A place for discusson.
5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discusson.
195 Comments
April 12, 2026 2:12 am
Here is an update from the list of 655 long-term GHCN stations that NOAA used in the 2022 state climate summary for Wyoming in figures 2, 3, 4 for the 48 contiguous states. They used data only through 2020.
There are six plots in the Google Drive folder linked below. The point is to show the history from 1900 through 2025 to directly counter claims of increasing frequency of temperature extremes in the U.S.
Average # of days Tmax >= 95F
Average # of days Tmax >= 90F
Average # of days Tmin >= 70F
Average # of days Tmin >= 65F
Average # of days Tmin <= 0F
Average # of days Tmin <= -10F
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BgFd6y0_5e-V_vozFBVLj3Jhp9eldkDX?usp=sharing
One more thing. I appreciate these Open Threads.
It is sometimes hard to locate past Open Threads here on WUWT. But I was able to use the Grok AI agent to compose a list of valid URL’s for all Open Threads beginning in February 2022 through last week, April 4, 2026. A pdf of that list is linked here for anyone who is interested. You can see the URL’s are numbered sequentially rather than with the date.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IPEGMh8Afek9A5pwO3hyozDnFYLjIOVI/view?usp=sharing
I also wanted to go back and review my own history of posts on these Open Threads. Here is the same list of URL’s with a summary of what I was posting about each time. Grok did a fair job, at least so I can know the main topic. There are some misstatements in the summaries though.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zAenS9XrYMXy2FYuSLluWTQwABCDg_Nc/view?usp=sharing
That is all for now.
That is correct. The 1950’s were almost as warm as the 1930’s.
I equate the period after the 1998, temperature high point, to the period of the 1950’s. It took a while for things to cool down back then and that may be what is happening now, after the latest temperature high point in 2024.
And what happened to the temperatures after the 1950’s?
Answer: The temperatures cooled so much for the next two decades that scientists were starting to worry that another Ice Age was setting in as the temperatures in the late 1970’s cooled to the same level as the cooling at the turn of the century, which was a very cold period.
Here is the link to that climate summary report for Wyoming. The list of 655 GHCN stations is mentioned in the captions for figures 2,3,4. NOAA sent me that list. So there is a definite connection to the original daily data they used for their own graphs. There is no adjustment applied to those values in the digital records of the daily station reports.
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/wy/
The reason the WY report is referenced here is that NOAA included the CONUS graphs to add context to the WY graphs, for which there is only a shorter record.
For a quick check of Wyoming temperatures, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/states/wyoming/average-temperature-by-year.
The Thi and Tlo temperature data from 1998 to 2025 are displayed in a long table. Here is the data for these two dates:
Year——-Thi——-Tlo——-Tav Temperatures are ° C
2025——14.2—- -0.6——-7.4
1998——11.4—- -3.4——-7.4
Change–+2.8— +2.8——-0.0
Range Thi: 10.4—14.7
Range Tlo: -3.6– -0.5
According to this data, there has been a warming in Wyoming of 2.8° C since 1998, but why does Tav show no warming? Did I make a mistake? Although there has been a slight warming, it is of little consequence because there are still long cold and snowy winters in Wyoming.
I would like to compute the average Thi and Tlo +/- avg. deviation but I don’t know to do this. This might reveal if the warming is within the range of natural variation.
The Extreme Weather Watch website uses data from the NOAA and the CRU databases.
“According to this data, there has been a warming in Wyoming of 2.8° C since 1998, but why does Tav show no warming? Did I make a mistake?”
You haven’t really calculated the temperature “average”, you have calculated the mid-point temperature of each range.
According to calculator.net you get the following (assuming a Gaussian distribution):
2025
Count, N: 2
Sum, Σx: 13.6
Mean, μ: 6.8
Variance, σ2: 54.76
90% confidence = 6.8 +/- 8.6
1998
Count, N: 2
Sum, Σx: 8
Mean, μ: 4
Variance, σ2: 54.76
90% confidence level = 4 ±8.6
This highlights several problems with the “global average temperature” which is really an average of a set of mid-point temperatures.
- Mid-point temperatures are *NOT* a good metric for climate. You can have the same mid-point temperature in both Los Vegas and Miami with vastly different climates. It’s no different than looking at the mid-point temperatures for two individual years at the same location like WY.
- Annual “average” temperatures for measurements like Thi and Tlo hide so much data that they are very poor indicators of anything let alone climate. Assuming that the annual temperatures for each year are an average of monthly averages, you get only 12 samples, far too few to actually understand what is actually going on.
- The average Tlo and Thi figures do not have any accompanying standard deviation, quartile values, or mode value. That makes it impossible to know what the temperature distributions look like for each year. This is a ubiquitous problem in climate science. It’s impossible to tell if either distribution is skewed and, if a skewness exists, which tail it’s in.
- Since temperature data is a time series it has to be treated as such. It’s not obvious that the data has been made stationary. If that isn’t done, then all kinds of spurious trends can appear.
- Single year averages are very much weather driven. While 30 years is widely accepted by climate science as defining climate, it is really too short of a period to identify cycles that have significantly longer periods. Including data from 1920 through 1950 (30 years) would probably show that 1998 to 2025 is not exceptional. Going back 1000 years would be much better.
April 12, 2026 2:17 am
Here in Australia there are increasing press reports that academia has a growing problem with AI. It is alleged that most uni students now use AI generated answers to exam questions. Further alleged that many uni examiners know that AI is being used, but that it is hard to impossible to stop. Some examiners even say they are now using AI to set the questions.
It is not hard to see that the use of AI to gain professional qualifications could carry the seeds of its own destruction. If, for example, if the AI history is tapped this way and it replaces original research and individual learning by undergrads, the AI source of information will cease to grow from original inputs and it will become stale. Graduates will become less learned, to the stage that some professionals are already asking “Would you travel over a bridge designed by an engineer who graduated on AI answers to exams?”
Question 1: Is this a recognized, serious and growing problem? Question 2: Has a promising cure appeared? Geoff S
Back in the ’80’s, when I took a total of 4 OhioEPA exams for my various wastewater and water treatment certifications, we were allowed to have a pocket calculator but each was examined to be sure it wasn’t a programable calculator. Using a programable calculator was an automatic fail. We could use one for the simple math but we were expected to know the formulas ourselves.
When I was studying electrical engineering most professors had tests in the classroom with closed books. You *had* to know the subject and be able to work out the test questions. Homework was hardly ever graded. I put this forth to ask if the problem is the problem the teaching methods or the AI? Is there no way to keep the students from accessing AI during in-person, closed book test sessions?
The way I did well with chemistry, physics and calculus in high school (didn’t take much of that in college, while focused on trees, sex, drugs and rock and roll)- was I’d work on every question at the end of every chapter. The teachers would assign as homework 4-5 out of maybe 20-30 questions/problems at the end of each chapter. I did that once just to get the exercise- then discovered that on the tests, they’d use some of the other questions not assigned for homework. So I did this fanatically until I was confident that I resolved all the questions. Then as I walked into the classroom for the test, I was the only one smiling and I’d be the first to finish. Made me look smart- but it wasn’t that I was any smarter, I just worked much harder.
When I was in university there were recognizable groups of students who routinely worked in teams even when specifically instructed not to. As a TA I did a lot of marking and I could identify the groups because their work was indistinguishable. I am certain those groups had a stronger participant carrying the rest of their group. The authorities were indifferent to that problem then, so why would they stress about AI now?
Iirc there was recently an article here that claimed that individuals would massively benefit intellectually from AI – a renessaince of knowledge.
I made a bit of fun of it but you may feel better reading it – or have a good laugh.
But back to your question:
1) It is not really recognized now and the problem will not be growing, but devastating as soon as AI- apps become our friends(disguised as fancy digital companions).
Critical and logic thinking will be outsourced even more ;
and degeneration will be typical result of that increase in “comfort”
and opportunism will become the norm.
And there will be no opposition as long as the process is Fabian/slow enough.
2) There will be no cure as it is intended to play out this way by TPTB,
as a bunch of degenerated idiots with no skills or values is the easiest to control
and to accept the ” digital currency – own nothing and love it scenario” as long as they have access to sex, drugs and internet.
Just threaten to cut them off of the internet/Ai friend and they’ll accept anything.
The few who won’t go along will be banned from buying within the CBDC(the individual holodomor in your pocket).
That is my article https://www.cfact.org/2026/02/27/ai-may-bring-a-cognitive-renaissance-to-human-thinking/
This is actually not much different from when computer use first became widespread. Same worries. AI is a great tool hence unstoppable.
as soon as AI- apps become our friends
Already happening, and even more: https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend-11757334
I put this question to Google AI.
When I was a student, long ago, I sat a test on basic circuit design. The last question of the test was as follows: an infinitely long electronic device is painted black; draw the circuit scheme. How would you answer that now?
AI Overview
This is a classic “black box” engineering puzzle designed to test if a student can reduce a complex, intimidating, or seemingly impossible problem down to its fundamental components.
Here is how I would answer that now:
The Solution: An Infinite Ladder Network
Since the device is “infinitely long” and presumably uniform (meaning cutting a small piece off the end doesn’t change the nature of the rest), the circuit scheme is an infinite ladder network of repeating unit cells. Study.com
+1
The diagram represents a 2-terminal “black box” where you cannot see what is inside, only what is on the surface (input/output).
text
+---[Z1]---+---[Z1]---+---[Z1]---+--- ... infinite
| | | |
o---o---[Z2]---o---[Z2]---o---[Z2]---o--- ...
| | | |
+----------+----------+----------+---
(Where Z
1
𝑍
1
is a series impedance and Z
2
𝑍
2
is a shunt impedance, representing the passive elements of the device.)
——-
There was more, but what struck me was that it totally not figured the whole thing was a joke.
Lateral thinking appears to be beyond AI. So ask your students questions which rely on lateral thinking and their use of AI will be useless.
“Would you travel over a bridge designed by an engineer who graduated on AI answers to exams?”
A larger question is, would you travel over a bridge designed mostly by AI-driven software with inadequate technical review from human engineers who have a deep understanding of the nuances of bridge design in ways which AI likely could not match?
Future engineering bridges: http://patternsofchaos.net/brij.png
(Posting a link because I can’t post images for some reason)
I have a an image file. When I click on the sun and mountain icon in lower right corner of the comment box , the file appears in the left corner of the screen. I then click on an image, and it appears below the comment box.
Shown below in the chart are plots of the annual seasonal temperatures and a plot of the annual mean temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley. Note there is no warming since 1922.
The chart was obtained from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john-daly.com. He found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
If you click on the chart it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contract the chart and return to comments.
You can only attach only one image to a comment.
My OS is MS 11. This site is the only one that allows easy attachment of an image.
Years ago I saw an episode of The History Channel’s “Modern Marvels”. (That was before TCH went looking for Big Foot.)
One segment was about a car maker using AutoCAD to design bumpers. AutoCAD would come up with a design BUT THEN they’d build a prototype and crash test it. If it passed, it went into production. If it didn’t, the results were fed in and back to the virtual “drawing board”.
Being able to find an answer quickly doesn’t mean the student actually knows or understands the answer.
I’m was never a math wiz but I used to be able to calculate the cube root of, say, 1,045,549 using a pencil and paper. But there also a saying, “If you don’t use it, you lose it.”. Aside from never needing to figure that out, I have a pocket calculator that can.
Perhaps calculators should also be banned from math classes? Seriously. We didn’t have them when I was in school. Even though I’ve forgotten a lot, I knew how to do it.
April 12, 2026 3:01 am
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
Not far from where I live, in Moselle (eastern France), there is a deposit of white hydrogen that could well be the largest in the world. From what I’ve seen, it could be used for many things (notably in oil refining). But there are quite a few obstacles to overcome before this energy can be fully exploited. Let’s hope it stimulates innovation.
While waiting for a potential piece of good news, I’m watching the clouds through the window… listening to Django…
Western Europe is riddled with woke ideology, and France is no exception. It was even at the forefront of these absurdities, with authors such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and Jacques Lacan—thinkers and philosophers of the 1960s/70s (the famous “French Theory”)—whose ideas directly inspired, among others, Judith Butler and her theory of gender. One could also add the names of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir—I am not at all familiar with their far-left convictions or their philosophy, but they were both great writers (especially Sartre), and credit should be given where it is due. These ideas flourished in the United States and then came back to the old continent. It seems to be starting to fall apart in the U.S., so there is a good chance it will also collapse in Western Europe before long (the sooner the better, I hope).
There are, of course, thinkers, artists, authors, and political figures who stand against woke ideology and its damage. But these people, although often very respectable, are immediately labeled “racist,” “fascist,” “homophobic,” etc., and excluded from public debate. Radio France (the radio equivalent of the BBC in the United Kingdom) states in its charter that debate on the climate crisis is forbidden, in the name of “scientific consensus.” Accusations of “scientific denialism” or being funded by Big Oil immediately fall on you as soon as you express the slightest skepticism toward climate alarmism. Not to mention the “fact-checkers” (verifiers of conformity to the prevailing dogma), from AFP, a condescending and infantilizing political organization that tells you who the good guys and the bad guys are. It is lamentable from start to finish.
That being said, I still need to make one thing clear: France did produce absurdities like French Theory that spread throughout the West—that is true. I regret it. Its cultural influence is double-edged. In the 1920s, Paris was the center of the world, culturally speaking. It was the epicenter of global artistic and intellectual life. Picasso and Hemingway gathered there, along with Joyce, Man Ray, and Dalí; T.S. Eliot lived there and visited frequently.
It is this greatness that a significant portion (though a minority in the media debate) of my contemporaries aspires to rediscover. I have no doubt that we will move in that direction, slowly but surely.
hmmmm….. not likely to be many since they focus entirely on their art- any speculation they have on any other subject is hardly worth looking at- though, Dali considered himself a good Catholic, a bit crazy maybe- the following image is of my late wife in front of a Dali painting in the Museum of Modern Art in the now communist New York City
In the ’20s, Paris certainly was the cultural center of the world but not so much with its political thinking. All that French existentialism might be considered a root of the woke hallucination? Wasn’t it mostly about anxiety? And could some of that be blamed on Freud with his theories on the dark side of human nature? By the way, I’m a big fan of those artists and writers you mention!
Indeed, political opinions are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to judging the work of a given artist. One example: yesterday I bought, in a bookstore, a collection of poems translated into French by the author Ocean Vuong, who identifies himself as queer (so it is very likely that he is very, very left-wing). That does not prevent me from finding his poetic work admirable. Louis Aragon was caricaturedly Stalinist, but he was also an immense poet and a great novelist. And the greatest French novelist (perhaps even in the world) of the 20th century was Louis-Ferdinand Céline, whose racist and antisemitic political positions have tarnished his literary reputation. Literarily speaking, he was nevertheless remains a giant among giants.
I really like the Dalí painting your late wife is looking at. It is titled Corpus Hypercubus, if I remember correctly. It shows the painter on the Cross, observed by his lover and beloved, Gala (who had previously left the poet Paul Éluard to be with Dalí, whom I do not know whether he was a good Christian, but whose character as a delusional megalomaniac is beyond doubt. And he loved money so much that the poet André Breton, founder of the Surrealist movement, made a very fitting anagram of the painter’s name, Salvador Dalí: “Avida Dollars.”)
To respond to your second comment: I am not a specialist of that period, so I may say something inaccurate if I venture into unverified claims. I would say that you are right when you assert that the cultural and artistic side took precedence over the political side in Paris during those years. Freud had fallen out of favor before Lacan revived his theories, for the worse. Existentialism, which (very schematically) asserts that existence precedes essence (in short: we become what we make of ourselves through our actions alone), may have something to do with transgender ideology (I can be whatever I want; it is up to me to decide my identity), but I would not swear to it. Gender theory is directly indebted to authors such as Deleuze, Foucault, or Derrida, who are known for their tendency toward conceptual jargon.
France also produced figures such as Raymond Aron, a major thinker of liberalism and an intellectual adversary of Sartre.
April 12, 2026 3:49 am
It is now widely “known” that ocean surface temperature cannot sustain more than 30C. This from MS Copilot:
“Short answer because the ocean-atmosphere system strongly self-regulates once sea surface temperature approaches 30C. Several tightly coupled physical processes kick in and dump extra heat back to the atmosphere faster than the Sun can add it.”
And this from X Grok:
“Real-World EvidenceThe highest reliably measured open-ocean SST is around 31–32°C in extreme cases (e.g., western Pacific Warm Pool during strong El Niño events).
During the record-hot periods of 2023–2024, even with unusually high global temperatures, the vast majority of the tropical ocean stayed below ~30.5°C.
This natural cap has been remarkably stable over geological time, which is one reason why coral reefs and tropical marine ecosystems have been able to exist for millions of years.
This invalidates all climate models because they all show warming trends in the tropical oceans and some show well above 30C. The attached from CSIRO Mk3.5 for 5S to 5N for all longitudes.
You would need to confirm the 40C. I have seen figures around 33C in geological history but never as high as 40C.
The limit is a function of atmospheric mass so you will find the periods of high surface temperature are associated with higher atmospheric mass.
The best indication of air pressure has been achieved with fossilised raindrops. Maybe as mush as 50% hoigher than present level, which would limit surface temperature to about 35C. If you find periods of higher ocean temperature then you know the air pressure was higher than present.
It appears that what is known about those ancient times is very speculative.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023EGUGA..2512795S/abstract
The whole of the Persian Gulf can get well above 30C. It is proof of the process because the warm, dry air coming in from Iran prevents the formation of a level of free convection, which is essential for convective instability.
The shallow waters can get hotter than 35C.
Open ocean has less influence from land so easily sustain a level of free convection and will develop convective potential. Convective potential is ubiquitous across tropical oceans.
“Just wondering … just asking”
One of the (many) “interesting” Internet sites I came across looking for empirical data, i.e. made using actual physical measurements, was the electronic archive of the WOCE ocean transects made from 1988 to 1998.
URL : https://ewoce.org/gallery/eWOCE_Tables.html
Clicking on any of the “Map” links shows each transect’s location, and the “P04” survey along the 10°N latitude line of the Pacific ocean from the Philippines to Central America stood out (to me) just for its length.
Clicking on the relevant “TPOT” link in the above shows the resulting (potential) temperature profile from that ocean voyage (in the spring of 1989), a cropped version of which is attached below (barring “bugs / glitches” …).
.
“… can’t that result in moving heat down?”
The answer would appear to be “Yes, but there are limits”.
The colours chosen clearly show the “layered / stratified” profile one would expect from a “heated from above” scientific experiment in fluid dynamics, but note that by 1 km down the “warming from above” of the 25 (to 32 ?) degrees Celsius surface layer can only manage to reach the 4-5°C range, and by 2 km down it’s limited to a fairly constant 2°C.
.
I found the eWOCE website to be (in a very bad Leonard Nimoy imitation) “fascinating” overall.
Hopefully you (plural ?) will like it as well.
The only way to heat ocean from the top is to pour in water that is hotter than the ocean surface. Rain is inevitably cooler than the surface so it is always cooling.
If you place a radiant heater above the surface of a deep ocean where the bottom water is near freezing, you will actually make the average temperature cooler because the upward flow caused by evaporation from the surface is faster than the diffusion/conduction of heat downward.
The location of the oceans where heat is being retained is in the high rainfall zones. It cannot be retained in high evaporation zones. But surface always warmer than below until surface freezing begins.
[“Several tightly coupled physical processes kick in and dump extra heat back to the atmosphere faster than the Sun can add it.”]
The latent heat of vaporisation, coupled with atmospheric convection (both driven by the sun), is the ‘climate control knob’, & nature managed to work it out without a PhD or any help from us. (:-))
April 12, 2026 4:01 am
Lithium battery energy keeps on keeping on-
Emergency warning issued after blaze at Perth battery recycling facility
April 12, 2026 4:15 am
NET ZERO FOLLY (Story Tip)
As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including hydro-electric, nuclear power and fracking to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. It was not warm in the Ordovician ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than the 420 ppm it is now, which is also the level around which it is becoming “saturated”. Any increase leads to little heat control. Also there was no industrial revolution then to be the cause. The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. This always varies a little in cycles as the earth’s axis of rotation varies. Most importantly, the Net-Zero (“Decarbonising” or removing carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change the climate. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21/2030, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.
April 12, 2026 4:19 am
El Niño
The other day I was pilloried for daring to mention tectonic activity on the North West Pacific seabed; get relevant as the poster calling himself ResourceGuy said.
James Kamis: Warm blobs generated by geological activity | Tom Nelson Pod #363
Has anybody told Kamis to get relevant?
In my view, Strat, your suggestion that tectonic activity in the Pacific Ocean could be a significant contributor to the recurrent pulses of ocean-heat that produce the El Nino phenomena is highly relevant, because nobody actually knows how much ocean-heat such tectonic activity actually produces nor what actually happens to it after it has been produced.
The reason nobody actally knows these things is because nobody has been able to actually measure them to date. And the reason why nobody can measure them is because the Argo-buoys which are supposed to do the measuring cannot get down any deeper than about 2 kilometers, which is only about half-way down to the ocean-bottom where the tectonic heat originates at around 4 kilometers depth.
Of course, there is no shortage of self-styled expert authorities on all things climatical who may try to assure us that these things can be, and have been actually measured, but the simple fact of the matter is that nobody has any means of actually measuring them so their estimates of them are essentially make-believe.
Such is the appalling actual condition of modern “climate science”, on which no civilization could ever be built and expected to last more than a day before crumbling and collapsing in confusion and chaos – just as it appears to be doing right now, in fact.
The whole Tonga region seems to be rather active at the moment. This feeds energy into the West Pacific, and the Southern Pacific gyre flows down past New Zealand to the Antarctic where it merges with the Circum-Antarctic current..
I suspect that the HT eruption had something to do with the drop in Antarctic Sea Ice extent over the last few years.
April 12, 2026 4:21 am
A question for someone fluent in nuclear physics. There are approximately 100 trillion neutrinos passing through each cubic centimeter of every part of our existence / reality every second. So, the question is, are these Neutrinos required to flow along the curvature of Earth’s gravity well, and if so, could this Neutrino wind be the force of gravity?
April 12, 2026 4:33 am
Sunday funny – righteous human rights lawyer edition
Keir Starmer has been reported to the United Nations for alleged crimes against humanity.
In another hammer blow to the PM’s Chagos Islands “surrender” deal after it emerged the Bill to give away the islands would be shelved, the UN is now probing whether it violates international human rights law.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/chagos-islands-keir-starmer-reported-un-crimes-against-humanity-chagossians
You really can’t make it up.
From the link: “But after Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the giveaway, the Prime Minister was forced to put his bid to enshrine it in law on hold.”
Yeah, I heard Trump complaining about this deal some time ago. He said Starmer wants to turn the place over to people who have never lived there.
I guess Starmer listened.
The islands are almost exclusively occupied by British/American military and contractual personnel (approx. 95.88% in 2020). They were never inhabited until the French built plantations using enslaved African labor. Mauritius has no real claim on the islands. At best, giving them to Mauritius would be a form of reparations.
Except that he can’t without sign-off by the US (Trump) due to a 1966 agreement described by perplexity.ai as follows:
Yes. There is a long-standing U.S.-U.K. arrangement tied to Diego Garcia that means the U.S. has to approve changes affecting the base and, in practice, any transfer of the Chagos Islands that would affect U.S. use of Diego Garcia. The U.K. government has also said the Chagos deal cannot proceed without formal U.S. approval.
What the old agreement isIn 1966, the U.K. and U.S. made an agreement making the territory available for U.S. defense use, and later exchanges of notes covered the Diego Garcia facility in more detail. That arrangement is widely described as giving the U.S. a veto or at least a required consent role over any sovereignty change that would affect the base.
I suspect if the islands are actually turned over- Trump will just take them as they are a very strategic location for a military base. Trump already considers the UK a hopeless, lost nation undeserving of his respect so he won’t have any trouble just taking the islands- leaving the natives, but retaining the base. And if the UN or some international court declares that illegal, he’ll just express his opinion with some juicy sailor talk. And I approve of that!
“Acceptance for modern Imperialism…” Do you mean like the military expansion of Europe and NATO into the former Soviet bloc?
If the Western IC seems to believe that if they can just foment regime change in Russia, then Western corporations can plunder Siberia’s mineral riches without having to share any of their profits with the people of Russia; a win-win for the international corporate oligarchy! Human prosperity and freedom; not so much!
Since you brought it up. This is What the Republican Meuller wrote about Trump and Russia…“While no criminal agreement was found, investigators noted the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally” from Russian efforts and was “receptive” to offers of assistance.”
That’s enough for me to say Trump was welcoming and benefitting from the help he got from Russia. At the time we were all puzzled by why Putin would want Trump to win. Since then we have seen countless times Trump has licked his boots, meaning we don’t have to wonder any more.
I post facts. You post nonsense. Now you have stated that Mueller had dementia. I say you are a low life liar. I will apologise if you can provide any evidence that Mueller was suffering from dementia when he wrote what I quoted above. Your play…..
For the record, he had Parkinson’s disease. But what is not up for discussion even for low lifes like you, is Mueller had a stellar reputation for honesty and integrity… unlike the puss ball Trump you worship.
Russia was doing just fine before it invaded Ukraine. Many enterprises were INVESTING in Russia, BENEFITING Russia with those investments. There was no plundering of Russia. Look how is REALLY plundering Russia without sharing that wealth with the people of Russia, it’s Russian OLIGARCHS, especially Putin, who it is said he has at least 200 billion dollars.
April 12, 2026 5:08 am
Mining firms turn to renewables and battery storage in bid to ditch diesel
Fortescue says its plans for BESS may be vast in ambition, yet simple in execution.
“It’s literally dropping shipping containers on the ground and plugging them in,” says Dino Otranto, the company’s CEO for metals and operations. “There’s not much more complexity than that. You don’t have to build a billion-dollar power station, with all the complexity.”
U.S.-Iran talks end with no deal
Maybe they should have sent a diplomat, not somebody who can’t even order a doughnut
Real world example: Electric trucks CANNOT compete with DIESEL | MGUY Australia
“A range of just 200 kilometres (!), and the electricity is STILL more expensive than filling a tank in five minutes with diesel – even at Iran war prices! When will we learn that trying to electrify heavy vehicles is futile?”
A converted diesel truck from 2023. Amazing.
Somebody should tell China, they really think building electric trucks from ground up works…
China’s electric truck revolution: powerful painkiller for the Iran war?
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3348742/chinas-electric-truck-revolution-powerful-painkiller-iran-war
Zero-emission trucks in Europe – the road so far
https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/zero-emission-trucks-in-europe-the-road-so-far
Faster, and a lot cheaper: First all-electric long haul delivery flags new era in Australia trucking
https://thedriven.io/2026/03/30/faster-and-a-lot-cheaper-australias-first-all-electric-inter-city-delivery-flags-new-era-in-road-freight/
Sooner than later the heavy duty trucks will also electrify.
The real world is not as you imagine it to be.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/toyota-joins-hydrogen-truck-alliance-p
Sorry, i missed the ‘edit’ time-out.
Corrected link here –
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/toyota-joins-hydrogen-truck-alliance-push
Every electric truck in China is powered by COAL !!!
Europe will not have enough electricity to use electric truck without a massive increase in coal and nuclear electricity
The last link from Parkinson is the same massive CON as his reports always are.
For instance, he compares a diesel with 60 tonnes of freight going 1000km, to an EV with combined mass of 49 tonnes going from Sydney to Canberra (close to the limit of its battery)
And you fell for it 😉
The Australian electricity grid will have to be massively upgraded to cope with recharging long haul heavy trucks… And that cannot happen without a massive increase in dispatchable supply… ie COAL or NUCLEAR.
You sound pleased that there was not an agreement.
This was just Round One.
Trump is going to prevent the Iranian Regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, and he is going to get shipping flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, agreement or no agreement.
And the traffic flowing through the Strait will not be Iranian oil. Trump says: No money for you! No deal, no money.
The battery systems are being installed in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, which is one of the most extreme environments in the world. The wind turbines and solar panels were engineered to sustain the conditions there, e.g., major cyclones, and cost an enormous amount of money. If it works, great, but the economics are not the same as elsewhere.
April 12, 2026 5:53 am
The United States is destroying itself
The daily news can’t adequately convey the administration’s sabotaging of our government, economy, alliances and environment
She has a masters in journalism- which means she can put words together- with no expertise in anything else- certainly not qualified to talk about all the issues she ranted about in that article. AI can put words together too but it’s considered to be not sentient, like most with journalism degrees. 🙂
The flaw in democracy is that everyone who wants to vote, gets at least one vote, 🙂 regardless of where they fall on the Bell Curve, and without demonstrating reading comprehension or logic. Unfortunately, a candidate can, theoretically, win by one vote. That is why even one illegal vote is intolerable. Probably when tallying the ballots, one should not be declared a winner unless there is a statistically significant difference between the two candidates. If there isn’t, then there should be a runoff between the two candidates with the highest number of votes. That would address the complaint about independents diluting the vote.
As Winston Churchill remarked, “Democracy is a terrible form of government; however it is the best that we have found.”
nClimDiv is “adjusted” to closely match USCRN , it is irrelevant and meaningless because all it indicates is their “adjustment ability”
Yes USA had a very warm blob caused by a WEATHER event.. at the same time Northern Canada was much colder than usual
Absolutely nothing to do with human causation.
First…2 decimal places is what is provided. Second…2 decimal places complies with [JCGM 100:2008] which I was told was the be-all-end-all guide of metrology which I had to adhere to if I wanted to continue posting here. Third…if I removed a decimal place I’d have to round up and then I would be accused of wrong doing.
BTW…how many decimal places do you think should be specified?
“ Second…2 decimal places complies with [JCGM 100:2008] “
JCGM 100:2008:
—————————————
7.2.6 The numerical values of the estimate y and its standard uncertainty u_c(y) or expanded uncertainty U should not be given with an excessive number of digits. It usually suffices to quote u_c(y) and U [as well as the standard uncertainties u_(xi) of the input estimates xi] to at most two significant digits, although in some cases it
may be necessary to retain additional digits to avoid round-off errors in subsequent calculations.In reporting final results, it may sometimes be appropriate to round uncertainties up rather than to the nearest digit. For example, u_c(y) = 10,47 mΩ might be rounded up to 11 mΩ. However, common sense should prevail and a value such as u(xi) = 28,05 kHz should be rounded down to 28 kHz. Output and input estimates should be rounded to be consistent with their uncertainties; for example, if y = 10,057 62 Ω with uc(y) = 27 mΩ, y should be rounded to 10,058 Ω. Correlation coefficients should be given with three-digit accuracy if their absolute values are near unity. (bolding mine, tpg)
———————————
For most measurement stations, the measurement uncertainty is in the tenths digit. That means that results using that data should be rounded to be consistent with the uncertainty – i.e. ONE DECIMAL PLACE. (see 3rd bolded phrase)
“Third…if I removed a decimal place I’d have to round up and then I would be accused of wrong doing.”
This is nothing more than a whine. The fact is that you have never studied the GUM for meaning and context. You are a champion cherry-picker when it comes to metrology. The proof is that you didn’t even bother to give a measurement uncertainty value for either the high of 7.22F or the +0.96F.
For most measurement stations, the measurement uncertainty is in the tenths digit. That means that results using that data should be rounded to be consistent with the uncertainty – i.e. ONE DECIMAL PLACE. (see 3rd bolded phrase)
Your comment is actually relevant to something I actually said this time so I’ll engage.
I don’t understand how this is so complicated. You posted 7.2.6 so surely you read it. Yet your statement is still just wrong.
It says unequivocally that uncertainties can be stated to 2 significant digits.
It says unequivocally that inputs and outputs of a measurement model are stated to the same number of digits as their associated uncertainty.
That means even if the most significant figure of the uncertainty of the output of the measurement model was in the tenths you are free to express it to the hundreths. It then follows that you express the output itself to the hundreths.
Furthermore…the 7.22 F value is not a measurement of a single station. It does not automatically inherit the uncertainty typical of a single station. You have to actually propagate the uncertainty through the measurement model to get the combined uncertainty of it. So your insinuation that the uncertainty of the USCRN value must be in the tenths is just dead wrong.
I don’t have the time nor the motivation to continue rehasing this all over with you again right now. So you can have the last word.
Your lack of reading comprehension skills rivals that of bellman. Neither of you seem to be able to grasp the context of the words in the GUM.
“It says unequivocally that uncertainties can be stated to 2 significant digits.”
YOU DIDN’T EVEN POST AN UNCERTAINTY VALUE!!!
If the measurement device met the specifications of an ASOS station then the uncertainty is +/- 1.8F. That uncertainty has ONE DECIMAL PLACE. Stating the temperature as 7.22F violates the section of the GUM 7.2.6 that says “ Output and input estimates should be rounded to be consistent with their uncertainties”
“It says unequivocally that inputs and outputs of a measurement model are stated to the same number of digits as their associated uncertainty.”
And you believe that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring station is in the hundredths digit? The USCRN measurement device is typically considered to be more than +/- 0.3C. In fact the CRN documentation specifically states that measurement uncertainty due to microclimate at the measuring location is “Small at correctly chosen sites, but could be several oC” and does not give an actual value. It also states that microclimate uncertainty is “Not included in the current assessment of overall uncertainty”. (see Near-surface temperature from US Climate Reference Network since 2006 onward: Product User Guide and Specification (PUGS) – Copernicus Knowledge Base – ECMWF Confluence Wiki”
Both of these legislate against stating temperature measurements out to the hundredths digit.
“Furthermore…the 7.22 F value is not a measurement of a single station.”
You CONTINUALLY fail to understand that when you have different instruments measuring different things that the measurement uncertainty of each component ADDS!. It doesn’t decrease!
“So your insinuation that the uncertainty of the USCRN value must be in the tenths is just dead wrong.”
You are STILL trying to convince everyone that you can decrease measurement uncertainty by averaging. You’ve never learned that the standard error is a metric for how precisely you have located the population mean BUT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY OF THAT SO PRECISELY LOCATED MEAN.
If every piece of data is +10F inaccurate, the mean will be also, no matter how many how precisely you locate the population mean.
“I don’t have the time nor the motivation to continue rehasing this all over with you again right now. So you can have the last word.”
In other words, “don’t confuse me with the facts”. I didn’t expect anything else from you.
April 12, 2026 7:07 am
How likely?
How likely do you think it is that within 10 years we will see nuclear war, in the MIddle East, and perhaps triggering a wider use of nuclear weapons? Answer in percent. And if you think its more than 50% likely, who do you think would be first user?
And what about a very much shorter time period? A program in one of the countries is more advanced than anyone has thought, and it starts in the next month or two?
I think there was at least a 50 percent chance the Mad Mullahs would use a nuclear weapon soon after they had the capability, and a 100 percent chance they would use a nuclear weapon eventually.
To intimidate everyone they might set off a nuclear weapon in a desert area just to show everyone what they are capable of.
They would have all the nations in the area within range, including Europe, and they would be blackmailing all of them including the Europeans.
That is what would have happened had Kamala Harris been elected, or Trump took no action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, then you would be facing the above. And keep in mind that the religious fanatics in Iran think that God encourages them to kill anyone, including fellow Muslims, if they don’t believe in Radical Shia Islam.
Iran is attacking their peaceful neighbors right now with conventional weapons. What if they were dropping nukes on these nations?
But President Trump put a stop to all that potential insanity by destroying their nuclear weapons-making ability.
No, Iran will not threaten others with nuclear weapons. The United States and Israel will see to that.
What I find interesting is that other than for obligatory video-recording coverage of people like VP Vance mentioning the purpose of the ‘war’ with Iran, the ‘news’ media has been silent on the worldwide problem of radioactive fallout and the associated future lung, thyroid, and bone cancer of today’s children.
It was widespread concern about plutonium, iodine, and strontium from above-ground testing, supported by the Liberal anti-nuclear media, that led to various test-ban treaties in the not so distant past. Yet, there are no recent OpEds discussing the long-term consequences of Black Rain, no reminders that strontium-90 was increasing in the milk used by children on their breakfast cereals prior to the bans, and no public service reminders that iodine tablets can reduce the damage from radioactive iodine-131 resulting from fission weapons.
If I didn’t know better, I might suspect that liberals are more concerned about supporting their political agendas than they are in protecting the lives of people. /s
April 12, 2026 7:25 am
Astronauts have commented on a sharp, pungent odor associated with space exposure.
Can’t be the EMR which has no molecules to produce an odor.
But space suit fabrics scorched by the 400 K, 260 F solar wind will.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (1,368 W/m^2, 394 K) not cold (5 K).
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Have I misrepresented GHE theory?
I could envision that cosmic rays would degrade materials used in space suits forming traces of monomers and other small degradation products. That said, Astronauts frequently report seeing flashes of light, streaks, or spots when their eyes are closed in space. These appear to be due to cosmic rays too.
Well for an airless cloudless planet at our distance from the sun, with an albedo equal to the moon’s, about .13, incoming solar is 1360
1360/4 x (1-.13)=295.8 average watts absorbed…
Plug 296 watts into SB gives 269 Kelvin, about -4 C
Since the planet is actually 15 C your “colder with an atmosphere” is proven false. Obviously such a planet needs to spin fairly rapidly to average out sunny side/shady side temperatures.
April 12, 2026 7:29 am
To recap some more.
1. Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth space is 400 K, 260 F, not 5 K.
2. Ubiquitous GHE flux balance graphics, i.e. TFK_bams09 et. al. don’t plus violate GAAP & LoT.
3. Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a BB surface impossible.
4. What consensus? Trenberth 2011jcli24: 8 different climate “experts”, 8 different modeled sets of values with 7 showing Earth net cooling, 1 net warming.
NS….here’s a course for you that might help you quit spreading your bad LoT and 400 K outer space temp nonsense, should you take the time to read it…as unfortunately for me I have read your kettle experiment…
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
Regarding your linked paper.
Two temps, T1 & T2, but only 1Q, 1 A & 1ϵ. Missing some terms here.
Is the -99 supposed to represent “back” radiation?
Well, no wonder, the parenthetical Ts are backwards.
Heat (energy in motion) flows from higher energy/temperature to lower energy/temperature for a positive result, (T1hot – T2 cold).
And this is not “back” radiation it is the energy refrigeration work must remove from that single A to cool it from Thot to Tcold.
There is no such thang as “back” radiation & buggering S-B is not a defense.
April 12, 2026 8:38 am
Just tripped across this ultra climate alarmist YouTube channel. The guy is upset that Africa is so hot!
Extreme heat is already making daily life dangerous for billions of people, and the burden is falling hardest on those with the least power, wealth, and voice. In this episode of Climate Emergency Forum, we ask a stark question: is it becoming too hot to live—and for whom first? They explore new research on “thermal justice,” wet-bulb temperatures, and the deadly inequality baked into our rapidly warming world. This video was recorded on April 8th, 2026, and published on April 12th, 2026, and represents the opinions of the discussion participants. The panel connects local heat waves to a global picture: from marine heat waves and collapsing snowpacks, to workers losing protections as governments roll back basic heat-safety rules, even as temperatures rise. They discuss regions already on the front lines—from Africa, Indochina, and South America to Europe, Iran, and North America—and how heat, drought, wildfires, and water stress are converging into a planetary emergency. But this is not just a catalogue of disasters. The conversation highlights concrete responses at every level: green corridors and named heat waves in cities, community cooling centers and survival strategies, emerging “climaceutical” technologies, and the urgent need to slash emissions and actively cool the planet. Herb closes with his “Climate Three” news roundup, showing that most people worldwide actually want stronger climate action—and outlining why political will, not public support, is the real missing ingredient.
April 12, 2026 8:43 am
Well, I have not heard them yet but hummingbirds are due any day now, time to get the feeder ready.
Half cup sugar, 2 cups water, boil in sauce pan to dissolve sugar and kill pathogens.
Watch as water comes to a boil.
What do I see?
Granulated surface of the Sun.
Science, it’s everywhere.
A convenient way of tracking their migration:
April 12, 2026 9:09 am
Temperature rules everything in heat transfer.
Temperature cannot be added. Anything that is representing temperature cannot be added.
Gases do not radiate based on temperature. They are not black bodies.
Thermal energy only exists if there is a temperature difference. From high temperature to lower temperature.
The sun supplies thermal energy the atmosphere does not.
Any representation that shows only W/m2 and not the temperature is hiding something.
April 12, 2026 11:14 am
Story tip: Vineyard Wind is having more trouble due to the earlier massive bad blade problem. The turbine maker that supplied the blades is backing out of its O&M contract so Vineyard has sued them.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/environment/2026/04/11/massachusetts-wind-farm-developer-lawsuit-turbine-manufacturer
woohoo
April 12, 2026 11:23 am
Story Tip:
MA Moves to limit use of personal vehicles
https://modernity.news/2026/04/12/massachusetts-dems-advance-bill-to-limit-how-far-you-can-drive-in-your-own-car/
April 12, 2026 12:12 pm
Imagine this, studying wind farms NOT situated in the path of migratory birds don’t kill a lot of migratory birds.
Who would have thunk placement is important?
April 12, 2026 12:47 pm
What’s up with the new popup ad for the site “The climate data they don’t want you to find — free, to your inbox.”
I see it most of the time when I open a page. I’m already signed up (paid subscriber) so that’s not a very useful ad. And when I close it, I’m at the bottom of the page..
It is truly an annoying PIA, and I get it even having paid for the”no ads” option which should get rid of pop-ups…which if you don’t get the “no-ads” option, the “ back” button gives you a couple of pages of junk ads instead of the page you last looked at…looks like Anthony is getting some 4th class advice regarding effective advert professionalism.
April 12, 2026 6:09 pm
“…to the horror of everyday New Yorkers and civil society organizations,”
Oh shush.
Enacting the CLCPA put New York on track to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions and align itself with environmental justice.
In recent weeks, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has indicated that she wants to roll back the state’s landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA—to the horror of everyday New Yorkers and civil society organizations, who have called to keep the act intact. But by passing a second extension to budget negotiations this week, New York lawmakers have given Hochul a little more time to reconsider.
More lunacy:
https://newrepublic.com/article/208715/hochul-clcpa-budget-extension
April 13, 2026 7:02 am
There is no GHE back radiation because there is no upwelling BB. So called measurements are figments of precisely calibrated imagination.
By definition a BB must emit all it absorbed.
Absorbed = 160
Emitted = 17 + 80 + 63 (not BB)
Physical emissivity 1 = 63/160 = 0.39
Theoretical emissivity 2 at 16 C = 63/396 = 0.16 (For correcting IR instruments)
Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
or search: “Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder”
