Hard measurement data is sought to deny or support the Sherrington postulate dated 2019 or so, that “Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused increased growth of human teeth since approximately year 2000, compared to the growth in previous 3 decades.”
Dentists who weigh teeth might have data. The basis of my postulate is approximate, derived from observation, wishful thinking and guesswork.
Geoff S
There has also been an observed reduction in the size of the teeth of many humans of a particular political persuasion all around the world due to aggressive gnashing since November 2024.
6.022 × 10^23 atoms – Avogadros constant. Of course there is always Normality: eg Normality is a measure of concentration that is equal to the gram equivalent weight per litre of solution.
I have trouble remembering people’s names but for some reason I remember that constant despite it being 60 years since I first heard of it in high school chemistry. I happen to mention it at parties of smart people just to impress them. 🙂
It amazes me that we know the molar constant to such an exact degree but are unable to find the climate sensitivity number. Trillions spent on something we don’t know.
Not sure what you mean. I’m headed to the hardware store in a few as I’ve used up enough helium this morning. I have to remember to turn that valve off.
I’m home now and see that the link I provided above doesn’t work without being logged into a university account.
I’ll summarize the key points. In the 1950’s Avogadro’s number was 6.02544 x 10^23, so indeed rounded to 6.023 x 10^23.
The article from 2010 explains, “There are two reasons why the value of NA (Avogadros’s Number) has changed over time. The first, and most obvious, is that any change in the standards used to define either the atomic mass unit or the gram will cause a shift in the value of their conversion factor and hence in the value of NA. Such a change occurred in 1960 when the standard for the atomic mass unit was changed from the O = 16 scale to the 12C = 12 scale. A similar shift would have occurred around 1900 with the shift from the H = 1 to the O = 16 scale, but, of course, the concept of NA was not a part of chemistry at that time.”
The value you gave became fixed on May 20, 2019 when the International System of Units (SI) was officially redefined to make the value an exact constant. So it indeed is now defined as a constant.
I would like to see what the text (Holzclaw) that we used in my AP high school chemistry class said.
Well, being certain of the number of molecules of a gram of some substance doesn’t help in controlling the population or freeing up those trillions for pocket liners.
Mr. S: Enjoyed this, and think you could be on to something- why limited to 2000? Your “hard measurement data” is a matter of pulling together “paleo-dental” samples, cull out the “non-conforming” samples, then publish the “conforming” “data”. Now, if you can postulate that into proof of climate change, you could be the next M. Mann!!
So, from 1970 to 2000 an increase of 13.5% (44 ppm delta), versus
from 2000 to 2019 an increase of 11.4% (42 ppm delta).
Given such small percentage changes between these two time periods and the fact that carbon is only a small percentage of the elemental composition of human teeth, which are mostly (approx. 65-70%) hydroxyapatite: an inorganic mineral containing calcium phosphate but no carbon, leads to the conclusion that human intake of atmospheric CO2 does not materially contribute to bone growth. Tooth enamel does contain about 0.5–0.6% carbon, while analysis of powdered teeth have shown average carbon levels around 13%.
As for atmospheric CO2 directly affecting human teeth, there is this from Google’s AI bot:
“Impacts of Elevated Atmospheric on Tooth Growth and Health: Systemic Metabolic Effects: Chronic exposure to high indoor or atmospheric levels (up to 5,000 ppm in crowded areas) can lead to a reduction in systemic pH, causing proteome malfunction. This environmental stress is hypothesized to contribute to systemic conditions like osteoporosis, which can affect the mineral density of the jawbone and teeth. Enamel Hypomineralization: Increased pollution and air quality changes, often linked to rising emissions, have been associated with a higher prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH), a developmental defect where the enamel is softer and more porous. Increased Dental Erosion: Air pollution linked to climate change contributes to acidic precipitation, which can disrupt the oral microbiome and create a more acidic environment in the mouth, weakening tooth enamel.”
The above indicate that, if anything, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will DECREASE the growth of human teeth, not increase such.
Physiologically it doesn’t make sense that atmospheric carbon dioxide would have any effect on human organ development.
We breathe in small amounts of the gas, the gas that we breathe out contains 4% carbon dioxide and 16% oxygen, with carbon dioxide and carbonate ions maintaining blood pH within a narrow window that is slightly basic, a vital role in maintaining health.
I would suggest that most if not all of our anatomical carbon is obtained from our oral intake.
Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C. Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically– The Rev Monbiot
George is bang on message – generalised global ‘heating’ will impact us in Europe with… extreme cold. Do they have sub-editors at the Grauniad? Do they read the rubbish they write and stop to think… maybe, perhaps… No, they don’t.
George is convinced: A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat.
The younger populations, the university towns etc are all fully indoctrinated.
The sectarian (islamic) vote will probably ditch Labour for the far more antisemitic Greens. For their part the Greens will have to ditch their more progressive (and lunatic) ideas to keep them on board.
The schism is in age. Those who were educated and later those who have been indoctrinated. I read the latest would-be Trump assassin was a California schoolteacher…
Only folks like Monbiot and Gore have the super serious mental capacity and imagination to comprehend the dangers of simultaneous boiling and freezing oceans.
Just a quick reminder that Gore received a D in a science for dummies course from a school that rarely hands out D’s, particularly to the progeny of powerful Democrats.
Nigel King
April 26, 2026 2:38 am
In my opinion the density of CO2 is a function of the temperature. Now is this atmospheric temperature or Ocean temperature? In the long distance climate records it seems that the CO2 density follows the “temperature” by 800 years. This would suggest that the temperature is atmospheric and the delay is caused by the mass of the oceans.
Currently this suggests that the CO2 density follows the UAH temperature.
What ever is true it seems that the ice core CO2 density is incorrect in that we would expect the CO2 density to follow the temperature, perhaps with a time delay of 800 years. We should expect the mean CO2 density to be around 400ppm for the Holocene. This is not what the ice core data suggests. There are a number of notes suggesting that the CO2 leaks out of the snow layer before finally consolidating.
Thoughts of the assembled company would be appreciated on how to resolve this.
There is significant annual periodicity in the Mauna Lao CO2 data. It seems like you might have a good opportunity to analyze the phase of these data with various temperature measurements, , sunlight, leafage, orbits, Etc., etc., to better understand what does or does not correlate with CO2 fluctuations.
Mauna Loa CO2 concentration typically peaks in May, and then declines rapidly during the Summer. It reaches a minimum in the Fall, and then climbs through out the Winter as bacteria and fungi decompose the leaf detritus and phytoplankton. Leaf Area Index is inversely proportional to the CO2 concentration.
FYI: At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains 0.84 g of CO2 at STP. This small amount of CO2 can not cause any heating of the large mass of atmosphere. You should not waste time and effort posting comments about CO2.
Harold, the atmosphere is about 100,000 meters tall and that 429 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to about 1 meter of pure CO2 gas….which happens to be enough to absorb about 20 watts per square meter (surface) of electromagnetic radiation from the sun and Earthly upwards IR …but doubling CO2 it only increases the absorption by 3 or 4 watts, so the effect is not going to cause boiling oceans or heat death of humanity…more likely a couple of days longer frost free in temperate zones, and a couple of days less wearing a sweater.
Actually one SHOULD spend time and effort posting on it because it is the main plank in the platform of carbon tax seeker and CC crybabies….
This relationship has been known for some time as it’s often discovered when the data is detrended using a derivative function (usually just a difference function) combined with a one-year moving average to deseasonalize the data. I have concerns with this approach as the difference and MA functions are both filters which, when combined, emphasis certain frequencies.
The usual pushback from the AGW crowd is that the variations on the trend are just ENSO, and that it’s the trend in concentrations that’s important. I find myself in partial agreement, we can’t just ignore the trend.
I like to work in the frequency domain where I can avoid deseasonalzing the data; I still had to do some level of detrending. I can also use coherent averaging to attenuate uncorrelated signals. Also, the coherence function indicates the frequencies over which temperature and CO₂ concentrations are correlated. My analysis showed that the relationship was strongest using Southern Hemisphere temperatures – where most of the oceans are located.
I learned later that I wasn’t the first person to use a frequency domain approach. Park performed a similar analysis in 2009.
The analysis suggested that CO₂ concentrations are integrally related to temperature, which fits with temperature variations being related to the derivative of CO₂ concentrations.
The question remains, how are the trends related? Building on the idea that there’s an integral relationship I detrended deseasonalized CO₂ concentrations using a second-order polynomial (quadratic) and detrended temperature using a first-order polynomial (linear). The match was perfect, but this still doesn’t offer any convincing evidence that the trend in concentrations were the result of a trend in temperature.
I realized that a necessary condition for the trends and the variations on the trends to be the same process is that the relationship between temperature and [CO₂] be defined by a single model, or equation. I’ve found that it is possible to define a single equation relating both the trends, and the variations on trends. While this doesn’t prove anything, it’s very strong empirical evidence the trends and variations are the same process.
The interesting thing about an integral relationship, is that delay is not a fixed time, but a fixed phase of -90°, which is theoretically six months delay for a two-year cycle, and 250 years for a 1000-year cycle.
Have a look at the next-to-last “~250-yr lag…” figure in this WUWT article published 15 years ago.
The reasons that temperature is important is that temperature controls chemical reactions, such as the rate of bio-oxidation, and the rate of metabolism, particularly photosynthesis. But the temperature is really a proxy for the biological activity of plants (photosynthesis) and the respiration of plants in the absence of sunlight, and the decomposition of detrital material with low levels of sunlight.
“Across Europe, wind energy projects worth billions of Euros have been halted or cancelled, often following protests and campaigns underpinned by dis- and misinformation claims.”
That in a nutshell is all the left/alarmists/woke etc etc have in their arsenal. Distorting language and the very meaning of words. Words they do not like they attempt to erase altogether. One obvious example might be “mother” and “father” being replaced by “birthing parent and second biological parent”
We had global cooling then global warming – vamped right up to global incineration – and now we have a spectrum of (mild?) climate change through to a climate crisis, catastrophe etc. And none of them real outside the supercomputers they rely on to read the runes.
In the end it’s all duckspeak…
As Orwell put it, “the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning “to quack like a duck”.
They should coin a new word- dismisinformation. Makes me think of George W. Bush’s “people misunderestimate me” for which I’ve been laughing for years.
That reminds me of the SNL episode where they had a sign language interpreter interpreting for Chris Christi. The woman was an Italian American. As she waved her arms around, it was hysterically funny- since it looked a lot the way Italians wave their arms around (in the stereotype anyway). It’s on YouTube and worth watching.
Spring, summer, and fall bring more thunderstorms here in the U.S. Every flash of lightning and every crack of thunder announces a fundamental concept: absorbed energy at the surface and in the lower atmosphere cannot be made to accumulate down here as excess sensible heat by the absorption of longwave energy within the atmosphere.
Watch from space to appreciate the power and prevalence of convective weather. A one-inch-per hour rate of rainfall, typical within a thunderstorm, represents a 17,600 W/m^2 conversion of latent energy to internal energy within the localized overturning circulation.
This is a link to the GOES East visualization of the Global Lightning Mapper for the CONUS region. One can observe a lot by watching. (H/T to Yogi Berra)
Excellent post. However, the “conversion of latent energy (condensation) to internal energy” in cloud formation is rather more complicated as condensation is an isothermal process that depends on the local P/T balance. Most likely, the release of latent energy shows up as local kinetic energy (turbulence), which then can generate electrical energy (lightning), without increasing the local temperature (internal energy) which would shut down condensation.
Probably the main reason cloud formation isn’t easy to model– You can’t measure it with a thermometer. (“When your only tool is a thermometer…”)
Thank you for your reply. My description follows the quote here:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction” https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often received the most attention. Often the total kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded as a measure of its intensity. The only other forms of atmospheric energy which appear to play a major role in the kinetic energy budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere are potential energy, internal energy, and the latent energy of water vapor. Potential and internal energy may be transformed directly into kinetic energy, while latent energy may be transformed directly into internal energy, which is then transformed into kinetic energy. It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic approximation that the changes of the potential energy P and the internal energy l of the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional, so that it is convenient to regard potential and internal energy as constituting a single form of energy. This form has been called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It follows that there must be an equal net generation of kinetic energy by reversible adiabatic processes; this generation must occur at the expense of total potential energy. It follows in turn that there must be an equal net generation of total potential energy by heating of all kinds. These three steps comprise the basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental characteristic of the general circulation.”
So yes, “Most likely, the release of latent energy shows up as local kinetic energy…” but the first step is latent energy-to-internal energy.
no mention of entropy, is it relevant to all these phenomena described as “transfomations of energy” into “different types” of energy. It is 60 years since I did any serious revision of my university thermodynamics lectures.
I am under the impression that there is something one-way about energy which is doing work. Are these real or notional changes and are any of them considered to be doing work?
About “no mention of entropy” it is noted that the presence of “dissipative processes” acknowledges the concept of entropy.
About the concept of work being done, yes, the application of force over a distance to a unit mass of air to accelerate it to a higher velocity is inherent to the “generation of kinetic energy.”
Thanks, David. Far be it from me to argue with the Sainted Lorenz, but I challenge the “thermometer readers” to measure the time interval between “directly into internal energy” and “then transformed into kinetic energy”! The collapse of a cubic meter of water vapor into a raindrop directly affects the motion of the surrounding dry air. This motion (turbulence) can be called kinetic energy. Lorenz prefers to call the dynamic P/T balance, which sustains the isothermal condensation process, transient “internal energy”. So be it. But this change in “internal energy” will not be measured by the “thermometer readers” for their simplistic “Climate Models”, much to their dismay.
God Damned, Democrats with their hateful, demonizing rhetoric against Republicans and conservatives, are the cause of the attempt on Trump’s life last night.
The Democrats know their hateful, lying rhetoric will agitate the psychos in our society to violence, and we got one more example of it last night. The Democrats are doing this deliberately in hopes of a successful outcome.
Radical, violent Democrats are the enemies of the United States.
Contrary to the USA
Iran isn’t regime changing or assassinating other countries leaders (John Perkins “Economic Hitman” for starters. ) as Iran, unlike the USA, is not a globalization tool,
that meddles in other countries businesses(at least not since the CiA was kicked out,
that used Iran as main hub to infiltrate other muslim countries, when puppet dictator Shah Reza was in power)
The USA don’t even mind killing their own and assassinations have reached such an extent that Kissinger said,
after the USA killed its proxies in Vietnam(Diem Brothers),
that
“it may be dangerous to be an enemy of the USA, but leathal to be our friends “
Get used to it- America is #1. This century like the last one will be an American century. Whatever bad things done by America are no worse than what every nation does at one time or another. It’s done far more good than bad. Saved Europe from the Germans and later the Russians. Lost in ‘Nam, but that effort tired out the push to advance communism which was a real thing. Freed Iraq from a dick-tator (I like that spelling). Kept communism out of Latin America, more or less. Developed much of the technology of the modern world. People who can only bitch about America’s bad behavior are boring and not thinking very hard. Why not telling us where you are and what your overall political philosophy is? But no, you won’t do that. At least then we’d see the context of your ideas.
Hi. I am in Ireland. My overall political philosophy is to go against those who try and control others on a massive scale and build the control grid to keep people entrapped and enslaved in their gulags.
With ‘gulag’ i mean the concept, not the location ( this for the idiots).
On top of the list: Digital control grid, (international) banking maffia, dying empires. I am anti technocrats.
I think the sensible Left and Right should stop fighting their Culture War and fight for freedom while we still can.
Those who force CBDCs/ Stablecoin and Digital IDs and control apps (Mobile phones) are the Enemy.
Oh, it’s there alright but likely more in Europe. I think people like Bret Weinstein are sensible/ centre Left. Trouble is, if you are far into the right, so not centre right you think any liberal idea is evil. I would call Thomas Sowell sensible/ centre right. There is no need to always think in terms of enemies.
It is true that in times of trouble the centre cannot hold. It is also true that that centre is filled w techno/ bureaucrats. The irony is that the old left used to call the bureaucrat and managerial types rightwing in the 1960s and 70s. Their march through the institutions made them simply into the new breed of the same ‘class’. This is not an accident if a compliant population is your aim, which it is. I see no difference between those groups and they display the same characteristics. Just a different badge..
“ My overall political philosophy is to go against those who try and control others on a massive scale “
So you should be totally behind what Trump is trying to do in Iran, where a rabid religious cult is trying to exert control over the whole region, and eventually the world.
It’s too late. Big enterprises (government, companies, labor unions, AI, etc.) now run the world. What we need to do is constantly review them and restrain them as much as possible but we’re not gonna stop them. No need to worry- do as others do in Ireland, go to the pub. 🙂
Also, culture wars will also be with us. Preventing that is impossible- like trying to herd cats. You never know who is more correct. Trying to prevent culture wars will only result in totalitarianism. When you get sufficiently old, you won’t worry about these things so much- you’ll mostly worry about your health and that of people you care for. All these other concerns are trivial by comparison.
We are in the process of increasing totalitarianism. The culture war is a smokescreen to divert attention from the real issue which will become apparent to everyone in the coming 5 years.
It is about Freedom and sovereignty.
Especially right leaning americans should be concerned about this as they constantly refer to it. Your first amendment is at stake. This is not a Left/ Right issue per se. It runs through the system which started ( roughly) w the Bank of England and will end w digital IDs and CBDCs/ Stablecoins.
In short: slavery.
And going to the pub and not pay attention to it is like saying:’ apres moi la deluge’.
I dont think making yourself comfortable in a cage and shouting at cockroaches is the answer. Then you have given up on life and the prospect of the next generations.
Nonsense. I’m 76. I think we had more restricted freedoms in the post WWII era than now.
You are vastly exaggerating threats to our freedom. All things considered, it’s a great time to be alive. It seems that you’re the one shouting at cockroaches- ranting and raving.
Well, Iran has, for 47 years been applying “Death to America” as a “death of a thousand cuts” through its terrorist proxies, awaiting the time when it could deliver the coup-de-qrace with a nuke! Their efforts have at least been international, if not quite “global”.
I don’t care about hate speech. I care about misdirection. We don’t hate the right things enough.
I hate slop..It’s all we get nowadays from ALL directions.
Focus on the control grid and the power behind it. Get out of the sandpit..
It is going to take a LOT of screaming and shrieking to cover up all the crime and corruption of the modern DemoKKKrat Party! Fortunately they have the lapdog media to parrot the party line and spread boatloads of propaganda that the weak minded members of the gullible generation will gobble down with glee!
Your last sentence is incorrect, however, as they are more the enemies of Truth, Freedom, and humanity writ large!
Here is Neema Parvini aka Academic Agent, one of my heroes.
He, like me only heared about it later and he also does not follow the news.
This linked video has him basically spread out the likely reactions from the different factions, without him actually having read or watched any footage or articles.
The ‘it was staged’ does indeed come up.
Watch the 20 minute video and see if he is right.
Remarkable..
Gotta call you on that Tom. Remind me of what Trump and his son said when Nanci Pelosi’s husband was assaulted in what was a politically motivated attack that nearly cost him his life? It was vile. And to be clear, no Dem politician has said anything hateful about any of the attacks on Trump. They all condemn them.
And when Gretchen Whitmer was the victim of an attempted kidnapping by right wing extremists, Trump said it was “her problem.” He called the plan a “supposed plot.”
But…what is interesting is the number of people on both the left and right who have immediately called the attack fake. For the record I don’t think it is, but this is a world Trump has created. The number of real things he has called fake through the years are having an impact. Obamas birth certificate. The 2020 elections. The cost of living….. the list is long.
I tell you one thing though, in a week no one will be talking about this. In the world of Trump a new story emerges every day and it replaces the last. There are two that don’t seem to go away though… Epstein and this war Trump chose to start.
With Trump all you need to do is switch off for a week and see what actually happened which usually is very little. Just drama. The positive thing is that you then have missed all the slop, the clown show..
It’s funny that, because i rarely follow the news now so when it finally reached me i just added it as another ‘item’.
It leaves me totally cold. And if in the end someone actually shoots him and he dies i will consider it simply as the end of a clown show. Later on people will look back at this particular Trump timeframe and say: what the hell was that all that about?
Because let’s face it, what do people in general remember about world leaders?
Only the headlines. Because Trump had so many, the law of diminishing returns is turbocharged.
We will end up with ‘whatever’..
Not that i think elements of his thinking will stop but he has become a general laughing stock.
Couldn’t agree more. When I heard it was like… here we go again. He won’t let this incident go to waste. I stupidly listened to his presser afterwards. It was a campaign speech. “I’m the greatest that’s why they want to shoot me” If “I had the ballroom this wouldn’t have happened.”
Tell us how you really feel, Tom! There was a remark I caught on TV tonight about an increase in threats to legislators. But they didn’t mention what the ratio of threats to democrats and republicans is. It would be interesting to know.
The Viet Cong also got their asses wiped out during the Tet Offensive of 1968. They were no longer an effective fighting force after that.
Apparently, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong guerrillas in South Vietnam got fooled by American Leftwing Media liars claiming the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were kicking American ass in South Vietnam and American troops were hanging on by a fingernail.
They decided to launch a nation-wide attack on South Vietnam attacking over 100 cities simultaneously during the Tet holidays when South Vietnamese troops were off celebrating.
They miscalculated. The American troops gave the North Vietnamese the biggest defeat in the war, and completely obliterated the Viet Cong, who were so sure they were going to win this battle, that they came out of hiding, and showed themselves in public and were promptly wiped out.
This loss almost broke the back of the North Vietnamese army. They never were able to mount such an attack against American troops again.
Right after the Tet Offensive, was the time the United States should have invaded North Vietnam and ended this war once and for all.
But stupid self-serving politicians could not pull the trigger and make a decision that big, so they kicked the can down the road, which is why the war lasted five more years (for Americans, seven more years for South Vietnam).
It is a similar situation to today and our war with Iran. Former Presidents kept kicking the hard decisions down the road to the point that the Mad Mullahs were on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. The difference between Iran and South Vietnam is we finally have a president who will pull the trigger.
I wish Trump had been president in 1968. He would have pulled the trigger on North Vietnam, and the world would look a lot different today. A thriving, free South Vietnam, the equivalent of South Korea today.
Unfortunately for South Vietnam, Democrats were in charge of their fate, and the Democrats threw South Vietnam to the communist wolves without a second thought.
Democrats are incapable of defending the United States and its allies. Look at how the Democrats try to undermine everything to do with the Iran war. They did the same with the war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They screw up everything they touch.
Forever wars should properly be called Democrat wars because Democrats are the cause of constant delays. Democrats just cannot deal with murderous dictators. They prefer to run and hide, and throw allies to the wolves, rather than stand and fight. Every time.
Britain’s Labour government cleared the Chagos people out and resettled them in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s.
Today’s Labour government is trying to appease China by giving the islands away to Mauritius. Self determination for Greenlanders, but not for Chagossians. Two tier Keir.
I standup and applaud what you wrote. We won the Tet but it was reported back home as a loss. Fear of the Chinese coming south caused us to paralyze ourselves. Hats off to you.
Mr. nally: So “our 1968 media” should ditch the name “we” put to the event in favor of the name put to it by some pedantic europhile??!!
You reveal alot here, more than you imagine, elitist.
The Democrats could NOT have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory had not the mainstream press taken left wing talking points verbatim! The war for freedom in Viet Nam was lost as much in the press as in the halls of Congress!
Yes. The likes of Hanoi Jane and the baby-boomers of USA gave the victory to the Communists in South Vietnam – this comes from the living leaders of the Vietcong long after all troops were withdrawn and civilian life returned to a new normal.
Pat Smith
April 26, 2026 5:46 am
A question. I remember reading that an EV creates more emissions when it is built than a conventional car such that you have to drive 60,000 miles before it becomes equal to an ICE in emissions. This is presumably assuming that the electricity it uses is emissions-free. Is this still regarded as true? Also, since in the UK, only about 50% of our electricity is emission free, does an EV ever become a lower overall emitter than an ICE?
Gemini sez: Average Break-Even: In the United States and many parts of Europe, recent analyses suggest the break-even point is typically reached between 15,000 and 30,000 miles (roughly 1 to 2 years of average driving). Excluding extreme climates. And the battery is warranteed for 100k to 150k. But, no parking in 15 minute cities.
Pat:
I read idbodbi’s Gemini based response [see nearby] to your question and thought it was too low.
MIT has done this and came up with 50-80,000 miles comparing a Tesla S to a Toyota Camry.
So, I queried Gemini and got nearly the same answer: 13-20,000 miles. I then asked Gemini to
“Do a principled crique of your prior answer”. Big difference! [But this is a US based answer]
Summary: “In short, the 20,000 mile figure represents an ‘optimistic average’ for the current US grid, while your 50-80,000 mile figure is a more conservative ‘engineering reality’ if we account for heavy batteries, dirtier manufacturing regions, and the full system burdens of the grid.”
Its like using LCOE vs Full System Costs when comparing electricity production: there is a huge discrepancy in results that advocates continue to ignore.
Take home message: Always ask your AI to do a principled critique of any answer on a topic that is even remotely controversial, prone to hype, or related to politics. You will be both surprised & appalled at how different the answers may be.
Trump administration fires National Science Board members April 25 (UPI) — The scientists and engineers serving on the National Science Board received letters from the Presidential Personnel Office Friday telling them they have been fired.
Story tip:
For those interested in the politics of ( inter) national finance, the league of nations, UN, Global Development goals, the Vatican and the digital control grid, this Substack article (and writer) is excellent.
It is a (roughly) 180 year process of trying to control the world’s population.
From banking to CBDCs and Digital IDs.
Includes Clinate change/ emergency.
A proper based Conspiracy Theory. You know: the one backed up by data.
I bet that A: people gave downvotes because it was me and B: they didnt realise they couldve actually used some of the information to attack their ‘lefty’ enemies.
Typical..
Maybe judging that the whole dialogue was missing two elephants in the room – individual personal self-interest and cherishing of family AND the “madness of crowds”
According to Reuters, China grew 116,000 square miles of trees, increasing the country’s total forest coverage from 10 percent in 1949 to roughly 25 percent in 2024. But a 2025 study published in the journal Earth’s Future shows that all those additional trees (roughly 78 billion since the early 80s, by some estimates) come with some unforeseen consequences for China’s water distribution.
Scientists from Tianjin University, China Agricultural University in Beijing, and Utrecht University in the Netherlands found that between 2001 and 2020, increased vegetation reduced waterresources in both the eastern monsoon region and the northwestern arid region. That’s a big deal, considering these areas make up roughly 74 percent of China’s total land area, according to Live Science.
Here we go with the “Both Sides” argument with regard to the attack on President Trump and Republicans.
The Media, including Fox News are putting out this both sides argument equating Rightwing violence with Leftwing violence.
The Both Sides group cites attacks on Democrat politicians such as Governor Shapiro and several State Democrat politicians who were murdered in their homes.
The error with this argument is no Rightwinger was demonizing Gov. Shapiro or any of the other victims, and no Rightwinger was involved in the violence.
So this argument is just meant to deflect blame on the part of Leftwingers, and the Fox News people are going along with this distortion of reality, in what I assume is an effort on their part to say “can’t we all just get along”?
On the other hand, the Left constantly demonizes Trump and Republicans, calling Trump a dictator that will not give up power, and calling the whole Republican Party a bunch of racists.
And what comes of this hate-filled rhetoric? Some weak-minded people believe these lies and decide they need to take violent action against conservatives.
There is no “Both Sides” on this issue. The Right does not go around trying to assassinate Democrat political officials. The Radical, Hateful Left has this all to themselves.
As far as the attack on Gov. Shapiro, the mainstream media said it was done by a right-wing advocate? But we never got any actual evidence of this. Was it someone on the far left that thought Shapiro was too center or right? And if someone thinks only those on the right are anti-semitic then their own bias is showing.
One thing that would really enhance the WUWT website would be to add a piece of software that would allow a person to find the new posts in a thread (highlight in a different color) that were posted since the reader’s last visit.
It was that way in the past for a little while. It should be re-implemented. I imagine people miss a lot of valuable information because of a lack of this feature.
IMO, these are galactically stupid projects, but they are receiving praise from the usual suspects. Here are a couple of my thoughts.
While SA’s latitude makes it a better location generally for solar, my understanding is that solar panel efficiency is affected by high heat – so does that offset the latitude advantage?
Also, how is the efficiency and life span of solar affected by being placed in what I suspect is a pretty harsh environment? Seems like dust and sandstorms would decrease efficiency while shortening the effective life span.
The other issue I keep pointing out to true believers is that solar panels and wind turbines do not magically appear out of thin air. Both require minerals extracted from the earth in countries around the world. Once mined (using a lot of very heavy FF powered machinery by the way, except the Congo where “artismal” mining is used), they need to be processed to separate the ore from the overburden – again using FF powered machinery. Then transported to wherever the manufacturing facility is (mostly China I think) by truck, rail and ship. Then the energy intensive manufacturing process, then transport again by truck rail, and ship to the ultimate destination which of course has to be prepared (cleared) using FF powered machinery, site assembly using FF powered machinery, life cycle maintenance – which for wind turbines at least requires FF powered machinery, for solar, maybe just water to clean – how much water for 300 square KM in a desert environment would be required and is it even possible? Then of course ultimate decommissioning and disposal with the added benefit that since these things have a relatively short life span, the entire process needs to be repeated far more frequently than just using coal, gas or nuclear power plants, all of which require far less land.
You are correct—PV voltage goes down with increasing solar cell voltage, although the current increases (slowly) with higher light levels. Another problem in desert environments is dirt and sand that obscures the light and can etch the glass surfaces, and deserts usually have little or no water available for washing.
Stand before a blazing campfire on chilly fall evening.
Hold up a blanket between.
Colder now or warmer?
Drop the blanket.
Colder now or warmer?
That’s what the atmosphere does especially the albedo i.e. not a greenhouse.
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render an upwelling BB surface impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
More albedo & Earth cools.
Less albedo & Earth warms.
No albedo & Earth bakes in 400 K, 260 F solar wind becoming much like Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
Not what GHE says & backed by plethora of geo-engineering scams, err, schemes.
Hard measurement data is sought to deny or support the Sherrington postulate dated 2019 or so, that “Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused increased growth of human teeth since approximately year 2000, compared to the growth in previous 3 decades.”
Dentists who weigh teeth might have data. The basis of my postulate is approximate, derived from observation, wishful thinking and guesswork.
Geoff S
There has also been an observed reduction in the size of the teeth of many humans of a particular political persuasion all around the world due to aggressive gnashing since November 2024.
I always wondered why the concept of molar concentration is taught in Chemistry classes. Eureka! I knew it would become clear one day!
6.022 × 10^23 atoms – Avogadros constant. Of course there is always Normality: eg Normality is a measure of concentration that is equal to the gram equivalent weight per litre of solution.
I have trouble remembering people’s names but for some reason I remember that constant despite it being 60 years since I first heard of it in high school chemistry. I happen to mention it at parties of smart people just to impress them. 🙂
Dare I say it, it’s 6th form stuff. But when I started work in labs they still used normality, eg 0.02N H2SO4 (which is 0.01M)
I cut my teeth on molar constants when Avogadro’s number was 6.023 x 10^23, or at least that’s what my high school chemistry teacher taught us.
Was that in America?
It is… 6.02214076 × 10^23
Did you apply a very generous rounding up? It would appear so. Have you still got those teeth?
Strangely, the only adult teeth I’m missing are associated with wisdom.
Here’s a source re: historical changes.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed100749a?ref=article_openPDF
It amazes me that we know the molar constant to such an exact degree but are unable to find the climate sensitivity number. Trillions spent on something we don’t know.
In actuality, it’s an arbitrary definition not really a “constant” that is now the number of carbon 12 isotope atoms in 12 grams of unbound C.
Wriggle away at your leisure
Not sure what you mean. I’m headed to the hardware store in a few as I’ve used up enough helium this morning. I have to remember to turn that valve off.
Then go do some reading.
I’m home now and see that the link I provided above doesn’t work without being logged into a university account.
I’ll summarize the key points. In the 1950’s Avogadro’s number was 6.02544 x 10^23, so indeed rounded to 6.023 x 10^23.
The article from 2010 explains, “There are two reasons why the value of NA (Avogadros’s Number) has changed over time. The first, and most obvious, is that any change in the standards used to define either the atomic mass unit or the gram will cause a shift in the value of their conversion factor and hence in the value of NA. Such a change occurred in 1960 when the standard for the atomic mass unit was changed from the O = 16 scale to the 12C = 12 scale. A similar shift would have occurred around 1900 with the shift from the H = 1 to the O = 16 scale, but, of course, the concept of NA was not a part of chemistry at that time.”
The value you gave became fixed on May 20, 2019 when the International System of Units (SI) was officially redefined to make the value an exact constant. So it indeed is now defined as a constant.
I would like to see what the text (Holzclaw) that we used in my AP high school chemistry class said.
Well, being certain of the number of molecules of a gram of some substance doesn’t help in controlling the population or freeing up those trillions for pocket liners.
Or care about.
I love avogadros on toast for breakfast.
Have to perfectly ripe though – too green and they’re hard & tasteless, too over-ripe and they’re mushy and black.
Sometimes referred to as Avocado’s constant.
The truth finally bit you.
OMG, if the increased roasting of the Earth continues we’ll all look like vampires! 🙂
You might …
I do …
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.O2KJT2ydK7zbOHyRrihGXwHaEK%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=ecd56f0105e93c04cb801addf2e961f2765329db3c0bc76d669c980dced85712&ipo=images
Mr. S: Enjoyed this, and think you could be on to something- why limited to 2000? Your “hard measurement data” is a matter of pulling together “paleo-dental” samples, cull out the “non-conforming” samples, then publish the “conforming” “data”. Now, if you can postulate that into proof of climate change, you could be the next M. Mann!!
Hard measurement data of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the NOAA Mauna Loa observatory
(https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html , and https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt ):
— mean CY1970: 325.7 ppmv
— mean CY2000: 369.7 ppmv
— mean CY2019: 411.7 ppmv
So, from 1970 to 2000 an increase of 13.5% (44 ppm delta), versus
from 2000 to 2019 an increase of 11.4% (42 ppm delta).
Given such small percentage changes between these two time periods and the fact that carbon is only a small percentage of the elemental composition of human teeth, which are mostly (approx. 65-70%) hydroxyapatite: an inorganic mineral containing calcium phosphate but no carbon, leads to the conclusion that human intake of atmospheric CO2 does not materially contribute to bone growth. Tooth enamel does contain about 0.5–0.6% carbon, while analysis of powdered teeth have shown average carbon levels around 13%.
As for atmospheric CO2 directly affecting human teeth, there is this from Google’s AI bot:
“Impacts of Elevated Atmospheric
on Tooth Growth and Health:
Systemic Metabolic Effects: Chronic exposure to high indoor or atmospheric
levels (up to 5,000 ppm in crowded areas) can lead to a reduction in systemic pH, causing proteome malfunction. This environmental stress is hypothesized to contribute to systemic conditions like osteoporosis, which can affect the mineral density of the jawbone and teeth.
Enamel Hypomineralization: Increased pollution and air quality changes, often linked to rising emissions, have been associated with a higher prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH), a developmental defect where the enamel is softer and more porous.
Increased Dental Erosion: Air pollution linked to climate change contributes to acidic precipitation, which can disrupt the oral microbiome and create a more acidic environment in the mouth, weakening tooth enamel.”
The above indicate that, if anything, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will DECREASE the growth of human teeth, not increase such.
Physiologically it doesn’t make sense that atmospheric carbon dioxide would have any effect on human organ development.
We breathe in small amounts of the gas, the gas that we breathe out contains 4% carbon dioxide and 16% oxygen, with carbon dioxide and carbonate ions maintaining blood pH within a narrow window that is slightly basic, a vital role in maintaining health.
I would suggest that most if not all of our anatomical carbon is obtained from our oral intake.
Boy was that akin to pulling teeth.
Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C.
Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically – The Rev Monbiot
George is bang on message – generalised global ‘heating’ will impact us in Europe with… extreme cold. Do they have sub-editors at the Grauniad? Do they read the rubbish they write and stop to think… maybe, perhaps… No, they don’t.
George is convinced: A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat.
George is unwell.
I think May 7th will show a lot of the of the country is unwell.
The younger populations, the university towns etc are all fully indoctrinated.
The sectarian (islamic) vote will probably ditch Labour for the far more antisemitic Greens. For their part the Greens will have to ditch their more progressive (and lunatic) ideas to keep them on board.
The schism is in age. Those who were educated and later those who have been indoctrinated. I read the latest would-be Trump assassin was a California schoolteacher…
“ a California schoolteacher“
Seems he was many things and master of them all — except being sane.
Coincidence? I find the Daily Sceptic is also sick and tired of mad George…
Give it a Rest George Monbiot: Decades of Hysterical Climate and Net Zero Fearmongering Have Left You Terminally Confused
Who can forget his claim that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse.
Only folks like Monbiot and Gore have the super serious mental capacity and imagination to comprehend the dangers of simultaneous boiling and freezing oceans.
Gore should consider patenting hyperbole.
That would be “over the top.”
He needs some heavy duty tranquilizers.
They put down rabid dogs, don’t they?
Just a quick reminder that Gore received a D in a science for dummies course from a school that rarely hands out D’s, particularly to the progeny of powerful Democrats.
In my opinion the density of CO2 is a function of the temperature. Now is this atmospheric temperature or Ocean temperature? In the long distance climate records it seems that the CO2 density follows the “temperature” by 800 years. This would suggest that the temperature is atmospheric and the delay is caused by the mass of the oceans.
Currently this suggests that the CO2 density follows the UAH temperature.
What ever is true it seems that the ice core CO2 density is incorrect in that we would expect the CO2 density to follow the temperature, perhaps with a time delay of 800 years. We should expect the mean CO2 density to be around 400ppm for the Holocene. This is not what the ice core data suggests. There are a number of notes suggesting that the CO2 leaks out of the snow layer before finally consolidating.
Thoughts of the assembled company would be appreciated on how to resolve this.
There is significant annual periodicity in the Mauna Lao CO2 data. It seems like you might have a good opportunity to analyze the phase of these data with various temperature measurements, , sunlight, leafage, orbits, Etc., etc., to better understand what does or does not correlate with CO2 fluctuations.
Mauna Loa CO2 concentration typically peaks in May, and then declines rapidly during the Summer. It reaches a minimum in the Fall, and then climbs through out the Winter as bacteria and fungi decompose the leaf detritus and phytoplankton. Leaf Area Index is inversely proportional to the CO2 concentration.
FYI: At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains 0.84 g of CO2 at STP. This small amount of CO2 can not cause any heating of the large mass of atmosphere. You should not waste time and effort posting comments about CO2.
Harold, the atmosphere is about 100,000 meters tall and that 429 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to about 1 meter of pure CO2 gas….which happens to be enough to absorb about 20 watts per square meter (surface) of electromagnetic radiation from the sun and Earthly upwards IR …but doubling CO2 it only increases the absorption by 3 or 4 watts, so the effect is not going to cause boiling oceans or heat death of humanity…more likely a couple of days longer frost free in temperate zones, and a couple of days less wearing a sweater.
Actually one SHOULD spend time and effort posting on it because it is the main plank in the platform of carbon tax seeker and CC crybabies….
Perhaps you meant ‘the destiny of …’?
Anagrammatically speaking.
Hi Nigel.
This relationship has been known for some time as it’s often discovered when the data is detrended using a derivative function (usually just a difference function) combined with a one-year moving average to deseasonalize the data. I have concerns with this approach as the difference and MA functions are both filters which, when combined, emphasis certain frequencies.
The usual pushback from the AGW crowd is that the variations on the trend are just ENSO, and that it’s the trend in concentrations that’s important. I find myself in partial agreement, we can’t just ignore the trend.
I like to work in the frequency domain where I can avoid deseasonalzing the data; I still had to do some level of detrending. I can also use coherent averaging to attenuate uncorrelated signals. Also, the coherence function indicates the frequencies over which temperature and CO₂ concentrations are correlated. My analysis showed that the relationship was strongest using Southern Hemisphere temperatures – where most of the oceans are located.
I learned later that I wasn’t the first person to use a frequency domain approach. Park performed a similar analysis in 2009.
The analysis suggested that CO₂ concentrations are integrally related to temperature, which fits with temperature variations being related to the derivative of CO₂ concentrations.
The question remains, how are the trends related? Building on the idea that there’s an integral relationship I detrended deseasonalized CO₂ concentrations using a second-order polynomial (quadratic) and detrended temperature using a first-order polynomial (linear). The match was perfect, but this still doesn’t offer any convincing evidence that the trend in concentrations were the result of a trend in temperature.
I realized that a necessary condition for the trends and the variations on the trends to be the same process is that the relationship between temperature and [CO₂] be defined by a single model, or equation. I’ve found that it is possible to define a single equation relating both the trends, and the variations on trends. While this doesn’t prove anything, it’s very strong empirical evidence the trends and variations are the same process.
The interesting thing about an integral relationship, is that delay is not a fixed time, but a fixed phase of -90°, which is theoretically six months delay for a two-year cycle, and 250 years for a 1000-year cycle.
Have a look at the next-to-last “~250-yr lag…” figure in this WUWT article published 15 years ago.
CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata – Watts Up With That?
The reasons that temperature is important is that temperature controls chemical reactions, such as the rate of bio-oxidation, and the rate of metabolism, particularly photosynthesis. But the temperature is really a proxy for the biological activity of plants (photosynthesis) and the respiration of plants in the absence of sunlight, and the decomposition of detrital material with low levels of sunlight.
Excellent summary – thank you
Change “misinformation” to “skepticism” or “resistance”.
https://renews.biz/111172/windeurope-2026-report-flags-wind-misinformation-risk/
“Across Europe, wind energy projects worth billions of Euros have been halted or cancelled, often following protests and campaigns underpinned by dis- and misinformation claims.”
Woohoo
That in a nutshell is all the left/alarmists/woke etc etc have in their arsenal. Distorting language and the very meaning of words. Words they do not like they attempt to erase altogether. One obvious example might be “mother” and “father” being replaced by “birthing parent and second biological parent”
We had global cooling then global warming – vamped right up to global incineration – and now we have a spectrum of (mild?) climate change through to a climate crisis, catastrophe etc. And none of them real outside the supercomputers they rely on to read the runes.
In the end it’s all duckspeak…
As Orwell put it, “the Newspeak word duckspeak,
meaning “to quack like a duck”.
They should coin a new word- dismisinformation. Makes me think of George W. Bush’s “people misunderestimate me” for which I’ve been laughing for years.
Dismiss [information]?
Quite so.
You get points for getting it. 🙂
Fanx!
I wonder what the sign language interpreter did with misunderestimate.
That reminds me of the SNL episode where they had a sign language interpreter interpreting for Chris Christi. The woman was an Italian American. As she waved her arms around, it was hysterically funny- since it looked a lot the way Italians wave their arms around (in the stereotype anyway). It’s on YouTube and worth watching.
Spring, summer, and fall bring more thunderstorms here in the U.S. Every flash of lightning and every crack of thunder announces a fundamental concept: absorbed energy at the surface and in the lower atmosphere cannot be made to accumulate down here as excess sensible heat by the absorption of longwave energy within the atmosphere.
Watch from space to appreciate the power and prevalence of convective weather. A one-inch-per hour rate of rainfall, typical within a thunderstorm, represents a 17,600 W/m^2 conversion of latent energy to internal energy within the localized overturning circulation.
This is a link to the GOES East visualization of the Global Lightning Mapper for the CONUS region. One can observe a lot by watching. (H/T to Yogi Berra)
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus_band.php?sat=G19&band=EXTENT3&length=24
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Excellent post. However, the “conversion of latent energy (condensation) to internal energy” in cloud formation is rather more complicated as condensation is an isothermal process that depends on the local P/T balance. Most likely, the release of latent energy shows up as local kinetic energy (turbulence), which then can generate electrical energy (lightning), without increasing the local temperature (internal energy) which would shut down condensation.
Probably the main reason cloud formation isn’t easy to model– You can’t measure it with a thermometer. (“When your only tool is a thermometer…”)
Thank you for your reply. My description follows the quote here:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often received the most attention. Often the total kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded as a measure of its intensity. The only other forms of atmospheric energy which appear to play a major role in the kinetic energy budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere are potential energy, internal energy, and the latent energy of water vapor. Potential and internal energy may be transformed directly into kinetic energy, while latent energy may be transformed directly into internal energy, which is then transformed into kinetic energy. It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic approximation that the changes of the potential energy P and the internal energy l of the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional, so that it is convenient to regard potential and internal energy as constituting a single form of energy. This form has been called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It follows that there must be an equal net generation of kinetic energy by reversible adiabatic processes; this generation must occur at the expense of total potential energy. It follows in turn that there must be an equal net generation of total potential energy by heating of all kinds. These three steps comprise the basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental characteristic of the general circulation.”
So yes, “Most likely, the release of latent energy shows up as local kinetic energy…” but the first step is latent energy-to-internal energy.
Be well.
no mention of entropy, is it relevant to all these phenomena described as “transfomations of energy” into “different types” of energy. It is 60 years since I did any serious revision of my university thermodynamics lectures.
I am under the impression that there is something one-way about energy which is doing work. Are these real or notional changes and are any of them considered to be doing work?
Thank you for your reply.
About “no mention of entropy” it is noted that the presence of “dissipative processes” acknowledges the concept of entropy.
About the concept of work being done, yes, the application of force over a distance to a unit mass of air to accelerate it to a higher velocity is inherent to the “generation of kinetic energy.”
Entropy is the irreversible losses encountered when turning energy into work.
All other definitions, i.e. order/disorder, are bogus.
Thanks, David. Far be it from me to argue with the Sainted Lorenz, but I challenge the “thermometer readers” to measure the time interval between “directly into internal energy” and “then transformed into kinetic energy”! The collapse of a cubic meter of water vapor into a raindrop directly affects the motion of the surrounding dry air. This motion (turbulence) can be called kinetic energy. Lorenz prefers to call the dynamic P/T balance, which sustains the isothermal condensation process, transient “internal energy”. So be it. But this change in “internal energy” will not be measured by the “thermometer readers” for their simplistic “Climate Models”, much to their dismay.
God Damned, Democrats with their hateful, demonizing rhetoric against Republicans and conservatives, are the cause of the attempt on Trump’s life last night.
The Democrats know their hateful, lying rhetoric will agitate the psychos in our society to violence, and we got one more example of it last night. The Democrats are doing this deliberately in hopes of a successful outcome.
Radical, violent Democrats are the enemies of the United States.
The guy might have been sponsored by Iran?
Contrary to the USA
Iran isn’t regime changing or assassinating other countries leaders (John Perkins “Economic Hitman” for starters. ) as Iran, unlike the USA, is not a globalization tool,
that meddles in other countries businesses(at least not since the CiA was kicked out,
that used Iran as main hub to infiltrate other muslim countries, when puppet dictator Shah Reza was in power)
The USA don’t even mind killing their own and assassinations have reached such an extent that Kissinger said,
after the USA killed its proxies in Vietnam(Diem Brothers),
that
“it may be dangerous to be an enemy of the USA, but leathal to be our friends “
We agree, there have been quite a few violent trans people lately
Get used to it- America is #1. This century like the last one will be an American century. Whatever bad things done by America are no worse than what every nation does at one time or another. It’s done far more good than bad. Saved Europe from the Germans and later the Russians. Lost in ‘Nam, but that effort tired out the push to advance communism which was a real thing. Freed Iraq from a dick-tator (I like that spelling). Kept communism out of Latin America, more or less. Developed much of the technology of the modern world. People who can only bitch about America’s bad behavior are boring and not thinking very hard. Why not telling us where you are and what your overall political philosophy is? But no, you won’t do that. At least then we’d see the context of your ideas.
Hi. I am in Ireland. My overall political philosophy is to go against those who try and control others on a massive scale and build the control grid to keep people entrapped and enslaved in their gulags.
With ‘gulag’ i mean the concept, not the location ( this for the idiots).
On top of the list: Digital control grid, (international) banking maffia, dying empires. I am anti technocrats.
I think the sensible Left and Right should stop fighting their Culture War and fight for freedom while we still can.
Those who force CBDCs/ Stablecoin and Digital IDs and control apps (Mobile phones) are the Enemy.
If there is a sensible left in the US, I haven’t seen it. Where is it hiding? Behind men in women’s locker rooms?
Oh, it’s there alright but likely more in Europe. I think people like Bret Weinstein are sensible/ centre Left. Trouble is, if you are far into the right, so not centre right you think any liberal idea is evil. I would call Thomas Sowell sensible/ centre right. There is no need to always think in terms of enemies.
It is true that in times of trouble the centre cannot hold. It is also true that that centre is filled w techno/ bureaucrats. The irony is that the old left used to call the bureaucrat and managerial types rightwing in the 1960s and 70s. Their march through the institutions made them simply into the new breed of the same ‘class’. This is not an accident if a compliant population is your aim, which it is. I see no difference between those groups and they display the same characteristics. Just a different badge..
“ My overall political philosophy is to go against those who try and control others on a massive scale “
So you should be totally behind what Trump is trying to do in Iran, where a rabid religious cult is trying to exert control over the whole region, and eventually the world.
It’s too late. Big enterprises (government, companies, labor unions, AI, etc.) now run the world. What we need to do is constantly review them and restrain them as much as possible but we’re not gonna stop them. No need to worry- do as others do in Ireland, go to the pub. 🙂
Also, culture wars will also be with us. Preventing that is impossible- like trying to herd cats. You never know who is more correct. Trying to prevent culture wars will only result in totalitarianism. When you get sufficiently old, you won’t worry about these things so much- you’ll mostly worry about your health and that of people you care for. All these other concerns are trivial by comparison.
We are in the process of increasing totalitarianism. The culture war is a smokescreen to divert attention from the real issue which will become apparent to everyone in the coming 5 years.
It is about Freedom and sovereignty.
Especially right leaning americans should be concerned about this as they constantly refer to it. Your first amendment is at stake. This is not a Left/ Right issue per se. It runs through the system which started ( roughly) w the Bank of England and will end w digital IDs and CBDCs/ Stablecoins.
In short: slavery.
And going to the pub and not pay attention to it is like saying:’ apres moi la deluge’.
I dont think making yourself comfortable in a cage and shouting at cockroaches is the answer. Then you have given up on life and the prospect of the next generations.
Nonsense. I’m 76. I think we had more restricted freedoms in the post WWII era than now.
You are vastly exaggerating threats to our freedom. All things considered, it’s a great time to be alive. It seems that you’re the one shouting at cockroaches- ranting and raving.
Well, Iran has, for 47 years been applying “Death to America” as a “death of a thousand cuts” through its terrorist proxies, awaiting the time when it could deliver the coup-de-qrace with a nuke! Their efforts have at least been international, if not quite “global”.
Kissenger, really? From over a half-century ago, no less.
Hate speech works both ways.
Nobody likes hearing stuff they don’t… like.
I don’t care about hate speech. I care about misdirection. We don’t hate the right things enough.
I hate slop..It’s all we get nowadays from ALL directions.
Focus on the control grid and the power behind it. Get out of the sandpit..
It is going to take a LOT of screaming and shrieking to cover up all the crime and corruption of the modern DemoKKKrat Party! Fortunately they have the lapdog media to parrot the party line and spread boatloads of propaganda that the weak minded members of the gullible generation will gobble down with glee!
Your last sentence is incorrect, however, as they are more the enemies of Truth, Freedom, and humanity writ large!
the ‘Luigi [M.] effect’, instant fame (if not fortune) & copycats:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-04-25/suspect-california-trump-white-house-dinner
IMHO, a crazy over-reaction that will likely ‘fuel the fires’; the President’s instinctive reaction (‘The Show Must Go On’) may prove correct.
More context (even if the dot-connecting is ignored):
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/third-time-is-not-a-charm-sunday
I’m seeing a lot of “it was staged”. Started seeing it less than a couple hours after the event.
Here is Neema Parvini aka Academic Agent, one of my heroes.
He, like me only heared about it later and he also does not follow the news.
This linked video has him basically spread out the likely reactions from the different factions, without him actually having read or watched any footage or articles.
The ‘it was staged’ does indeed come up.
Watch the 20 minute video and see if he is right.
Remarkable..
https://youtu.be/iW6XYulPcYE?si=jQlHWF8UdDyg8hn4
Gotta call you on that Tom. Remind me of what Trump and his son said when Nanci Pelosi’s husband was assaulted in what was a politically motivated attack that nearly cost him his life? It was vile. And to be clear, no Dem politician has said anything hateful about any of the attacks on Trump. They all condemn them.
And when Gretchen Whitmer was the victim of an attempted kidnapping by right wing extremists, Trump said it was “her problem.” He called the plan a “supposed plot.”
But…what is interesting is the number of people on both the left and right who have immediately called the attack fake. For the record I don’t think it is, but this is a world Trump has created. The number of real things he has called fake through the years are having an impact. Obamas birth certificate. The 2020 elections. The cost of living….. the list is long.
I tell you one thing though, in a week no one will be talking about this. In the world of Trump a new story emerges every day and it replaces the last. There are two that don’t seem to go away though… Epstein and this war Trump chose to start.
With Trump all you need to do is switch off for a week and see what actually happened which usually is very little. Just drama. The positive thing is that you then have missed all the slop, the clown show..
It’s funny that, because i rarely follow the news now so when it finally reached me i just added it as another ‘item’.
It leaves me totally cold. And if in the end someone actually shoots him and he dies i will consider it simply as the end of a clown show. Later on people will look back at this particular Trump timeframe and say: what the hell was that all that about?
Because let’s face it, what do people in general remember about world leaders?
Only the headlines. Because Trump had so many, the law of diminishing returns is turbocharged.
We will end up with ‘whatever’..
Not that i think elements of his thinking will stop but he has become a general laughing stock.
Couldn’t agree more. When I heard it was like… here we go again. He won’t let this incident go to waste. I stupidly listened to his presser afterwards. It was a campaign speech. “I’m the greatest that’s why they want to shoot me” If “I had the ballroom this wouldn’t have happened.”
Tell us how you really feel, Tom! There was a remark I caught on TV tonight about an increase in threats to legislators. But they didn’t mention what the ratio of threats to democrats and republicans is. It would be interesting to know.
I still see posts saying Kirk had it coming.
If someone finally succeeds the press will make them a national hero.
Phillip Chalmers
Reply to
Tom Abbott
April 25, 2026 8:18 pm
the Vietcong despised the slack US troops, they respected and feared the ANZACs – I was there.
0
Reply
Tom Abbott
Reply to
Phillip Chalmers
April 26, 2026 4:54 am
I was there, too. Here’s what I saw.
The Viet Cong also got their asses wiped out during the Tet Offensive of 1968. They were no longer an effective fighting force after that.
Apparently, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong guerrillas in South Vietnam got fooled by American Leftwing Media liars claiming the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were kicking American ass in South Vietnam and American troops were hanging on by a fingernail.
They decided to launch a nation-wide attack on South Vietnam attacking over 100 cities simultaneously during the Tet holidays when South Vietnamese troops were off celebrating.
They miscalculated. The American troops gave the North Vietnamese the biggest defeat in the war, and completely obliterated the Viet Cong, who were so sure they were going to win this battle, that they came out of hiding, and showed themselves in public and were promptly wiped out.
This loss almost broke the back of the North Vietnamese army. They never were able to mount such an attack against American troops again.
Right after the Tet Offensive, was the time the United States should have invaded North Vietnam and ended this war once and for all.
But stupid self-serving politicians could not pull the trigger and make a decision that big, so they kicked the can down the road, which is why the war lasted five more years (for Americans, seven more years for South Vietnam).
It is a similar situation to today and our war with Iran. Former Presidents kept kicking the hard decisions down the road to the point that the Mad Mullahs were on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. The difference between Iran and South Vietnam is we finally have a president who will pull the trigger.
I wish Trump had been president in 1968. He would have pulled the trigger on North Vietnam, and the world would look a lot different today. A thriving, free South Vietnam, the equivalent of South Korea today.
Unfortunately for South Vietnam, Democrats were in charge of their fate, and the Democrats threw South Vietnam to the communist wolves without a second thought.
Democrats are incapable of defending the United States and its allies. Look at how the Democrats try to undermine everything to do with the Iran war. They did the same with the war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They screw up everything they touch.
Forever wars should properly be called Democrat wars because Democrats are the cause of constant delays. Democrats just cannot deal with murderous dictators. They prefer to run and hide, and throw allies to the wolves, rather than stand and fight. Every time.
The left…
Britain’s Labour government cleared the Chagos people out and resettled them in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s.
Today’s Labour government is trying to appease China by giving the islands away to Mauritius. Self determination for Greenlanders, but not for Chagossians. Two tier Keir.
I standup and applaud what you wrote. We won the Tet but it was reported back home as a loss. Fear of the Chinese coming south caused us to paralyze ourselves. Hats off to you.
Imagine how our 1968 media might have reported on the Battle of the Bulge.
For starters by NOT calling it ‘the battle of the bulge’.
Just as we do in Europe: the Ardennes offensive.
Mr. nally: So “our 1968 media” should ditch the name “we” put to the event in favor of the name put to it by some pedantic europhile??!!
You reveal alot here, more than you imagine, elitist.
The Democrats could NOT have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory had not the mainstream press taken left wing talking points verbatim! The war for freedom in Viet Nam was lost as much in the press as in the halls of Congress!
You are beyond stupid.
Case in point: as if Republicans did not support classic US geopolitics ie: get ‘our’ dictator in. Idiot..
Perhaps the Vietcong despised US troops but the US never lost a major engagement during the Vietnam War.
Dream on. Learn nothing.
And, look up “fragging”
Yes. The likes of Hanoi Jane and the baby-boomers of USA gave the victory to the Communists in South Vietnam – this comes from the living leaders of the Vietcong long after all troops were withdrawn and civilian life returned to a new normal.
A question. I remember reading that an EV creates more emissions when it is built than a conventional car such that you have to drive 60,000 miles before it becomes equal to an ICE in emissions. This is presumably assuming that the electricity it uses is emissions-free. Is this still regarded as true? Also, since in the UK, only about 50% of our electricity is emission free, does an EV ever become a lower overall emitter than an ICE?
Gemini sez: Average Break-Even: In the United States and many parts of Europe, recent analyses suggest the break-even point is typically reached between 15,000 and 30,000 miles (roughly 1 to 2 years of average driving). Excluding extreme climates. And the battery is warranteed for 100k to 150k. But, no parking in 15 minute cities.
Pat:
I read idbodbi’s Gemini based response [see nearby] to your question and thought it was too low.
MIT has done this and came up with 50-80,000 miles comparing a Tesla S to a Toyota Camry.
So, I queried Gemini and got nearly the same answer: 13-20,000 miles. I then asked Gemini to
“Do a principled crique of your prior answer”. Big difference! [But this is a US based answer]
Summary: “In short, the 20,000 mile figure represents an ‘optimistic average’ for the current US grid, while your 50-80,000 mile figure is a more conservative ‘engineering reality’ if we account for heavy batteries, dirtier manufacturing regions, and the full system burdens of the grid.”
Its like using LCOE vs Full System Costs when comparing electricity production: there is a huge discrepancy in results that advocates continue to ignore.
Take home message: Always ask your AI to do a principled critique of any answer on a topic that is even remotely controversial, prone to hype, or related to politics. You will be both surprised & appalled at how different the answers may be.
Story Tip;
Trump administration fires National Science Board members
April 25 (UPI) — The scientists and engineers serving on the National Science Board received letters from the Presidential Personnel Office Friday telling them they have been fired.
https://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-administration-fires-national-science-board-members/
Rounding up or down…. involves the proper application of the UEFF (= Universal Engineering Fudge Factor) or by applying FC (= Finagle’s Constant)
Story tip:
For those interested in the politics of ( inter) national finance, the league of nations, UN, Global Development goals, the Vatican and the digital control grid, this Substack article (and writer) is excellent.
It is a (roughly) 180 year process of trying to control the world’s population.
From banking to CBDCs and Digital IDs.
Includes Clinate change/ emergency.
A proper based Conspiracy Theory. You know: the one backed up by data.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-architecture-is-the-trap-7da?triedRedirect=true
Technical details:
https://open.substack.com/pub/escapekey/p/the-full-stack?r=1r7g5f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I bet that A: people gave downvotes because it was me and B: they didnt realise they couldve actually used some of the information to attack their ‘lefty’ enemies.
Typical..
Maybe judging that the whole dialogue was missing two elephants in the room – individual personal self-interest and cherishing of family AND the “madness of crowds”
Are you referring to the articles?
Please explain. I don’t get your point.
According to Reuters, China grew 116,000 square miles of trees, increasing the country’s total forest coverage from 10 percent in 1949 to roughly 25 percent in 2024. But a 2025 study published in the journal Earth’s Future shows that all those additional trees (roughly 78 billion since the early 80s, by some estimates) come with some unforeseen consequences for China’s water distribution.
Scientists from Tianjin University, China Agricultural University in Beijing, and Utrecht University in the Netherlands found that between 2001 and 2020, increased vegetation reduced waterresources in both the eastern monsoon region and the northwestern arid region. That’s a big deal, considering these areas make up roughly 74 percent of China’s total land area, according to Live Science.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/china-planted-78-billion-trees-123442502.html
Don’t blame data centers for Seattle’s high electricity prices
https://www.geekwire.com/2026/opinion-you-cant-blame-data-centers-in-seattle-for-our-skyrocketing-electricity-prices/
Both Sides
Here we go with the “Both Sides” argument with regard to the attack on President Trump and Republicans.
The Media, including Fox News are putting out this both sides argument equating Rightwing violence with Leftwing violence.
The Both Sides group cites attacks on Democrat politicians such as Governor Shapiro and several State Democrat politicians who were murdered in their homes.
The error with this argument is no Rightwinger was demonizing Gov. Shapiro or any of the other victims, and no Rightwinger was involved in the violence.
So this argument is just meant to deflect blame on the part of Leftwingers, and the Fox News people are going along with this distortion of reality, in what I assume is an effort on their part to say “can’t we all just get along”?
On the other hand, the Left constantly demonizes Trump and Republicans, calling Trump a dictator that will not give up power, and calling the whole Republican Party a bunch of racists.
And what comes of this hate-filled rhetoric? Some weak-minded people believe these lies and decide they need to take violent action against conservatives.
There is no “Both Sides” on this issue. The Right does not go around trying to assassinate Democrat political officials. The Radical, Hateful Left has this all to themselves.
As far as the attack on Gov. Shapiro, the mainstream media said it was done by a right-wing advocate? But we never got any actual evidence of this. Was it someone on the far left that thought Shapiro was too center or right? And if someone thinks only those on the right are anti-semitic then their own bias is showing.
One thing that would really enhance the WUWT website would be to add a piece of software that would allow a person to find the new posts in a thread (highlight in a different color) that were posted since the reader’s last visit.
It was that way in the past for a little while. It should be re-implemented. I imagine people miss a lot of valuable information because of a lack of this feature.
allow a person to find the new posts in a thread
I remember that. Agreed, I would like to see it back too
That’s why I subscribe & track threads by email. But I’m fairly sure that I don’t see all new responses like that.
Just curious what others know or think about these projects in Saudi Arabia.
https://www.nesfircroft.com/resources/blog/top-renewable-energy-projects-in-saudi-arabia/
IMO, these are galactically stupid projects, but they are receiving praise from the usual suspects. Here are a couple of my thoughts.
While SA’s latitude makes it a better location generally for solar, my understanding is that solar panel efficiency is affected by high heat – so does that offset the latitude advantage?
Also, how is the efficiency and life span of solar affected by being placed in what I suspect is a pretty harsh environment? Seems like dust and sandstorms would decrease efficiency while shortening the effective life span.
The other issue I keep pointing out to true believers is that solar panels and wind turbines do not magically appear out of thin air. Both require minerals extracted from the earth in countries around the world. Once mined (using a lot of very heavy FF powered machinery by the way, except the Congo where “artismal” mining is used), they need to be processed to separate the ore from the overburden – again using FF powered machinery. Then transported to wherever the manufacturing facility is (mostly China I think) by truck, rail and ship. Then the energy intensive manufacturing process, then transport again by truck rail, and ship to the ultimate destination which of course has to be prepared (cleared) using FF powered machinery, site assembly using FF powered machinery, life cycle maintenance – which for wind turbines at least requires FF powered machinery, for solar, maybe just water to clean – how much water for 300 square KM in a desert environment would be required and is it even possible? Then of course ultimate decommissioning and disposal with the added benefit that since these things have a relatively short life span, the entire process needs to be repeated far more frequently than just using coal, gas or nuclear power plants, all of which require far less land.
What am I missing?
You are correct—PV voltage goes down with increasing solar cell voltage, although the current increases (slowly) with higher light levels. Another problem in desert environments is dirt and sand that obscures the light and can etch the glass surfaces, and deserts usually have little or no water available for washing.
edit— “PV voltage goes down with increasing solar cell
voltagetemperature”Stand before a blazing campfire on chilly fall evening.
Hold up a blanket between.
Colder now or warmer?
Drop the blanket.
Colder now or warmer?
That’s what the atmosphere does especially the albedo i.e. not a greenhouse.
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render an upwelling BB surface impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
More albedo & Earth cools.
Less albedo & Earth warms.
No albedo & Earth bakes in 400 K, 260 F solar wind becoming much like Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
Not what GHE says & backed by plethora of geo-engineering scams, err, schemes.
MSN Edge now preemptively blocks my comments without appeal.
Y’all have no problem with that.
All talk & no walk.