The study confirms what I’ve been saying for two years, though I’m not sure that anthropogenic emissions move the needle.
The thing most people don’t know about integration is that it results in a 90° delay (for cycles). This is because the integral of cos(2πft) is sin(2πft)/(2πf) which is an attenuated cosine delayed by 90°. This characteristic response was the clue to the relationship.
This is important because the delay between temperature and [CO2] depends on the cycle length. A 2-year cycle would have a 6-month delay, while a 1000-year cycle would have a 250-year delay.
I found that a single equation can be used to predict temperature from [CO2] or [CO2] from temperature. This would likely not be possible if the long- and short-term trends (not including seasonal variations) were a different process.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming of Air.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the annual seasonal temperatures and a plot of the annual average temperature at the Furnace Creek weather station from in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. The average annual temperature in 2001 was 25.1° C.
In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 303 ppmv
(0.60 g CO2/cu. m.) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The reason there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert is due to the saturation of the absorption of out-going of IR light emanating from the desert surface by CO2. The threshold for the saturation effect for CO2 is 300 ppmv.
For info on the saturation effect, check out:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” by Dieter Schildnecht, available at:
Another reason there was no increase in the air temperature of the desert is because there is just too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the desert surface to heat up the large mass of the atmosphere.
Fast forward to 2024 for Death Valley temperature. I went to:
From the home page, page down to the end and click on
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on
“North America the page down down to U.S.A.-Pacific. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002. Be sure to go to Oz and check the chart for Adelaide. No warming from 1857 to 1999.
If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to the comment text.
I found that a single equation can be used to predict temperature from [CO2] or [CO2] from temperature. This would likely not be possible if the long- and short-term trends (not including seasonal variations) were a different process.
I mentioned this in a recent thread. If there is a functional relationship between variables, it must be reversible. You can’t have a true physical relationship without this. Any difference means you have a one-way prediction of a correlation only.
Thus, even if the costly (€ 800 billion per year) EU decarbonization policies intended to dramatically reduce human CO2 emissions were to be fully implemented today, it would “lower atmospheric CO2 by only about 0.5 ppm by 2035.”
********************
Somebody needs to inform the Europeans about this before they really (and I do mean really) start to screw up their economies even more than they have already. What they are doing over there is getting increasingly tragic, especially when it comes to the energy bills of the average European and UK household. 800 billion euros per year is a hell of a lot of money.
If this study is correct about the relationship between temperatures and most of the CO2 rise, we’ve spent a massive fortune over 30+ years with nothing productive to show for it. The main parties responsible need to start getting locked up. They cans start with a certain party at the University of Pennsylvania.
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
____________________________________________________________________
Could he be any more transparent as to what he’s all about?
“Recently, my research group been focused on determining if global sea level rise has accelerated over the 25-year satellite altimeter record from TOPEX, and Jason-1, -2, and -3. In doing such an analysis, we must account for phenomena as diverse as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and the influence of ENSO variability. We must also carefully assess the measurement errors and the influence of decadal variability on a relatively short 25-year record. While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017). The GRACE satellite tells us that most of this acceleration is coming from the loss of ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica. If this acceleration were to continue unchanged into the future, sea level would be rising at a rate of ~10 mm/year in 2100. Our future research is focused on improving this analysis and its errors, and better understanding how sea level might change in the future. We are also looking forward to the launch of the GRACE Follow-On mission in early 2018. Together, satellite gravity and satellite altimeter measurements tells us how much sea level is changing and why it is changing. This work is funded through the NASA Sea Level Change Team (N-SLCT).”
But the source of water for the sea level rise, polar and mountain ice and snow pack has declined, so it is only a matter of time until “acceleration” must stop. We are simply in a warmer post Little Ice Age period….still not as warm from 3 watts of CO2 forcing as Roman and Medieval warm periods in recorded history,
Scroll up and read my reply to Robert Cutler. CO2 does not cause any global waring and has no effect on weather as evidenced the long cold and snowy winters in many regions of the earth.
In doing such an analysis, we must account for phenomena as diverse as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 . . .
We should also account for crustal movements continuously changing the volume of the ocean basins, but we really have no idea about what’s happening, so we’ll just pretend it is of no consequence, and ignore reality.
What a pack of dimwits! Oh well, funded by NASA – must be true.
“We must also carefully assess the measurement errors and the influence of decadal variability on a relatively short 25-year record. While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017). “
_______________________________________________________________________
You could look at tide gauges for example:
New York Tide Gauge 30 year running rate of sea level rise:
The atmosphere is the compressible working fluid of its own circulation, which is driven mainly by horizontal heating gradients as the daily pulse of incoming solar radiation is experienced at each location on the surface. The atmosphere is energized dynamically throughout its depth. Can we observe the results from space? Yes. Then let’s “connect the dots” back to energy conversion.
From the imagers aboard the GOES East geostationary satellite, NOAA computes Derived Motion Winds. Visualizations are generated and overlaid on a background of the GEOCOLOR composite images. This link activates a time-lapse of the most recent 6 hours of images on 15 minute intervals from GOES East for the CONUS region. Wait for the amination to load, then it will keep playing.
Derived Motion Winds key: Red barbs: High level winds: 100 – 400mb, altitude approximately 23,000 – 46,000 ft. (7-14 km). Cyan barbs: Mid-level winds: 400 – 700mb, altitude: approximately 10,000 – 23,000 ft. (3 – 7 km). Yellow barbs: Low-level winds: > 700mb, altitude: approximately < 10,000 ft. (< 3 km)
The NOAA wind symbology is such that each “barb” represents 10 Knots in the direction the symbol points. A pennant represents 50 Knots.
The images help us to appreciate the importance of energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere: [Internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]. The highly variable kinetic energy of the wind over time, location, and altitude is apparent in these visualizations.
What is the scientific question at issue here? The energy involved in the computed minor improvement in the IR absorbing power in the clear atmosphere from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – the “forcing” – where does it end up? There is no good reason to expect it to accumulate at low altitude, on land, and in the oceans as sensible heat gain. We can see how the atmosphere works as a high-performance solar-powered circulator and energy converter. The incremental absorbed IR ends up being emitted back to space from the upper atmosphere – just like all the IR from the surface that is absorbed already within the atmosphere by water vapor and clouds and the pre-existing concentrations of those IR-active trace gases. The end result is a negligible influence on the climate system.
You’ve most likely seen this before, but here again is more background about energy conversion within the general circulation. Lorenz described it. ERA5 computes it.
David, you are not nearly emphatic enough that ALL the energy causing atmospheric motion originates from Sunlight….that’s THOUSANDS of watts of integrated atmospheric column kinetic energy ….and the flows of energy that are normally “graphed” are, in comparison, rather insignificant. Thus a few watts of CO2 forcing, are randomly dissipated to the atmospheric column, and simply can’t CAUSE MUCH ADDITIONAL WARMING. Compare the ERA5 energy to the energy flows below. Net IR is 398.2-340.3=57.9 of which 40.1 escapes to outer space through the 8-14 micron atmospheric window, for those confused about “back radiation”.
That’s a great find – thank you! I note the reference to Brunt, which I believe is a textbook from 1941. He is Professor David Brunt, who commented in 1938 on Guy Callendar’s proposed attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of CO2. More here about that.
I also note the references to Lorenz, which relates to my quotations from his 1960 paper, which are included in my Readme document in the Google Drive folder I linked above.
All that being said, it is now compelling, in my view, to keep pushing this point about energy conversion. There is now a massive amount of data acquisition and computation performed within ERA5 to produce the “vertical integral of energy conversion” values, all based on the physical and mathematical concepts developed decades ago.
Imagine in decades to come, that it may finally be accepted that a rediscovery of “energy conversion” is what overcame the hysteria over “the greenhouse effect.”
David, I am with Fourier, who said that all the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is lost to outer space, plus a little of the Earth’s internal energy.
Fourier was a lot smarter than me, so why not agree? His statement seems to accord with the laws of physics, measurements, and four and a half billion years of history.
You are much too polite. I think you should replace “thank you for your patience” with “LISTEN HERE PENCIL-NECKS”. We are, after all, on a site where people can express their frustration with questionable climate calcs.
David, no criticism intended, but Fourier calculated (based on his measurements) that the internal heat of the Earth would be sufficient to melt a meter square column of ice 3 meters high over a century.
Not much at all, but modern measurements and calculations show that the Sun is illuminating a surface not from absolute zero, but around 35 K. And, of course, it takes less energy to achieve a final temperature the hotter the object is to start with.
If “climate scientists” claim that the Sun’s input would only raise the temperature of an Earth at absolute zero to say, 255 K, then the initial 35 K has to be added, giving 280 K or so. Hotter than it should be?
. The incremental absorbed IR ends up being emitted back to space from the upper atmosphere . . ,
All of the atmosphere emits IR (being above absolute zero), and all of it is eventually lost to space. That’s why even the lower atmosphere cools at night.
OK! Time for a little rocket science!
Many decades ago, when I was asked to calculate the rocket energy necessary to boost satellites to orbit, I found out that it made a considerable difference where you launched from and where you wanted to go! For example, if you wanted an equatorial orbit, then it helps to have a launch pad at the equator. As soon as the rocket leaves the pad it is already headed East at 1,000 mph! (rounding off here, 24,000 mile circumference in 24 hours!) To reach an eastbound orbit, I only need to add sufficient rocket energy to get to satellite velocity. However, if, for unknown reasons, I want a westbound orbit, I first must counter the eastbound kinetic energy, and then speed it up going West, a much bigger rocket is needed. On the other hand, if I were after a polar orbit, I would much prefer a polar launch pad, where the rocket’s initial kinetic energy is near zero.
If you’re still with me, then it must have occurred to you that the equatorial launch pad is moving East at the same 1,000 mph as the rocket before launch, as is the “still” atmosphere around it! While the launch pad is unlikely to change velocity (KE), the same cannot be said for the atmosphere. Let’s take a simple case. We know that hot tropical air will rise, converting some of its KE to potential energy. Suppose your geostationary satellite measures that at some altitude the equatorial air is moving West at 10 mph! The question becomes, how has the KE of this air mass changed? Was there a force that pushed it westward to a KE of mv^2 = 1*10^2= 100 units, or did it slow from 1,000 to 990 mph, losing ~200 units of KE? Obviously, you can’t do an energy balance on even the simple assumption of a “vertical column of air” without considering the KE of the atmosphere of the rotating planet.
More conspicuously, we know that warm air from the tropics spills over into the higher (polar) latitudes, and we know that “still” air at higher latitudes has an eastward velocity that depends on the circumference of the latitude (COS function). Therefore, air (or the Atlantic Gulfstream) that makes it as far north as 45 or 60 degrees latitude has eastward velocity (KE) left over from the equator (50% or 75%, respectively) that must be considered in an energy balance. The silly geostationary scientists who invent the imaginary “Coriolus Force” cannot do a proper energy analysis of the atmosphere (or the Gulfstream)!
For that matter, even the imaginary “vertical column of air” becomes nonfunctional at higher latitudes– one nautical mile of altitude at 45 deg latitude changes both the rotating radius and the latitude (1 min). Both change the KE of “still” air.
1) You are directing your beef about the choice of the frame of reference toward me, rather than toward the scientific bodies that decided long ago to use a rotating frame of reference (i.e. fixed to the surface, requiring additional terms for the Coriolis effect, etc.) for meteorological modeling purposes. Why toward me?
2) Do you agree or disagree that the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter computed within the ERA5 reanalysis model is a valid representation (estimation) of what is happening physically within the general circulation?
Not towards you personally! I enjoy your posts. It’s just that you quote those silly assumptions (Coriolis, etc.) so directly that it makes it easy to attack them through you.
Of course I reject the “vertical integral” model! First, because it does not adequately represent that the major vertical energy transport is the water cycle (orders of magnitude greater than simple heat transport). Second, because it ignores the energy of formation of, and turbulence within (electrical!), clouds. Third, because it does not calculate or handle KE correctly. And lastly, because even the idea of an isolated “vertical column of atmosphere” is so preposterously unrealistic!
Thanks for your reply. No offense had been taken personally. Now I understand better where you are coming from. My sense is that you are simply stuck. Not so much that your points are wrong, but you’re just not looking at the larger picture.
About the Coriolis effect and its mathematical handling, consider that inertial navigation systems must apply those terms to have any chance of being useful. Use your favorite AI agent to ask, “Consider inertial navigation systems which were used in long-range aircraft. Was there any need to apply extra terms in the computations to account for Coriolis effects?”
Be well.
P.S. The “vertical integral” itself is not a “model.” It is a computed value from a model’s discretized representation of the general circulation.
Why in the world would I ask an “AI agent” anything of substance? An AI Grok is the perfect exemplar of Goebbels’ maxim: “Tell a lie big enough and often enough and it will be accepted as ‘true'”. If Grok were told only that the course of the Gulfstream was steered by a combination of Pixie Dust and Unicorn Farts, it would dutifully repeat same if quizzed!
In the real (rotating) world, there is no physical force that produces the “Coriolis effect”. No Pixie Dust that forces pole-bound ocean or air currents to veer off to the East. In that world (my world) each ton of “still” air at the equator contains roughly eleven million Joules of eastbound kinetic energy, while “still” air at the poles contains none–Zero KE! So, who cares? Who should be interested in energy differentials in the atmosphere? Well, no-one who believes that the only important measure of “global climate” is the arithmetic average of thermometer readings, of course. But, anyone who understands that the variety of local climates is the result of the various pathways of the transport of energy, which arrives primarily in the daylight tropics and is distributed differentially throughout the Earth– primarily by the atmosphere, with help from the oceans. That means any real climate scientist who understands that energy transport from the tropics towards the poles is an essential element of local climate must be aware of the KE differential by latitude in order to calculate and predict energy transport accurately.
Let’s use a heliocentric coordinate system for an even more realistic sense of it all. Now the computed kinetic energy of still air at the poles has a stable value, while the computed kinetic energy of still air at the equator experiences a cyclic variation. Fun with science!
First you chide me for not looking at the “bigger picture”, Then you introduce entirely extraneous factors. Snide comments do not remain impersonal. (Except when I direct them at the thermometer readers, of course!)
You’re messing with the wrong rocket scientist! In calculating trajectories to the planets and beyond I DO use the “heliocentric coordinate system”, smartass! Just as astrophysics requires consideration of solar and galactic motion to be accurate. As you well know, consideration of those coordinate systems do not add accuracy to the calculation of energy transport in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, ignoring the existence, transference, and transformation of considerable KE in the atmosphere, while doing a study of “energy transport in the atmosphere” seems like an unnecessary inaccuracy. Not as bad, I’ll admit, as trying to measure everything with a freaking thermometer, but not so complicated that it couldn’t be included in the study.
Thanks for your further reply. I did not intend for my comment to sound “snide.” No animosity. So please understand that I am simply pointing out considerations by which a better mutual understanding might emerge.
I wish you well.
Thanks for your reply. No offense had been taken personally. Now I understand better where you are coming from. My sense is that you are simply stuck. Not so much that your points are wrong, but you’re just not looking at the larger picture.
About the Coriolis effect and its mathematical handling, consider that inertial navigation systems must apply those terms to have any chance of being useful. Use your favorite AI agent to ask, “Consider inertial navigation systems which were used in long-range aircraft. Was there any need to apply extra terms in the computations to account for Coriolis effects?”
Be well.
P.S. The “vertical integral” itself is not a “model.” It is a computed value from a model’s discretized representation of the general circulation.
Uncommanded duplicate. I have no idea why this sometimes happens.
E. Schaffer
December 7, 2025 3:18 am
We owe positive feedbacks to bad regressions, among others. For instance Chung et al 2010 claims a 2.4W/m2 slope for the interannual dOLR/dTs relation. The logic then goes like this: the Planck Response should be 3.6W/m2 (clear sky) and that would indicate the presence of a positive feedback = 3.6 – 2.4 = 1.2W/m2.
Since it is with clear skies, ruling out cloud feedback, a combination of water vapor feedback and (neg) lapse rate feedback would have to amount to said 1.2W/m2. There are plenty of mistakes in this anyway, but let us just look at the regression itself, because I made a reanalysis of the chart..
I think I was pretty precise with identifying the data points. Problem is just, some of them could be unidentifiable doubles. Anyway, the OLS regression gives 2.58, notably more than just 2.4?! It seems like that figure was a bit doctored to align better with the other regressions (2-2.3).
But OLS is wrong anyhow in this instance, because there ARE errors in the x-values AND the distribution is dominantly vertical. Flipping the axes then gives an OLS slope of 3.65. The appropriate regression however would be TLS (total least squares) which gives 3.55W/M2. That means even with those data, which have been illicity optimized to provide a positive feedback beforehand, there is virtually no positive feedback at al, because 3.6 – 3.55 = 0.05, which is negigible.
I am still working on the full story, but in the meanwhile..
Natural gas explosions are responsible for over 1,000 injuries annually in the United States.
In 2024, there were several notable gas explosions in the UK, including a significant incident in Bedford where two people died due to a house explosion linked to a natural gas leak.
But of course you are meant to believe that plain simple cooking with gas does the killing. No doubt, some will believe that.
Interestingly, there are about 1000 electrical injuries leading to death annually in the U.S., 400 accidental electrocutions and 600 deaths from electrical fires.
Not to mention property damage. I don’t know what the actual stats are nationally, but in my personal experience, over HALF of the fires I’ve responded to were started by electrical problems. And most of those resulted in near total destruction of the house.
And, in comparison, how many people are injured or killed annually in the United States as the result of wooden buildings catching fire and burning to a significant degree?
You know . . . wood, that “green’ renewable product comprising most of global biomass energy availability.
A “child” is defined as being a pre-pubescent human. Most firearm deaths of minors and young adults are between the ages of 14 and 20. Deaths of actual children are relatively rare. Your use of the term “children” is both careless and inaccurate. Why do you try to ‘simonize’ facts?
Reminds me of some of the stats the gun control crowd loved to use a few decades ago..
Dig a big deeper and you find out that anyone 25 or younger in their stats is considered a “child”.
(I think I leaned that from John Lott. I be wrong about learning it from him.)
Nonsense Jeff. Simon knows that guns jump out of the drawer or pick the lock on the gun safe to pop out and shoot the nearest available ‘child’. And it’s amazing how many of those ‘children’ are involved in gang wars. Probably the solution is less policing and no-cash bail, non-enforcement of juvenile crime. Don’t you think? Enlighten us Simon.
“Probably the solution is less policing and no-cash bail, non-enforcement of juvenile crime. “
Nope the solution is tighter gun control laws. A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone, a crazy with a gun, can kill a many in seconds.
You stated “A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone” and when I provide a recent example of someone killing people without one you dismiss it and call ME a clown?
Here’s some more:
Nanjing, 2002, 38 dead by rat poison
Sagamihara, 2016, 19 dead by stabbing
San Juan, 1986, 96 dead by arson
Nice, 2016, 86 dead by vehicle attack
There are plenty more. (btw those last two killed more)
If you seriously think this nonsense you are spewing somehow justifies allowing any old Joe Blow to own a semi automatic rifle, then good luck to you. Reming me again, how are the gun laws working out for the US at the moment?
Simon, you started off claiming “A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone” and I provided examples to the contrary. You have yet to admit that your statement was nonsense despite it being clearly proven wrong.
I also note the conspicuous absence of any attempt to address my original question.
Fortunately, arson and bombs are no longer used as frequently as at one time. If unthinking people like Simon were to have their way, we might well experience that again.
You are an illogical thinker if you believe that professional criminals will pay attention to gun control laws, particularly if they are not strictly enforced with severe penalties.
What is particularly scary is the thought of what might happen if you were to have your wish granted. England has experienced an increase in knife attacks since it made access to firearms more difficult. Some Americans are intrinsically more violent, and I suspect more creative. Violence in America is more highly correlated with demographics (such as population density and age distribution), the introduction and distribution of new recreational drugs, and the role of gangs in distributing drugs. I won’t call you a clown, but your understanding of the problem is, at best, simplistic, and all you have presented is anecdotal ‘evidence’ for your position.
Your unsupported assumption is that prior restraint style gun control laws accomplish what is hoped for. All states are subject to federal gun control laws; most states have laws similar to other states and the federal government, except Vermont, known for its low firearm homicide rate. Yet, every state shows geographical clustering, despite uniformity of laws. Please explain what would cause consistent geographic clustering, not only in rural states near the Canadian/US border, but in those states like New York, California, and Massachusetts with most of the laws that those like you advocate.
My family’s house used coal for heat until about 1950, then gas for both heating and cooking. Mom was born in 1907 and dad in 1908. Interesting, both of my parents died. I blame the gas.
If they get rid of nat. gas, what fuel will they use for cooking food and heating in winter? They can use propane. In Canada we have lots of propane for sale.
So we estimate that the population of individuals with compromised respiratory conditions is 40 million. We estimate that exposure to typical emissions from X increases mortality by 0.1%. 0.001 x 40 million = 40,000 deaths. QED.
Negligible risk times very large numbers equals scary projections. No need to verify the actual cause of any actual deaths.
I’m guessing the Europeans learn this trick from the USEPA.
“An expert panel from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found that medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year.”
strativarius
December 7, 2025 3:50 am
When a population exceeds the available resources, the ecological carrying capacity, then that population crashes. In today’s Guardian sponsored ‘Age of Extinction‘, how to insert climate change into the narrative.
More than 60,000 penguins in colonies off the coast of South Africa have starved to death as a result of disappearing sardines, a new paper has found. – Grauniad
An obvious case of overfishing. But it’s much more than that where the Guardian is concerned…
Climate crisis and overfishing contributed to loss of 95% of penguins in two breeding colonies in South Africa, research finds
Something for us ‘rosbifs’ to ponder over the Sunday roast later – which just happens to be beef. Bovaer free of course.
Maybe. Maybe not. Here’s a paper https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305733110 that suggests that populations of “baitfish” (Sardines and Anchovies) are strongly cyclic off California even in the period before commercial fishing and in the period after fishery management. The cycles are asserted to be long == 60 and 80 years respectively. If all that’s true then there are likely periods when the low points in both populations coincide and critters that depend on the presence of large numbers of small fish are going to be in trouble for a while.
I agree. The population logistics map models population growth with limited resources, and is chaotic, and therefore unpredictable.
Unfortunately, some clever people run Fourier analyses on the past outputs of a chaotic systemt, and derive mathematically valid but completely nonsensical “cycles” with no predictive power at all.
Sharemarket traders and governments love “cycles”, and refuse to believe you can’t use “cycles”, extracted from chaos, to predict the future. They just keep at it, hoping one day it will work
nyeevknoit
December 7, 2025 4:54 am
Story Tip;
New subject related to another “zero goal” issue. Radon.
Regulation of radon in housing has cost me thousands. I recall in 1994 the basis for regulation was “deaths caused by inhaling radon” and the level was set to 4 picocuries (?). Now it is 2 pc.
Does anyone know of an independent source for observed and proven cancer deaths from residential radon? Or is this another modeling based regulation on massive assumptions and associations.
One example given to me by a physician years ago was a patient death from living in a basement house with 100 pc for decades. Turns out BOTH men living there were regular cigar smokers….but one died of lung cancer in his 70’s blamed on radon.
So, same story, different regulations, massive public costs.
Pennsylvania has addressed the Radon issue because of the complex rock structures.
See this map:
<a href=”https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/pennsylvania-radon-study-map”> PA Radon map</a>
A search with “Pennsylvania radon study” brings many hits.
My childhood home on western PA had a partial basement with dirt floor – some say “That explains a lot.”
That’s interesting John. Has anyone overlaid a map of lung cancer rates on the radon map ? Probably the lung cancer rates versus cigarette sales shows a better fit.
Colorado and Radon. When I moved from CO in 2019 I was required to do a “radon test” on my home prior to sale. I had lived there for 35 years. Of course the radon measured result was above the background limit and I was required to install a radon mitigation device…$1000+…before I could sell my house. Those radon installers had a nice little business going for them courtesy of the State of Colorado.
You should buy a canary. If the canary is happy and healthy, then radon is not a problem.
Quondam
December 7, 2025 5:05 am
For some time I’ve been curious about what AI might say about the fundamentals underlying climate science. Several months ago, I asked AI “If earth’s atmosphere were 100% dry argon, what would its temperature profile be? “ The answer (as expected), 19K/km, the adiabatic lapse rate. Since then I’ve reluctantly upgraded to Windows 11 which incorporates an AI App, Copilot. Last week, I posed a set of rather fundamental questions to both Copilot and Google’s Gemini:
Who first defined Convective Equilibrium? (Kelvin)
What was Maxwell’s opinion regarding the effect of gravity on thermal profiles? (Equilibria remain isothermal)
If earth’s atmosphere were 100% dry argon, what would its temperature profile be? (isothermal)
Does RCE theory describe a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? (No)
Does existence of a real temperature function require path-independence? (Yes)
What is thermodynamic dissipation? (The irreversible loss of usable energy)
What is the rate of energy dissipation of a 100 watt flux of thermal energy flowing from a 300K source to a 200K thermal sink? (33 1/3 W)
Both responded with detailed discussion, my summary of Gemini’s parenthetically above. Many of Copilot’s responses were similar. However, for the first, Copilot cited Riehl & Malkus in the 1950s. For the argon question, Copilot believed there would be a convective 5-7 km surface layer with a 19K/km gradient. For the last, both derived the same equation but failed to recognize J*(1-(T2/T1)) as the Carnot expression. Both invoked exergy in lieu of free energy – the condition that a finite source will eventually run dry or a finite sink fill up and the boundary temperatures equilibrate is not relevant.
Conclusion: AI is best at telling us what we don’t know we know. At present, it appears to have escaped bowdlerization wrt climate science. When asked what would be the thermodynamic consequences were entropy/temperature considered complex functions with solutions on the real axis, the response was nontivial.
While specific, thin layers within the Earth’s atmosphere might have a relatively constant temperature (be isothermal), the entire vertical profile is emphatically not.
and a few moments later –
That’s correct: An atmosphere of 100% argon would not be perfectly isothermal in a real planetary setting.
Still prevaricating, but it will drop the “perfectly” tautology if pushed –
That is an excellent semantic and scientific question. You are correct that, strictly speaking, “perfectly isothermal” is a tautology
Oh well, Artificial Intelligence initially tells the ignorant and gullible what they want to hear. At least it doesn’t storm off in a huff, or throw a tantrum if you point out it’s being vague, contradictory, or evasive.
Believe no-one, not even a horrendously expensive computer program
How long do telephone companies keep information on a person?
I noticed that the U.S. Justice Department located the guy who planted two pipe bombs on Jan. 5, 2021, one in front of the Democrat National Committee headquarters in Washington DC, and one in front of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington DC. Neither pipe bomb went off, but they were capable of detonating. The last thing I heard about it was the pipe bombs did not go off because their batteries ran down.
One of the bits of information the FBI used to identify this bomber was the ping information which his telephone generated. They could place the bomber at the locations of the bombs and at the time of the planting of the bombs because his cellphone was pinging off local cell towers.
Apparently the phone company has kept this private ping information for about five years, since Jan. 5, 2021.
Does the phone company know the location of every customer for the last five years? It would seem so.
If I understood correctly the phone records used were not new, but already in the possession of the FBI from years ago. I don’t know how long those records are kept but we can’t conclude that it is five years, but you never know.
No, the records were analyzed furiously, same as the records they used to find and arrest all those grandmothers across America for ‘seditious insurrection’.
But in this case, when the investigation wasn’t finding a rascally ‘white supremacist’, but might possibly point to a black dude, then it didn’t fit the narrative and was abandoned and ignored.
I don’t for a minute believe that this black guy is the real bomber. He’s a patsy. Why he’s willing to play that role I can’t say at this point, but the real story is the policewoman who now works for the CIA.
The authorities could have saved all the phone company ping information around the time of the placing of the bombs, but there is nothing they could do with the information until they have a telephone number to trace.
Here’s what James Hansen said about why the U.S. regional chart (on the left, above) and the Global Hockey Stick chart (on the right, above) look so different with completely different temperature trendlines. The U.S. temperature trendline shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and there is no unprecedented warmth today. This means we have nothing to worry about from CO2 overheating the planet.
The Global Hockey Stick chart shows a completely different temperature profile with temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter since the End of the Little Ice Age, and it shows that today is the hottest time in human history.
Here’s what Hansen has to say about the difference:
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.”
So James Hansen claims the U.S. climate is following a different course than the “global” climate. And Hansen is correct, the U.S. chart is definitely on a different course than the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick Global chart.
The Truth is the U.S. regional chart is much more representative of a global temperature trend-line than is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. All the original, written, historical regional temperature charts have basically the very same temperature profile as the U.S. temperature profile, where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
None of the original, written, historical regional temperature records show a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile.
So how did Phil Jones and these other temperature data mannipulators create a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile out of temperature data (the regional data) that has no “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile? All the data Phil Jones had to work with came from the regional temperature charts from around the world, and none of them have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend-line. Phil Jones create something that didn’t exist before he became involved.
These Temperature Data Mannipulators are lying to the world and made this “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile up out of whole cloth as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
There is no evidence supporting a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart temperature trend-line.
There is all sorts of evidence supporting the fact that it was just as warm in the recent past with less CO2 in the air as it is today with more CO2 in the air. The amount of CO2 in the air obviously did not dirve the world to unprecendented high temperatures since it is no warmer today that it was in the past.
The Hockey Stick global temperature chart is a BIG LIE, meant to sell another Big Lie: That CO2 is dangerous, and needs to be controlled at all costs.
Do you have the latest versions of those graphs Tom? I’ve given them to you a few times. Yours are a quarter of a century old now. In the interest of accuracy and honesty, would you like me to post them? Happy to.
NASA GISS? Is that the one directed by the slow-witted mathematician Gavin Schmidt who proudly declared that an event with a 38% probability was “almost certain”?
A coin toss will give more “certainty”!
Gavin Schmidt was an author of the fairytale “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.
Are you ignorant and gullible enough to believe anything Gavin Schmidt says without at least thinking for yourself for 5 seconds?
You obviously share Gavin’s belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter! It doesn’t.
For a US temperature check, go to: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in long table. There is no computed Tavg. There is also no plot of the Tmax and Tmin data.
However, if you know to use excel, you should be to compute and plot Tavg. You can plot Tmax and Tmin.
Note the “Country”: Click on it for a list of countries.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of Tmax and Tmin for Adelaide from 1901 to 2024. The chart was prepared for me by tech savy son.
For city temperature data use: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/city name. Enter the name in small letters and insert a hyphen for a city with two words. This displays the weather and climate date for the city. Scroll down to the end for more options for display of data
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
Sweet Old Bob
December 7, 2025 6:47 am
And remember PHD….Pearl Harbor Day .
84 years ago .
Yes Marty….And let’s not forget that in addition to defeating the Axis powers by mass bombing somewhat later in WW2…..America’s manufacturing and banking system also completely bankrupted the British Empire, up to that point the largest empire in history.
The cut-rate valuation of $1.40 is a relatively new development. My point really was the claim that America’s “banking system also completely bankrupted the British Empire,” yet the British pound has always, and still is, worth more than the dollar. How much of the WWII lend/lease shipments were re-paid? Any financial difficulties Briton has should be assigned where they belong — the ‘Not Zees,’ and its socialist legislators.
Sometimes when I read dates from history, I’ll “translate” them into the time of events in my or my parents’ lifespan to get a “feel” for what those events may have seemed like to those “ancient” people.
IE When I born, WW2 ended 19 years before. But it was very real to my parents. When my Dad was born, WW1 had ended only 3 or 4 years before. etc.
The young’uns don’t know what Pearl Harbor Day is.
Russell Cook
December 7, 2025 8:10 am
For readers who occasionally check in to my GelbspanFiles blog as a result of seeing my blog posts reproduced here at WUWT, this past Sunday I added one more post to my “Background” series which covers both the origins of – and the promulgators of – the false corruption accusations leveled at skeptic climate scientists.
Back in February 2015 when WUWT reproduced my then-current blog post about the man’s strange reappearance after quitting Greenpeace in 2013, I was mystified what he was up to. Only within the recent couple of years did I find out that his 2015 reappearance was apparently part of al larger plan to supply false accusations to attorneys’ offices, so that they could launch climate litigation lawfare efforts. The bit he and his former Greenpeace boss were offering to the 2015 New York state Attorney General’s office wasn’t ultimately used in State of New York v. Exxon for who knows what reason, but subsequent lawsuit filings did indeed regurgitate the ‘bribery’ accusation against Dr Soon. 37 of them, including the ones that were recently dismissed.
NASA still lists “in 2027” for the launch of the Artemis 3 mission that is planned to return astronauts to the Moon using the SpaceX Starship HLS. Does anyone . . . anyone at all . . . believe that date has any credibility?
End-2027 is just a tad over 2 years away. Here’s my short list ofmajor accomplishments that will be required before that Artemis flight, if it’s not to be the equivalent of a suicide-mission:
— Design, build and functionally checkout the HLS version of the current Starship orbital vehicle. HLS will require a MASSIVE upgrade to the current Starship orbital vehicle because it will need life support, docking/astronaut transfer airlocks, windows/view ports, deployable solar arrays, propellant refueling ports, self-leveling landing legs, an elevator to get astronauts to/from the lunar surface, and addition of 18 (nominal) new RCS rockets in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 lbf thrust each distributed and canted downward around the forward girth of the vehicle to enable a soft landing on the Moon’s surface without throwing up regolith, which a single throttled-down aft face Raptor 3 engine would do. It is also likely that Starship HLS will require added MMOD/radiation shielding around the crew compartment and electronic compartments for passage through Van Allen radiation belts and considering the relatively long durations it will be in orbit both before and after the lunar landing. And since there are no vibration, acceleration, shock or thermal-vacuum test facilities on earth that can accommodate a test article the size of Starship HLS, it appears this testing must be done using one or more test launches of Starship HLS to LEO.
— Complete at least one successful orbital flight of a Starship HLS flight vehicle, a step up from completing an orbital flight of the current Starship flight vehicle that has yet to be accomplished.
— Complete at least one successful return to Earth and landing of a Starship HLS vehicle without use of GPS or differential GPS (neither of which will be available at the Moon).
— Demonstrate autonomous on-orbit (zero g) refueling between a SpaceX Starship “tanker” and a SpaceX HLS vehicle (once placed into a lunar trajectory from LEO a SpaceX HLS vehicle will not have sufficient remaining propellant load to go directly into the planned NRHO lunar orbit, rendezvous with a Orion capsule to onboard astronauts, descend to the Moon’s surface, and to then ascend into the NRHO to offload the astronauts back into the Orion capsule).
All going to be completed within the next two years? I think not.
And I fully expect that in early-2026 NASA will announce that a landing of US astronauts on the Moon has been rescheduled to “mid-2029 or thereafter”.
Expansion of the TransMountain Pipeline did finally get built so tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet and the Straits leading to the open Pacific Ocean are roughly back to traffic levels of the 1950s when TMP was built.
(TMP serves refineries in NW WA which later received oil from Alaska, that flow by tankers has been decreasing, As well as one in the Metro Vancouver BC area. As demand i those two areas increased and multi-mode operation of the pipe began tanker traffic went way down.) Trans Mountain pipeline – Wikipedia
This diagram illustrates how different fuels are transmitted through a pipeline, it does not show crude oil. (Diesel is heavier than the common aviation fuel JetA which is similar to kerosene. Scrubbing separators called ‘pigs’ are used).
Ne evidence warming causes most of the CO2 increase:
https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/12/06/new-study-temperature-driven-co2-outgassing-explains-83-of-co2-rise-since-1959/
Thanks David an interesting study.
The study confirms what I’ve been saying for two years, though I’m not sure that anthropogenic emissions move the needle.
The thing most people don’t know about integration is that it results in a 90° delay (for cycles). This is because the integral of cos(2πft) is sin(2πft)/(2πf) which is an attenuated cosine delayed by 90°. This characteristic response was the clue to the relationship.
This is important because the delay between temperature and [CO2] depends on the cycle length. A 2-year cycle would have a 6-month delay, while a 1000-year cycle would have a 250-year delay.
I found that a single equation can be used to predict temperature from [CO2] or [CO2] from temperature. This would likely not be possible if the long- and short-term trends (not including seasonal variations) were a different process.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming of Air.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the annual seasonal temperatures and a plot of the annual average temperature at the Furnace Creek weather station from in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. The average annual temperature in 2001 was 25.1° C.
In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 303 ppmv
(0.60 g CO2/cu. m.) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The reason there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert is due to the saturation of the absorption of out-going of IR light emanating from the desert surface by CO2. The threshold for the saturation effect for CO2 is 300 ppmv.
For info on the saturation effect, check out:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” by Dieter Schildnecht, available at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708v1.
Another reason there was no increase in the air temperature of the desert is because there is just too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the desert surface to heat up the large mass of the atmosphere.
Fast forward to 2024 for Death Valley temperature. I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch/cities/death-valley/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in a long table. The Tavg for 2024 was 26.7° C. There has been only slight increase in air temperature since 2001
NB: The chart was taken the late John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com.
From the home page, page down to the end and click on
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on
“North America the page down down to U.S.A.-Pacific. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002. Be sure to go to Oz and check the chart for Adelaide. No warming from 1857 to 1999.
If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to the comment text.
I mentioned this in a recent thread. If there is a functional relationship between variables, it must be reversible. You can’t have a true physical relationship without this. Any difference means you have a one-way prediction of a correlation only.
From the study:
********************
Somebody needs to inform the Europeans about this before they really (and I do mean really) start to screw up their economies even more than they have already. What they are doing over there is getting increasingly tragic, especially when it comes to the energy bills of the average European and UK household. 800 billion euros per year is a hell of a lot of money.
If this study is correct about the relationship between temperatures and most of the CO2 rise, we’ve spent a massive fortune over 30+ years with nothing productive to show for it. The main parties responsible need to start getting locked up. They cans start with a certain party at the University of Pennsylvania.
I want to scream.
You want to scream from Wisconsin, we are in the middle of the madness & nobody hears us scream !!
A visual aid from Europe…
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.RCeHV9LmJ1TsmFhrGhGgEgHaEJ%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=8e4f77224785f89a628741321d22b22b67532cdc5a4dd052c7c67dbae0f2a231&ipo=images
““lower atmospheric CO2 by only about 0.5 ppm by 2035″
Actually it would probably increase the aCO2 because it would transfer manufacturing to China. 🙂
While ever people want “stuff”.. manufacturing will produce it.
And once people start being told they can’t have “stuff”, they will start getting cranky.
Here are three R. S. Nerem titles and their URLs:
___________________________________________________________________
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf
Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
____________________________________________________________________
Could he be any more transparent as to what he’s all about?
“Recently, my research group been focused on determining if global sea level rise has accelerated over the 25-year satellite altimeter record from TOPEX, and Jason-1, -2, and -3. In doing such an analysis, we must account for phenomena as diverse as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and the influence of ENSO variability. We must also carefully assess the measurement errors and the influence of decadal variability on a relatively short 25-year record. While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017). The GRACE satellite tells us that most of this acceleration is coming from the loss of ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica. If this acceleration were to continue unchanged into the future, sea level would be rising at a rate of ~10 mm/year in 2100. Our future research is focused on improving this analysis and its errors, and better understanding how sea level might change in the future. We are also looking forward to the launch of the GRACE Follow-On mission in early 2018. Together, satellite gravity and satellite altimeter measurements tells us how much sea level is changing and why it is changing. This work is funded through the NASA Sea Level Change Team (N-SLCT).”
https://cires.colorado.edu/people/steven-nerem
Parts of Colorado could become an inland sea again in 200,000 thousand years.
But the source of water for the sea level rise, polar and mountain ice and snow pack has declined, so it is only a matter of time until “acceleration” must stop. We are simply in a warmer post Little Ice Age period….still not as warm from 3 watts of CO2 forcing as Roman and Medieval warm periods in recorded history,
Scroll up and read my reply to Robert Cutler. CO2 does not cause any global waring and has no effect on weather as evidenced the long cold and snowy winters in many regions of the earth.
We should also account for crustal movements continuously changing the volume of the ocean basins, but we really have no idea about what’s happening, so we’ll just pretend it is of no consequence, and ignore reality.
What a pack of dimwits! Oh well, funded by NASA – must be true.
“We must also carefully assess the measurement errors and the influence of decadal variability on a relatively short 25-year record. While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017). “
_______________________________________________________________________
You could look at tide gauges for example:
New York Tide Gauge 30 year running rate of sea level rise:
My image didn’t show up. Let me try that again:
The atmosphere is the compressible working fluid of its own circulation, which is driven mainly by horizontal heating gradients as the daily pulse of incoming solar radiation is experienced at each location on the surface. The atmosphere is energized dynamically throughout its depth. Can we observe the results from space? Yes. Then let’s “connect the dots” back to energy conversion.
From the imagers aboard the GOES East geostationary satellite, NOAA computes Derived Motion Winds. Visualizations are generated and overlaid on a background of the GEOCOLOR composite images. This link activates a time-lapse of the most recent 6 hours of images on 15 minute intervals from GOES East for the CONUS region. Wait for the amination to load, then it will keep playing.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus_band.php?sat=G19&band=DMW&length=24
Derived Motion Winds key: Red barbs: High level winds: 100 – 400mb, altitude approximately 23,000 – 46,000 ft. (7-14 km). Cyan barbs: Mid-level winds: 400 – 700mb, altitude: approximately 10,000 – 23,000 ft. (3 – 7 km). Yellow barbs: Low-level winds: > 700mb, altitude: approximately < 10,000 ft. (< 3 km)
The NOAA wind symbology is such that each “barb” represents 10 Knots in the direction the symbol points. A pennant represents 50 Knots.
The images help us to appreciate the importance of energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere: [Internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]. The highly variable kinetic energy of the wind over time, location, and altitude is apparent in these visualizations.
What is the scientific question at issue here? The energy involved in the computed minor improvement in the IR absorbing power in the clear atmosphere from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O – the “forcing” – where does it end up? There is no good reason to expect it to accumulate at low altitude, on land, and in the oceans as sensible heat gain. We can see how the atmosphere works as a high-performance solar-powered circulator and energy converter. The incremental absorbed IR ends up being emitted back to space from the upper atmosphere – just like all the IR from the surface that is absorbed already within the atmosphere by water vapor and clouds and the pre-existing concentrations of those IR-active trace gases. The end result is a negligible influence on the climate system.
You’ve most likely seen this before, but here again is more background about energy conversion within the general circulation. Lorenz described it. ERA5 computes it.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for listening.
David, you are not nearly emphatic enough that ALL the energy causing atmospheric motion originates from Sunlight….that’s THOUSANDS of watts of integrated atmospheric column kinetic energy ….and the flows of energy that are normally “graphed” are, in comparison, rather insignificant. Thus a few watts of CO2 forcing, are randomly dissipated to the atmospheric column, and simply can’t CAUSE MUCH ADDITIONAL WARMING. Compare the ERA5 energy to the energy flows below. Net IR is 398.2-340.3=57.9 of which 40.1 escapes to outer space through the 8-14 micron atmospheric window, for those confused about “back radiation”.
Oops, forgot the graphic
And this heat>convection>Wind energy conversion has been a research topic of atmospheric scientists since at least 1941.
https://tellusjournal.org/articles/3748/files/658d1e773fa2d.pdf
That’s a great find – thank you! I note the reference to Brunt, which I believe is a textbook from 1941. He is Professor David Brunt, who commented in 1938 on Guy Callendar’s proposed attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of CO2. More here about that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322
I also note the references to Lorenz, which relates to my quotations from his 1960 paper, which are included in my Readme document in the Google Drive folder I linked above.
All that being said, it is now compelling, in my view, to keep pushing this point about energy conversion. There is now a massive amount of data acquisition and computation performed within ERA5 to produce the “vertical integral of energy conversion” values, all based on the physical and mathematical concepts developed decades ago.
Imagine in decades to come, that it may finally be accepted that a rediscovery of “energy conversion” is what overcame the hysteria over “the greenhouse effect.”
David, I am with Fourier, who said that all the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is lost to outer space, plus a little of the Earth’s internal energy.
Fourier was a lot smarter than me, so why not agree? His statement seems to accord with the laws of physics, measurements, and four and a half billion years of history.
You are much too polite. I think you should replace “thank you for your patience” with “LISTEN HERE PENCIL-NECKS”. We are, after all, on a site where people can express their frustration with questionable climate calcs.
David, no criticism intended, but Fourier calculated (based on his measurements) that the internal heat of the Earth would be sufficient to melt a meter square column of ice 3 meters high over a century.
Not much at all, but modern measurements and calculations show that the Sun is illuminating a surface not from absolute zero, but around 35 K. And, of course, it takes less energy to achieve a final temperature the hotter the object is to start with.
If “climate scientists” claim that the Sun’s input would only raise the temperature of an Earth at absolute zero to say, 255 K, then the initial 35 K has to be added, giving 280 K or so. Hotter than it should be?
No, exactly as hot as it should be, and is.
Major wild fires also generate sufficient heat to cause atmospheric motion locally, so we might want to temper “ALL” with a footnote.
All of the atmosphere emits IR (being above absolute zero), and all of it is eventually lost to space. That’s why even the lower atmosphere cools at night.
OK! Time for a little rocket science!
Many decades ago, when I was asked to calculate the rocket energy necessary to boost satellites to orbit, I found out that it made a considerable difference where you launched from and where you wanted to go! For example, if you wanted an equatorial orbit, then it helps to have a launch pad at the equator. As soon as the rocket leaves the pad it is already headed East at 1,000 mph! (rounding off here, 24,000 mile circumference in 24 hours!) To reach an eastbound orbit, I only need to add sufficient rocket energy to get to satellite velocity. However, if, for unknown reasons, I want a westbound orbit, I first must counter the eastbound kinetic energy, and then speed it up going West, a much bigger rocket is needed. On the other hand, if I were after a polar orbit, I would much prefer a polar launch pad, where the rocket’s initial kinetic energy is near zero.
If you’re still with me, then it must have occurred to you that the equatorial launch pad is moving East at the same 1,000 mph as the rocket before launch, as is the “still” atmosphere around it! While the launch pad is unlikely to change velocity (KE), the same cannot be said for the atmosphere. Let’s take a simple case. We know that hot tropical air will rise, converting some of its KE to potential energy. Suppose your geostationary satellite measures that at some altitude the equatorial air is moving West at 10 mph! The question becomes, how has the KE of this air mass changed? Was there a force that pushed it westward to a KE of mv^2 = 1*10^2= 100 units, or did it slow from 1,000 to 990 mph, losing ~200 units of KE? Obviously, you can’t do an energy balance on even the simple assumption of a “vertical column of air” without considering the KE of the atmosphere of the rotating planet.
More conspicuously, we know that warm air from the tropics spills over into the higher (polar) latitudes, and we know that “still” air at higher latitudes has an eastward velocity that depends on the circumference of the latitude (COS function). Therefore, air (or the Atlantic Gulfstream) that makes it as far north as 45 or 60 degrees latitude has eastward velocity (KE) left over from the equator (50% or 75%, respectively) that must be considered in an energy balance. The silly geostationary scientists who invent the imaginary “Coriolus Force” cannot do a proper energy analysis of the atmosphere (or the Gulfstream)!
For that matter, even the imaginary “vertical column of air” becomes nonfunctional at higher latitudes– one nautical mile of altitude at 45 deg latitude changes both the rotating radius and the latitude (1 min). Both change the KE of “still” air.
1) You are directing your beef about the choice of the frame of reference toward me, rather than toward the scientific bodies that decided long ago to use a rotating frame of reference (i.e. fixed to the surface, requiring additional terms for the Coriolis effect, etc.) for meteorological modeling purposes. Why toward me?
2) Do you agree or disagree that the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter computed within the ERA5 reanalysis model is a valid representation (estimation) of what is happening physically within the general circulation?
Thank you.
Not towards you personally! I enjoy your posts. It’s just that you quote those silly assumptions (Coriolis, etc.) so directly that it makes it easy to attack them through you.
Of course I reject the “vertical integral” model! First, because it does not adequately represent that the major vertical energy transport is the water cycle (orders of magnitude greater than simple heat transport). Second, because it ignores the energy of formation of, and turbulence within (electrical!), clouds. Third, because it does not calculate or handle KE correctly. And lastly, because even the idea of an isolated “vertical column of atmosphere” is so preposterously unrealistic!
Thanks for your reply. No offense had been taken personally. Now I understand better where you are coming from. My sense is that you are simply stuck. Not so much that your points are wrong, but you’re just not looking at the larger picture.
About the Coriolis effect and its mathematical handling, consider that inertial navigation systems must apply those terms to have any chance of being useful. Use your favorite AI agent to ask, “Consider inertial navigation systems which were used in long-range aircraft. Was there any need to apply extra terms in the computations to account for Coriolis effects?”
Be well.
P.S. The “vertical integral” itself is not a “model.” It is a computed value from a model’s discretized representation of the general circulation.
Why in the world would I ask an “AI agent” anything of substance? An AI Grok is the perfect exemplar of Goebbels’ maxim: “Tell a lie big enough and often enough and it will be accepted as ‘true'”. If Grok were told only that the course of the Gulfstream was steered by a combination of Pixie Dust and Unicorn Farts, it would dutifully repeat same if quizzed!
In the real (rotating) world, there is no physical force that produces the “Coriolis effect”. No Pixie Dust that forces pole-bound ocean or air currents to veer off to the East. In that world (my world) each ton of “still” air at the equator contains roughly eleven million Joules of eastbound kinetic energy, while “still” air at the poles contains none–Zero KE! So, who cares? Who should be interested in energy differentials in the atmosphere? Well, no-one who believes that the only important measure of “global climate” is the arithmetic average of thermometer readings, of course. But, anyone who understands that the variety of local climates is the result of the various pathways of the transport of energy, which arrives primarily in the daylight tropics and is distributed differentially throughout the Earth– primarily by the atmosphere, with help from the oceans. That means any real climate scientist who understands that energy transport from the tropics towards the poles is an essential element of local climate must be aware of the KE differential by latitude in order to calculate and predict energy transport accurately.
Let’s use a heliocentric coordinate system for an even more realistic sense of it all. Now the computed kinetic energy of still air at the poles has a stable value, while the computed kinetic energy of still air at the equator experiences a cyclic variation. Fun with science!
First you chide me for not looking at the “bigger picture”, Then you introduce entirely extraneous factors. Snide comments do not remain impersonal. (Except when I direct them at the thermometer readers, of course!)
You’re messing with the wrong rocket scientist! In calculating trajectories to the planets and beyond I DO use the “heliocentric coordinate system”, smartass! Just as astrophysics requires consideration of solar and galactic motion to be accurate. As you well know, consideration of those coordinate systems do not add accuracy to the calculation of energy transport in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, ignoring the existence, transference, and transformation of considerable KE in the atmosphere, while doing a study of “energy transport in the atmosphere” seems like an unnecessary inaccuracy. Not as bad, I’ll admit, as trying to measure everything with a freaking thermometer, but not so complicated that it couldn’t be included in the study.
Thanks for your further reply. I did not intend for my comment to sound “snide.” No animosity. So please understand that I am simply pointing out considerations by which a better mutual understanding might emerge.
I wish you well.
Thanks for your reply. No offense had been taken personally. Now I understand better where you are coming from. My sense is that you are simply stuck. Not so much that your points are wrong, but you’re just not looking at the larger picture.
About the Coriolis effect and its mathematical handling, consider that inertial navigation systems must apply those terms to have any chance of being useful. Use your favorite AI agent to ask, “Consider inertial navigation systems which were used in long-range aircraft. Was there any need to apply extra terms in the computations to account for Coriolis effects?”
Be well.
P.S. The “vertical integral” itself is not a “model.” It is a computed value from a model’s discretized representation of the general circulation.
Uncommanded duplicate. I have no idea why this sometimes happens.
We owe positive feedbacks to bad regressions, among others. For instance Chung et al 2010 claims a 2.4W/m2 slope for the interannual dOLR/dTs relation. The logic then goes like this: the Planck Response should be 3.6W/m2 (clear sky) and that would indicate the presence of a positive feedback = 3.6 – 2.4 = 1.2W/m2.
Since it is with clear skies, ruling out cloud feedback, a combination of water vapor feedback and (neg) lapse rate feedback would have to amount to said 1.2W/m2. There are plenty of mistakes in this anyway, but let us just look at the regression itself, because I made a reanalysis of the chart..
I think I was pretty precise with identifying the data points. Problem is just, some of them could be unidentifiable doubles. Anyway, the OLS regression gives 2.58, notably more than just 2.4?! It seems like that figure was a bit doctored to align better with the other regressions (2-2.3).
But OLS is wrong anyhow in this instance, because there ARE errors in the x-values AND the distribution is dominantly vertical. Flipping the axes then gives an OLS slope of 3.65. The appropriate regression however would be TLS (total least squares) which gives 3.55W/M2. That means even with those data, which have been illicity optimized to provide a positive feedback beforehand, there is virtually no positive feedback at al, because 3.6 – 3.55 = 0.05, which is negigible.
I am still working on the full story, but in the meanwhile..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/how-to-flip-the-sign-on-feedbacks
Story Tip: How gas stoves kill 40,000 Europeans each year
Oh dear…
Natural gas explosions are responsible for over 1,000 injuries annually in the United States.
In 2024, there were several notable gas explosions in the UK, including a significant incident in Bedford where two people died due to a house explosion linked to a natural gas leak.
But of course you are meant to believe that plain simple cooking with gas does the killing. No doubt, some will believe that.
Interestingly, there are about 1000 electrical injuries leading to death annually in the U.S., 400 accidental electrocutions and 600 deaths from electrical fires.
600 deaths from electrical fires.
Not to mention property damage. I don’t know what the actual stats are nationally, but in my personal experience, over HALF of the fires I’ve responded to were started by electrical problems. And most of those resulted in near total destruction of the house.
And, in comparison, how many people are injured or killed annually in the United States as the result of wooden buildings catching fire and burning to a significant degree?
You know . . . wood, that “green’ renewable product comprising most of global biomass energy availability.
/sarc
How many die in traffic accidents which happen regardless of the propulsion system?
105,000 drugs and 41,000 autos
I suspect there is a connection there.
Oh and guns. Don’t forget guns. Biggest killer of children in the US. More than cancer.
A “child” is defined as being a pre-pubescent human. Most firearm deaths of minors and young adults are between the ages of 14 and 20. Deaths of actual children are relatively rare. Your use of the term “children” is both careless and inaccurate. Why do you try to ‘simonize’ facts?
Reminds me of some of the stats the gun control crowd loved to use a few decades ago..
Dig a big deeper and you find out that anyone 25 or younger in their stats is considered a “child”.
(I think I leaned that from John Lott. I be wrong about learning it from him.)
young adults are between the ages of 14 and 20
Not only that, but a very large proportion of them are gang members – but somehow the problem is the guns, not the gangs.
What you say is true. Most of the 14-20 deaths are murders involving gangs.
People have to fire the guns, people have to take the drugs, people have to drive the cars.
Nonsense Jeff. Simon knows that guns jump out of the drawer or pick the lock on the gun safe to pop out and shoot the nearest available ‘child’. And it’s amazing how many of those ‘children’ are involved in gang wars. Probably the solution is less policing and no-cash bail, non-enforcement of juvenile crime. Don’t you think? Enlighten us Simon.
“Probably the solution is less policing and no-cash bail, non-enforcement of juvenile crime. “
Nope the solution is tighter gun control laws. A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone, a crazy with a gun, can kill a many in seconds.
the solution is tighter gun control laws
Such as what, specifically? Provide suggestions that might actually accomplish something.
A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone
https://ddnews.gov.in/en/car-ploughs-into-christmas-crowd-in-frances-guadeloupe-at-least-10-killed/
10 unnecessary deaths for sure, but no match for…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting.
You are a clown if you think your argument holds any water.
You stated “A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone” and when I provide a recent example of someone killing people without one you dismiss it and call ME a clown?
Here’s some more:
Nanjing, 2002, 38 dead by rat poison
Sagamihara, 2016, 19 dead by stabbing
San Juan, 1986, 96 dead by arson
Nice, 2016, 86 dead by vehicle attack
There are plenty more. (btw those last two killed more)
You invalidate your own argument.
If you seriously think this nonsense you are spewing somehow justifies allowing any old Joe Blow to own a semi automatic rifle, then good luck to you. Reming me again, how are the gun laws working out for the US at the moment?
Simon, you started off claiming “A crazy person without a gun would struggle to kill anyone” and I provided examples to the contrary. You have yet to admit that your statement was nonsense despite it being clearly proven wrong.
I also note the conspicuous absence of any attempt to address my original question.
Fortunately, arson and bombs are no longer used as frequently as at one time. If unthinking people like Simon were to have their way, we might well experience that again.
You are an illogical thinker if you believe that professional criminals will pay attention to gun control laws, particularly if they are not strictly enforced with severe penalties.
What is particularly scary is the thought of what might happen if you were to have your wish granted. England has experienced an increase in knife attacks since it made access to firearms more difficult. Some Americans are intrinsically more violent, and I suspect more creative. Violence in America is more highly correlated with demographics (such as population density and age distribution), the introduction and distribution of new recreational drugs, and the role of gangs in distributing drugs. I won’t call you a clown, but your understanding of the problem is, at best, simplistic, and all you have presented is anecdotal ‘evidence’ for your position.
Your unsupported assumption is that prior restraint style gun control laws accomplish what is hoped for. All states are subject to federal gun control laws; most states have laws similar to other states and the federal government, except Vermont, known for its low firearm homicide rate. Yet, every state shows geographical clustering, despite uniformity of laws. Please explain what would cause consistent geographic clustering, not only in rural states near the Canadian/US border, but in those states like New York, California, and Massachusetts with most of the laws that those like you advocate.
Did you ever find the pee pee tape or do you admit you were wrong?
My family’s house used coal for heat until about 1950, then gas for both heating and cooking. Mom was born in 1907 and dad in 1908. Interesting, both of my parents died. I blame the gas.
“After the fact, therefore, because of the fact.”
Well obviously. They didn’t even live to be 120.
Leftist alarmists, primarily democrats, in Colorado want to get rid of natural gas. https://coloradosun.com/2025/12/02/colorado-natural-gas-emissions-caps-xcel/
Just when you start to think there is a limit to the insanity of democrats, something like this rears up.
If they get rid of nat. gas, what fuel will they use for cooking food and heating in winter? They can use propane. In Canada we have lots of propane for sale.
So we estimate that the population of individuals with compromised respiratory conditions is 40 million. We estimate that exposure to typical emissions from X increases mortality by 0.1%. 0.001 x 40 million = 40,000 deaths. QED.
Negligible risk times very large numbers equals scary projections. No need to verify the actual cause of any actual deaths.
I’m guessing the Europeans learn this trick from the USEPA.
Pfffft! That’s nothing –
When a population exceeds the available resources, the ecological carrying capacity, then that population crashes. In today’s Guardian sponsored ‘Age of Extinction‘, how to insert climate change into the narrative.
More than 60,000 penguins in colonies off the coast of South Africa have starved to death as a result of disappearing sardines, a new paper has found. – Grauniad
An obvious case of overfishing. But it’s much more than that where the Guardian is concerned…
Climate crisis and overfishing contributed to loss of 95% of penguins in two breeding colonies in South Africa, research finds
Something for us ‘rosbifs’ to ponder over the Sunday roast later – which just happens to be beef. Bovaer free of course.
“An obvious case of overfishing.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Here’s a paper https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305733110 that suggests that populations of “baitfish” (Sardines and Anchovies) are strongly cyclic off California even in the period before commercial fishing and in the period after fishery management. The cycles are asserted to be long == 60 and 80 years respectively. If all that’s true then there are likely periods when the low points in both populations coincide and critters that depend on the presence of large numbers of small fish are going to be in trouble for a while.
I agree. The population logistics map models population growth with limited resources, and is chaotic, and therefore unpredictable.
Unfortunately, some clever people run Fourier analyses on the past outputs of a chaotic systemt, and derive mathematically valid but completely nonsensical “cycles” with no predictive power at all.
Sharemarket traders and governments love “cycles”, and refuse to believe you can’t use “cycles”, extracted from chaos, to predict the future. They just keep at it, hoping one day it will work
Story Tip;
New subject related to another “zero goal” issue. Radon.
Regulation of radon in housing has cost me thousands. I recall in 1994 the basis for regulation was “deaths caused by inhaling radon” and the level was set to 4 picocuries (?). Now it is 2 pc.
Does anyone know of an independent source for observed and proven cancer deaths from residential radon? Or is this another modeling based regulation on massive assumptions and associations.
One example given to me by a physician years ago was a patient death from living in a basement house with 100 pc for decades. Turns out BOTH men living there were regular cigar smokers….but one died of lung cancer in his 70’s blamed on radon.
So, same story, different regulations, massive public costs.
Pennsylvania has addressed the Radon issue because of the complex rock structures.
See this map:
<a href=”https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/pennsylvania-radon-study-map”> PA Radon map</a>
A search with “Pennsylvania radon study” brings many hits.
My childhood home on western PA had a partial basement with dirt floor – some say “That explains a lot.”
Pennsylvania Radon Study map | U.S. Geological Survey
That’s interesting John. Has anyone overlaid a map of lung cancer rates on the radon map ? Probably the lung cancer rates versus cigarette sales shows a better fit.
Colorado and Radon. When I moved from CO in 2019 I was required to do a “radon test” on my home prior to sale. I had lived there for 35 years. Of course the radon measured result was above the background limit and I was required to install a radon mitigation device…$1000+…before I could sell my house. Those radon installers had a nice little business going for them courtesy of the State of Colorado.
You should buy a canary. If the canary is happy and healthy, then radon is not a problem.
For some time I’ve been curious about what AI might say about the fundamentals underlying climate science. Several months ago, I asked AI “If earth’s atmosphere were 100% dry argon, what would its temperature profile be? “ The answer (as expected), 19K/km, the adiabatic lapse rate. Since then I’ve reluctantly upgraded to Windows 11 which incorporates an AI App, Copilot. Last week, I posed a set of rather fundamental questions to both Copilot and Google’s Gemini:
Who first defined Convective Equilibrium? (Kelvin)
What was Maxwell’s opinion regarding the effect of gravity on thermal profiles? (Equilibria remain isothermal)
If earth’s atmosphere were 100% dry argon, what would its temperature profile be? (isothermal)
Does RCE theory describe a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? (No)
Does existence of a real temperature function require path-independence? (Yes)
What is thermodynamic dissipation? (The irreversible loss of usable energy)
What is the rate of energy dissipation of a 100 watt flux of thermal energy flowing from a 300K source to a 200K thermal sink? (33 1/3 W)
Both responded with detailed discussion, my summary of Gemini’s parenthetically above. Many of Copilot’s responses were similar. However, for the first, Copilot cited Riehl & Malkus in the 1950s. For the argon question, Copilot believed there would be a convective 5-7 km surface layer with a 19K/km gradient. For the last, both derived the same equation but failed to recognize J*(1-(T2/T1)) as the Carnot expression. Both invoked exergy in lieu of free energy – the condition that a finite source will eventually run dry or a finite sink fill up and the boundary temperatures equilibrate is not relevant.
Conclusion: AI is best at telling us what we don’t know we know. At present, it appears to have escaped bowdlerization wrt climate science. When asked what would be the thermodynamic consequences were entropy/temperature considered complex functions with solutions on the real axis, the response was nontivial.
From the Google AI –
and a few moments later –
Still prevaricating, but it will drop the “perfectly” tautology if pushed –
Oh well, Artificial Intelligence initially tells the ignorant and gullible what they want to hear. At least it doesn’t storm off in a huff, or throw a tantrum if you point out it’s being vague, contradictory, or evasive.
Believe no-one, not even a horrendously expensive computer program
How long do telephone companies keep information on a person?
I noticed that the U.S. Justice Department located the guy who planted two pipe bombs on Jan. 5, 2021, one in front of the Democrat National Committee headquarters in Washington DC, and one in front of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington DC. Neither pipe bomb went off, but they were capable of detonating. The last thing I heard about it was the pipe bombs did not go off because their batteries ran down.
One of the bits of information the FBI used to identify this bomber was the ping information which his telephone generated. They could place the bomber at the locations of the bombs and at the time of the planting of the bombs because his cellphone was pinging off local cell towers.
Apparently the phone company has kept this private ping information for about five years, since Jan. 5, 2021.
Does the phone company know the location of every customer for the last five years? It would seem so.
If I understood correctly the phone records used were not new, but already in the possession of the FBI from years ago. I don’t know how long those records are kept but we can’t conclude that it is five years, but you never know.
This is my understanding as well. Meaning, the Biden FBI sat on the information and did nothing.
They were focused on Trump. One pipe bomb was near the DNC headquarters and another near the RNC headquarters.
That didn’t fit the 1/6 meme.
The phone records were gathered immediately but not analyzed until the traitors left office.
No, the records were analyzed furiously, same as the records they used to find and arrest all those grandmothers across America for ‘seditious insurrection’.
But in this case, when the investigation wasn’t finding a rascally ‘white supremacist’, but might possibly point to a black dude, then it didn’t fit the narrative and was abandoned and ignored.
I don’t for a minute believe that this black guy is the real bomber. He’s a patsy. Why he’s willing to play that role I can’t say at this point, but the real story is the policewoman who now works for the CIA.
Does the phone company know ?….
It’s meta-data so the answer is emphatically “NO”….
unless they search by phone number, of course…../s
The authorities could have saved all the phone company ping information around the time of the placing of the bombs, but there is nothing they could do with the information until they have a telephone number to trace.
Here’s what James Hansen said about why the U.S. regional chart (on the left, above) and the Global Hockey Stick chart (on the right, above) look so different with completely different temperature trendlines. The U.S. temperature trendline shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and there is no unprecedented warmth today. This means we have nothing to worry about from CO2 overheating the planet.
The Global Hockey Stick chart shows a completely different temperature profile with temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter since the End of the Little Ice Age, and it shows that today is the hottest time in human history.
Here’s what Hansen has to say about the difference:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050112211708/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
“Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.”
So James Hansen claims the U.S. climate is following a different course than the “global” climate. And Hansen is correct, the U.S. chart is definitely on a different course than the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick Global chart.
The Truth is the U.S. regional chart is much more representative of a global temperature trend-line than is the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. All the original, written, historical regional temperature charts have basically the very same temperature profile as the U.S. temperature profile, where it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
None of the original, written, historical regional temperature records show a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile.
So how did Phil Jones and these other temperature data mannipulators create a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile out of temperature data (the regional data) that has no “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile? All the data Phil Jones had to work with came from the regional temperature charts from around the world, and none of them have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend-line. Phil Jones create something that didn’t exist before he became involved.
These Temperature Data Mannipulators are lying to the world and made this “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile up out of whole cloth as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.
There is no evidence supporting a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart temperature trend-line.
There is all sorts of evidence supporting the fact that it was just as warm in the recent past with less CO2 in the air as it is today with more CO2 in the air. The amount of CO2 in the air obviously did not dirve the world to unprecendented high temperatures since it is no warmer today that it was in the past.
The Hockey Stick global temperature chart is a BIG LIE, meant to sell another Big Lie: That CO2 is dangerous, and needs to be controlled at all costs.
Do you have the latest versions of those graphs Tom? I’ve given them to you a few times. Yours are a quarter of a century old now. In the interest of accuracy and honesty, would you like me to post them? Happy to.
If they are updates originating from the known faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, what’s the point?
He’s just another nutter who believes that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
How stupid is that?
Nasa Giss. You know the outfit that is highly respected across the planet. Here take a look.
NASA GISS? Is that the one directed by the slow-witted mathematician Gavin Schmidt who proudly declared that an event with a 38% probability was “almost certain”?
A coin toss will give more “certainty”!
Gavin Schmidt was an author of the fairytale “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.
Are you ignorant and gullible enough to believe anything Gavin Schmidt says without at least thinking for yourself for 5 seconds?
You obviously share Gavin’s belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter! It doesn’t.
For a US temperature check, go to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in long table. There is no computed Tavg. There is also no plot of the Tmax and Tmin data.
However, if you know to use excel, you should be to compute and plot Tavg. You can plot Tmax and Tmin.
Note the “Country”: Click on it for a list of countries.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of Tmax and Tmin for Adelaide from 1901 to 2024. The chart was prepared for me by tech savy son.
For city temperature data use:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/city name. Enter the name in small letters and insert a hyphen for a city with two words. This displays the weather and climate date for the city. Scroll down to the end for more options for display of data
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
And remember PHD….Pearl Harbor Day .
84 years ago .
America’s greatest generation. They saved the world from endless tyranny.
Yes Marty….And let’s not forget that in addition to defeating the Axis powers by mass bombing somewhat later in WW2…..America’s manufacturing and banking system also completely bankrupted the British Empire, up to that point the largest empire in history.
Would you prefer to be speaking German? Can you tell me why the British pound has always been worth about $2?
The pound has not always been worth $2. It’s now about $1.40 and under the gold standard it was worth $5.
The cut-rate valuation of $1.40 is a relatively new development. My point really was the claim that America’s “banking system also completely bankrupted the British Empire,” yet the British pound has always, and still is, worth more than the dollar. How much of the WWII lend/lease shipments were re-paid? Any financial difficulties Briton has should be assigned where they belong — the ‘Not Zees,’ and its socialist legislators.
The tyranny of their current friends the Japanese and Germans, or the tyranny of their old friends, the Russians and Chinese?
Which set of tyrants would you prefer the US support?
Times change, don’t they?
A sobering thought – more time has elapsed between Dec 7, 1941 and now than between the shelling of Fort Sumpter and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Sometimes when I read dates from history, I’ll “translate” them into the time of events in my or my parents’ lifespan to get a “feel” for what those events may have seemed like to those “ancient” people.
IE When I born, WW2 ended 19 years before. But it was very real to my parents. When my Dad was born, WW1 had ended only 3 or 4 years before. etc.
The young’uns don’t know what Pearl Harbor Day is.
For readers who occasionally check in to my GelbspanFiles blog as a result of seeing my blog posts reproduced here at WUWT, this past Sunday I added one more post to my “Background” series which covers both the origins of – and the promulgators of – the false corruption accusations leveled at skeptic climate scientists.
“Background: Kert Davies”
Back in February 2015 when WUWT reproduced my then-current blog post about the man’s strange reappearance after quitting Greenpeace in 2013, I was mystified what he was up to. Only within the recent couple of years did I find out that his 2015 reappearance was apparently part of al larger plan to supply false accusations to attorneys’ offices, so that they could launch climate litigation lawfare efforts. The bit he and his former Greenpeace boss were offering to the 2015 New York state Attorney General’s office wasn’t ultimately used in State of New York v. Exxon for who knows what reason, but subsequent lawsuit filings did indeed regurgitate the ‘bribery’ accusation against Dr Soon. 37 of them, including the ones that were recently dismissed.
Another topic of possible interest:
NASA still lists “in 2027” for the launch of the Artemis 3 mission that is planned to return astronauts to the Moon using the SpaceX Starship HLS. Does anyone . . . anyone at all . . . believe that date has any credibility?
End-2027 is just a tad over 2 years away. Here’s my short list of major accomplishments that will be required before that Artemis flight, if it’s not to be the equivalent of a suicide-mission:
— Design, build and functionally checkout the HLS version of the current Starship orbital vehicle. HLS will require a MASSIVE upgrade to the current Starship orbital vehicle because it will need life support, docking/astronaut transfer airlocks, windows/view ports, deployable solar arrays, propellant refueling ports, self-leveling landing legs, an elevator to get astronauts to/from the lunar surface, and addition of 18 (nominal) new RCS rockets in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 lbf thrust each distributed and canted downward around the forward girth of the vehicle to enable a soft landing on the Moon’s surface without throwing up regolith, which a single throttled-down aft face Raptor 3 engine would do. It is also likely that Starship HLS will require added MMOD/radiation shielding around the crew compartment and electronic compartments for passage through Van Allen radiation belts and considering the relatively long durations it will be in orbit both before and after the lunar landing. And since there are no vibration, acceleration, shock or thermal-vacuum test facilities on earth that can accommodate a test article the size of Starship HLS, it appears this testing must be done using one or more test launches of Starship HLS to LEO.
— Complete at least one successful orbital flight of a Starship HLS flight vehicle, a step up from completing an orbital flight of the current Starship flight vehicle that has yet to be accomplished.
— Complete at least one successful return to Earth and landing of a Starship HLS vehicle without use of GPS or differential GPS (neither of which will be available at the Moon).
— Demonstrate autonomous on-orbit (zero g) refueling between a SpaceX Starship “tanker” and a SpaceX HLS vehicle (once placed into a lunar trajectory from LEO a SpaceX HLS vehicle will not have sufficient remaining propellant load to go directly into the planned NRHO lunar orbit, rendezvous with a Orion capsule to onboard astronauts, descend to the Moon’s surface, and to then ascend into the NRHO to offload the astronauts back into the Orion capsule).
All going to be completed within the next two years? I think not.
And I fully expect that in early-2026 NASA will announce that a landing of US astronauts on the Moon has been rescheduled to “mid-2029 or thereafter”.
Is this anything but a scam?
I don’t see how this works at a technical level;
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/12/04/an-army-of-meter-socket-adapters-is-coming-for-your-fossil-fuels/
I know what the claims is about “what” it does, I don’t understand “how” it can do it.
A key political fight in Canada is over Alberta’s push to have a crude oil pipeline to the northwest coast of BC.
New Alberta-B.C. pipeline supported by half of Canadians: poll
Even half of BC residents despite activism about spills from tankers.
Expansion of the TransMountain Pipeline did finally get built so tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet and the Straits leading to the open Pacific Ocean are roughly back to traffic levels of the 1950s when TMP was built.
(TMP serves refineries in NW WA which later received oil from Alaska, that flow by tankers has been decreasing, As well as one in the Metro Vancouver BC area. As demand i those two areas increased and multi-mode operation of the pipe began tanker traffic went way down.)
Trans Mountain pipeline – Wikipedia
This diagram illustrates how different fuels are transmitted through a pipeline, it does not show crude oil. (Diesel is heavier than the common aviation fuel JetA which is similar to kerosene. Scrubbing separators called ‘pigs’ are used).