What standard was applied in the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding? No regulation would be imposed if the expected influence is negligible.
From the Federal Register as that Finding was issued:
“A number of public comments question the exclusion of water vapor from the definition of air pollution because it is the most important greenhouse gas responsible for the natural, background greenhouse effect. …Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change. …Water produced as a byproduct of combustion at low altitudes has a negligible contribution to climate change. The residence time of water vapor is very short (days) and the water content of the air in the long term is a function of temperature and partial pressure, with emissions playing no role.”
But now we have a computed demonstration, from the ERA5 reanalysis, that it would be similarly unreasonable to expect any harmful influence from emissions of CO2 or any of the other non-condensing IR-active gases. That potential influence is negligible because dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the static radiative effect from the incremental IR absorbing power.
Why is Administrator Lee Zeldin of the EPA taken so long to rescind the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2?
I sent a comment to the EPA that they should go to the late John L. Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. I mentioned that they should check out the temperature chart for Death Valley which showed no warming from 1922 to 2001 (See chart below) although the concentration of CO2 in air had increased from ca 300 ppm
(0.59 g CO2/cu. m.) to 370 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu m.).
I also mentioned that is just too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on weather and climate.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and be come clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
The kinetic energy of winds above every square meter of surface….CAUSED BY convection, evaporation, uneven surface warming, and Coriolis forces acting on low and high pressure areas…
…a large fraction of which is dissipated each nighttime and “re-energized” during daytime….
….is SO LARGE (thousands of watts) in comparison to CO2 forcing of a few watts (5) per CO2 doubling
…..that rational analysis must conclude that CO2-caused warming/cc are just turd stories that the media floats out on the cesspool of internet regularly for public titillation purposes.
…..unfortunately we have lots of biologists, anthropologists, historians, psychologists, statisticians, and other “stamp collector” type of scientists telling politicians their version of what “the science” shows. These people are known incompetents at thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer by anyone with classical engineering education. Not to mention meteorologists and pilots who can decipher a tephigram…and even they have been often inculcated by the propaganda until they do some calcs for themselves.
CO2 absorbs IR…so obviously increasing its concentration will allow more sunlight to be absorbed. Thus making the air hotter. But incoming solar is 1340 watts/sq.M (divided by 4 over whole planet) and doubling CO2 only results in 3.7 watts additional watts absorption with surface thermal warming reduced by evaporation and convection. So you are approximately correct.
The residence time of water vapor is very short (days) and the water content of the air in the long term is a function of temperature and partial pressure, …
Yes, but as the water vapor precipitates out, it is continuously replaced by evapotranspiration. In fact, surface water will evaporate more rapidly after the air is relieved of its resident water vapor because the partial pressure of the water vapor will be reduced.
Agreed. It also makes sense to me that the “residence time” of the energy involved in the incremental IR absorbing power of rising pCO2 certainly cannot be longer than “the residence time of water vapor” as the EPA stated it. They need to carry their own point to its logical conclusion.
That was a good game! Both teams played good. I was pulling for the Army.
Army should go back to the wishbone formation. They have a very good running quarterback who could make it work. A good wishbone is almost impossible to stop.
Oklahoma University used to run the wishbone. It was a thing of beauty! Of course, you have to have real good running backs and a quarterback who can make split-second decisions on the best place to hand off the ball, or keep it. Oklahoma had an abundance of those kinds of guys.
This year, Oklahoma is part of the national championship playoffs. They got there by having an exceptionally good defense, but ever since Mateer, the quarterback, broke his hand in the middle of the season, the Oklahoma offense has been struggling. Perhaps Oklahoma should re-institute the wishbone! 🙂 They have a running quarterback who could handle the job, and their oppostion has never seen a true wishbone formation before, so it just might spark the offense.
We’ll see if the Oklahoma defense can keep us in the playoffs. They shut down Alabama, one of the best team in the country, a few weeks ago. And in this national playoff, Oklahoma is scheduled to play Alabama again on this coming Friday night at 7pmCST.
Oklahoma has beaten Alabama twice in the last two years. Can we make it three times? It’s going to be tough. But it always is.
I’m just amazed at all the really good college football teams we have this year. Any of the teams in the playoffs are good enough to win it all.
In the past we would have four or five really good teams and a bunch of also-rans.
This year we have at least 15 teams with exceptional records. Any one of which could beat any other team on a given day.
Good luck to everyone. May the best team win!
I thought it was funny the other day when former Oklahoma coach, Bob Stoops was being questioned about Oklahoma’s weak offense, and Stoops said, When Oklahoma was scoring 50 points a game with the wishbone and other offenses, all the pundits kept saying you can’t win without defense. Now that Oklahoma has a rock-solid defense, the pundits are saying Oklahoma needs an offense. 🙂
Oklahoma will have had about two weeks to hone their offense and heal their injuries, so we’ll see how they do Friday.
E. Schaffer
December 14, 2025 4:12 am
Lindzen & Choi 2011, Nic Lewis and Greg Goodman (both on Judith Curry’s blog) have discussed the regression problem before. However, for one that did not seem to resonate enough, and for the other they were missing a couple of pivotal ingredients, so to say.
When we investigate it more profoundly, we find that illicit OLS regressions not just produce positive feedbacks where there are none. But also these are just part of a bigger effort to manufacture fake evidence of positive feedbacks, when in reality the data show strong negative feedbacks. This is not a mishap.
For instance these are data reanalysed from Chang et al 2010 (partly a response to Lindzen, Choi 09):
The reanalysis reveals this slope is NOT 2.4W/m2/K. Rather, even with an illicit OLS Regression, it is 2.58. A proper TLS regression yields 3.55, meaning no feedback at all. If it were not for the two outliers, the remaining scatter plot has a slope of 4.7! As 3.6-4.7 = -1.1, indicating strong neg. feedbacks.
On top of that: we know these outliers are not real. There is a total spread of ~2.8K on the x-scale, representing surface temperature over the period 1985-1988 on a monthly basis. The problem is, the variation of global Ts was much smaller, just about 0.7K at max. So either this spread was due to equally illicit clear sky filtering, or simply made up..
With such huge investments from Chevron and Exxon in the Permian, the response rate to short term price moves has probably changed from the last time prices plunged. Those two have more experience and financial backing to not overly react to low prices as you seem to imply.
Shale is already intercoursed in the US. We petroleum engineers are out of our bag of tricks. Offset production and damage from the fracture stimulations of offset, parent wells, has already greatly reduced the volume of “Tier 1” reservoir rock available for economic exploitation. One good tell is that our current DOE secretary’s legacy outfit, Liberty – formerly one of the biggest US stimulation services corps. – has mostly moved on to portable electricity generation.
Bigger pic, watch for the exploitation of the latest round of GOM offshore lease auctions. Interest was 25% lower than last years, but bids/acre were up. Tells me that if the the producers thought that current state of Ben Dover environmental, safety, health reg enforcement was allowed to continue, post ’28 (along with continued laissez faire asset retirement funding enforcement, and the predictable whines for royalty reduction), then that would spark some real exploitation activity. But the region is already on track to fall far short of the hoped for gains from 2024-2025, so we’ll just have to watch and wait.
None of these Ben Dovers were at all “crippling”. They included relaxed financial standards for lessees, and even more reduced cash in fist – essentially none – for satisfying the asset retirement obligations they freely assumed. Entities big enough were given a total bye, just based on their Too Big To Fail appearance*. Not to mention the trickle up Own Goal of billions given away by reducing royalties from ~3/16 to 1/8 – while the rest of the world’s producers pay multiples pays multiples of that from either royalties or production sharing agreements or a combo.
47’s 2024 beg to those producers for dark $’s to help out his library/retirement have been $’s well spent on their part.
*In the US, there are 13$ figures worth of unfunded oil and gas asset retirement obligations, and that value is increasing by millions, daily. A single, modern, high angle multilateral, will often take 7$ figures to plug out, once tractor bills come due. And many proper platform removals and sea bed restorations will take orders of magnitude more. These are the costs that the producers have counted on shirking in their lease and development decisions, an they are on track to do so.
Winning the losing race. At the end only the true believer is standing.
The EU appears to have opted against an outright ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars with more flexible emissions targets coming instead. – EVO
Plans to ban new petrol cars in the EU have been abandoned in hasty U-turn from European lawmakers – MSN
You could say that cold hard reality is beginning to bite and bite hard. So, where does this leave the self-appointed global climate leader; the UK? Will it too capitulate to reason or will it stick with being all in with the faith?
EU 2035 petrol and diesel car ban to be scrapped – will the UK follow? – Auto Express
Despite the EU’s radical shift in position, the UK Government told us that it has no plans to change its approach to sales of non-zero emission cars and vans. A government spokesperson said: “We remain committed to phasing out all new non-zero emission car and van sales by 2035. – What Car
Tories to scrap petrol car ban if they win next election – BBC
Which rather leaves the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens as the rump of the erstwhile climate consensus. And they remain absolutely wedded to the ban – and the rest.
How will they wriggle out of this one? They will have to at some point.
The cold, hard reality is that they will be overrun by cheaper and better Chinese electric cars if they don’t innovate. Guess that’s their Nokia moment.
And you know what is the likely U.S. response to said “tariff walls?” The age of tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. products is ending under President Trump.
. . . cheaper and better Chinese electric cars . . .
Without being blasted as pro-Chinese, wouldn’t it be rational to spend your hard-earned on something “cheaper and better”, rather than “more costly and worse”?
I replaced a Japanese motor vehicle (actually made in Japan) with a Chinese vehicle, because in my view it was “cheaper and better”. To show that the origin is not my main concern, a Ford commercial vehicle I bought recently was made in Turkey!
How will they wriggle out of this one? They will have to at some point.
They will not “have to”.
They are not evil spirits magically bound to those words. By now the brands in question are little more than dirty diapers. There’s no real need to wash them, when picking up new ones is so simple.
These creatures are used to find a new prey, eat it and and wear the new skin. So here’s what they will do: turn around, elbow aside those at whom they were slinging offal yesterday, and proudly declare «We were always against that nonsense!» There are well-known historical examples of how it’s done.
After Stalin’s death, especially after XX Party Congress, a multitude of antistalinists appeared in Soviet Union. […] If antistalinism of Khrushev era still deserved some leniency since destalinization of the country was underway, antistalinism of Gorbachev era deserves nothing but scorn. Everything is good in its season. I consider real antistalinists only those who rebelled against stalinism while this was deadly dangerous.
― A.Zinoviev, “The Russian Fate: The confession of a dissident”
So why this time would not be the same? The smart rats jump the sinking ship first. Then less-smart ones follow. The slowpokes, fat lazy scavengers and rare true believers will go down with it, so what? Good riddance.
Have you noticed that the likes of the BBC often use the deroga’tory’ ‘tories’? Instead of conservatives. Likely because ‘conservative’ is too positive a word.
The same when Ukraine is mentioned. A ‘journalist’ mentioned ‘little green men’ in regards to Crimea and ‘shadowfleet’ ‘ ‘russian drones’ over Europe which was parroted by the presenter.
This kind of language for a supposedly neutral state broadcaster is shameful. The BBC now also freguently leaves out the important word ‘allegedly’ as if certain things are facts. And of course everything in relation to climate change.
Here is a comparison between a U.S. regional chart (on the left), and a Hockey Stick global temperature chart (on the right).
As you will notice, the temperature trend lines for both charts are quite different. The U.S. regional chart shows it was just as warm in the recent, instrument-era past, as it is today.
The Hockey Stick global chart shows that the temperatures have been getting “hotter and hotter and hotter” since the end of the Little Ice Age, and shows that today is the hottest time in human history.
Both temperature trend lines cannot be true.
James Hansen tries to explain the glaring differences by saying the U.S. and the Earth took different paths. A laughable claim.
The truth is all the original, regional surface temperature charts have the same temperature trend line as the U.S. regional chart. They all show it is no warmer today, than it was in the recorded past.
None of the original, regional temperature charts from around the world have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line like the Hckey Stick global chart has.
This means the Hockey Stick global chart does not represent the global temperature trend line.
The people who created the instrument-era portion of the Hockey Stick global chart only had original, regional surface temperature data to work with. The data that has NO “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line.
So I ask this question all the time: How does one get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature trend line from data that has no such trend line?
Now you would think that Climate Alarmists would be eager to jump on this and prove just how right the Hockey Stick is, but as you will see, there will be crickets from the Climate Alarmists about the bastardization of the Earth’s temperature trend line as represented by the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
The Climate Alarmists cannot explain how you get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line out of data that has no such trend line.
I can explain it: It’s called Science Fraud.
So, Climate Alarmists, how do you get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line out of data that has no such trend line? It’s not possible, is it. It can’t be done legitimately. Skulduggery has to be involved. Say it ain’t so.
James Hansen tries to explain the glaring differences by saying the U.S. and the Earth took different paths. A laughable claim.
Why laughable? It’s not even surprising. US talking heads often confuse US with Earth or vice versa. The place increasingly moves to la-la land, for too long to tell when it started (or restarted, considering the antics of some colonists early on). And then there are vegans… Confusion as to which planet they are on is widespread.
At some point the old joke about a crocodile in zoo had to stop being a joke.
“Over here is our crocodile. From nose to tail, 5 feet, from tail to nose 6 feet!”
“This does not make sense”
“That’s our crocodile, we measure it however we want!”
When I was in about grade 4, our teacher took us to see the local gov’t weather station, for which her husband was responsible for taking the daily readings. It was situated in a local park not very far from our school. In later years the station became electronic and moved to the airport. I would suggest a lot of the trends are the result of station moves, over time, from park-like settings to airports that also experienced a 10-fold increase in pavement area and airplane takeoff horsepower.
Here is a graph of land sites that have 120 years of data.
Notice just how little of the globe is covered.. and don’t try to pretend you can make anything remotely “real” as a global average.. whatever that is meant to be.
USA is the ONLY region with enough data to do anything.
From Nasa’s website. Always go to the source that way they you get the most recent information.
Using Tavg I’ll bet. From looking at NASA’s graphs, can you tell which daily (Tmax or Tmin) or seasonal temperatures are actually increasing. I’ll bet you can’t discern anything from these graphs as to what the true source of the increase is.
“We agree, you were a moron back than and still are one today.”
I love it when people try to accuse others of being stupid and in doing so, make basic spelling mistakes. You have to admit, that is funny.
“We agree, you were a moron back than and still are one today.”
I love it when people try to accuse others of being stupid and in doing so, make basic spelling mistakes. You have to admit, that is funny.
Is that really important in the bigger scheme of things? It is not uncommon for people to have arthritis in their thumbs and I don’t think it is really noteworthy that he may avoid dealing with unnecessary pain just to flip a coin, for which there is no defined method by which it has to be done. Get a life.
But… the biggest irony is that a many times draft dodger gets to be part of this game between the armed forces. I mean come on. The guy wanted nothing to do with fighting for his country when he was asked. Now he wants to “flop” a coin so he can get a photo opportunity. Such a shallow, snake oil salesman, hypocrite. Has there ever been a more vile, shallow, opportunistic president? I’m saying no.
And just last night we see why he is not morally fit to be president with his post about Rob Reiner. “A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump derangement syndrome, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump,”
So Trump the narcissist can’t help himself. He’s saying here Reiner died because he dared to criticise him. This is the man who bleated about others criticising Charlie Kirk after he was killed. Once again rules for others are not for him.
Explaining at part of it is that climate science uses averages that hide what is going on beneath the surface. Nighttime and winter temperatures are both increasing. Yet these are not things that would alarm most people, so it in the grifters and the media’s financial benefit to create non-science propaganda. Ask any green alarmist what is warming and they can’t or won’t answer you.
In my zip code, 3 different weather sites listed the 10:00 am temperature. 23F 24F and 27F.
If they cannot agree in an single zip code, how can the consensus achieve a 0.01C?
Exactly! Here is a graph from Weather Underground of my area. I’ll guarantee that “official” stations are no better. ASOS stations have an uncertainy of ±1.8°F. That would fit in well here.
observa
December 14, 2025 5:46 am
Hey the Chinese are killing our mandated EV carmaking with a CCP subsidised early adopter lead and dumping now they’ve reached critical mass- Chinese EV tariffs in Europe have backfired
We’ll put a hefty tariff on their EVs and that will fix them.
It’s easy – just make it a serious criminal offence to own anything produced in China, or by a Chinese company, or by a factory employing anyone who looks Chinese.
Click the links and you go straight to the source. For example…
MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences & Your Queer Career
Workplaces have traditionally been viewed as “straight spaces” in which queer people passed. As a result, historians have directed limited attention to the experiences of queer people on the job. https://wgs.mit.edu/events-all/2025/12/4/queer-career
I would recommend checking the site out.
rhs
December 14, 2025 7:11 am
Who won’t cities go after when they feel a money grab is possible?
This time, it’s San Francisco going after processed food.
When was the life span of Methane in the atmosphere declared to be 20 years?
I remember when it was a week or less.
Now, we have activists burning methane to prevent it from entering the atmosphere, just to produce more Carbon. Just one big SMH for each every feel good action without a good basis.
Here is my new favorite Artificial Inference answer:
A person who is 50 years old (born around 1974) has lived through and survived a wide array of failed “end of the world” predictions. These range from specific religious doomsday dates to scientific-based environmental collapse scenarios and technological scares.
Notable predictions that have passed without incident include:
Mass Famines and Resource Depletion (1970s-1980s): Predictions by scientists like Paul Ehrlich and others around the time of the first Earth Day stated that widespread famines would begin in India by 1975 and spread globally by 2000, and that the world would run out of vital metals like copper, lead, and zinc by the early 1990s. None of these total collapses occurred.
A New Ice Age (1970s): Several scientific predictions in the 1970s suggested the world was cooling rapidly and on the verge of a new ice age by the year 2000, which proved to be incorrect as global warming became the dominant climate trend.
Pat Robertson’s 1982 End of the World: Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted that the world would end in 1982, a claim that ultimately proved false.
The 1988 Rapture: Former NASA engineer Edgar Whisenant predicted the Rapture would occur in September 1988 in his widely circulated book, which did not happen.
Nations Wiped Out by Sea Levels (2000): In 1989, the Associated Press reported that “entire nations” would be “wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000”.
The Y2K Bug (2000): Widespread fears that computers would fail globally at the stroke of the new millennium, causing societal collapse and potentially launching nuclear missiles, were unrealized after extensive preventative work.
Harold Camping’s Rapture Predictions (2011): Christian radio host Harold Camping made national headlines by predicting the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011, and the world would be completely destroyed five months later. After the date passed, he adjusted the prediction to October 21, which also failed.
The Mayan Calendar Apocalypse (2012): A popular misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar led many to believe the world would end on December 21, 2012.
Nibiru Cataclysm (Multiple Dates): Various predictions involving a rogue planet named Nibiru colliding with Earth have circulated since the late 1990s, with specific dates in 2003 and 2017 passing without any such event.
All of these predictions, and many others, have come and gone while a 50-year-old human has continued to live on a spinning Earth.
Here is the question:
which possible end of the world predictions has a 50 year old human survived
I vividly remember those. Ohio, near Dayton Drill starts. Crawl under your desk. Look at the back wall of the classroom that is mostly glass and wonder how the desk will protect you.
At least the tornado drills had us move to the hallways surrounded by cinder blocks.
The worst of the worst. Late 1950s. Being 3 or 4 at the time in NY (not the city, upstate). I was told when the air raid sirens sounded, get home as fast as possible or you will die. Siren went off. Total panic as I ran through 2 or 3 neighbor’s yards. Got home. Sat next to mom at the top of the basement stairs. I will never forget the look on her face – she could not protect her kids.
In 1962, a movie titles “This Is Not A Drill” was released. I did not recognize it as an origin until I watched it a few days ago. In one scene, the grandfather said he would not go into the mine. He was going to go to the top of the hill and watch as surviving was not something he thought worthwhile.
I have always said if the fireworks were about to go off I would grab a six pack of beer and go outside to watch it.
I am less that 20 miles from multiple ground zero targets.
The Y2K Bug (2000): I had a credit card “not accepted” and had to use a different one. I recall a university bought 100s of food-grade barrels and stored water and I think some form of “biscuits” — just in case. I suspect the biscuits were discarded. The white barrels were emptied and sold as surplus.
Former NASA engineer Edgar Whisenant I can’t find information on the “engineer” part. The Bible and numerology are mentioned as his interests.
My first experience with dooms was in the 1950s, during the Cold War, schools conducted “duck and cover” drills and specifically don’t look out the windows.
Latest stupidity from Absolutely Incompetent multi-billion computer program –
You’re right — seven major mistakes in a single conversation is a serious problem. Let me address transparently and rigorously how you can trust the rest of the information and avoid further errors.
What’s the point of a program that says it has no excuses for errors, then proceeds to make excuses (previous to the above statement)?
Somebody please point out my errors here. I read “Project Hail Mary” a couple of days ago, and it caught my attention that while the Hail Mary could accelerate at 1.5g indefinitely, they stopped accelerating at 0.952c , which would get them to Tau Ceti in a little over three years, thus the need for the coma sleep.
I don’t remember any reason given for stopping at that velocity; the Astrophage was a near-perfect radiation shield. So I did some calculating with Excel, and got some results I don’t believe, but I’ve checked the results and keep getting the same result.
The Hail Mary is boosting at 1.5g, or 14.7m/s^2. A 24-hour day is 86400 seconds. At the end of Day 1 the Hail Mary is traveling at 14.7m/s^2*86400s, or 1270080 m/s. At the end of Day 13, the Hail Mary has been accelerating for 13 days * 86400 sec/day, or 1123200 seconds.
This gives a velocity v=at of 14.7m/s^2 * 1123200 seconds = 16511040m/s, which is about 5.5% c: c = 299792458m/s, so 16511040/299792458 = 0.05507. 0.05c
This next part is where I can’t figure out my error. If d = 0.5*a*t^2 then at the end of 13 days, d=0.5*a*t2.
d=0.5*14.7m/s^2*1123200^2. (86400 sec/day * 13days = 1123200sec
Finally, it appears that Hail Mary has traveled 9,272,600,064,000m in 13 days of acceleration at 1.5g. A light year is 9,460,730,472,580.8m, so my figures say the Hail Mary traveled 9,272,600,064,000 m/9,460,730,472,580.8m/light year = 0.98 light years.
At a guess, you failed to (properly) factor in relativistic time alteration? Yes, the first light year looks like 13 days to those on board? But it looks like a year to an earthly observer? That’s a guess. Relative physics between two observers moving at non-relativistic speeds makes my head hurt. Throw in the Lorenz equations and my mind gives up.
How far from Earth to Tau Ceti? That could explain the 3 years.
Also of note is how much fuel was carried could be the reason to shut down the engines. One also might want to make a return trip, so the initial acceleration would be limited to ~ 25% of the total fuel.
If “indefinitely” was accurate, your question is valid. Accelerate at 1.5 g until mid point, flip and deaccelerate. People can stand 1.5 g for what would be 4 weeks out and 4 back.
Ireneusz
December 15, 2025 2:30 am
Very heavy rainfall is reaching the state of Washington.
Ireneusz
December 15, 2025 5:47 am
An extremely cold wave is moving toward the northeastern US.
What standard was applied in the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding? No regulation would be imposed if the expected influence is negligible.
From the Federal Register as that Finding was issued:
“A number of public comments question the exclusion of water vapor from the definition of air pollution because it is the most important greenhouse gas responsible for the natural, background greenhouse effect. …Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change. …Water produced as a byproduct of combustion at low altitudes has a negligible contribution to climate change. The residence time of water vapor is very short (days) and the water content of the air in the long term is a function of temperature and partial pressure, with emissions playing no role.”
But now we have a computed demonstration, from the ERA5 reanalysis, that it would be similarly unreasonable to expect any harmful influence from emissions of CO2 or any of the other non-condensing IR-active gases. That potential influence is negligible because dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the static radiative effect from the incremental IR absorbing power.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
So to the EPA: Finalize the action to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding! Let’s get it done!!
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
More here as a full explanation, in the formal comment to EPA on the proposed action to rescind the Finding.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
Why is Administrator Lee Zeldin of the EPA taken so long to rescind the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2?
I sent a comment to the EPA that they should go to the late John L. Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. I mentioned that they should check out the temperature chart for Death Valley which showed no warming from 1922 to 2001 (See chart below) although the concentration of CO2 in air had increased from ca 300 ppm
(0.59 g CO2/cu. m.) to 370 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu m.).
I also mentioned that is just too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on weather and climate.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and be come clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
Probably because the EPA faces opposition at every level.
STORY TIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVYzoGYgjhg
Very, very interesting interview with an ESG whistleblower.
The kinetic energy of winds above every square meter of surface….CAUSED BY convection, evaporation, uneven surface warming, and Coriolis forces acting on low and high pressure areas…
…a large fraction of which is dissipated each nighttime and “re-energized” during daytime….
….is SO LARGE (thousands of watts) in comparison to CO2 forcing of a few watts (5) per CO2 doubling
…..that rational analysis must conclude that CO2-caused warming/cc are just turd stories that the media floats out on the cesspool of internet regularly for public titillation purposes.
…..unfortunately we have lots of biologists, anthropologists, historians, psychologists, statisticians, and other “stamp collector” type of scientists telling politicians their version of what “the science” shows. These people are known incompetents at thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer by anyone with classical engineering education. Not to mention meteorologists and pilots who can decipher a tephigram…and even they have been often inculcated by the propaganda until they do some calcs for themselves.
Zero. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
CO2 absorbs IR…so obviously increasing its concentration will allow more sunlight to be absorbed. Thus making the air hotter. But incoming solar is 1340 watts/sq.M (divided by 4 over whole planet) and doubling CO2 only results in 3.7 watts additional watts absorption with surface thermal warming reduced by evaporation and convection. So you are approximately correct.
No, I am exactly correct. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
Yes, but as the water vapor precipitates out, it is continuously replaced by evapotranspiration. In fact, surface water will evaporate more rapidly after the air is relieved of its resident water vapor because the partial pressure of the water vapor will be reduced.
Agreed. It also makes sense to me that the “residence time” of the energy involved in the incremental IR absorbing power of rising pCO2 certainly cannot be longer than “the residence time of water vapor” as the EPA stated it. They need to carry their own point to its logical conclusion.
Navy 17
Army 16
’nuff said.
That was a good game! Both teams played good. I was pulling for the Army.
Army should go back to the wishbone formation. They have a very good running quarterback who could make it work. A good wishbone is almost impossible to stop.
Oklahoma University used to run the wishbone. It was a thing of beauty! Of course, you have to have real good running backs and a quarterback who can make split-second decisions on the best place to hand off the ball, or keep it. Oklahoma had an abundance of those kinds of guys.
This year, Oklahoma is part of the national championship playoffs. They got there by having an exceptionally good defense, but ever since Mateer, the quarterback, broke his hand in the middle of the season, the Oklahoma offense has been struggling. Perhaps Oklahoma should re-institute the wishbone! 🙂 They have a running quarterback who could handle the job, and their oppostion has never seen a true wishbone formation before, so it just might spark the offense.
We’ll see if the Oklahoma defense can keep us in the playoffs. They shut down Alabama, one of the best team in the country, a few weeks ago. And in this national playoff, Oklahoma is scheduled to play Alabama again on this coming Friday night at 7pmCST.
Oklahoma has beaten Alabama twice in the last two years. Can we make it three times? It’s going to be tough. But it always is.
I’m just amazed at all the really good college football teams we have this year. Any of the teams in the playoffs are good enough to win it all.
In the past we would have four or five really good teams and a bunch of also-rans.
This year we have at least 15 teams with exceptional records. Any one of which could beat any other team on a given day.
Good luck to everyone. May the best team win!
I thought it was funny the other day when former Oklahoma coach, Bob Stoops was being questioned about Oklahoma’s weak offense, and Stoops said, When Oklahoma was scoring 50 points a game with the wishbone and other offenses, all the pundits kept saying you can’t win without defense. Now that Oklahoma has a rock-solid defense, the pundits are saying Oklahoma needs an offense. 🙂
Oklahoma will have had about two weeks to hone their offense and heal their injuries, so we’ll see how they do Friday.
Lindzen & Choi 2011, Nic Lewis and Greg Goodman (both on Judith Curry’s blog) have discussed the regression problem before. However, for one that did not seem to resonate enough, and for the other they were missing a couple of pivotal ingredients, so to say.
When we investigate it more profoundly, we find that illicit OLS regressions not just produce positive feedbacks where there are none. But also these are just part of a bigger effort to manufacture fake evidence of positive feedbacks, when in reality the data show strong negative feedbacks. This is not a mishap.
For instance these are data reanalysed from Chang et al 2010 (partly a response to Lindzen, Choi 09):
The reanalysis reveals this slope is NOT 2.4W/m2/K. Rather, even with an illicit OLS Regression, it is 2.58. A proper TLS regression yields 3.55, meaning no feedback at all. If it were not for the two outliers, the remaining scatter plot has a slope of 4.7! As 3.6-4.7 = -1.1, indicating strong neg. feedbacks.
On top of that: we know these outliers are not real. There is a total spread of ~2.8K on the x-scale, representing surface temperature over the period 1985-1988 on a monthly basis. The problem is, the variation of global Ts was much smaller, just about 0.7K at max. So either this spread was due to equally illicit clear sky filtering, or simply made up..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/regrettable-regressions-a-reanalysis
All irrelevant.
Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
So what do people here think about the predicted oil glut? What will it mean for US Shale?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/13/oversupply-oil-barrels-energy-watchdog-iea
I don’t see much “Drill, baby, drill” with already low prices.
You know what it means for the climate puritanical UK.
More bicycles fitted with dynamos feeding the grid….
With such huge investments from Chevron and Exxon in the Permian, the response rate to short term price moves has probably changed from the last time prices plunged. Those two have more experience and financial backing to not overly react to low prices as you seem to imply.
Shale is already intercoursed in the US. We petroleum engineers are out of our bag of tricks. Offset production and damage from the fracture stimulations of offset, parent wells, has already greatly reduced the volume of “Tier 1” reservoir rock available for economic exploitation. One good tell is that our current DOE secretary’s legacy outfit, Liberty – formerly one of the biggest US stimulation services corps. – has mostly moved on to portable electricity generation.
Bigger pic, watch for the exploitation of the latest round of GOM offshore lease auctions. Interest was 25% lower than last years, but bids/acre were up. Tells me that if the the producers thought that current state of Ben Dover environmental, safety, health reg enforcement was allowed to continue, post ’28 (along with continued laissez faire asset retirement funding enforcement, and the predictable whines for royalty reduction), then that would spark some real exploitation activity. But the region is already on track to fall far short of the hoped for gains from 2024-2025, so we’ll just have to watch and wait.
Agree, less crippling regulations are needed.
None of these Ben Dovers were at all “crippling”. They included relaxed financial standards for lessees, and even more reduced cash in fist – essentially none – for satisfying the asset retirement obligations they freely assumed. Entities big enough were given a total bye, just based on their Too Big To Fail appearance*. Not to mention the trickle up Own Goal of billions given away by reducing royalties from ~3/16 to 1/8 – while the rest of the world’s producers pay multiples pays multiples of that from either royalties or production sharing agreements or a combo.
47’s 2024 beg to those producers for dark $’s to help out his library/retirement have been $’s well spent on their part.
*In the US, there are 13$ figures worth of unfunded oil and gas asset retirement obligations, and that value is increasing by millions, daily. A single, modern, high angle multilateral, will often take 7$ figures to plug out, once tractor bills come due. And many proper platform removals and sea bed restorations will take orders of magnitude more. These are the costs that the producers have counted on shirking in their lease and development decisions, an they are on track to do so.
no edit
Winning the losing race. At the end only the true believer is standing.
The EU appears to have opted against an outright ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars with more flexible emissions targets coming instead. – EVO
Plans to ban new petrol cars in the EU have been abandoned in hasty U-turn from European lawmakers – MSN
You could say that cold hard reality is beginning to bite and bite hard. So, where does this leave the self-appointed global climate leader; the UK? Will it too capitulate to reason or will it stick with being all in with the faith?
EU 2035 petrol and diesel car ban to be scrapped – will the UK follow? – Auto Express
Despite the EU’s radical shift in position, the UK Government told us that it has no plans to change its approach to sales of non-zero emission cars and vans. A government spokesperson said: “We remain committed to phasing out all new non-zero emission car and van sales by 2035. – What Car
Tories to scrap petrol car ban if they win next election – BBC
Which rather leaves the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens as the rump of the erstwhile climate consensus. And they remain absolutely wedded to the ban – and the rest.
How will they wriggle out of this one? They will have to at some point.
The cold, hard reality is that they will be overrun by cheaper and better Chinese electric cars if they don’t innovate. Guess that’s their Nokia moment.
Thanks for the unexpected laugh.
Hope you’re still laughing when your taxes bail out the car industry once again.
If you lived in the UK that would be the least concern….
Again, you turn away from the most likely path that the EU knows very well…..tariff walls.
And you know what is the likely U.S. response to said “tariff walls?” The age of tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. products is ending under President Trump.
You mean wall off, right.
Once again, f-wit, what you haven’t taken into account is metals and minerals supply – it ain’t going to happen.
Without being blasted as pro-Chinese, wouldn’t it be rational to spend your hard-earned on something “cheaper and better”, rather than “more costly and worse”?
I replaced a Japanese motor vehicle (actually made in Japan) with a Chinese vehicle, because in my view it was “cheaper and better”. To show that the origin is not my main concern, a Ford commercial vehicle I bought recently was made in Turkey!
Should I care about country of origin?
They will not “have to”.
They are not evil spirits magically bound to those words. By now the brands in question are little more than dirty diapers. There’s no real need to wash them, when picking up new ones is so simple.
These creatures are used to find a new prey, eat it and and wear the new skin. So here’s what they will do: turn around, elbow aside those at whom they were slinging offal yesterday, and proudly declare «We were always against that nonsense!» There are well-known historical examples of how it’s done.
So why this time would not be the same? The smart rats jump the sinking ship first. Then less-smart ones follow. The slowpokes, fat lazy scavengers and rare true believers will go down with it, so what? Good riddance.
Have you noticed that the likes of the BBC often use the deroga’tory’ ‘tories’? Instead of conservatives. Likely because ‘conservative’ is too positive a word.
The same when Ukraine is mentioned. A ‘journalist’ mentioned ‘little green men’ in regards to Crimea and ‘shadowfleet’ ‘ ‘russian drones’ over Europe which was parroted by the presenter.
This kind of language for a supposedly neutral state broadcaster is shameful. The BBC now also freguently leaves out the important word ‘allegedly’ as if certain things are facts. And of course everything in relation to climate change.
Here is a comparison between a U.S. regional chart (on the left), and a Hockey Stick global temperature chart (on the right).
As you will notice, the temperature trend lines for both charts are quite different. The U.S. regional chart shows it was just as warm in the recent, instrument-era past, as it is today.
The Hockey Stick global chart shows that the temperatures have been getting “hotter and hotter and hotter” since the end of the Little Ice Age, and shows that today is the hottest time in human history.
Both temperature trend lines cannot be true.
James Hansen tries to explain the glaring differences by saying the U.S. and the Earth took different paths. A laughable claim.
The truth is all the original, regional surface temperature charts have the same temperature trend line as the U.S. regional chart. They all show it is no warmer today, than it was in the recorded past.
None of the original, regional temperature charts from around the world have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line like the Hckey Stick global chart has.
This means the Hockey Stick global chart does not represent the global temperature trend line.
The people who created the instrument-era portion of the Hockey Stick global chart only had original, regional surface temperature data to work with. The data that has NO “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line.
So I ask this question all the time: How does one get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature trend line from data that has no such trend line?
Now you would think that Climate Alarmists would be eager to jump on this and prove just how right the Hockey Stick is, but as you will see, there will be crickets from the Climate Alarmists about the bastardization of the Earth’s temperature trend line as represented by the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
The Climate Alarmists cannot explain how you get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line out of data that has no such trend line.
I can explain it: It’s called Science Fraud.
So, Climate Alarmists, how do you get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature trend line out of data that has no such trend line? It’s not possible, is it. It can’t be done legitimately. Skulduggery has to be involved. Say it ain’t so.
Why laughable? It’s not even surprising. US talking heads often confuse US with Earth or vice versa. The place increasingly moves to la-la land, for too long to tell when it started (or restarted, considering the antics of some colonists early on). And then there are vegans… Confusion as to which planet they are on is widespread.
At some point the old joke about a crocodile in zoo had to stop being a joke.
“Over here is our crocodile. From nose to tail, 5 feet, from tail to nose 6 feet!”
“This does not make sense”
“That’s our crocodile, we measure it however we want!”
So there was no little ice age?
When I was in about grade 4, our teacher took us to see the local gov’t weather station, for which her husband was responsible for taking the daily readings. It was situated in a local park not very far from our school. In later years the station became electronic and moved to the airport. I would suggest a lot of the trends are the result of station moves, over time, from park-like settings to airports that also experienced a 10-fold increase in pavement area and airplane takeoff horsepower.
But Tom says the regional records show no such trends.
But Tom and the CliSci consensus are different….
And here are the more recent updated more accurate graphs.
Which graphs are these? There are a variety out there.
From Nasa’s website. Always go to the source that way they you get the most recent information.
“From Nasa’s website.”
Global graph is almost totally “made-up”..
There is basically zero data for much of the world’s oceans over that time period…
… and what real land data does exist does not match the graph even remotely.
Here is a graph of land sites that have 120 years of data.
Notice just how little of the globe is covered.. and don’t try to pretend you can make anything remotely “real” as a global average.. whatever that is meant to be.
USA is the ONLY region with enough data to do anything.
Correct,
We only have data approaching global coverage since the 1980s, ~ 40 years.
The oceans.. Not really enough coverage even in the 1980s.
Using Tavg I’ll bet. From looking at NASA’s graphs, can you tell which daily (Tmax or Tmin) or seasonal temperatures are actually increasing. I’ll bet you can’t discern anything from these graphs as to what the true source of the increase is.
Another USA graph from a more reliable source than the climate activist / data molesters at NOAA
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
And if you look at Maximum temperatures in the USA, you get something like this
It is nice of Simon to show us that NOAA continues to make changes to past and present data in their activist attempt to show warming.
Even in 2010, they showed the 2000-2010 period cooler than the 1930s..
…. but not any more 😉
Hey you believed in Russia colluuuusion and Biden didn’t have dementia in office. You still believe it today. One wonders if you make up everything 🧐
At least I can toss a bloody coin. WTF is wrong with Trump.
Oh Look Simon has TDS. Cure is a dose of reality.. if you can face it.
“WTF is wrong with Trump.”
I’m sure you can/will tell us
We agree, you were a moron back than and still are one today.
“We agree, you were a moron back than and still are one today.”
I love it when people try to accuse others of being stupid and in doing so, make basic spelling mistakes. You have to admit, that is funny.
“We agree, you were a moron back than and still are one today.”
I love it when people try to accuse others of being stupid and in doing so, make basic spelling mistakes. You have to admit, that is funny.
Yes making a typographical error is so much more egregious that posting the same thing twice. Yes it is funny. Which are you — the pot or the kettle?
Is that really important in the bigger scheme of things? It is not uncommon for people to have arthritis in their thumbs and I don’t think it is really noteworthy that he may avoid dealing with unnecessary pain just to flip a coin, for which there is no defined method by which it has to be done. Get a life.
But… the biggest irony is that a many times draft dodger gets to be part of this game between the armed forces. I mean come on. The guy wanted nothing to do with fighting for his country when he was asked. Now he wants to “flop” a coin so he can get a photo opportunity. Such a shallow, snake oil salesman, hypocrite. Has there ever been a more vile, shallow, opportunistic president? I’m saying no.
“Now he wants to “flop” a coin so he can get a photo opportunity.”
Maybe he’s trying to prove he’s not a tosser (:-))
That’s very good.
And just last night we see why he is not morally fit to be president with his post about Rob Reiner.
“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump derangement syndrome, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump,”
So Trump the narcissist can’t help himself. He’s saying here Reiner died because he dared to criticise him. This is the man who bleated about others criticising Charlie Kirk after he was killed. Once again rules for others are not for him.
Please explain how they measured about 90% of the land+ ocean surface for most of the period, when there was NO DATA..
Show us where the land was measured, say before 1940, and where the oceans were measured even up to 2005.
The Global temperature graph is TOTALLY BOGUS, a pure FABRICATION using MADE-UP numbers.
“The Global temperature graph is TOTALLY BOGUS, a pure FABRICATION using MADE-UP numbers.”
But that’s what ALL snake-oil salesmen use, & it works, look how many ‘intelligent’ people you know who still believe this climate crap !!
Because you are not supposed to look at details and must trust the (forced) average.
Explaining at part of it is that climate science uses averages that hide what is going on beneath the surface. Nighttime and winter temperatures are both increasing. Yet these are not things that would alarm most people, so it in the grifters and the media’s financial benefit to create non-science propaganda. Ask any green alarmist what is warming and they can’t or won’t answer you.
In my zip code, 3 different weather sites listed the 10:00 am temperature. 23F 24F and 27F.
If they cannot agree in an single zip code, how can the consensus achieve a 0.01C?
Exactly! Here is a graph from Weather Underground of my area. I’ll guarantee that “official” stations are no better. ASOS stations have an uncertainy of ±1.8°F. That would fit in well here.
Hey the Chinese are killing our mandated EV carmaking with a CCP subsidised early adopter lead and dumping now they’ve reached critical mass-
Chinese EV tariffs in Europe have backfired
We’ll put a hefty tariff on their EVs and that will fix them.
It’s easy – just make it a serious criminal offence to own anything produced in China, or by a Chinese company, or by a factory employing anyone who looks Chinese.
That’ll fix those bloody sneaky Orientals!<g>
Did You Know?
I came across this on Tom Nelson’s podcast…
The Babbling Beaver
Click the links and you go straight to the source. For example…
MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences & Your Queer Career
Workplaces have traditionally been viewed as “straight spaces” in which queer people passed. As a result, historians have directed limited attention to the experiences of queer people on the job.
https://wgs.mit.edu/events-all/2025/12/4/queer-career
I would recommend checking the site out.
Who won’t cities go after when they feel a money grab is possible?
This time, it’s San Francisco going after processed food.
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Food/san-francisco-files-landmark-lawsuit-comparing-ultra-processed/story?id=128046148
Too bad for them there isn’t a standard, much less legal definition of processed food.
Story tip:
https://coloradosun.com/2025/12/03/paonia-methane-flaring-project/
When was the life span of Methane in the atmosphere declared to be 20 years?
I remember when it was a week or less.
Now, we have activists burning methane to prevent it from entering the atmosphere, just to produce more Carbon. Just one big SMH for each every feel good action without a good basis.
CO2 no longer correlated to Economic Growth? Seems like more fuzzy math:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/11/economic-growth-no-longer-linked-to-carbon-emissions-in-most-of-the-world-study-finds
Here is my new favorite Artificial Inference answer:
A person who is 50 years old (born around 1974) has lived through and survived a wide array of failed “end of the world” predictions. These range from specific religious doomsday dates to scientific-based environmental collapse scenarios and technological scares.
Notable predictions that have passed without incident include:
Mass Famines and Resource Depletion (1970s-1980s): Predictions by scientists like Paul Ehrlich and others around the time of the first Earth Day stated that widespread famines would begin in India by 1975 and spread globally by 2000, and that the world would run out of vital metals like copper, lead, and zinc by the early 1990s. None of these total collapses occurred.
A New Ice Age (1970s): Several scientific predictions in the 1970s suggested the world was cooling rapidly and on the verge of a new ice age by the year 2000, which proved to be incorrect as global warming became the dominant climate trend.
Pat Robertson’s 1982 End of the World: Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted that the world would end in 1982, a claim that ultimately proved false.
The 1988 Rapture: Former NASA engineer Edgar Whisenant predicted the Rapture would occur in September 1988 in his widely circulated book, which did not happen.
Nations Wiped Out by Sea Levels (2000): In 1989, the Associated Press reported that “entire nations” would be “wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000”.
The Y2K Bug (2000): Widespread fears that computers would fail globally at the stroke of the new millennium, causing societal collapse and potentially launching nuclear missiles, were unrealized after extensive preventative work.
Harold Camping’s Rapture Predictions (2011): Christian radio host Harold Camping made national headlines by predicting the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011, and the world would be completely destroyed five months later. After the date passed, he adjusted the prediction to October 21, which also failed.
The Mayan Calendar Apocalypse (2012): A popular misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar led many to believe the world would end on December 21, 2012.
Nibiru Cataclysm (Multiple Dates): Various predictions involving a rogue planet named Nibiru colliding with Earth have circulated since the late 1990s, with specific dates in 2003 and 2017 passing without any such event.
All of these predictions, and many others, have come and gone while a 50-year-old human has continued to live on a spinning Earth.
Here is the question:
which possible end of the world predictions has a 50 year old human survived
This 71 year old did nuke attack drills as a grade school kid in the early 60’s.
Never did those where I lived in Northern VA. Born in 1962.
I vividly remember those. Ohio, near Dayton Drill starts. Crawl under your desk. Look at the back wall of the classroom that is mostly glass and wonder how the desk will protect you.
At least the tornado drills had us move to the hallways surrounded by cinder blocks.
The worst of the worst. Late 1950s. Being 3 or 4 at the time in NY (not the city, upstate). I was told when the air raid sirens sounded, get home as fast as possible or you will die. Siren went off. Total panic as I ran through 2 or 3 neighbor’s yards. Got home. Sat next to mom at the top of the basement stairs. I will never forget the look on her face – she could not protect her kids.
In 1962, a movie titles “This Is Not A Drill” was released. I did not recognize it as an origin until I watched it a few days ago. In one scene, the grandfather said he would not go into the mine. He was going to go to the top of the hill and watch as surviving was not something he thought worthwhile.
I have always said if the fireworks were about to go off I would grab a six pack of beer and go outside to watch it.
I am less that 20 miles from multiple ground zero targets.
The Y2K Bug (2000):
I had a credit card “not accepted” and had to use a different one.
I recall a university bought 100s of food-grade barrels and stored water
and I think some form of “biscuits” — just in case. I suspect the biscuits
were discarded. The white barrels were emptied and sold as surplus.
Former NASA engineer Edgar Whisenant
I can’t find information on the “engineer” part.
The Bible and numerology are mentioned as his interests.
My first experience with dooms was in the 1950s, during the Cold War, schools conducted “duck and cover” drills and specifically don’t look out the windows.
Not sure if this made its way around or not, but carbon capture and injection isn’t cost effective:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/14/carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs-spruiked-emissions-reduction-has-australia-been-greenwashed
Latest stupidity from Absolutely Incompetent multi-billion computer program –
What’s the point of a program that says it has no excuses for errors, then proceeds to make excuses (previous to the above statement)?
Somebody please point out my errors here. I read “Project Hail Mary” a couple of days ago, and it caught my attention that while the Hail Mary could accelerate at 1.5g indefinitely, they stopped accelerating at 0.952c , which would get them to Tau Ceti in a little over three years, thus the need for the coma sleep.
I don’t remember any reason given for stopping at that velocity; the Astrophage was a near-perfect radiation shield. So I did some calculating with Excel, and got some results I don’t believe, but I’ve checked the results and keep getting the same result.
The Hail Mary is boosting at 1.5g, or 14.7m/s^2. A 24-hour day is 86400 seconds. At the end of Day 1 the Hail Mary is traveling at 14.7m/s^2*86400s, or 1270080 m/s. At the end of Day 13, the Hail Mary has been accelerating for 13 days * 86400 sec/day, or 1123200 seconds.
This gives a velocity v=at of 14.7m/s^2 * 1123200 seconds = 16511040m/s, which is about 5.5% c: c = 299792458m/s, so 16511040/299792458 = 0.05507. 0.05c
This next part is where I can’t figure out my error. If d = 0.5*a*t^2 then at the end of 13 days, d=0.5*a*t2.
d=0.5*14.7m/s^2*1123200^2. (86400 sec/day * 13days = 1123200sec
Therefore: d= 0.5*14.7m/s^2 * 1123200s^2
d= 0.5*14.7m/s^2 * 1,261,578,240,000s = 9,272,600,064,000m
Finally, it appears that Hail Mary has traveled 9,272,600,064,000m in 13 days of acceleration at 1.5g. A light year is 9,460,730,472,580.8m, so my figures say the Hail Mary traveled 9,272,600,064,000 m/9,460,730,472,580.8m/light year = 0.98 light years.
That can’t be right. Where did I go wrong?
Not realising that the author could just get one of the characters to say “Make it so!”. Was the book written by a “climate scientist”, perhaps?
Or maybe a CO2 powered booster brought velocity up to 0.02 light years per something or other, making 0.98 become 1.00. Standard “climate science”.
“Where did I go wrong?”
At a guess, you failed to (properly) factor in relativistic time alteration? Yes, the first light year looks like 13 days to those on board? But it looks like a year to an earthly observer? That’s a guess. Relative physics between two observers moving at non-relativistic speeds makes my head hurt. Throw in the Lorenz equations and my mind gives up.
I found my mistake. Slipped 3 decimals in my figure for meters per light year. That’ll do it. 0.00098 ly after 13 days is the correct answer.
How far from Earth to Tau Ceti? That could explain the 3 years.
Also of note is how much fuel was carried could be the reason to shut down the engines. One also might want to make a return trip, so the initial acceleration would be limited to ~ 25% of the total fuel.
If “indefinitely” was accurate, your question is valid. Accelerate at 1.5 g until mid point, flip and deaccelerate. People can stand 1.5 g for what would be 4 weeks out and 4 back.
Very heavy rainfall is reaching the state of Washington.
An extremely cold wave is moving toward the northeastern US.