A place for discussion
Open Thread
206 Comments
April 19, 2026 2:03 am
Who’d have thought a fossil-fuel shill like Trump would be the one to spark a green revolution?
Greens who were long dismissed as “idealistic” and “unrealistic” now look like hard-headed pragmatists and true patriots. They are years ahead of their rivals in demanding a transition that makes sense on every level: environmental, economic and political. And unlike the far right, the hard right and much of the rest of the political spectrum, they have not been seduced by the foreign money corrupting our politics.
Trump is an utter disaster for the world’s oil and gas industry
You might think that US oil and gas companies would be celebrating the windfall profits of Trump’s war, but the mood was closer to horror at the recent CeraWeek summit in Houston, the sanctum sanctorum of the drilling industry.
Casey Merriman, from Energy Intelligence, said the mood behind the scenes was “panic and dread” rooted in an awful premonition that the fallout of war would pose “existential risks to the future of oil and gas”.
strativarius
April 18, 2026 4:50 am
George Monbiot and TDS. People have asked over the years, is George alright?
Who’d have thought a fossil-fuel shill like Trump would be the one to spark a green revolution?
George Monbiot
Donald Trump has done more to accelerate the energy transition than anyone else alive.
…
Governments should seek the electrification of everything that can be electrified, and the retirement of much that cannot. Rather than – as the gasbags insist – trying to extract the last dregs of fossil fuel from moribund North Sea fields, which could supply only a fraction of future demand, while keeping us locked into foreign dependency, the UK should now go all-out for grid batteries, heat pumps and induction hobs. – Guardian
To which the answer remains, no.
———————————-
Don’t you know about our George?
He invites it. He moved to Wales and instantly set about trying to stop sheep farming there…
Monbiot blames sheep for preventing Britain’s uplands from developing a rich woodland habitat. He delicately ignores the fact that many of these areas are either peat bogs which are too soggy for oaks, or otherwise have layers of topsoil which are too thin for oaks. – DS
A class 1 nutter.
Europe used to be covered in thick forests so trade mainly moved through waterways. Then from 1000ad onwards lots of trees were felled to make space for new towns ( which often have ‘new’ in their name). More agriculture developed, better crop yields due to better(warmer) temperatures. Also more cattle. And if the areas were not suitable f both those conditions like indeed, bogs, sheep and to a lesser degree goats took that place.
I live in Donegal, in the north of Ireland. Plenty of bogs, plenty of sheep. Trees are sparse..
I grew up in central Perthshire we had peat up to 3-4 metres deep with tree stumps at the bottom, on hills up to 400 metres high. Going on a growth rate of 1 metre to 1000 years that would mean the wetland and blanket peat started around 1500BC. This predates the building of Crannogs (probably over 600 in total), which in turn predate Brochs. The population of Scotland at 1000BC would be 200,000 at most, and that would be as now coastal and low altitude. In my view the forests were suffering from changes in climate before man brought animals into the equation.
Although it is said that all the forests in Fife were used in the building of the Great Michael James IV’s flagshipwhich was built around 1510.
” In my view the forests were suffering from changes in climate before man brought animals into the equation.”.
i do not disagree with that. I was talking more about population growth and deliberate clearing of forests.
Forests had already been cleared by farmers long before the 2nd millenium and yes, climate change inpacts. Then you have to look at local circumstances. Here in Ireland the british plantations killed off a lot of trees. The hedge and fields structure is basically an english thing. Ireland gradually went from a tree covered land 80% to low level 20%.
Ironically most irish people care less about trees than the english.
It’s a lot easier to kill something that is suffering a weakness from natural decline due to environmental changes than something that’s fit, healthy and thriving.
But in the intervening three millenia the soil conditions are very different and have been since the peat started building up. I don’t know about your locale but where I grew up there was no peat below the tree stumps. There aren’t many trees that thrive or even survive in the pH levels of 3 metres of peat. Scots Pine and Rowan will and probably some willow and Alder. But as we’re in a warm period then some of the rewilding projects might do well if deer are kept out.
It is interesting that 50 years of pressure groups campaigning against grouse shooting and particular deer stalking have resulted in a deer problem including eating saplings.
MUN doesn’t understand or care what Iran is wanting …
“Khamenei nonetheless developed the Mahdist doctrine further after assuming leadership in 1989, outlining five revolutionary stages required before the Mahdi’s return: an Islamic Revolution, an Islamic regime, an Islamic government, an Islamic society, and an Islamic civilization. By his own assessment, Iran had completed only the first two. This means the regime believes it is executing a divinely mandated sequence of steps whose endpoint is a cosmic event, the return of the Hidden Imam and the apocalyptic defeat of evil.
The United States and Israel are not merely political adversaries in this framework. They are obstacles on that checklist, whose removal is a religious requirement for completing the sequence. It is essentially a self-assigned prophecy fulfillment program, with Khamenei casting himself and the Islamic Republic as the agents responsible for bringing about the end times on God’s behalf.”
What I’m having difficulty understanding is why the liberal ‘news’ media is ignoring the consequences of an exchange of nuclear weapons between Iran and Israel. If Iran is so determined to get nuclear weapons they will almost certainly use them. Besides the immediate carnage in the Middle East, the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the cancer-inducing radioactive isotopes that fission-weapons create. They will drift around the world. And the wealthy people, especially their children and grandchildren, living in mansions won’t be immune to the consequences. Is TDS so powerful that people will ignore the consequences of many air-bursts just to try to destroy Trump?
Well, it’s understandable that paradise seekers like the Khameneis would want to be at the front of the queue for admission to paradise.
With a promised entitlement of 72 per ticket, there’s a good chance that the supply of virgins will run out before the attendees line does.
And let’s face it, events promoters have form when it comes to over-promising and under-delivering.
‘With a promised entitlement of 72 per ticket, there’s a good chance that the supply of virgins will run out before the attendees line does.’
Not to worry. There are plenty of uncovered infidel whores in the ‘democratic’ West, aka dar al-harb, who are more than willing to help out by effectively supporting the open border policies of the Left.
Although i somewhat agree on yr second point i have to disagree w yr first one.
It is true that proponents of the energy transition use the current issues w oil/ gas supplies to push further on renewables. However, there are large pushbacks from both citizens and businesses against reserving funds for green projects as they rightly feel their (social) security is threatened by it. We see this reality play out politically right NOW. The less ideological fixed big players see the writing on the wall and are in fact shifting their position because pushing Green is hitting a reality wall, one that the likes of you are simply ignoring.
The Professor and the Energy
Volker Quaschning is a “Professor of Renewable Energy Systems at HTW Berlin (University of Applied Sciences for Technology and Economics),” and, according to his own statement, also an “expert on renewable energies, the energy transition, and climate protection.”
He is known for his bold statements, and what he posted on X on April 17, 2026, probably takes the cake:
Trump is an utter disaster for the world ’s oil and gas industry
And we’ll be paying for this for generations, both in cash & lives.
But, Trump’s war is doing great things … for his mate Putin
The revenue is up by some 10% from April last year.
Russia’s oil tax revenue seen doubling in April to about 700 bln rbls
Tax rise is driven by oil price surge after war in Iran
Russia raises Urals price to $77 in March, up 73% from February 2026
It doesn’t matter what Trump does when you have mad Ed for PM in the shadows.
The cult of Ed Miliband
From north London geek to net zero crusader, the
Energy Secretary now appears virtually untouchable – Telegraph
Trump did stop the Chagos surrender, I’ll give him that as a big plus.
Speaking of Artemis II, it’s amazing that most of the MSM appears ignorant of:
a) The “greatest distance man has ever travelled from Earth”, as broadly proclaimed claimed for Artemis II, is less than an extra 2% of the distance achieved on all nine Apollo missions to the vicinity of the Moon. That extra 2% is equivalent to running the distance of a football field and adding an extra 5 feet at the end.
b) The claim that flying so far around the Moon “allowed” the Artemis II astronauts to see areas of the “Moon’s dark backside “for the first time” fails to recognize that during the 29.5 Earth day period between one new Moon and the successive new Moon (as seen from Earth), the backside (as considered from Earth view) of the Moon, is not continuously “dark” but instead is progressively bathed in sunlight, just as is the front side. Apollo astronauts that travelled to the Moon also saw portions of that same so-called “dark backside”.
What was it, about 4,000 miles farther than during the Apollo program?
I had a problem with the media declaring the crew saw things on the dark side that had never been seen before. I guess they don’t know that the entire Moon has been mapped.
The U.S. media wanted to hype this effort and they exaggerated a little.
One thing about it, it seems to be bi-partisan exaggeration.
Yep, maximum distance Artemis II achieved above the lunar surface was 4,070 miles. Compare this to the typical average altitude of 70 miles above the lunar surface for Apollo-era CSM’s placed into orbit around the moon.
Now calculate the average Earth center-to-Moon center distance (238,900 miles) less one Earth radius (3,960 miles) plus one Moon radius (1,080 miles) to get the distance of 236,020 miles from Earth’s Moon-facing surface to the Moon’s far-side surface.
So, ((236,020+4,000)/236,200) = 1.017; so yeah, less than 2% further than nine preceding Apollo lunar missions.
Trump did not promise “no new wars”.
One of Trump’s campaign promises was to never allow the Mad Mullahs of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
That is not a declaration of no more wars, since war might be necessary to fulfill his campaign promise.
And it is not just a campaign promise to Trump, it is a mission for him and he has been railing against the Mad Mullahs getting nuclear weapons for literally decades.
Trump is dead serious about this. The price of oil and midterms will not deter him from accomplishing this mission.
And if other nations don’t like it- they can help, but they won’t. Now the Gulf Arab nations are begging Trump to keep the war going until Iran is crushed- yet they don’t seem to be gearing up their military to help. Saudi Arabia has 19 M people- twice that of Israel. You’d think with that population and all their money they could have a very powerful military- and DEFEND themselves against Iran. Then of course there are the weenie European nations…..
Trump did not promise “no new wars”.
Then what do these words mean then Tom?
“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars”.
You can see the words coming out of his mouth here…
Besides, you’re never supposed to take seriously what any politician says, especially during an election campaign. At least he knows enough to get them finished quickly. Did you mind when Obama said electricity prices would skyrocket due to green energy? And, when Biden said he was going to end fossil fuels? Maybe you liked that.
“They all lie- better get used to it.”
Yeah but Trumps lies now are so weak and so often, that what he’s telling the American public is, you lot are either too far down the rabbit hole (in my cult), or too stupid, to know whether I’m telling the truth or not. Last weeks “I was being a doctor not Christ” was so lame, yet he only got blow back from the Christians. Embarrassing on an Olympic level.
And…. speaking of limited thinking. Fancy Trumps team lecturing the Pope on matters of religion, then one of his moronic team quotes what he thinks is a genuine verse from the bible, only to be told that verse was made up for the movie Pulp Fiction. This is history making stupidity. Un-be-lievable.
And let’s not forget this Pope is at this point in time the most popular American alive. Best leave him be I say.
That is true.
Watching “man in the street” interviews is very depressing. You realize you are dealing with people who don’t have a clue about the real world. And they can vote!
The moron, Kamala Harris got 75 million votes in the last election! Seventy-five millions fools turned up at the polls! The ignorance is staggering.
I get the Iran not having nuclear weapons thing. But I think the days of stopping rouge state getting them is well gone. North Korea sorted that. And with the advent of AI being so good at development, it’s going to be near on impossible stopping any country that really wants them getting them. The US have certainly put a dent in Irans plans, but if this regime stays, then sadly that will be temporary.
And let’s not forget how Ukraine were duped by Putin. They gave theirs up with the agreement that Russia would not attack them. That didn’t work out too well. Nukes are the ultimate protection weapon, as well as the most frightening ones for attack.
While our (USA) military has been involved in the use of conventional weapons, the targets have been primarily the enrichment program and the Iranian weapons systems that would impede the mission, and the leaders that are supporting WMDs. Judged by the activities of past wars, and what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, what the press is calling a ‘war’ does not fit the usual definition of a war. Everyone seems to have forgotten that what happened in Korea in the 1950s was officially called a UN Police Action. The was in the days when the Press was more objective.
“The mainstream press is fanatically critical of Trump- but you haven’t noticed?”
The left leaning press are as you say. But that is their job. Surely you must have seen how aggressively the right went after Obama and Biden. Fox rarely had anything nice to say about them. But that is the game.
Trump does do some outrageously stupid things though. The Jesus thing last one one of many. Do you not think he should be called on these?
No, or- I understand the left will do so- but they fail to understand that what he’s doing is goofing on the left- throwing them red meat to enjoy themselves. And who says a president can’t have a sense of humor? We don’t expect humor from a Pope, but I’ve read that the early presidents of America were a rowdy bunch who often spoke in rough language. What counts is actions, not that silly stuff. I recall the left not angry at Clinton for getting a BJ in the oval office, or the small office near it.
The Press was highly critical during the Vietnam war.
Just like today.
When the United States goes to war, we have to fight the foreign enemy, and the Leftwing Media, and the Democrats, all at the same time.
Just like today.
The Democrats and the Leftwing Media always try to undermine any war effort and that goes double for any wars being run by Republicans.
The lying Leftwing Media harassment is what caused President Lyndon Johnson to decide not to run for a second term. He didn’t want to have to face the Leftwing, anti-war media and fight with them.
So it’s not always Republicans that are targets of the Leftwing Media, just most of the time.
“The Press was highly critical during the Vietnam war.”
True but perhaps that was a good thing. There were many atrocities committed by both sides that needed reporting
“When the United States goes to war, we have to fight the foreign enemy, and the Leftwing Media, and the Democrats, all at the same time.”
That’s no different for the left. You must remember the Benghazi thing and Biden’s pullout of Afghanistan. Both were heavily crucified by the right wing media. It is how the game is played.
But it is now not only the left criticising Trump. Tucker Carlson is openly apologising for ever supporting Trump. He is also saying he is sorry he mislead people over Trump. But he’s not the only one. Megyn Kelly, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, all now very anti Trump and this war effort.
Tucker Carlson
You might want to pay attention to the rest of what Carlson has been saying lately. His tinfoil hat is on too tight. He’s gone totally looney, following the same path as Candace Owens. Most of “the right”, certainly those that I know, are distancing themselves from him at this point. Same goes for Megyn Kelly. Joe Rogan was never “the right” and Alex Jones is Alex Jones.
No, Simon, I call them looney based on the overall pattern of behavior and claims. Tucker in particular has been off the rails for quite some time now, I stopped listening to anything he had to say many months ago.
Do you really think Israel was involved in Charlie Kirk’s murder? (That’s from Tucker, too) Or are you just picking up on this one thing he said because you agree with it?
“Do you really think Israel was involved in Charlie Kirk’s murder? (That’s from Tucker, too) Or are you just picking up on this one thing he said because you agree with it?”
No idea on the Kirk thing. I do think there is a good chance Epstein was involved in some dodgy stuff with Israel.
So suddenly you have a filter for crazy talk. Well done. Finally. But if it’s so good, how come you support a man who says so many silly easily provable nonsense…. like “Ukraine should never have started it” referring to Putin invasion of Ukraine. Or “It’ll be gone by Easter” referring to Covid. Or “I can declassify something even by thinking about it.”
I could go on, but you get the idea. And before you start on Biden, I am on record here saying, to Mark W as I recall, that Biden had lost it. Clearly he was succumbing to his age, as did Regan. It happens. Good reason to pick someone younger and saner.
We’ve already discussed words vs. actions so I won’t get into that again. In Carlson’s case, I’m referring to a specific pattern where he has been progressively embracing conspiratoinal ideology – specifically “the jooz” are behind everything. It’s old and tired.
There’s also the fact that his change in thinking seems unusually rapid. People don’t normally change their thinking that quickly, so it at least suggests some level of insincerity.
No idea what Epstein has to do with any of this.
This exactly what he said
“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars”.
I’d say that means he is not going to start a war…. wouldn’t you?
Here’s the link so you can check it.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FreCBjiGPCM
Get it into yr thick head: it was NEVER about nuclear weapons. It is a lie. A total lie. Just like the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in the case of Iraq.
Because IF that was the case it wouldve been relatively easy to eliminate the threat by other means.
The US read Israel wanted to go to war no matter what. The words Mad Mullahs is enough indication of the idiocy displayed here. 46 years of Iran’s successful fight against the US hegemon. That is not the result of madness but of careful planning.
The only mad men are the POTUS and the groups who the US initially supported and created like ISIS, El Quaida etc. The Khmer Rouge. The Viet Cong.
If you want mad look no further than the Wahabi ‘faith’. But do we go to war with the countries who incorporate that like Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Not even 9-11 was enough. No, instead Iran was the target.
Ask the Saudi’s if they think Iran is an existential threat to them. It’s not just Israel that is afraid of the “mad mullahs” having nuclear weapons. The Saudi’s have probably had more influence on Trump than Israel when it comes to Iran.
Conflating the 9-11 terrorist network with the Saudi government is like equating John Brown with the 1860’s US government.
The Saudi’s aren’t dumb. Take down the US and you also take down much of Asia – which is the prime importer of Saudi oil as well as of US exports. Over 60% of China’s foreign exchange reserves consist of US dollars. Make those worthless and what will China use to buy Saudi oil? Where will the Saudi’s sell such a big chunk of oil if China can’t buy it?
I would venture a guess that there isn’t a ME government that isn’t deathly afraid of the Mad Mullah’s having nukes. That’s a much bigger influence block than Israel.
You might want to look into the wahabi connection and the Bin Laden family.
Also, the many madrasses in both Europe and the rest of the world. Sponsored by the Saudis, leading directly to countless terrorist attacks in mainly the west but also in places like Indonesia. Or the influence of Qutb in Egypt.
All of which has nothing to do with Iran where you want to pin all this on.
Im not saying Iran is innocent of terrorist attacks. And they do kill people that go against them or perceived to be. The Fatwah against Salman Rushdie comes to mind. But you have to make the distinction. But you don’t because you need Iran as THE enemy. Because of Israel..capiche?
A: your numbers are wrong. And B: the Chinese can of course pay in Huan. And C: because you use the trope ‘mad mullahs’ you are by default disqualified to enter the grownup debate section..
Oh and D: do you really think the saudis won’t be able to offload their oil other than China?
You live in a strange world..
“Over 60% of China’s foreign exchange reserves consist of US dollars. Make those worthless and what will China use to buy Saudi oil? Where will the Saudi’s sell such a big chunk of oil if China can’t buy it?”
There used to be a REASON why the international economy has not overthrown the dollar as the worlds default. And 60% of China’s foreign reserves ARE in dollars. Devalue those and suddenly China has less value as well. What do you think would happen if China piled all those dollars up and lit them on fire?
Who is going to buy enough Saudi oil to support its price at a point high enough to pay for pumping it out of the ground? There isn’t enough industrial demand in the world to replace losing significant Asian demand because the US imports from Asia dry up.
Your grasp of international trade is lacking.
A government policy of Death to America defines the mullahs of Iran as “mad”. Why else would they need nuke bombs and ICBMs?
If China’s foreign reserve goes down because of the devaluation of a portion of the reserve then they have less money to spend on buying oil.
The foreign reserve represents a component of the buying power of a country. If that reserve decreases due to a component being devalued then it has less buying power.
No country is a total lender internationally or a total debtor internationally. China issues debt as well as lending debt. If China’s purchasing power goes down then it has to fund the loss somehow. Either with internal tax increases or by issuing debt. Both impact China negatively. China can’t lend what it doesn’t have. If it has less to lend because the foreign reserve goes down then it can’t benefit from non-existent interest either.
As of early 2026, estimates for Russian soldier deaths in the Ukraine war range from 186,000 to over 325,000, with total casualties (including wounded and missing) estimated to exceed 1.2 million. Independent, open-source tallies have confirmed over 186,000 named deaths.
But, hey, let’s instead focus on how much Russia’s Putin’s war with Ukraine has supposedly benefited the Russian economy.
/sarc
Duhhhh . . you obviously missed my “/sarc” line at the bottom of my post.
Most people get my implication that focusing of the economics of world oil price escalations due to war (anywhere) while not considering the loss of human life from such war(s) is just despicable.
IOW, there are more important things in life than just money.
“Foot soldiers are obsoleted by drones.”
To date, the US war against Iran (“Operation Epic Fury” . . . call it a “conflict” if you wish) since its start on February 28, 2026, has incurred the deaths of 13 US service members, with over 380 service members being wounded. You can advance the argument that “foot soldiers” are different from service members, if you wish to do so.
This current conflict has demonstrated EXTENSIVE USE of drones in warfare, especially by Iran against US bases and naval vessels as well as other nations in the Mideast.
Since Operation Epic Fury began, Iran has launched drone and missile attacks against nine Islamic nations/territories in the region, primarily targeting all six Arab Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Data indicates intensive strikes involved over 1,000 drones against nations including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria.
Current estimates are that the US has deployed over 50,000 troops to the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury. It certainly doesn’t appears they have been, in your words, “obsoleted”.
That is all.
Drones are only useful when there are no counter-measures against them. Sooner or later (see Ukraine) those counter-measures will be developed. Drones can’t occupy territory, they can only prevent it from being occupied. It takes humans to do the occupation. Counter-measures to the drones will allow that occupation to proceed as usual.
I saw a video of a Ukrainian drone, armed with a shotgun, shooting down a Russian drone.
Ukrainain drones are wreaking havoc with the Russians. They watch Russian troops hiding in some cover, and in goes the explosive drone. They chase individual Russia soldiers across the landscape. It’s pretty brutal.
New evidence shows the Obama admin and the US intel community conspired to create the Russia/Trump narrative. If you’d pull your head out of your butt, maybe you would have heard about it.
The biggest losers after Iran in this war are Russia and China. Russia is both an Iranian sponsor and a client of Iran’s drone industry. Iran uses Russian and Chinese equipment. Their air defenses are virtually worthless against the US and Israeli air forces.
It is still quite a mistery why the iranian regime did not invest more in air defense. I think the russians warned them. But the relation between Iran and Russia has always been a troubled one.
Iran was fiercely independent, likely overly so. Too cocky to take advice perhaps. Arrogant also, but still very smart. But now it looks like the US has finally managed to make those bonds stronger. Instead of devide and rule the US seems determined to make former enemies cling together.
Quite an accomplishment. Even more now than under Biden. Didnt think it was going to go this way..
TOTALLY WRONG of course.
All countries are now realising that they need to be more energy self-dependant..
Many countries are looking to find local sources of RELIABLE energy, rather than importing from places that are at the whim of terrorist groups.
They are also realising that importing erratic environmentally destructive wind and solar made by Chinese slave labour, isn’t a good idea either.
From the above, IMHO-absurd, comment by MyUsernameReloaded:
“Casey Merriman, from Energy Intelligence, said . . .”
Of course, so very, very many people hang on every word coming from this widely unknown person* and the widely unheard-of-organization Energy Intelligence**.
* It is interesting that the website https://www.energyintel.com/expert-casey-merriman does not provide a CV for Casey Merriman despite describing her as an “expert”.
However, the website https://www.oilandmoney.com/OilandMoney2019/speaker/77293/casey-merriman provideds this short CV for her:
“Mrs Merriman graduated cum laude from Rice University with a BA in political science.”
Maybe there is usable energy in political science . . . maybe not.
** A read of the “About Us” at https://www.energyintel.com/about-us#history reveals that Energy Intelligence is a more-or-less niche publisher of “news” that is found favorable by the “energy industry”.
/sarc
April 19, 2026 2:13 am
What about the uncertainty associated with precipitation in the climate models, and in the observations they are tuned to represent? This is important, because a 1 mm per day rate of rainfall represents about 29 W/m^2 of energy conversion from latent energy to internal energy in the troposphere. The fidelity of the modeled energy state of the atmospheric column above any gridbox in a model for any time step, or for an average over a time period, depends on modeled precipitation.
I refer to Held, et al 2018 “Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001829
See Figure 18. Here is the caption.
“Root mean square errors (RMSE) in precipitation (in mm/day) in three historical CM4.0 simulations (red dots), in GFDL’s CM3 model (blue) and CM2.1 model (purple), in the AMIP simulation with the AM4.0 (green), and in the set of the CMIP5 coupled models (box and whiskers showing the full spread, the 25–75% range and the median). Averages are over the Years 1980–2014, and biases are with respect to the GPCP v2.3 data set (Adler et al., 2003, 2016).”
My point: A 1 mm per day RMSE is about the best correspondence you can get between the climate model projection and the GPCP dataset over a set period of time.
What about the uncertainty of the dataset used as a reference?
“Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis Product. The GPCP Monthly product provides a consistent analysis of global precipitation from an integration of various satellite data sets over land and ocean and a gauge analysis over land.”
From https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.gpcp.html
This is a plot generated by that web page for December 2025. “GPCP Version 2.3 Combined Precipitation Dataset Monthly Error Surface Precipitation mm/day” The reported error varies by location fom 0.2 to 3.2 mm per day.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15vLrBOk67Wc2yMiifXt87hUw9XZS4Vhg/view?usp=sharing
So what? The uncertainty is too large to form a valid expectation of the influence of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O (rising at about 0.035 W/m^2 per year, or a total change of about 4 W/m^2 for the 2XCO2 case, as theorized) on the climate state outcome. These uncertainties for observed and modeled precipitation are on the order of +/- 29 W/m^2 in thermal influence, far greater than the factor being investigated. Therefore, attribution of any portion of a reported warming trend – or of any trend of climate variables – to rising concentrations of those IR-active trace gases is not justified.
Models or no models, NO ONE KNOWS, and we presently have NO WAY TO KNOW, that the influence differs from zero in the end result.
Thank you for reading this. I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.
More here from NCAR to further explain GPCP and the meaning of the error estimates and the existence of systematic uncertainties not addressed in the graphic of monthly error.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/gpcp-monthly-global-precipitation-climatology-project
“Uncertainty is characterized via an error estimate of each datapoint available alongside the dataset. This estimate accounts only for the random error, and depends on the mean rain rate and the number of samples used to calculate it (Huffman 1997). Other systematic sources of error (such as the dependence on the observing system) are not quantified, though they are also present. The most important systematic errors are over ocean, where there are few regular surface measurements to provide validation of satellite estimates. There is a at least one attempt at validation using measurements from small islands (Pfeifroth et al 2013), though their representativeness is still in question (Wang et al 2014).”
And at this point we are allowed to de- couple the uncertainty principle from Heisenberg.
An ignorant comment. Measurement uncertainty has nothing to do with the Heisenberg concept. A measurement uncertainty interval describes the limits of information available from a measurement. Better experiments and equipment can reduce the limits of information. Heisenberg is a totally different concept.
Tim and Jim, I just recently commented at SciTechDaily on an article about a new method to estimate Miocene ocean temperatures from marine sedimentary rocks where they provided a 95% CI. Interestingly, converting the CI to a percentage of the nominal estimate gives ± 59%. Embarrassingly low precision like that is probably why it is so frequently not provided.
“This estimate accounts only for the random error, and depends on the mean rain rate and the number of samples used to calculate it (Huffman 1997).”
This is the so-called “standard error”. It is a metric for how precisely the mean of the population has been located from sampling. It is SAMPLING ERROR. It is *NOT* a metric for the measurement uncertainty of the so-precisely located mean.
The “standard error” is used by climate science as the measurement uncertainty by assuming that all actual measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
“Other systematic sources of error (such as the dependence on the observing system) are not quantified”
They *are* quantified by climate science by assuming they all cancel themselves out.
This estimate accounts only for the random error, and depends on the mean rain rate and the number of samples used to calculate it (Huffman 1997).
This is a dead giveaway that the divide by √n is being used to calculate the experimental standard deviation of the mean (SDOM). That is a value that basically tells you how accurately you have calculated the mean value from sampling. It is only pertinent in one instance for measurement uncertainty, and that is when you measure the exact same thing, multiple times, under repeatable conditions.
An example would be if you had 50 rain gauges in a plot and averaged the values to get that days rainfall amount. The SDOM would be appropriate in that case.
Measuring the next day’s rainfall is not measuring the same thing. The property being measured is an average measurement which is covered by reproducibility uncertainty. This is covered in the Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement, Section F.1.1.2. The standard deviation must be added to the propagated uncertainty of each measurement. The likelihood of the individual measurement uncertainty being negligible is quite high with 50 observations for each measurement. However, for individual daily measurements with just one observation, this probably won’t be the case.
Overall, it illustrates the naiveite of climate science when it comes to measurement uncertainty.
The “uncertainty” that David D is discussing, plus the comments by the Gorman’s, used to be customary science when I entered the field about 1970. Indeed, I was taught as an undergrad that the expression of the uncertainty of a derived number can be as important as the number itself.
In that imaginary ideal world, estimates of measurement uncertainty are forever so low that they are a tribute to the measurement skills of authors. In the real world, examples of genuine measurement uncertainty done correctly are rare. I imagine that proper work is rare because the estimate gives a number so large that the author would face derision. Wave after wave of popular use of (incorrect) low values pulled from the air have come to be taken as the normal expectations in some fields of research. Sarcastically, this seems more common when authors have arts qualifications, or recent degrees with “environment” in the titles.
The correct ways to estimate uncertainty are described adequately. The problem is dishonesty among researchers who fudge results. Geoff S
P.S. Yes, I performed uncertainty estimates as poorly as the next guy or gal until I realised how wrong it was.
The apostrophre was inserted by the software, not by me. I get tired of having to correct its misuse.
The broader question is, why is the computer programmed to insert the apostrophe when not inserting it would be the most logical action to follow customary English use? It is an anomalous use. Seems possible it is a simple mistake made by a human programmer ignorant of the dreaded apostrophe.
Geoff S
from Cross Precision Measurement site:
———————————–
Factors contributing to the overall uncertainty in a measurement include
Accuracy of the Measuring Instruments – how closely does the reading on the instrument match the true value?Previous Uncertainties – every prior calibration in the chain of traceability contributes to the overall uncertainty of the current measurementResolution of the Instrument – how finely can the instrument read a measurement (ie, how precise is your equipment)?Degree of Repeatability – can the measurement be repeated with the same/similar results?Degree of Reproducibility – can other operators achieve similar results using similar tools in different environments?Environmental Condition Consideration – are numerous external environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, or vibration affecting the result of the measurement?——————————————–
——————————————–
“ISO 9001 requires measurement to be traceable utilizing calibrated devices. Calibration, as defined by the measurement community, includes quantifying the measurement uncertainty. This means that organizations must consider factors such as the accuracy of the instrument, the reliability of prior calibrations, and environmental influences. In addition, this makes the calibration process an essential component of quality management under ISO 9001.” (bolding mine, tpg)
——————————————–
Science done by the government, including climate science, should meet ISO 9001 requirements. It is obvious that climate science does not meet ISO 9001 requirements since they do *not* consider environmental influences on field measurement devices and sites for impacts on measurement uncertainty. Climate science just assumes environmental influences away by assuming it all cancels.
In fact, climate science doesn’t even use a metric that would be acceptable in any other science and engineering field, i.e. temperature. Examples would be the use of degree-days in HVAC engineering or enthalpy change in chemical reactions. The use of temperature in climate science wouldn’t even meet ISO 9001 requirements as a definitive measurement metric for a process.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler -18 C Earth is just flat wrong. Dividing 1,368 by 4 to average 342 over Spherical ToA is wrong.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB. 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/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
When GHE fails the entire CAGW house of cards implodes like the Titan submersible.
April 19, 2026 2:29 am
The BBC’s master climate chocalatier charlatan
BBC’s chief climate headbanger Justin Rowlatt noting that “climate change” was one of the reasons for chocolate Easter eggs getting more expensive.
Experts are said to have claimed that “human-induced” climate change had made extreme heat “10 times more likely” in the main cocoa bean-growing areas of West Africa. The story has had excellent fearmongering legs with a couple of years of bad weather-related harvests sending the world price of cocoa soaring. As late as October last year, the New York Times was stating that higher cocoa prices pushed up by climate change had led to companies changing their chocolate confectionary concoctions.
Alas, sadly missing in recent chocolate climate claptrap is that an improved recent harvest (no weather-adjusting humans thought to be involved) has led to a massive 75% slump in global cocoa prices from the peak reached in January last year.
Like coral, polar bears and Arctic ice, any narrative-disturbing news is ignored. – DS
But not by me.
Justin need not worry too much, the high prices have an awful lot to do with the cost of energy… and on that the penny might just be dropping with Justin…
Renewables Are Costing Us A Fortune – Justin Rowlatt
April 19, 2026 3:22 am
How human rights work – under Keith Stalin
Greenland
Greenlanders (and Denmark) must have self-determination. DJT had made certain noises about taking it over…
Chagos islands
Harold Wilson’s Labour government expelled the Chagossians from their homeland between 1968 and 1973 to establish the US military base on Diego Garcia…
Starmer, Hermer & Sands decided to give the Chagos islands away to Mauritius (a Chinese front) and then rent it back at over £100 million per year – all on the opinion of a UN Chinese judge that was in no way binding. But they need China for net zero… The treaty is predicated upon the islands being uninhabited…
A group of Chagos islanders has landed on the archipelago to establish a permanent settlement, more than 50 years after the population was evicted from the British colony. MSN
There followed legal proceedings and appeals which the government ended up losing…
Chagossians given right to live on island in major victory over ‘surrender’ deal – GBN
Pure spite follows
In a video shared on social media, Mr Farage said he was on a mission to bring aid to support four Chagossians aiming to colonise a deserted island. Mr Farage, 51, had attempted to arrive by boat at Ile du Coin from the Maldives, 300 miles away, on Saturday.
…
he had been told by a ‘senior figure’ that he had been blocked by the UK government from delivering the food and medicine.
He said: ‘The British government has made every effort to prevent me heading towards the Chagos Islands. They have asked the Maldives government to stop me from leaving here and setting foot on the boat. – Metro
Not a one off
Outrage as UK Officials Board Chagos Supply Vessel and Block Essential Aid to Islanders
Serious concerns have emerged following reports that UK immigration officers and police boarded a supply vessel bound for the Chagos Islands and conducted an extensive search of its contents, inspecting every box and restricting vital supplies intended for the Chagossian people.According to eyewitness accounts, officials prevented a range of essential items from being taken ashore, including an emergency solar water maker, mosquito nets, bed linen, mobile phones, clothing, sunglasses, and even basic provisions such as an ice machine. These are not luxury goods, they are fundamental items required for health, safety, and basic human dignity. – CP
You can see why net zero comes so easily to them.
Farage is accomplishing very little these days. All smoke and mirrors. His time will not come. Too close to the establishment. His former friends and colleagues know the score.
Once he put failed politicians from the tories in his party the game was up.
People dont want a new conservative party. Rupert Lowe jumped. Captain sensible.
April 19, 2026 7:02 am
TFK_bams09 and the plethora of clones show the atmosphere absorbing mas quantities of ISR, e.g. 78/239=32.6%. 239 enter ToA net albedo but only 160 make it to the actual surface. Where did it go? It does not appear to warm the intervening 20 mile thick atmos.
It is my contention/hypothesis that the lack of a thermal gradient from ToA to surface suggests ISR passes through the atmosphere unimpeded, undiminished, no warming or temperature increase.
The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air producing a thermal gradient from surface to ToA as is obvious from data and typical of any insulated system, e.g. wall of a house.
I wanted to see if there was evidence of intervening ISR being absorbed in transit & diminished when it reaches the surface.
USCRN data Las Cruces, NM, 3/20/20, SOLARAD max at 1400 local time was 1,181 W/m^2.
Average ISR at ToA of 1,368 W/m^2 (equinox) must be corrected for the oblique incident angle by the cosine of latitude 32.61°: 0.842 * 1,368 W/m^2 =1,151 W/m^2.
Appears to me that ISR ToA reaches the surface without atmospheric absorption.
Self -replying with more exhaustive research.
ToA ISR can be calculated by dividing luminosity in Watts (3.85 × 10²⁶ watts) by spherical area at Earth’s orbital radius (1.496E8 km) =1,368 W/m^2.
An average 30% of this is reflected by the albedo which is misleading since 1) no consensus (Trenberth 2011jcli24) & 2) it is almost entirely due to the polar ice caps and clouds (BIGw01-average-albedo).
With minimal albedo the ToA ISR should appear at the surface unimpeded.
Attached is a graphic of June, 2025 USCRN data for Lander, WY comparing the calculated ISR ToA to the measured surface SOLARAD Max.
I see no evidence to support the 40% atmospheric absorption as shown on the GHE graphics.
April 19, 2026 9:26 am
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
Not much new in France. A probable victory of the “extreme center” in the presidential elections within a year—we’ll see. The low-emission zones (ZFE) have been canceled by the National Assembly, but the Constitutional Council can still overturn that cancellation and reinstate this discriminatory measure against people living on the outskirts of cities who have to commute into urban areas with their old cars.
What worries me most, actually, are the recent debates on euthanasia. If this goes through, it will be a disaster. I’m not religious at all, so my opposition to the legalization of euthanasia is purely moral, not religious. With the inevitable expansion of the criteria for “eligibility” for “medical assistance in dying” (what a sickening euphemism), a socio-economic selection will inevitably take place. The most financially disadvantaged, the lonely, the unhappy, those who feel like “burdens” on society, “unproductive,” will end up seriously considering the option of euthanasia, in order to “go gently,” “without bothering anyone.” It’s particularly insidious. No one will tell you: “Go get euthanized, you’re useless and you cost too much!” But you’ll come to consider that possibility on your own.
And I’m not even talking about the vulture-like heirs who will scheme to get their inheritance or a life annuity property they think they’ve waited long enough for.
Since I find the situation particularly sad, I’m sharing a song I really like that cheers me up. The great Henri Salvador performing a text by Boris Vian: “The Dentist’s Blues.”
I was wondering who Satchmo was, so I typed that strange name into Google and saw Louis Armstrong’s face. One of my favorite musicians! There’s clearly some Armstrong in Henri Salvador. But I rank Armstrong higher. His version of Sunny Side of the Street makes me feel melancholic, even though it’s supposed to be a cheerful song. If that’s not powerful, what is!
April 19, 2026 10:13 am
Trump says if the Mad Mullahs regime doesn’t sign a peace treaty by Tuesday, he will knock out all the power plants and bridges in Iran.
I would suggest that a better target would be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops and leadership and any other troops under the control of the Mad Mullahs. Destroy the troops who are holding the Iranian people hostage.
Spawn an insurrection. Arm the Iranians who hate the Mad Mullahs (about 85 percent of the population). That’s what really needs to happen. Leaving remnants of the Mad Mullahs in charge in Iran just means more trouble in the future. The people of Iran will depose these monsters if given the chance.
Depends what you call ‘the people of iran’. It is not 1 block. And the majority support the regime as opposed to the iranians who do not live there who are mainly monarchists..
But you wouldnt know that because you need the image to support a conflict. So you believe the propaganda.
And you also believe in a static world of good and evil w ‘mad mullahs’ who threaten ‘the world’ w possible nukes. So you have no need to actual examine Iran and its development in the last 20 years.
Fossilised propagandised mindset, very common on this channel.
the majority support the regime
Utter bullshit. Nothing new from you though.
25% support the regime. (death cult) (probably more like about 12%)
25% detest the regime. (although I would guess that number is way higher, possibly 75% or more).
And 50% just want to get on with their lives. (keep their heads down)
You have proved yourself to be a delusional moron many times in this thread alone.
You should go away and seek the help of a team of psychiatrists in Zurich.
Good question but i am not a researcher. However, i do have an interest in history , politics and fact checking and i am an avid reader. My estimation is just that. I try to be unbiased and i have no skin in the game. So, i am weighing up the evidence from various sources. I can spot propaganda from far away because the hallmarks are usually quite visible. People cannot help giving themselves away by using certain phrases. Regimes, governments and/ or individuals.
In regards to Iran the issue is complex simply because the country is complex, not at all uniform. And believe me, i have spoken to quite a few iranians myself. Many are disgruntled by and opposed to the regime and rather see it go, as do i. But, as always comes: then what? Civil war, more evil and ruthless leaders? Because history has shown the violence of instability. Say what you will, Iran society IS functioning atm. Is multi layered, even the government, highly educated. It also has seen quite a transformation in the last 20 years, most for the better.
The population does not want Iran to become like Afghanistan or Syria. And it is unlikely.
The regime has quite ruthlessly suppressed dissent in the last year. Several foreign agents had infiltrated and pushed the revolt beyond its natural limits. I am not passing moral judgement just state the situation as i see it.
A regime already aging will simply get more hardline when challenged. Nobody knows how many ‘protesters’ were actually paid agents or genuine.
Several thousands of them were killed, Estimates run between 2 to 6000.40.000 is an absurd number that some people here claim which is an indication of their ignorance.
What we witness is mainly pro Iran/ regime rallies and hardly any contra protests. If the protests had been massive and widespread the regime would not have been able to suppress the wave. Also, the top layer has connections with layers further down and it forms a system that is quite flexible. After all, they have survived the last 46 years. There is an amount of freedom other islamic societies can only dream of. And it has a deep sense of history.
But it has also exploited other countries and groups in order to destablize them. They are by no means the innocent victim here. However, I am loathe to offer any solution to the many issues both Iran and west Asia face and have faced.
It is, as Thomas Sowell said not a matter of a solution but a trade off.
The US and Israel offer a (final) solution ( pun intended): just kill the regime and pretend to negotiate. Keep the fires burning..and the killing.
They don’t care about chaos and destruction. In fact, they welcome it.
They are both..special. Exceptional. That is the way they feel about themselves.
They both commit terrorism and war crimes like it means nothing. This has gotten worse ever since the end of the Sovjets.
But ultimately bound to fail, that much is historical truth. We are just watching it in real time.
I hope this clarifies it for you..
Fair enough but the list is quite long. Usually from various independent and ex official individuals with experience with no skin in the game who have worked in some capacity within the system and no longer depend on career funding. And old style independent investigative journalists, a dying breed. Usually to be found on Youtube, Substack and the like but sometimes through articles in less heavy tilted publications. I stay away from X, TS (which is neither)and Facebook. I highly distrust the msm from all sides and the clearly politically funded channels and organisations, career politicians and military.
I am not going to give the names of individuals or organisations i trust because i will then be hammered by idiots w small minded political/ historical brains. There is enough of that already..
