Operators are paid to switch off when these orders are issued, with the extra cost added to consumer and business energy bills. – WUWT
Richard M
November 2, 2025 4:06 am
Is anyone aware of a site which tracks clouds? We know from the greenhouse efficiency work by Willis that cloud/albedo reductions have been the driver of warming for at least the past 25 years. There also appears to be an effort in the climate industry to blame the cloud changes on human emissions. It would be nice to be able to track them on a monthly basis just like global temperature.
CERES is raw data. Similar to AMSU data used by Dr. Spencer in his reporting of the UAH product. I was hoping someone provided a graphical interface similar to Roy’s.
“Have any mosquitoes been found in Iceland other than the three found October 16th?”
On Friday Google said:
AI Overview
“No, based on current reports, no other mosquitoes have been found in Iceland as of late October 2025. The three mosquitoes found in mid-October are the only confirmed cases, and they are likely to have been transported there via freight, rather than being from a local population.”
Today Google said:
AI Overview
No, there is no evidence of additional mosquitoes being found after the initial discovery in mid-October 2025. The three mosquitoes were the first ever confirmed to be found in Iceland’s natural environment, representing a new and permanent occurrence for the country.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So, “…a new and permanent occurrence…” was added in the last few days.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the early 80s, when the Japanese Fifth Generation project and “expert systems” were a thing, one excellent requirement of such systems was proposed: that they be able to explain their decisions or output.
We see the remnants of that requirement today in SQL database management systems, which take a description of a goal (the query) and dynamically generate a procedure to get the results. They are able to show their work to explain how they got their solution.
No (so-called) AI should be allowed into the wild until it can do that. Instead of guessing why we get a different overview a day later, we should be able to simply ask why.
Coeur de Lion
November 2, 2025 6:52 am
Here is the cruncher. Remember World War 2? All those burning cities and massive industrial activity? Why no violent upsurge in atmospheric CO2? What happened next? 1940 to 1975 the Great Ice Age Scare with 30 years of cooling. Then not a flicker for the COVID deindustrialisation. Why? Because the global carbon cycle is so vast that human activity is negligible. QED and shut up everyone.
Sean Galbally
November 2, 2025 7:12 am
The following is a STORY TIP.
NET ZERO POLICY (“De-carbonising” or removing carbon dioxide, a harmless gas, essential to life) does nothing to change the climate. It is a total sham. Every policy maker should be simply asked. How exactly will Net Zero help the planet? Of course it doesn’t. Expensive policy, including crippling energy costs is being made in total defiance of the facts. Massive renewable subsidies are doing more harm than good. The vast sums should be used to put our economy on a sound footing, not wasted.
Why will politicians and the mainstream media never engage in a discussion querying how Net Zero or De-carbonisation helps the planet? Of course it doesn’t, Carbon Dioxide is essential to life and harmless. The demonisation of fossil fuels is an invention by global power brokers to cause panic use of renewables and line their own pockets at our expense.
Curious George
November 2, 2025 8:32 am
The government is shut down, because Republicans can’t get 60 votes to keep it up. Why 60? A threat of filibuster. Please show me the filibuster – Democrats talking for hours to keep it down. It would look great on TV.
I read a while back that they aren’t required to do that anymore – they only need to “declare” one. That’s why it’s a big deal when someone actually does it.
Trump wants the Republican Senate to do away with the Filibuster Rule, and the Republicans are reluctant to do so, but maybe they should just change the rule and force the Democrats to actually get up and filibuster until they are blue in the face. Make the Democrats work for it.
force the Democrats to actually get up and filibuster
That used to be the rule, I don’t know when it changed but instead of the “nuclear option” I would absolutely prefer to see THAT requirement brought back. If you believe in something enough to DO that, then I might take you seriously. Otherwise it’s nothing but playing to the base.
Every Republican except for one Senator have voted 13 times to open the government, and every Democrat except for three, has voted 13 times to keep the government shut down.
It is obvious who has shut the government down, the Democrats. All they have to do is vote “yes” like the Republicans and the government opens back up.
But the Democrats refuse. They do so because they are trying to hold the American public hostage as a means of forcing Republicans to give them 1.5 TRILLION dollars, so they can pay the benefits of illegal aliens. The Democrats say let the American people starve until we get what we want. And we’ll blame everything on Trump and the Republicans, just like we always do.
Democrats in positions of power are a Big Problem. They are Poison to our Body Politic.
Democrats don’t get it. Party before people is a losing tactic.
Democrats always pride themselves for providing for the weak. What Americans will now learn is that the party who gives to the weak will also take away from the weak when it suits them.
That’s moral hypocrisy and there is no way around that.
If it hasn’t already been mentioned, my twice annual condemnation of “Day Light Savings Time”.
What good does it actually do?
All it does it mess up peoples’ biological clock twice a year.
For what purpose? It doesn’t save energy. People come home from work during the hottest part of the day and crank up (down?) their AC.
All it did was kill the Drive-Ins.
(Along with killing the game of “Flashlight Tag” we played when I was a kid.)
Attached chart compares the measured solar constant during the SORCE mission from 2003 to 2020 with the sunspot count for the same period.
The peak was mismatched by a year. This is due to Earth being a moving observatory orbiting the SUN.
The sunspot count is highly correlated to the square of the variation in velocity of the Sun from average velocity; making time adjustment. The CoG of the Sun does not move very fast. Top speed is just under 16m/s or 58kph.
The velocity of the spin of the Sun at the Equator is probably the speed of sound (pressure waves) in the surface of the Sun.
I expect the Sun has been spun up under the influence of gravity primarily from Jupiter and the very small orbital radius causing torque on the Sun due to non-spherical distortion under the whirling force. The axis of rotation is likely an arc rather than a straight line.
I doubt the time shift between the velocity and sunspot count is entirely due to Earth observation rotating around the Sun. I expect there is a resonant condition that tunes around the average velocity and is disturbed when the velocity varies from the average and upsets the high velocity circulations across the surface and just below. The core is known to spin much faster than the surface and that is consistent with higher acoustic velocity in the higher density zone.
With a regression coefficient of 86%, I am confident that the next peak in sunspot count in the mid 2030s will be higher than the present peak. Time will tell.
Unfortunately for your explanation Rick the delayed TSI peak is not a result of the Earth moving.
TSI has been known since the mid-2000s (see Preminger etal) to lag sunspot number (and also F10.7cm solar flux), correlating slightly better with F10.7cm except for instances of high SN or F10.7 with large area sunspots which drives TSI down (ie see Oct 2003 sunspot darkening effect on TSI).
SORCE TSI peaks consistently followed the F10.7cm peaks during SC#24 with the exception of late 2013/early 2014 large area sunspots. My 2018 AGU graph:
28th October 2025 Solar average 1362.78 w-m2, for this date 1380w-m2. Earth emitting 1355.16w-m2 30th October 2025.
342.68 w-m2 (-15.56 w-m2 directly to space)
677.58 w-m2 (+81.64w-m2 latent heat), Total excess (759.23w-m2) heat for (40°N to 40°S) above 342.68w-m2
-595.94 w-m2 Outgoing Convection, IR (528w-m2 IR, 32w-m2 UV, 35.94w-m2 Convection.
-81.64 w-m2 Outgoing Latent heat
This is non – cosine latitude area weight adjustment
Earth’s global mean surface temperature 5.03°C
Cosine latitude area weight adjustment is a method used in climate science to include a weight adjustment based on area size of the latitude. Polar regions have smaller areas.
90 x cos(90) = 0 x -12.9°C = 0
80 x cos(80) = 0.174 x -13.1 = -2.27°C
70 x cos(70) = 0.342 x -8.9 =2.04°C
60 x cos(60) = 0.5 x 0.1 = 0.05°C
50 x cos(50) = 0.643 x 6 = 3.86°C
40 x cos(40) = 0.766 x 14.5 = 11.11°C
30 x cos(30) = 0.866 x 20.6 = 17.84°C
20 x cos(20) = 0.940 x 28.4 = 26.69°C
10 x cos(10) = 0.985 x 28.0 = 27.57°C
0 x cos(0) = 1 x 25.9 = 25.9°C
10 x cos(10) = 0.985 x 24.5 24.13°C
20 x cos(20) = 0.940 x 23.2 21.8°C
30 x cos(30) = 0.866 x 19.8 17.15°C
40 x cos(40) = 0.766 x 11.7 8.96°C
50 x cos(50) = 0.643 x 4.9 3.15°C
60 x cos(60) = 0.5 x -1.2 -0.6°C
70 x cos(70) = 0.342 -14.4 -4.93°C
80 x cos(80) = 0.174 -30.3 -5.26°C
90 x cos(90) = 0 x –30.9°C = 0°C
388.5w-m2. 15.1°C
13.67°C 1979-2000 climatology
So here is the truth as to how the global mean temperature your told is calculated. I don’t use this adjustment and the data is use fits with the total solar irradiance range. Currently the sun is moving closer to the earth and will reach the closest distance on Jan 4th. Then will distance will increase for six months. Increasing land and snow ice will decrease earths emitted radiation creating upto 90 watts negative imbalance. Next year will reverse and by July, imbalance will be positive 90 watts. Cycle repeats into fall and spring. The climatology for the baseline 1979-2000 has been adjusted down and does not fit reality. TSI isn’t 1360w-m2, your +2w-m2 out in that graph. .
Here is a pertinent question about the “average” you use, what is the standard deviation of the distribution of temperatures?
What is the 95% (2SD) value for the dispersion of the temperatures.
What is the latitude range having the optimum temperature?
How has that latitude range change over the last 100 years?
Warmists like to use the term “climate change” which is a made up propaganda term. It should be temperature change.
The standard deviation of the distribution of temperatures.
The tropics has an average temperature of 26 degrees, with a standard deviation of -15.4 degrees towards the poles. A distribution of 5.2 degrees per 10th latitude (8 x 10° latitude) towards the higher latitudes in the poles. 41.4 degrees per hemisphere (both make up 70%) of the proportional temperature 120 degrees, that of the total solar irradiance.
This is a uniform distribution, land snow / sea ice as well as ocean temperature oscillations alters this slightly over a century.
“climate change” is often confused with weather. Alarmist often pick what is climate and what is weather.
The cosine adjustment has the average at lower latitudes, increases average by 10 degrees and 55 watts. Models are made of grids, higher latitudes has smaller grids sizes, so justification is model geometry of the earth. The former does not justify the adjustment, only the latter.
Model geometry of the earth only applies to solar irradiance not Celsius temperatures. Kelvin means absolute zero at 90 degrees latitude. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of speed of sound molecules that do not cease motion at the poles.
You misunderstood what I was asking. What is the standard deviation of the temperature distribution at a given latitude and around the earth, that is, not at a single point under the sun.
Averages ignore the gradients involved with both time and location. You have a start by recognizing that a cosine function is involved for one variable – insolation.
Sorry, that is more than “a” pertinent question. 😁
Much has been made from the recent Bill Gates memo in which he backs off the “climate disaster” part of his messaging. OK, but that is not the whole story. He still clings to the core claim about CO2, CH4, and N2O as harmful, and is just polishing the outside of a bucket of slop when he deletes the crisis language.
I went to the Gates memo a few days ago and read a lot of it. He is still pushing feed additives and a vaccine to reduce methane from cattle.
No, a thousand times NO. Leave the cows alone! And stop blaming the farmers!
Here is a copy-and-paste quote of the agriculture section of his memo.
===========
Agriculture (19 percent of global emissions)
Much of the emissions from agriculture comes from just two sources: the production and use of fertilizer, and grazing livestock that release methane.
Farmers can already buy one replacement for synthetic fertilizer that’s made without any emissions, and another that turns the methane in manure into organic fertilizer. Both are selling at a negative Green Premium. Now the challenge is to produce them in large quantities and persuade farmers to use them. (Pivot Bio, Windfall Bio)
Additives to cattle feed that keep livestock from producing methane are nearly cheap enough to be economical for farmers, and a vaccine that does the same thing has been shown to work. It’s now moving into the next stage of development. (Rumin8, ArkeaBio)
Another source of methane is the cultivation of rice, one of the world’s most important staple foods. Companies are helping rice farmers around the world adopt new methods that both reduce methane emissions and increase crop yields. (Rize)
One stubborn problem is that some of the nitrogen in fertilizer seeps into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. It’s very dilute, which makes it hard to capture.
================
That said, I have no problem with Gates’ promotion of advanced nuclear fission power generation systems. But not because “climate change is serious” in the sense of the claimed impact of emissions of CO2 and other IR-active trace gases.
It will be a long time before Trump is widely acknowledged as being right about the climate scam.
It is a good time to be alive to see a true leader having disrespectful individuals like Australia’s ex PM KRudd eating humble pie.
So many wrong about Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slw4pLx08w0
And many, many more wrong about what CO2 does in the atmosphere. Ignorant people talking nonsense.
I hope I live to see the whole UN climate edifice crumble. They desperately need a new tin to rattle.
That video is a good reminder of how so many were so wrong yet so confident.
Very nice start to my morning, black coffee, warmth and gentle background whir of my natural gas fired furnace and leftist tears.
The confidence increased with the subsidies
I just learned 41.7 million people were enrolled in SNAP, and the cost was $99.8 billion in 2024, per USDA
How many of those are illegal aliens?
The USDA has $5 billion in contingency funds reserved for emergencies
Two judges ordered the USDA to use contingency funds for SNAP.
Democrats not voting on a clean CR to end the shutdown is an action of will, not emergency.
The law says, the USDA cannot spend any of its contingency funds, unless authorized by Congress, but the Democrats do not want to vote to pass a clean CR to restart the government.
Elon Musk said the reason the Democrats are not voting for the CR is because they want $1.4 TRILLION to restore subsidy programs, including healthcare/COVID emergency measures, and for other programs that are a magnet for illegals from all over the world.
He said Democrats want to convert these illegals to voters to cement a permanent majority.
There would be Communist Mayors in New York City and every other Democrat city.
The magnet only works because of the subsidies.
Corrupt Argentina emptied its jails and told its criminals and dysfunctional folks to go to the US and ply their trade there.
It will take tens of $billions to get rid of them, especially after Madero said he does not want them back..
Wind, solar and batteries cannot be built without subsidies.
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
.
If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
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:
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.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit 10%; Federal tax credit of 30%; State tax credit; other incentives up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation to write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities forced to pay at least:
15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
10 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from largersolar 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 far-flung 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 means 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 means 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
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.
Europe has near-zero, real-growth GDP. Its economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
Venezuela?
Yes, Venezuela
Thank you
Argentina emptied their beef products.
True Norwegian Story
A Pakistani male, 32 years old, dressed in fancy, traditional, Pakistani garb, as if he is an important person, walks several paces in front of his 24 year-old wife, who pushes a baby carriage with 2 children, with 2 on each side holding on, a total of 6 children.
He has to attend Norwegian classes to receive a signature from the teacher to continue to receive free housing, free food, free healthcare, and a free allowance for incidentals, etc.
He has to go for interviews for jobs, but he has no education, no experience. He gets a signature from the employer to continue to receive subsidies.
He came as a “refuge” to Norway, at 22 years old, did not speak a word of Norwegian, married a Pakistani bride, 14 years old, brought in from Pakistan by the Norwegian government. She was pregnant a few weeks after the wedding and produce 6 kids in 10 years. Each child receives a government allowance.
Norway is rich, has a $2 trillion pension fund, invested in world equities for 5 million people, of which 500,000 are “refugees”. The Norwegian government rakes off a percentage of the total each year.
The Norwegian government brings in “refuges” to satisfy Brussels, which means Norway can trade in the EU as if a member, and well-off Norwegians can have vacation houses in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece, etc., but it also means Germans (WWII invaders) can have vacation houses in Norway.
But Ann Coulter got it right.
That was the best moment in the video.
People are adamantly opposed to anything Trump says or proposes – not because his ideas are wrong, but because they suffer from TDS. The opposition is to the messenger, not the message.
Nope. I oppose Trumps crazy ideas and immoral practices on merit. It is just there is so much to choose from. And cry me a river. When a democrat president is in power there is no a single positive thing said here about them.
Simon,
Your point is well taken. Human behavior is the same in both directions. The difference I see is that under the previous administration. the politicians, press, academia and the influencers were pretty much all in favor of the Democrats and President Biden, with some small pockets of disagreement online, such as here in WUWT. During the campaign, that same group of folks were loudly opposed to Trump, while extolling the virtues of the Dems, Biden / Harris, academia, the press and the influencers, while opposed to Trump. Yet he won.
Van Jones made a good point on CNN last night – that Trump had some good ideas, but executed them badly. In my opinion, turning Elon Musk loose with a sledge hammer, rather than a scalpel, was a really bad idea. Turning ICE officers loose to treat people violently, and to be targeting anyone who even looked like an illegal immigrant, even though they might well be in the US legally, was a bad idea.
Lastly, prolonging the shutdown and trying to blame it on the Democrats has backfired badly, as seen in yesterday’s election results. There was a map of Virginia voting posted on the internet this morning, and the Democrat vote was heavy just outside DC, where many Federal workers have not received a paycheck in quite a while. People almost always vote their pocket books, and they did yesterday. So, good ideas, badly implemented.
If things don’t change soon, the Dems will take the US House and Senate in 2026.
I have to go to his website and explain to him that the reason for the low concentration of methane in air of 1.93 ppmv is due to the initiation of its combustion by discharges of lightning. There are many million discharges of lightning every day. (See Wikipedia). Discharges of lightning generate ozone which would oxidize methane to carbon dioxide and water.
Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of cold water can contain up to 35 mls of methane. In cold polar water, methane would slowly diffuse to the ocean floor. There under high pressure methane would form solid clathrate known as methane ice. The polar waters are quite large and absorb much methane.
We really do not have worry about the minor trace greenhouse gas methane.
Harold, you present an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately it is completely wrong.
There is a physical parameter, called the “flammability limit” range, for various fuels-in-air combinations that determines if a given fuel can ignited, and therefore combust, in air at near STP conditions.
Here is what Google’s AI has to say on this matter”
“The flammability limits for gaseous methane in air are approximately 5% to 15% by volume. This means that a mixture of methane and air is only capable of burning or exploding when the methane concentration is within this range. Concentrations below the lower limit are “too lean,” and concentrations above the upper limit are “too rich,” lacking sufficient oxygen to combust.”
and the same AI says this:
“Methane concentrations measured directly over swamps can reach up to approximately 40 ppmv, which is significantly higher than the global atmospheric background of around 2 ppmv.”
For reference 5% gaseous methane by volume is the same as 50,000 ppmv . . . way, way, way above 1.93 or even 40 ppmv.
“The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”
— attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley
I just checked. The average voltage of a lightning discharge is 300 million volts. The voltage range for lightning discharges is from 100 million to 1 billion volts and will generate lots of ozone.
I’ll ask Copilot: Does a discharge of lightning initiate combustion of methane in the atmosphere?
I still believe that a discharge of lightning will cause combustion of a molecule of methane. However, due the very low concentration of methane there will be no propagation of combustion.
Stay tuned for the Copilot query result.
Copilot search result: A discharge of lightning does not cause oxidation of methane. A lightning discharge causes the production of hydroxy radicals from water molecules. The hydroxyl radicals can then attack methane to generate a methyl radical the first step in its eventual oxidation to carbon dioxide and water.
Actually, there is not much info on if a discharges of lightning causes combustion of methane.
I did find that a discharge of lightning generates a few kilograms of ozone. I did find a paper that investigated the oxidation of methane by ozone, but it is behind a paywall. However, the abstract reports that methane is oxidized mostly to carbon dioxide and water.
Thank you taking the initiative to check this out, and to report back to all WUWT readers the results. This is The Scientific Method at its best!
How do we get the correct/actual CO2 science out to the genera public as well as ignorant policy leaders? CO2 can not warm the Earth, it only slows the natural cooling processes.
“Climate Change” is under scrutiny but the whole “CO2 drives temperatures” perception has to be broken. In the end we know the sun and ocean determine Earth temperatures. CO2 is a beneficial, trailing indicator of those temperature changes.
Here is a start. In my view, the strongest demonstration of the vanishingly weak influence of incremental CO2 is from the modelers themselves – in the computation of hourly values of energy conversion within the general circulation from the ERA5 reanalysis. More here in a formal comment to the EPA.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
There are many good arguments from respected scientists that there is no harm or danger from rising CO2 levels. But often this comes along with a concession that CO2 does indeed drive at least *some* warming. The energy conversion concept and computations from the ERA5 model refute the core claim more effectively, in my opinion, by showing that there is no good reason to expect ANY “warming” as an end result, or ANY perceptible influence on trends of any climate variable.
I hope to get this message from sound science across more widely.
“out to the genera(l) public”
Ask Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish to write songs. The “general public” is clueless about CO2 science and are happy. About half the public listen to Taylor and Billie.
“…nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas…”
__________________________________________
Google says the global warming potential (GWP) of nitrous oxide is 265 to 310 times that of carbon dioxide. What Google doesn’t say is how that translates into actual global warming. The reason for that omission is that the warming by 2100 from any increase in nitrous oxide would be a tiny fraction of a degree.
Please stop buying into the GWP nonsense.
“Please stop buying into the GWP nonsense.”
Agreed. Gates wrote “potent greenhouse gas” – not me!
Sorry ’bout that, I react to:
“blah blah blah” in quotes & italics, and
other obvious ways to indicate a quote.
Thanks for the reply
Forget about the term “global warming potential (GWP)” in objective scientific discussions because “climate scientists” long ago decided that a value for such could not be assigned to water vapor because—now get this—“it serves to amplify the effects of other greenhouse gases.” While such a statement may be true on the surface, it overlooks the fact that H2O molecules by themselves are very strong absorbers of Earth-radiated LWIR because they are unsymmetrical molecules with a permanent dipole moment, unlike the CO2 molecule.
In terms of the actually-realized effect of intercepting LWIR from Earth’s surface and converting that energy into heat warming the atmosphere, water vapor alone accounts for ~50% of all such greenhouse effect warming, whereas CO2 accounts for ~20%.
Hint:
— the concentration of water vapor in Earth’s troposphere typically averages at about 4,000 ppmv (0.4%), but can be ten time higher at 40,000 ppm in hot, high RH air at low altitudes over Earth’s tropical regions, compared to
— the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s troposphere is currently uniform at about 425 ppmv, compared to
— the concentration of N2O (nitrous oxide) in Earth’s troposphere is currently uniform at about 0.3 ppmv.
“— the concentration of water vapor in Earth’s troposphere typically averages at about 4,000 ppmv(0.4%),”
But it varies strongly with altitude, at the tropopause it’s about 5ppm whereas CO2 is still over 400ppm!
Most of the “greenhouse gases” effect occurs in the lower third of the troposphere due to the very short absorption path of LWIR in the mix of relative high density gases that exist there, excluding the relatively narrow emission frequency band known as the “atmospheric window”.
Copilot agrees with your 50/20 but adds: As CO₂ levels rise, temperatures increase slightly, which allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. This creates a positive feedback loop, doubling or more the warming effect of CO₂ alone. [science.nasa.gov]
So, your numbers (≈50% for water vapor and ≈20% for CO₂) are broadly consistent with scientific estimates for their share of the natural greenhouse effect, but the critical point is that CO₂ drives the long-term change, while water vapor amplifies it.
Are you really asserting that if CO2 (and all other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere excluding water vapor) remained at fixed concentration levels and yet average atmospheric water vapor concentration in the lower troposphere increased by, say, 20% over 100 years, there would be no additional global warming caused just by the increase in water vapor? Really???
Why aren’t cattle “emissions” considered neutral? Every other animal on Earth is, so why not cattle?
Good point! I have deer sometimes in the yard lying down and “chewing their cud.” They are ruminants too.
I expect it would be difficult to find a species of animal with an alimentary canal that doesn’t fart. Even fish fart, you can google that. The idea that cattle emitting methane (Cow Farts) was initially laughed at, but the left and the so-called mainstream media* kept at it for so long that it’s widely accepted by a lot of people that shouldn’t that methane is a problem acerbated by cattle ranches, dairy farms and rice paddies. It fits the definition of “The Big Lie” perfectly.
*They are, by the way, trying to rebrand themselves as the “Legacy Press”
But the source of methane from cows is primarily from ‘burping’ not ‘farting’.
So what?
Have we not had cows, bison and similar rudiment animals for all of human history? Are they really adding to climate change? Have their numbers really changed over time in order to constitute a change in emissions, or is this just another false climate change construct to change our behaviour and restrict our choice?
Thanks for your reply.
1- Yes, of course we have.
2 – No, that’s not plausible.
3a – No.
3b – Yes, it appears so.
One way to look at the issue is to consider that if cows weren’t utilizing the vegetation suitable for grazing, then other wild ruminants would be. Prairie grasses, in particular, have a fixed carrying capacity. Too many animals and the grazers will move or starve. If humans have replaced bison, deer, and antelope with cows, it isn’t the same as repurposing the land as in growing corn and soy beans.
Fun stuff from Grok.
https://www.cfact.org/2025/11/02/a-huge-grok-beatdown-of-climate-hysteria/
Excellent critical thinking, we need more of it .
I wonder if you looked at another month when the anomalous temperature was more than 1C higher. Say April 2024. What threshold does Grok believe is bad. April 2024 is much closer to what models predicted.
October this year was bound to be relatively low temperature simply because it is an anomalously low month for solar intensity in the NH; daily ToA intensity down more than 2W/m^2 on 2024. See attached that I published a while back.
There are already numerous snowfall records due to the increased fall advection. Iceland set new record snowfall. Himalayas has set new early snowfall record across India, Tibet and China. Lots of rain in Alaska that will go up and come back as snow soon enough. SH increased heating season warming just bringing more rain to Australia rather than temperature and pulling out of cold August.
That’s a great post! Good prompt by Joe Bastardi.
Imagine there’s no DST
It’s easy if you try
No more pushing buttons
No more asking why
Imagine all the people
Living on Standard Time
You…You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
Someday you will join us
And the world will be as one.
I gather that you live near in the tropics or subtropics. DST doesn’t make much sense in San Diego or Honolulu or Key West. On the other hand, those of us who live near the Canadian border really don’t need the hour of sunshine in June between 0400 and 0500. I think most folks up here would rather have that hour in the evening. Why don’t we just change permanently to a different (more Easterly) time zone? For one thing if we did, we’d have kids riding bicycles to school well before dawn in Autumn and Winter. Given the driving skills of the average driver and current automated driving systems that’s really not all that great an idea.
If Florida, Louisiana, Texas et. al. don’t like DST, why not just do as Arizona does? Opt out of the Uniform Time Act and stay on Standard time the year round.
One of the arguments against permanent DST is that of kids going to school in the dark in Autumn and Winter. No matter where people live, the arguments for switching to permanent Standard Time are far more compelling. The whole idea of DST was (and still is) that of “saving energy”. Maybe it did originally, but it no longer does.
I think Ben Franklin wanted it to save candles.
I live in the U.K. and was at school when there was an experiment not to switch from British Summer Time, keeping the clocks at GMT+1 throughout the year. I lived in the English Midlands with a latitude of 52 degrees and longitude of 1 degree West (approximate values). The sun didn’t rise until approximately 8:45, if I remember correctly, just about the time school started, thus I was leaving home in pitch black, although it was light when I was going home at 15:50.
In Scotland the sun wouldn’t rise until approximately 9:45. The experiment was scheduled to last 3 years, but IIRC it was abandoned after 1 year.
Yes, same here except I lived a bit further north (~53.5ºN) sunrise as late as 9am. The reaction to the experiment was very negative in the north particularly in Scotland.
“if we did, we’d have kids riding bicycles to school well before dawn in Autumn and Winter. Given the driving skills of the average driver and current automated driving systems that’s really not all that great an idea.”
well…. start school later .
DUH !
In Hanoi they have primary school starting early, and high school starting late. Both groups use the same facilities, but at different times of the day.
High schoolers much prefer the late start! It’s amazingly effective.
We don’t do daylight saving in Queensland. We have plenty of daylight year round!
Qld did have daylight saving once.
1989 – 1992.
Then they haven’t seen the point of it since.
Nice . . . but there are time zones a-plenty to deal with before “the world will be as one.”
Darn.
Why doesn’t anyone here ever discuss the obvious elephant in the room?
The undisputed PROVEN MATHEMATICAL FACTS that “Global Mean Surface Temperature” (GMST) is completely physically meaningless as proven by Essex et al. (2007) — entirely undisputed in the peer reviewed literature for more than 18 years. [Please no responses about non-peer-reviewed blog posts and subject-changing drivel.]
Not to mention, the later paper, Essex and Andresen (2018), which proves that there is no such thing as TEMPERATURE in the “slow time” regime in which climate lives.
Please READ the papers before responding. I am interested only in serious discussion not anti-math, anti-science, political drivel and appeals to authority.
THE PAPERS:
Essex et al. (2007)
Essex and Andresen (2018)
Yes, the global average temperature construct is abject nonsense.
The “data” fails on all levels of
PROBITY
PROVENANCE
and
PROSECUTION
Well, perhaps so is the 98.6°F temperature stated to be the average for a health human body . . . but that hasn’t stopped physicians and mothers from using that construct as a useful benchmark.
Ask your doctor two questions. 1. Is 98.6F considered to be an optimum temperature for all human bodies? 2. Will the doctor prescribe a heavy dose of penicillin for a temperature of 98.61F?
Can the doctor even read an LIG thermometer to an accuracy of +/- 0.005F? If not then how would he know your temperature actually went up by .01F?
Since the current long term average typically beings around 1900 or 1951, the use of LIG thermometers is a major factor in determining the average.
There’s your problem. You are trying to get zealots to reason. You have no hope of understanding their view.
I do not need to read the papers to diagnose your lack of understanding of zealots. In fact, you could read those papers every day and be none the wiser about zealots.
So I suggest you start at the link and try to understand the mind of zealots:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7819907/
It may give you clues on how to present a case – finding the right crack to insert a convincing wedge.
My bent is toward derision but it is not particularly effective because it ends up being a confrontation. Bill Gates’ defection is a recently developed wedge that you might exploit.
No, your statement “There’s your problem. You are trying to get zealots to reason” is incorrect. I never said that I was addressing zealots. Indeed, I expressly said the OPPOSITE. I am addressing the majority of the people who follow and publish on WUWT! Not zealots. I don’t care about nor do I have ANY interest in what Zealots think.
I am interested in the large numbers of people here who claim to be serious, scientific, and interested in this topic.
And yet NOBODY has EVER discussed it here. NOBODY. Zip.
What’s the deal???? Elephant in the room…
Your opening statement is wrong. Numerous people have discussed the relevance or otherwise of a GMST.
It is quite clear to me that anyone wanting to understand Earth’s climate needs a comprehensive understanding of ice forming and loss processes. In the link I state this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/17/toward-a-deterministic-model-of-cloud-development-over-ocean-warm-pools/
And this single chart shows why understanding ice is so important to Earth’s climate:
The coming sea level drop of 110m or so along with 800m high ice plateaus on land north of 40N will have far greater consequence for humans than a few degrees in the temperature they experience.
But air temperature combined with wind, rain, humidity is what humans experience where the live. So temperature is important to humans – climate not so much.
from Essex (2007):
This is basically what I have characterized as statisticians view of “numbers is just numbers”. You can find the average of any set of “just numbers”. That doesn’t mean the average has any relationship to physical reality.
Essex (2007):
If the sum of the data is meaningless then the average is also meaningless. You can’t add the temperature in Topeka, KS (27F) with the temperature in Holton, KS (36F) – current temperatures – and get a total of 63F. 63F is just physically meaningless meaning the average derived from that total is also meaningless.
What that data describes is part of a gradient between the two locations. But there is no way to determine the “average” value of that gradient. There is no way to determine the physical mid-point of the gradient either.
Anyone that has ever done any cross-country hiking using a topographical map should understand this. You simply can’t take the altitude of PointA and the altitude of PointB and calculate the mid-point altitude (PointA + PointB)/2 – a type of “average” – to figure out how much energy will be expended over the hike. You can have lots of up’s and down’s between PointA and PointB that actually determines the energy required. Atmospheric temperature is exactly the same.
from Essex (2018):
This is not unexpected. Wind is an extensive property. Temperature is an intensive property.
Actually, I’m pretty sure it has been discussed here, quite a few time.
Many of us agree that is a TOTALLY MEANINGLESS metric / terminology…
… made even more meaningless by the methods, data manipulation and outright data fraud that the Klimate Kooks use to calculate it.
Not exactly true. There is no such thing as an average temperature. Temperature is also not a good proxy for heat. As the first paper explains, Q ≠ T.
As has been explained here before, the temp in Miami vs the temp in Las Vegas does not address the amount of “heat” contained in the atmosphere at each location.
In my Australia, sunny blue skies and a lot of country astride the Tropic of Capricorn favour solar electricity. Nuclear is banned after a shonky trade with greens that should never have become law. Coal, until year 2000 or so, was the reason we had been attracting industry with the cheapest and most reliable grid electricity in the world.
Colleague Rick Willoughby has produced some advances here and in a recent long face-to-face with him.
1. Rooftop solar, long subsidised and growing, is now the cheapest and dominant daytime source of electricity. There is no point in building or using solar farms. Existing ones are stranded assets.
2. Likewise, windmills are stranded assets in the day. They are being turned off. There is no point in keeping them going, unless the owners are getting paid monies to keep them going by compensation money for having no production, but have continuing costs to stay open.
3. The electricity from the large east Australian grid named NEM has been purchased less and less because off-grid rooftop is diminishing the market for grid. Grid is also diminishing because large plant like aluminium refineries and smelters is departing because grid electricity market cost has increased sharply.
4. Attention then falls on what happens at night. Windmills still have a place despite their intermittency, but that intermittency requires backup. Backup nuclear is out, coal is demonised, the current flavour of the week is either grid batteries or gas fired generators or demonised coal, mainly brown coal. Exiting hydrocarbon plant is being closed down and even dynamited soon after, or being kept going under conditions it was never designed for, which was continuous output near stated maximum. Heavy switching to offset renewables intermittency has costs including higher wear and tear. Operators tend to spend less to maintain demonised plant that governments tell them will soon be shut down.
Grid battery use is growing because it is not yet demonised by governments here. It is very costly, tends to catch fire and typically combats grid intermittency from minutes to a few hours. Breaks of up to a week need to be planned. No approved answer, apart from paying users to shut down from minutes to hours in times of stress, has been put forward AFAIK.
……
Rick will correct me if I have this wrong.
……
In short, the simple pre-2000 generation from coal close to the generators and often close to big city users was world class competitive.
Then our governments destroyed it by belief in stories like global warming and climate change, leading to compulsory policies like ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ whatever that means. The main change was to renewables, mainly windmills and solar farms and rooftop solar and batteries.
Governments have, in the last month or so, started the retreat from net zero. The National Party, junior in the Federal Opposition, has announced junking net zero.
It has taken 20 years of severe economic damage, but the wheel has turned.
Watch the excuses and hand-wringing as the followed money dries up and blame starts flying. Amusement awaits. Geoff S
Amusement accompanied by devastation and desperation in the business sector.
Geoff
Junking NetZeor is not enough and will not garner my vote. There are three clear steps.
I will continue to vote One Nation. Malcolm Roberts is the only politician in the whole country who is able to articulate any knowledgeable detail on the climate scam.
“Breaks of up to a week need to be planned”. I have been beating on my Federal Labor MP for years on this issue. The worst-case design requires us the find backup for up to 3 days of 5% wind on cold winters nights that end at 0800 when some solar might kick in. And then repeat this for up to 3 weeks. Late May / early June 2024 demonstrated what a real wind drought at night means. Back up with batteries means we need a solar system that can cover the usual daily electricity needs plus enough juice to charge up an enormous number of batteries in the 8 hours that the sun might be shining OR deliverability of gas to replace the equivalent of all the coal that we currently use. Oz may have a lot of gas but getting the flow required for those short periods is the problem. I.e. the difference between energy and power i.e. mech engineering 101, that virtually no politicians in Oz seem to understand, rears its inevitable head. My MP’s latest response suggested that he is starting to understand a little.
Britain one of least ‘nature-connected’ nations in world
Nature connectedness is a psychological concept that measures the closeness of an individual’s relationship with other species. – The Guardian
After plans were approved to build [Solar Farms] on farmland the size of 2,000 football pitches, residents say the Government is destroying the area – Telegraph
Surge in rooftop blazes sparks concern over Miliband’s solar panel boomFires have risen at a faster pace than installations, analysis finds – Telegraph
Hymn #1. There is a green hill…
And with no hint of irony The Guardian says:
Low levels of nature connectedness have been identified as one of three major underlying causes of biodiversity loss alongside inequality and the prioritisation of individual, material gains.
Money, no doubt…
The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the UK’s power grids and is overseen by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has issued switch-off orders to solar facilities this year, new research reveals.
Operators are paid to switch off when these orders are issued, with the extra cost added to consumer and business energy bills. – WUWT
Is anyone aware of a site which tracks clouds? We know from the greenhouse efficiency work by Willis that cloud/albedo reductions have been the driver of warming for at least the past 25 years. There also appears to be an effort in the climate industry to blame the cloud changes on human emissions. It would be nice to be able to track them on a monthly basis just like global temperature.
There’s weather radar…
Key Features of Our Cloud Radar Real-Time Cloud Tracking: Monitor cloud movements and developments as they happen, providing a dynamic view of the sky.
https://www.radar-live.com/p/satellite-weather.html
All they can report is what they see at the time. Maybe they do keep records, but they won’t go back very far
I thought it was CERES.
CERES is raw data. Similar to AMSU data used by Dr. Spencer in his reporting of the UAH product. I was hoping someone provided a graphical interface similar to Roy’s.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm
Looks like this data has not been updated in quite awhile.
A little analysis of our CO2 emission figures and CO2 sinks..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/co2-sinks-failing
If you Googled
“Have any mosquitoes been found in Iceland other than the three found October 16th?”
On Friday Google said:
AI Overview
“No, based on current reports, no other mosquitoes have been found in Iceland as of late October 2025.
The three mosquitoes found in mid-October are the only confirmed cases, and they are likely to have been transported there via freight, rather than being from a local population.”
Today Google said:
AI Overview
No, there is no evidence of additional mosquitoes being found after the initial discovery in mid-October 2025. The three mosquitoes were the first ever confirmed to be found in Iceland’s natural environment, representing a new and permanent occurrence for the country.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So, “…a new and permanent occurrence…” was added in the last few days.
Curiouser and curiouser.
“new and permanent occurrence” based on a sample of 3 :smh:
Not to mention, if there were three that were born there, where is the breeding colony? There had to have been a lot more.
Immaculate conception?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the early 80s, when the Japanese Fifth Generation project and “expert systems” were a thing, one excellent requirement of such systems was proposed: that they be able to explain their decisions or output.
We see the remnants of that requirement today in SQL database management systems, which take a description of a goal (the query) and dynamically generate a procedure to get the results. They are able to show their work to explain how they got their solution.
No (so-called) AI should be allowed into the wild until it can do that. Instead of guessing why we get a different overview a day later, we should be able to simply ask why.
Here is the cruncher. Remember World War 2? All those burning cities and massive industrial activity? Why no violent upsurge in atmospheric CO2? What happened next? 1940 to 1975 the Great Ice Age Scare with 30 years of cooling. Then not a flicker for the COVID deindustrialisation. Why? Because the global carbon cycle is so vast that human activity is negligible. QED and shut up everyone.
The following is a STORY TIP.
NET ZERO POLICY (“De-carbonising” or removing carbon dioxide, a harmless gas, essential to life) does nothing to change the climate. It is a total sham. Every policy maker should be simply asked. How exactly will Net Zero help the planet? Of course it doesn’t. Expensive policy, including crippling energy costs is being made in total defiance of the facts. Massive renewable subsidies are doing more harm than good. The vast sums should be used to put our economy on a sound footing, not wasted.
Why will politicians and the mainstream media never engage in a discussion querying how Net Zero or De-carbonisation helps the planet? Of course it doesn’t, Carbon Dioxide is essential to life and harmless. The demonisation of fossil fuels is an invention by global power brokers to cause panic use of renewables and line their own pockets at our expense.
The government is shut down, because Republicans can’t get 60 votes to keep it up. Why 60? A threat of filibuster. Please show me the filibuster – Democrats talking for hours to keep it down. It would look great on TV.
Democrats talking for hours
I read a while back that they aren’t required to do that anymore – they only need to “declare” one. That’s why it’s a big deal when someone actually does it.
“they only need to “declare” one”
That is correct.
Trump wants the Republican Senate to do away with the Filibuster Rule, and the Republicans are reluctant to do so, but maybe they should just change the rule and force the Democrats to actually get up and filibuster until they are blue in the face. Make the Democrats work for it.
force the Democrats to actually get up and filibuster
That used to be the rule, I don’t know when it changed but instead of the “nuclear option” I would absolutely prefer to see THAT requirement brought back. If you believe in something enough to DO that, then I might take you seriously. Otherwise it’s nothing but playing to the base.
Every Republican except for one Senator have voted 13 times to open the government, and every Democrat except for three, has voted 13 times to keep the government shut down.
It is obvious who has shut the government down, the Democrats. All they have to do is vote “yes” like the Republicans and the government opens back up.
But the Democrats refuse. They do so because they are trying to hold the American public hostage as a means of forcing Republicans to give them 1.5 TRILLION dollars, so they can pay the benefits of illegal aliens. The Democrats say let the American people starve until we get what we want. And we’ll blame everything on Trump and the Republicans, just like we always do.
Democrats in positions of power are a Big Problem. They are Poison to our Body Politic.
Democrats don’t get it. Party before people is a losing tactic.
Democrats always pride themselves for providing for the weak. What Americans will now learn is that the party who gives to the weak will also take away from the weak when it suits them.
That’s moral hypocrisy and there is no way around that.
Party before people is a losing tactic.
I saw a segment on CNN a couple days ago where they were saying that Republicans in congress approval was up since the start of the shutdown.
What’s the old saying? If a tree falls in the woods and the media doesn’t report it, it’s Trump’s fault – or something like that.
More simply put, they are trying to force the President to comply with their demands.
Pass the CR and open the government and then we talk? No. You must include our demands or we will vote against it.
Both sides are at fault. The question is how history will see this.
Since the Government seems to be willing to outlaw everything which might cause heart problems, next their list should be solar storms:
https://www.earth.com/news/direct-link-between-solar-storms-earth-geomagnetic-shield-and-heart-attacks/
Story tip
This should come as no surprise, bad news about electric school buses, well at least for the Kool-aid drinkers:
https://electrek.co/2025/11/01/lion-electric-schools-bus-warranties-voided-leaving-districts-stuck/
If it hasn’t already been mentioned, my twice annual condemnation of “Day Light Savings Time”.
What good does it actually do?
All it does it mess up peoples’ biological clock twice a year.
For what purpose? It doesn’t save energy. People come home from work during the hottest part of the day and crank up (down?) their AC.
All it did was kill the Drive-Ins.
(Along with killing the game of “Flashlight Tag” we played when I was a kid.)
It means I have to drive into the sun twice a year to get to work and drive into the sun twice a year to get home.
If kids going to school, IF, is the issue, then change the school hours so they are not kept in the dark.
I recall reading many years ago it was passed so members of Congress had daylight for playing tennis after “work.”