Consider the published heating rate/cooling rate error for the RRTM and RRTM-G radiative transfer components which are used in the time-step-iterated earth system models. This error value is computed using LBLRTM as the reference.
To compare, let’s use the UAH linear trend for the lower troposphere temperature anomaly. This gives a slight warming at 0.16 deg C(K) per decade for the entire record. This is 0.000044 deg C(K) per day.
The published ~+/- 0.1 deg C(K) per day uncertainty interval is ~4500 times greater than the long-term trend being investigated for potential longwave influence from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O.
Also, using days as a time step to be consistent with the published heating/cooling rate error, the uncertainty builds to ~+/- 2 deg C(K) after just 365 steps, assuming the RSS method is used for propagation. There is no value at all for detection or attribution of the factor being investigated, concerning CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases.
The conclusion must be that there was never any sound justification for using time-step-iterated climate models to generate scenarios of any hypothetical emissions pathway. So let’s please stop giving unearned credit to any of the more moderate emission scenarios. None are reliable representations of what to expect.
And let’s take this requirement seriously, as stated in the 5-23-2025 EO “Restoring Gold Standard Science” in Sec 4(c): “When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
This is critically important within the DOE, as Secretary Wright has recently named Dr. Matthew Wielicki as director of the effort to write the next version of the National Climate Assessment.
That is all for now. Thank you for your patience in this matter.
The attentive reader will note that I’ve said nothing about the LBLRTM (Line By Line) reference itself. Does it give a “true” value? No. No one knows the true value of the radiative heating/cooling rate at any particular location at any particular time past or future in the real atmosphere. So there’s that little detail to consider too.
The various energy conversions and transport occurring in the “real atmosphere” are much too complex to be represented by a simple (average) thermometer reading, whether calculated or projected!
Nicholas, the equation for radiation is as follows: Pnet = ϵσAsThot^4 − ϵσAsTcold^4
The gravelly/watery surface that absorbs on a long term average about 160W/m^2 of sunlight emits 3 times as much heat by radiation, and 4 times as much by evaporation as would be applicable to your conduction/convection formula….63,80,vs 17 respectively on your favorite BAMS cartoon…so declaring it “not complex” is VERY wrong….
160w-m2 is the global estimate. Multiply by 4 you get 640w-m2 (52 degrees C). The is the amount of heat loss from the tropics to the poles. The ratio of molecules to radiation is 5500:1 (5500 molecules to 1 photon). So the 3 times as much heat by radiation and 4 times as much by evaporation is nonsense. Total watts earth receives is 173 x 10^14 watts. This is 390w-m2 x 87% of the earth total area (minus areas of snow and ice, that reflect this heat), divide by 100% of the earth 510,064,500,000 m2 you get 340w-m2 (average amount of watts earth emits). The 52 degree C, is 25C at the tropics and -27C at the poles. Note also: 15% heat transport is radiation, convection and latent heat is 85%. An analogy for your 3 to 4 times nonsense from google Gemini AI. “It is the equivalent of a bank accounting error where you pass a single $10 note back and forth between two people 4 times and claim $40 of total wealth was generated”. Google AI also said “The reason standard models get away with printing “398 W/m² surface emission” alongside “340 W/m² solar input” is because they are counting internal recirculated energy as if it were a primary source.”
“52 degrees C is 25 Tropics and -27 poles”….I think you are horribly misinterpreting….398 W/m^2 is the energy content of the photons emitted by a surface at about 16C with an emissivity close to 1.0…in the case of the sea and soil of the Earth…is also receiving from its surroundings (the sky) about 340 watts worth of photons…for a net radiant heat outwards of approximately 398-340=58 watts…of which somewhere between 20 and 40 goes directly to outer space depending on cloud cover through the atmospheric window….
I suggest you read another AI response or three. Here’s one that’s actually reasonably enlightening…. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181.
Andy May’s copilot AI is what you seek…
For my money, most everything Andy posits on the subject of EEI is usually worth serious consideration. However, while copilot’s ~64% attribution of tropospheric energy flow to non-radiative mechanisms is certainly directionally better than Trenberth’s measly ~20%, it’s still based on the phenomenological physics that conflates the radiative properties of IR-active gases with those of condensed matter.
Dodging ? I go to the needed detail to address your points so that it becomes a learning experience for others (and yourself should you choose to read them)…who might need help understanding those energy balance graphics…which are mostly “Net Heat” but then throw in photons between surfaces…which isn’t “Net Heat” till you subtract the two numbers…but I only have a morning coffee to provide commentary…
One has to be careful how averages are handled in computations. In System Dynamics modeling, time delays (lags) are handled with running (aka moving) averages.
The conclusion must be that there was never any sound justification for using time-step-iterated climate models to generate scenarios of any hypothetical emissions pathway. So let’s please stop giving unearned credit to any of the more moderate emission scenarios. None are reliable representations of what to expect.
I am not certain that these modeling codes use a time-step-iterated methods if what you mean by that is an explicit time step code. When I was doing heat transport modeling I always used implicit methods, as they don’t accumulate error in the way you are suggesting.
I think the ‘time-stepping’ arises from the manner in which ‘radiative forcing’, aka CO2, is introduced into the atmosphere. In other words, they don’t just dump the 8.5 W/m^2 (or whatever) into the model and let it rip, but introduce it over some time period, typically ending ~ 2100, by which time all of us, including the modelers and policy makers, will have passed on to our eternal reward.
Hello Frank,
You are probably right about the schedule of “forcings” prescribed for the climate models to generate various scenarios. But that’s a different thing.
When I use the description “time-step-iterated” I am referring specifically to the computation of motion, mass, properties, radiative transfer, etc. in discrete time steps in the numerical modeling of the general circulation. This is how Grok on X explained it just now. https://x.com/i/grok/share/fa52167a34fa460ba515cd6fba3daf88
You’re correct. Even if the total ‘forcings’ (I hate that word) were initialized up front, the model would still need to step through time until ‘equilibrium’ was attained, not to mention the need to ‘model’ the impacts of diurnal / seasonal energy flows. In retrospect, I think Kevin may have been referring to how a line-by-line model would require multiple iterations, as opposed to time steps, to converge to a solution.
But one would suppose, and in the absence of hard evidence otherwise I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error — sort of like using Runge-Kutta instead of first order forward differences. But there are other methods that can take time steps in an implicit scheme that are quite good at avoiding this issue. There is always numerical dispersion, of course, but my complaints would focus on parameterization that doesn’t capture physics of the problem.
‘…I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error…’
I don’t understand why errors wouldn’t accumulate. Every time the model ‘comes up for air’ to perform a calculation, it’s going to be fed incremental forcings, some of which, e.g., cloud cover, have uncertainties around them that are greater than the magnitude of presumed CO2 forcing,
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for your reply.
“But one would suppose, and in the absence of hard evidence otherwise I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error…”
The issue is not the accumulation of “error” in the sense of imperfect computational execution within the model. And although my original post above included an exercise to demonstrate the rapid buildup of uncertainty introduced by the published heating rate/cooling rate error for the radiation transfer parameterization, the issue is not fundamentally about the technical details of the modeling itself.
Even with an imaginary model perfected in high fidelity to the climate system response to energy input, a rapid buildup of uncertainty cannot be avoided, taking into account that the central value of TSI brings its own measurement uncertainty into every computational time step. It would be most welcome if you would take the time to fully consider this comment I made to DOE last year about the issue.
Please keep in mind that uncertainty is not error per se. No one knows the true value of a future condition. But propagation of uncertainty can most definitely be evaluated even as the model computes a stably evolving deterministic projection.
I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error
My problem is that it continually expressed that uncertainty is eliminated by dividing by the √9000 stations in a global average. Then turn around and say that each station therefore must not have any uncertainty. If the models are fed temperatures from individual stations around the globe in order to have a global gradient, each has its own uncertainty and a “global average uncertainty” is not applicable. This has to be dealt with instead of simply making excuses.
“I am not certain that these modeling codes use a time-step-iterated methods if what you mean by that is an explicit time step code.”
Please consider the NCAR CAM5.0 atmospheric model as an example of CMIP6-generation modeling. This model uses RRTMG for radiative transfer.
This is from the online description.
“4.10.5 Time Sampling
Both the shortwave and longwave radiation is computed at hourly intervals by default. The heating rates and fluxes are assumed to be constant between time steps.”
The default dynamic time-step is 30 minutes for this model.
In this particular post today, I am using an exercise of 1-day “steps” in the simple recognition that the model (any of them) inherits the computed energy state of the earth system from the previous step (“day”) along with the accumulated uncertainty arising from the +/- 0.1 deg C(K) per day published heating/cooling rate error for the radiative transfer modeling.
Does in not make sense that every time a calculation is performed, the propagation of error is introduced? Therefore, it would seem that there is a tradeoff between the temporal resolution of sequential calculations and the rate of growth of the uncertainty.
“Does in not make sense that every time a calculation is performed, the propagation of error is introduced?” Yes. That is the premise of the comment I made to DOE last year on the “Critical Review” report. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
Also, yes, it seems plainly so, as you say, “…that there is a tradeoff between the temporal resolution of sequential calculations and the rate of growth of the uncertainty.”
The difficulty is establishing that the uncertainty actually adds with each iteration. Propagation of uncertainty usually means though the chain of instruments, measurement, data reduction, and ending perhaps with the “measurement equation”. Just as it is possible to underestimate uncertainty by leaving out essential elements, it is possible to over estimate by adding uncertainties that do not reappear with each time step, but in fact apply to an entire model run.
There are two main contributors to the uncertainty in a model.
The algorithms used in the model are not 100% accurate. Their outputs consist of an “estimated value +/- uncertainty-interval”
The uncertainty of the initial conditions for the model.
The uncertainty from No. 2 will propagate through each step as a systematic effect.
If the output state of each prior step becomes the input state for the next step then the “uncertainty-interval” will compound from step to step. You can add each uncertainty-interval directly or do it using RSS which involves the assumption that some of the random uncertainty will cancel during the propagation.
The total uncertainty of the output step “n” will be the sum of the systematic effect (No. 2) plus the algorithm uncertainty of No. 1.
The uncertainty of the initial conditions is certainly a “measurement uncertainty”.
The uncertainty of the algorithm is not much different than the uncertainty of a tape measure used to measure a 2″x4″ board. If that 2″x4″ board is used as the input to the next stage of construction its measurement uncertainty will add to the measurement uncertainty of the prior construction. And the measurement uncertainty of the prior construction will be the sum of the measurement uncertainty of each individual 2″x4″ board that has been added previously.
Climate science gets around this by using the ever-present meme of “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”.
No accumulating systematic effect from initial condition uncertainty since all of the measurement uncertainty cancels. Thus the only remaining uncertainty is sampling uncertainty and this can be minimized by using a large sample size.
No accumulation of algorithmic uncertainty (it is all random, Gaussian, and cancels).
Leaving the model outputs with no uncertainty. “It all averages out in the end”.
The difficulty is establishing that the uncertainty actually adds with each iteration.
This is the crux of the problem. If the uncertainty is in the inputs, then the output will also have at least that uncertainty in each itertion unless there is a mechanism to somehow reduce it.
The fact that there is no detailed analysis of uncertainty in any paper I could find tells me
Propagation of uncertainty usually means though the chain of instruments, measurement, data reduction, and ending perhaps with the “measurement equation”.
Propagation of uncertainty is not the applicable process. That is used to determine a combined uncertainty when a functional relationship has multiple variables.
Dr. Pat Frank has shown that the GCM’s devolve into a linear relationship. That is something like “y = ax + δx”. If a ≥ 1, which it must be in a rising trend, You get the following sequence when a = 1,
step 1 -> y = x + δx
step 2 -> y = (x + δx) + δx = x + 2δx step 3 -> y = (x + 2δx) + δx = x +3δx
Which means in an iterative process the uncertainty adds. One could perhaps make the assumption that the δx’s add in quadrature, but they still add. Parameter errors are no different. Unless something is done during the iterations, initial errors will increase.
I spent some time looking for papers I could access discussing uncertainty in GCM’s. The only papers I found dealt with errors and uncertainty as it pertains to initial condition changes and parameter changes can affect ensemble outputs. That is not really the same as acknowledging that the values being used are uncertainty and what admitting what the uncertainty intervals might be.
I meant to add this and forgot. Propagation of measurement uncertainty is designed to weigh properly varying uncertainties. The uncertainty of a minor variable should not receive as weight as a larger one. It is one reason relative uncertainties are used. Certainly, in a GCM, this will be the case, however the determination of the weighting will be difficult to do. When deal with “feedbacks”, small quantities can have an oversize effect.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g CO2. How do we convince the people and the politicians that the amount of this gas in the air is so small, it cannot cause any global warming as claimed by the IPCC and the collaborating scientists?
It is the change from ~280 to 431 ppmv (151 ppmv) over the course of a century (0.30 g CO2) that is supposed to have caused this CAGW that the “scientists” are fretting about!
The corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists always report the concentrations of CO2 in the air in ppmv, which are large menacing numbers that frighten the people into giving them generous financial support for their global warming and climate change research. Since 1988, they have and are still running the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
Look how this fraud has damaged the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia, for example. I don’t see much change happening in these countries in the near future.
I prefer to put it that the composition of the atmosphere has changed, in layman’s terms, by 15 thousandths of 1% in 175 years, or less than 1 thousandth of 1% per decade. Even that is not entirely due to human activity, the largest part of the increase (95% by some estimations) is natural.
Harold, the problem is that line by line absorption calcs show that doubling CO2 will increase the heat absorption of the atmosphere by about 3 watts. It’s a matter of the radiative absorption efficiency, more-so than the number of grams. See the notes under fig. 10 of this H&vanW article. Basically, denying ANY warming is a non-winnable debate. Saying it results in a minor temp increase IS winnable, which is an important position to start from. There are wild papers out there claiming 6C rise for CO2 doubling…while 288 C to 289 C surface temp is an emission increase of 5.4 watts, so less than a degree increase if only 4 watts…not including WV increases and other stuff that is also debatable….
Less than a gram of arsenic can kill a grown man.
Small amounts alone are not evidence that something doesn’t matter.
A molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon than passes that energy to another molecule in less than a micro-second and is immediately available to absorb another photon.
What makes CO2 more or less meaningless when it comes to thermal regulation, are two things
1) CO2 mostly overlaps water. Where ever there is water in atmosphere, it competes with CO2 for many of the same photons.
2) As a green house gas, CO2 is pretty much played out. About 50% the work CO2 can do, has been done by the time CO2 reaches 50ppm. At 400ppm, CO2 is about 90% of the way to complete saturation. All increases are just taking an ever smaller bite out of that remaining 10%.
I don’t understand why people get voted down for simply showing data — I thought data was supposed to end arguments. At any rate there is a lot of overlap, but the CO2 on the shoulder of that water vapor window is important, as it leads initially to the 3 W/m2 of deficit LWIR at TOA that eventually, when energy balance is restored results in somewhere between 0.8 K and 1.2 K of extra surface warming Ceteria paribus.
there is no justification in using the concept of balance when examining the total energy input and the total energy shedding of the extremely complex system of the planet.
It is always in flux, and the flux changes from day to night and season to season
The experimental and observational minimum requirements are immensely complex, variable in time and variable in surface properties and variable in regions on the oblate spheroid.
To get the precision required with current supercomputers, one run would take several human lifetimes.
What you are saying is that there is no point in invoking the First Law of Thermodynamics. Look, balance over a daily cycle might not be perfectly valid. There may be an imbalance that would show up in temperature rising or falling — over time this is how the seasons operate. Over a year one would expect the balance to be a bit better — there are deviations and certain years are warmer or cooler, of course. It may be that there never is perfect balance. It’s what might occur if climate is dominated by power law distributions, for example.
But throwing the First Law out seems like a bad approach.
He’s not really saying “throw out the First Law”. He’s saying the First Law is a time function and the state profile of the components of a system must be integrated over time in order to understand the system.
For instance, heat input to the system we call Earth happens over a 12 hour period that we call daylight. It’s why the temperature goes up during part of the day. But at the same time the system has a 24 hour period of cooling, i.e. heat output.
The state of the system at any point in time will never balance as far as input and output. It can’t. If it did then the 24 hour cooling period would put out every bit of heat input it receives over the 12 hour period. The earth would truly become a frozen ball.
You can’t balance input and output RATES when they are time functions with different periods of operation. You must balance input and output totals, i.e. joules, and not joules/sec.
The First Law involves Joules of energy, not joules/sec.
‘I don’t understand why people get voted down for simply showing data — I thought data was supposed to end arguments.’
They shouldn’t. The only problem with AB’s graph is that it is always used to convey the conjecture that CO2 and H20 (WV) trap heat in the troposphere because LWIR ‘photons’ emitted by the Earth are absorbed and spontaneously emitted by these gases all the way up from the surface to the tropopause in accordance with the phenomenological physics of applying radiative transfer to atmospheric gases.
Err, I didn’t …
I showed the relative absorption bands of CO2 and H2O, and their partial overlap at the 15 micron band – which is that associated with Earth’s LWIR emission.
Actually, a bit of chemistry that does apply to this problem is Beer’s Law. It enables one to calculate absorbance (or Transmittance) when two different species have overlaping absorbance spectra. Used in spectrophotometry all the time.
“…is immediately available to absorb another photon.” Which means that it waits around, along with other CO2 and H2O molecules that already saturate the atmosphere, for the next rare photon of the exact wavelength that it can capture. The more CO2 molecules there are in the atmosphere, the longer the wait times for a specific molecule between available photons.
For every wavelength the concentration of CO2 is exactly the same along the path, so why more absorbance in places — ans: because the cross-section for absorption is much greater at certain wavelengths. Concentration is not the whole story.
The story has even odder elements to it, and though I can’t level questions to the utility myself, I can get the gist of what they are claiming and then write a public comment if I see fit to the PSC and the office of consumer advocate (OCA).
I wish FERC had been a party to the report because I worry that NERC and WECC between them may allow some CYA into the report. I have come to distrust Rocky Mountain Power. But the 500kV line in question is the “Gateway South” which was sold by Rocky Mountain Power as a way to move wind energy out of Wyoming to the southwest. However, in their pitch to the Utah PUC the story was told slightly differently. I pointed this out to the OCA years ago, but no one paid much attention.
If you read what the various actors involved (southwest power pool, western area power authority, the RCW and PACE) were worried about before the line was taken out. Then what actually occured, and read the tale in the report, well, let’s just say I have some trouble making sense of it.
Just as an example, people worried that taking that line out of service would result in excessive wind energy on the remaining grid to the Wyoming side of Aeolus substation near Medicine Bow. They wanted 820MW of wind disconnect beforehand. If that was what all parties involved feared, how in the world did voltage at substations beyond Aeolus in Wyoming have voltage sag to 0.28pu within half a second of opening the Gateway South?
‘[The report] credits both battery storage and wind energy throughout the impacted area for supporting “a faster frequency recovery across the interconnection” and for providing “readily available capacity during system restoration.”’
I’ll bet (/s). I seriously doubt that any ‘grid scale’ thermal generation facility would ever rely upon wind or solar in the event a black start of that facility was required.
Actually there is a well-defined order to a black start in this region and it does not involve wind/solar. It begins with one of the coal-fired units up in northeastern Wyoming. Unfortunately because of poor communication, and the fact that what happened didn’t seem to have occurred to anyone looking at the planned event beforehand, people began to guess about the state of the network, and acting in unhelpful ways.
Dan Hughes
July 12, 2026 3:35 am
Unverified and Unvalidated Posts at WUWT
WUWT and its audience have long been very strong supporters for Independent Verification and Validation of computer software that is used to advance arguments by Climate Science(tm). Independent V&V is excellent practice for all scientific and engineering software. That practice is frequently codified in Laws associated with any potential actions that might endanger the health and safety of the public.
It is generally accepted that sufficient information to allow Independent replication of calculated results is considered a necessary requirement. An argument that has been the focus at WUWT from time-to-time. Recall the ‘source code not made available, then no acceptable results have been presented’ discussions.
Following that Post, a summary of modifications to, and calculated results by, a Constructual climate science model was published at WUWT: The Model that Works. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/
A couple of Comments inquired about the lack of completeness of the model equations and numerical solution methods WRT V&V.
At the time of the Response to the last Comment, numerical values of some parameters are still not reported. The calculated results cannot be independently validated and replicated. By WUWT standards, the Post should have been rejected.
The published paper presents some modifications to the model-equation systems given in References [1, 2, 3]. The WUWT post has failed to meet any of the SOP V&V requirements long and vigorously supported by WUWT. The published paper also fails requirements supported by WUWT, but that is beyond control of WUWT. Apparently these failures were also not cited by reviewers of the published paper.
WUWT can provide an important example of V&V by correcting existing deficiencies in the The Model that Works Post. Addition of specific examples of both Verification of numerical solution methods and Validation of the proposed system of equations aspects applied to the modified Constructal climate model system would greatly improve WUWT’s bona vides WRT Software V&V.
A separate WUWT Post that considers and develops illustrative applications of V&V to the model equations, numerical solutions and applications would be widely supported and appreciated.
1. Adrian Bejan and A. Heitor Reis, (2005). Thermodynamic Optimization of Global Circulation and Climate, Int. J. energy Res., Vol. 29, pp. 303–316, DOI: 10.1002/er.1058.
2. A. Heitor Reis and Adrian Bejan, (2006). Constructal Theory of Global Circulation and Climate”, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans., Vol. 49, pp. 1857–1875.
3. M. Clausse, F. Meunier, A.H. Reis and A. Bejan (2012). Climate Change, in the Framework of the Constructal Law, Int. J. Global Warming, Vol. 4, Nos. 3/4, pp. 242-260.
It is generally accepted that sufficient information to allow Independent replication of calculated results is considered a necessary requirement. An argument that has been the focus at WUWT from time-to-time. Recall the ‘source code not made available, then no acceptable results have been presented’ discussions.
MrGrimNasty
July 12, 2026 3:38 am
The UK has recorded 35C in May & June & July for the first time (only on record obviously).
It has so far had 8 days of 34C and above beating 1976 and 2020.
2026 is about 0.75C warmer than the previous warmest year in the entire mean CET series, which if maintained, would double the warming of the last 25 years.
A couple of years ago, here in central Washington State, we had 47°C (~116°F) and survived. At the rate of cooling since than I’m ordering an outdoor camera to watch for an approaching glacier.
Strategical placement of weather stations combined with adjustments cause 90% of
all warming.
That’s why neither food production, nor ice coverage, nor sea levels
are effected by AGW.
And the ski industry ” suffered ” from massive growth since the end of snow was announced and is expected to grow 50% in the next decaded.
Considering the quality of the current ground based network, trying to base any conclusion based on it alone is a fool’s errand.
Good stations, if any still exist, are only accurate to about a tenth of a degree C.
From recent surveys, a very solid majority are only accurate to 3 to 5 degrees C.
Going back in time, the records are even more abysmal as you have to also factor in the fact that there aren’t enough stations to make even a rough guess as to what the average temperature was, even if all the stations were of good quality.
Then there is also the futility of trying to compare stations that were recorded once a day, with both high and low estimated by eye and then recorded to the nearest degree, with stations that take readings every few seconds and then record the average of those readings every 15 minutes.
Beyond that, there is the idiocy of comparing the thermal response of large glass tubes filled with mercury, with that of thermal couples that weigh only a few grams.
Only someone with absolutely no interest in science and even less in accurate measurements would try to make a big deal out of differences in the record between now, and decades ago, much less several centuries ago.
So the fact that the weather data gathering system is not fit for purpose is irrelevant in determining whether that system has recorded a record heat wave?
Really.
You won’t learn, because you don’t want to – that would be stupid as it would confront your raging confirmation bias, but yet again I bring it to the attention of denizens who might be a little, shall I say, sceptical (UK spelling).
Comparing coastal stations, especially those with a prevailing wind from off oceans, is like apples and oranges with inland stations.
Surely some people, if not this one, realise that air over water reverts to the temperature of the water (SST). You know, the ocean heats the air above it – just like land heats the air above it!
Now your notion that the sea is as hot as the land during the day is a tad stupid, may I say (sarc).
Trying to denigrate the CET via comparison only works with those who don’t or refuse to understand these basic meteorological/physics facts.
Comparing coastal stations, especially those with a prevailing wind from off oceans, is like apples and oranges with inland stations.
Does this same thing apply to finding a global average temperature from SST and land temperatures? Wouldn’t that be just another reason that a global average is meaningless?
Since the percentage of oceans vs landmass is unchanging (on human timescales).
Then the averaging out of both on an ongoing basis is perfectly valid in acertain the GSMAT.
Spencer and Christy addressed this issue in their 2023 paper and noted that researchers have concluded most of the difference is the poor distribution of land sites. I’d say poor quality also.
Again, nice soapbox rant, doesn’t alter the weather trivia or the manifest and substantial rapid warming of the UK climate.
You seem to have a predilection toward non-scientific conclusions. MarkW made an excellent point about many past records being recorded to the nearest degree with an uncertainty of at least ±1° and probably more. Tell how you accurately know past temperatures that allow conclusions that are any more accurate than that resolution. Say, to the tenth or hundredths of a degree. How do you peer into the past and make that kind of judgement?
If you are going to create averages or trends using data that have different resolutions, you must consider that in your results. You must also consider how averaging data with different measurement uncertainty values affects the calculations. I see none of that.
Its something isn’t it, people in Europe, holding off on getting air conditioners because they think it’s part of the problem, because of the disinformation being spread.
“Any fact that refutes what you have been taught to believe, is just dismissed as trivia.”
Says the man who can no longer deny the data, so he attacks the data gatherers.. Too funny. Very Trumpian strategy.
I see that in your universe Trump is responsible for all bad things that happen. Isn’t blaming “Trumpian strategy” essentially the same thing as you are accusing MarkW of?
I was watching the cricket yesterday – what a great England win. Then the football – what another great England win. The ecstatic, large crowd at the cricket match were revelling in the amazingly wonderful weather. It was a bit cool here in the San Francisco Bay Area in the morning, but it warmed up nicely by the end of the game against Norway. Whoever said 1976 above reminded me of a great week I had in Pembrokeshire that year (July I think). Not a cloud in the sky – incredible wildlife there if you’re into birdwatching. The point being that if you morbidly don’t like great weather, and it scares you stupid, you can probably get help (although there’s a long waiting list in the UK because of spending on something that doesn’t exist, with YOU being part of your own problem).
As our friend David would say – thank you for your attention to this matter.
I gained interest in the climate debate in the late 90’s on Yahoo Answers listening to avatars such as Dana and Dr. Jello argue about evidence for and against AGW. And back then till present day the global average of the Lower Stratosphere with a linear regression line, was and is used as evidence implicating CO2 as the cause of the increasing energy imbalance. Something did not make sense because there appeared to be step changes that occurred after the effects of El Chicon and Pinatubo dissipated. It finally dawned on me, that if you are not looking at the tropics for clues about the greenhouse process, you may as well go outside and look for chemtrails. The plot below shows the UAH lower Stratosphere with global average, north, tropics and south and it is very clear that there never was a step change with those events. There is nothing smooth about changes in the stratosphere (other than volcanic SO2 events), the stratosphere changes in strange annual and bi-annual cycles.
You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites. If you understood science and statistics you would know that.
Besides, if the MO data wasn’t being competently processed it would be a wild mismatch with (at least 3) satellite data sets and weather balloon datasets, it isn’t.
“You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites. If you understood science and statistics you would know that.”
No, you can’t. The measurement uncertainty interval overwhelms the ability to identify the changes you wish to find. You can’t see the signal for the uncertainty! If *YOU* understood metrolgy at all you would know that!
Satellites don’t measure temperature. When they do measure has to be used to “estimate” what the temperature is. The word “estimate” means uncertainty. If you understood statistics, especially variance, you would know that.
In what passes for your mind, if a station with a +/- of 5C, detects a 0.1C trend, then the trend can’t be dismissed?
No wonder you are stupid enough to believe that CO2 drives the climate.
You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites. If you understood science and statistics you would know that.
Since you are obviously a statistician then you should know that uncertain data points cannot be adequately addressed without dealing with what the uncertainty does to trends.
You are trying to make the case that whatever the uncertainty is, the stated value is accurate over time. Do you know what uncertainty bars n a graph are and why they are used?
I have never understood why people simply to do not understand to leave wildlife alone. My thought is that it is the “Walt Disney” effect or the “Bambi” effect-isn’t that little 1500 pound creature with a bad attitude and horns cute? Wife says its because we’re so urbanised that nobody understands that wildlife is-well-wild…bears are not cuddly, moose are cranky and aggressive, snakes bite. Tombstone epitaph: Here, hold my beer, or hey guys, watch this. That guy is lucky to be alive-if he is.
The above incident prompts me to reexamine my encounter strategies.
You have obviously never worked cattle. Bulls are more than cranky, they are irrational and can charge at any time. Cows are generally more docile but can be cranky especially with calves. You just don’t EVER trust them. It is one reason horseback herding is done.
I am reminded of pistol training. If you have your firearm drawn, 7 feet between you and your assailant gives you time to decide to use your firearm. That’s just a little over an average person’s height. If you must draw first, the distance gets a larger.
You don’t realize how fast and quick these beasts can move. If you want to get out of your vehicle to take a picture, you need to be far enough away to reach it if charged. Otherwise, roll down a window and stay in the vehicle.
Over Christmas break in 1974, two friends and I traveled to West Yellowstone and rented three snowmobiles for a day trip into the park. This was back when you could could still travel through the park on a small snowmobile.
At about 5 PM, after dark, we left Old Faithful and were headed back towards West Yellowstone when a cloud of bright green dots appeared in the distance ahead of us.
It was a buffalo herd in the process of crossing the road and the bright green dots were the retinas of their eyes being illuminated by our headlights.
We had to wait twenty minutes or so before the last of them had gotten across and then we quickly boogied on through there.
It was only 42 degrees F below zero at the time. That same night, because the air was so clear and cold, we were among the few that year who got a decent naked-eye unassisted look at Comet Kohoutek.
There was such excitement about it in November, then it failed to brighten and people got bored with it. In early January 1974 I left the MSU cafeteria at Bozeman to see a glorious comet with a long tail in the western sky just after sunset. It was the best comet I ever saw, that is for sure.
Scissor, man, there is no good strategy except to just escape to a place where his poor eyesight, weak mind, and short attention span become your allies.
I come from a long-time ranching family. My grandfather also ran a construction company, gravel pit, an International Harvester dealership, and raised unusual animals. He had 65 bison as pets, basically, long before it became fashionable.
They were endless trouble. One escaped confinement by climbing over corral railings just as I was passing by after lunchtime. I was maybe 10 or 12. He chased me through trees and brush. I imagine it looked quite a bit like this video, but I did manage to get into a grove of carrigana bushes where he couldn’t get a bead on me. So, it didn’t end as badly.
I read his weepy “Goodbye JPL” Substack just to gauge the extent of his TDS and self-absorption. Switches from astrophysics to “climate change” alarmism in 2006, convinced the globe was going to burn up. Everything he published thereafter amounts to ambulance chasing, grandstanding and getting arrested for various public displays of vitriol
Perhaps he can get treatment in Carolina for his mental disorders.
We the People may be stuck paying a pension, but at least we’re free of his salary and benefits
Where is Paul Harvey’s “Rest of the Story” on this?
October 2025: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) reduced its workforce by 550 employees, or approximately 11% of its total staff. This was the third round of layoffs. And from what I found, Kalmus is suffering severly from the AGW virus and needs mental help.
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature is 288 K, 15 C, while without it that temperature would be 255 K, -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also without consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper and no GHE means no 30% albedo.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render the “extra” energy of the surface upwelling as a 396 W/m^2 black body impossible.
The GHE is failed science and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
The Earth’s surface temperature varies between 12-17 degrees Celsius throughout the year.
What is the reason for the Earth’s varying surface temperature?
When the Earth’s surface temperature drops during the period August-January, does the Earth emit more energy than it receives?
The earth is a heat sink, just like the ocean is. It simply doesn’t re-emit all of the heat energy it receives instantaneously, it is *NOT* a black body. Some of the heat energy that is conducted into the earth during summer doesn’t get released until fall/winter. The same thing happens with the ocean.
The idea that in and out flux values balance over short periods of time is one of those garbage memes climate science is so fond of.
If climate science was *truly* interested in CLIMATE, they would be looking at precipitation and ground temperatures and basing land models on those. There isn’t a chance of being able to do that for the oceans, there just isn’t adequate measurement networks to track all of the various heat paths associated with the oceans.
Thought experiment. A billiard ball in the middle of a billiard table.
A strong source of heat/light shines on it.
It achieves a certain temperature – emitting exactly the same amount of energy per second as it is absorbing. Turn up the power on the heat/light source and it absorbs more energy per second until it reaches a temperature at which its energy emission matches. It is now stable under a more powerful source at a higher temperature emitting the same energy as it is absorbing.
Three states. Cooler – warming – warmer.
Elementary, dear Watson. It does not matter whether it is the black ball, or the cue ball.
Thought experiment. A billiard ball in the middle of a billiard table.
Your example has a lot of holes in it. “emitting exactly the same amount of energy per second as it is absorbing” is the first. The billiard ball needs to be a heat sink that stores some of the absorbed energy. That is what happens to soil and allows farming, i.e., the soil warming to depth.
The second hole is “Turn up the power on the heat/light source and it absorbs more energy per second“. Exactly how does the sun “turn up the power” that causes temperature to rise?
The “Earth’s surface temperature” varies between 233K and 313K constantly, every day, depending on location. The silly GAT calculation has little to do with the real world.
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1409.1024 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 13 degrees Celsius.
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1316.3182 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 17 degrees Celsius.
Does the Earth emit more energy than the Earth receives when the solar irradiance is 1409.1024 W/m^2?
Does the Earth emit less energy than the Earth receives when the solar irradiance is 1316.3182 W/m^2?
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1409.1024 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 13 degrees Celsius.
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1316.3182 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 17 degrees Celsius.
These averages are based on a lot of assumptions. At best, they should have a variance quoted to make them understandable. Any point on the earth only receives insolation in pulses, not continuously. That raises the temperature to some max value, but the remaining period is cooling to a baseline Tmin. To understand what is actually occurring, the variance of these two need to be included with the “average” value.
How industrial green tech and infrastructure create a “Rural Heat Island” effect that can distort climate data:
The New “Rural Heat Islands”: How Grid Infrastructure Alters Local Data
We know about Urban Heat Islands, but massive utility-scale infrastructure is creating distinct, localized microclimates that mimic greenhouse gas signatures on weather sensors:
Large Wind Farms:
The Physics: Mechanically disrupt the stable nighttime atmosphere, pulling warmer air from aloft down to the ground.The Impact: Raises local nighttime surface temperatures by 0.5°C to 0.7°C.Utility Solar Farms (PVHI Effect):
The Physics: Large arrays replace high-reflectivity natural soil with dark, light-absorbing panels, converting excess solar energy into trapped heat.The Impact: Elevates surrounding nighttime air temperatures by 3°C to 4°C.Grid Batteries (BESS):
The Physics: Inevitable thermodynamic inefficiencies convert 10-15% of stored electricity into heat, which industrial HVACs continuously vent into the air.The Impact: Blasts exhaust air 5°C to 15°C hotter than ambient, raising perimeter temperatures by 1.5°C to 3°C.AI Data Centers (DHI Effect):
The Physics: 100% of the electricity used by servers becomes waste heat, constantly rejected by massive chiller systems into the local boundary layer. Gigantic electric heaters.The Impact: Creates a thermal plume raising local surface temperatures by 2°C, extending up to 4.5 km away.The Climate Measurement Catch:
Because these installations are built in open, rural spaces, their thermal plumes blend into the exact reference stations used to measure baseline global warming. By raising the nighttime temperature floor (T_min), this localized industrial footprint perfectly mimics a greenhouse gas signal—injecting data contamination into regional climate records.
Simon
July 12, 2026 1:16 pm
Tom… just wondering if you are still keen for me to name the Jan 6 rioters who assaulted police and people who Trump released? Happy to do so.
Jan 6th was basically an afternoon tea party compared to the massive insurrection and civil disobedience that has been conducted by the Democrats since Trump was elected.
The Trump supporters had a justified cause, shown by the election fraud continuing to be found.
The Democrat zombies are fighting the direct will of the American people who elected Trump with very specific mandates.
Insurrection, sedition, call it what you will. And you support it !
I think Frazier has it right. We need specifics if we are going to get into this. Some people broke the law and some did not but got railroaded anyway. Trump says he is pardoning the people who got railroaded, not the guilty parties.
I saw a news item yesterday where a judge let some Proud Boys off. He said the U.S. Constitution demanded it.
Btw, The Proud Boys do not represent the Republican Party. They are a small, radical group that’s always looking for trouble. Leftists claim Proud Boys are mainstream Republicans but they are not.
The Republican Party is becoming a party of former democrats. Former democrats like Trump can see how stupid the party is over controlling people and just plain stupid policies. From owning slaves right up to the Covid nonsense Democrats are just clueless. I mean how dumb do you have to be to think former dudes should be playing against and with women and girls? It’s mind boggling.
The Democrats still have a slave mentality. How else can you justify socialist policies of taking most of what you produce to share it with those who don’t produce. The takers become the oppressors and the producers become the slaves.
Sounds good.
I am happy to list individuals, so you can check, but I am not going through all of those he pardoned who were violent, because there are just too many. And given you felt Trump had pardoned no one who had been violent, then I would have thought one would have been enough.
Here are the numbers….
More than 300 individuals plead guilty to or have been convicted of assaulting or obstructing law enforcement. Of those, 69 individuals specifically admitted to assaulting police officers using a dangerous or deadly weapon.
All of these were pardoned.
Some specific names of people who committed physical violence against others include:
David Dempsey: Received one of the longest sentences of any January 6 defendant (11 years and 8 months) after pleading guilty to repeatedly assaulting police officers using a metal pipe, pepper spray, a wooden pole, and a crutch.
Julian Khater: Sentenced to more than 6 years in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of assaulting law enforcement with a dangerous weapon, specifically utilizing bear spray against multiple officers.
Thomas Webster: A retired New York City police officer sentenced to 10 years in prison after a jury convicted him of assaulting a Washington D.C. police officer with a metal flagpole and tackling him to the ground. [1, 2]
Christopher Worrell: A member of the Florida Proud Boys chapter sentenced to 10 years in prison for spraying pepper-gel at police officers and later fleeing before his initial sentencing. [1, 2, 3]
Ryan Nichols: Sentenced to over 5 years in prison after pleading guilty to assaulting officers with pepper spray while captured on video saying, “Yes, Ryan Nichols is going to bring violence.” [1]
Andrew Taake: Sentenced to over 6 years in prison for assaulting Capitol Police officers using pepper spray and a metal whip
So Tom do you have no comment about the criminals Trump released who had been violent towards police? If not that is disappointing. I thought you genuinely thought there were no people released who had attacked police. Now you know there are, are you not surprised? How do you feel about him doing that? I mean he talks about law and order. This is a clear example of a man who does not support police over his own supporters. That’s not law and order…..
Tom, thanks for replying. And thanks for being polite. I appreciate that.
”If I was shone a video of a perpetrator actually attacking police I would deem him guilty and unworthy of a pardon.”
I didn’t know I had to find a video as well. That wasn’t in the job description. But OK here is some graphic stuff. After about 1 minute you can see the cops being beaten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w&t=70s
Another thing: Are there people convicted for Jan 6 that Trump did not pardon? If so, what were their crimes?
There were. Instead of a full pardon, Trump commuted the sentences of about 14 individuals, including Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, who was charged with seditious conspiracy. And two people who refused to accept the sweeping pardon... Pamela Hemphill and Jason Riddle—formally rejected Trump’s pardon. Hemphill stated accepting the pardon was an insult to the Capitol Police, and Riddle argued he did those things and the actions weren’t pardonable
Well, the reason I would like a video is to see if the person charged actually did attack a police officer. Is struggling back and forth over a metal traffic barrier an attack on police?
I think a lot of those cases were hyped up by the Biden administration to demonize Trump and Republicans.
In other words I don’t believe anything the Biden administration puts out about Jan 6. I have no doubt some violence was perpetrated by some people but I’ll have to see it to believe it in any specific case.
I think Jan 6 was blown way out of proportion for political purposes.
President Trump is going to give a speech tonight which he characterizes as being a very important speech dealing with election integrity.
Maybe Trump has some evidence of election fraud to relate to us tonight.
What I am hearing from you Tom is you believe Trump and not Biden. Why is our business, but I can’t for the life of me see how that works when Trump publicly lies almost daily.
I think tonight’s speech will be more of him trying to justify to the world why he lost to Biden. He simply can’t accept defeat. It will be nonsense about voting machines and mail in ballots. It will be I’m the greatest president ever and the war will be over tomorrow. He will tell everyone he has secured the border and how everyone is out to get him. Same old…..
He never rang Biden on the night. He didn’t go to his inauguration. It seems he just doesn’t have it in him to be decent at times like that.
“What’s your opinion of the Minnesota Governor, Waltz pardoning an illegal alien convicted of raping a 10-year-old child?” My understanding is Tou Lue Vang not an illegal alien. He was a legal resident, but I have no sympathy for anyone who rapes a child so if the law allowed him to be deported good I say. So bad work by those who pardoned him. But my concern for children around sexual offences by adults is why I am hoping all of those who raped and assaulted the Epstein girls are held to account. Hopefully before they die.
I know that many people were coerced into pleading guilty. It was the lesser of two evils for them.
I do not support pardoning people who assault police, but don’t have enough information to decide the cases you cite.
The Biden administration was intent on convicting as many people as possible to blow this situation out of proportion.
Remember the guy who was at the Capitol wearing a Viking helmet with horns? He was doing nothing except wandering around the Capitol Building. He was even given a little tour by the Capitol Police. They even unlocked doors for him. His only transgression is he went into Nancy Pelosi’s office and sat in her office chair. Yet he was arrested and spent months in jail. For doing nothing harmful.
There were a lot of innocent people like that who got caught up in all the Democrat politics so Trump has good reason to pardon some of them.
“I know that many people were coerced into pleading guilty. It was the lesser of two evils for them.” You mean their lawyers recommended that. Fair enough, that is their privilege and is how the law works.
“The Biden administration was intent on convicting as many people as possible to blow this situation out of proportion.” I’m gonna ask you to provide evidence (not opinion) of this.
“Remember the guy who was at the Capitol wearing a Viking helmet with horns? He was doing nothing except wandering around the Capitol Building.” Which he broke into and should not have been doing. That was a secure area. He broke the law.
“He was even given a little tour by the Capitol Police. They even unlocked doors for him.” That’s not true Tom. There are videos of Police moving people around, trying to usher these people out of the buildings in a non violent way. Investigations and Capitol Police leadership confirmed these were tactical responses to overwhelming crowds. Just think about it Tom. Why would they want to show a violent group around, who had just broken into the building they are guarding? that makes no sense.
“There were a lot of innocent people like that who got caught up in all the Democrat politics so Trump has good reason to pardon some of them.” Maybe that is true. Do you have any offical evidence (not opinion) for this?
It is true about the Viking guy. I saw videos of his wandering. I saw capitol police showing him around and unlocking at least one door for him, and he was practically alone, there were no crowds in the neighborhood. The capitol police were standing there watching when he sat in the Speaker’s Chair. They had no problem with it.
And I think Biden even put the Viking in solitary confinement, trying to make him out to be some radical right wing leader.
This doesn’t appear like the Capitol Police are attempting to restrict his access. In fact they appear to find an alternate path into the Senate chamber
I have watched the Tucker Carlson (incidentally a man who now says Trump is the enemy) and while the editing could lead you to believe what he is saying is true, that is not what the police said…
“Jacob Chansley was not “innocently” shown around. Known as the “QAnon Shaman”, he was part of the initial mob that violently breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Although some surveillance footage showed him walking alongside a few overwhelmed Capitol Police officers who were vastly outnumbered and using de-escalation tactics, law enforcement officials, including U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, have explicitly called the “tour guide” narrative outrageous and false. [1, 2]
Chansley was an active participant in the riot. He entered the Senate chamber, left a threatening note for Vice President Mike Pence, and ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. He was subsequently sentenced to 41 months in federal prison”
You can read the full break down by the associated press here…
And just incase you don’t have the time to read the article…. here is what the police spokes person had to say about the whole tour guide falsehood…
“Last night an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6 attack,” Manger wrote. “The opinion program never reached out to the Department to provide accurate context. One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false.”
“and while the editing could lead you to believe what he is saying is true, that is not what the police said…”
Editing can’t change the fact that the police were not trying to stop him. They even led him through five or six police officers at once and not one attempted to intervene.
The video did not originate from Carlson or Fox. You trying to use that as evidence it didn’t actually occur is insane.
The fact that they shot an unarmed girl should make you wonder if the police have any veracity at all.
Let’s just think about this. What is the most logical explanation here?
The police were trying to deescalate a situation by leading a mob that out numbered them, peacefully out of the building they were paid to gurad?
The police wanted to give a violent mob a tiki tour?
Given the police statement above and the video evidence of the violence the mob displayed, outside and while they entered the building….. I’m going for number 1. How about you Jim?
“The fact that they shot an unarmed girl…. “ An unarmed girl who was with a violent mob who were storming a federal building in an attempt to subvert the democratic process. I’d say they were doing their job. And so would you if it was a democrat.
You are making assumptions without pertinent facts. The video shows one person. Are you trying to claim that six or seven police officers could not have tackled him, handcuffed him, and led him away?
I make my conclusions based on facts. You are only basing them on what you think was going through the police officers’ minds. I remind you, that the Capitol Police used deadly force on an unarmed woman. That seems to violate your assumption that they just let people in without attempting to stop them.
What facts? You have a couple of video clips that could potentially mean anything. There have been in depth reviews of this day that found what you are saying is a complete load of nonsense. I come back to it…. do you really think the police would politely show this violent gang around? I can’t think of a single reason why they would do that. Can you?
Your video is not in dispute. Now I’d like you to answer my question… why do you really think the police would politely show this violent gang around? What possible reason would they have to do this?
Just so you know…. this is what Chansley’s lawyer said in court … He [Chansley] regrets very very much having not just been duped by the President, but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made.” Sounds to me like a guy who knows he has stepped over a line.
“Perhaps because they weren’t being violent at the time?”
All the more reason to not rile them up and to keep the whole thing deescalated. The police had seen the violence and mayhem outside. They were outnumbered. The last thing they wanted to see was to have that happen inside. So they kept it calm and tried to usher the mob outside. Not rocket science Tim/Jim.
Did you read this before you hit post? Al you are doing is saying that non-violent is violence and the police should have acted based on that garbage assumption. I believe this is similar to the doctrine of “prior restraint” or “preemptive policing”. Nether allow action against an individual before an illegal act is committed by the individual. Preemptive policing would require the same action against everyone, e.g. forming a bounded gathering area where everyone must be. It can not be action against a selective individual based on an assumption of future criminal activity. It’s the concept behind traffic stops involving all motorists rather than random stops of individuals without reasonable suspicion.
“ried to usher the mob outside”
stop moving the goalposts. The issue here isn’t “the mob” but an individual.
Susan Crockford has written extensively on arctic ice, bears, and some on dogs/wolves. She has been tapering off, moving on to other activities. She and partners consul on identification of remains.
Of special note is her explanation that too much ice is bad for polar bears because seals need open water, and that polar bears do fine when there is little ice on Hudson’s Bay in summer – they go to land, where females den in any cases.
She and colleagues consult on identification of animal remains. I don’t know if she was able to identify remains of dogs that might have been Coast Salish ‘hair dogs’, she has analyzed remains and sees indications they had two types of dogs.
Rational Keith
July 15, 2026 2:07 pm
Alex Epstein reports via LinkedIn that the NYT is backing off alarmism, Why Climate Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade,’ 26May26.
A small start but apparently is mostly about RCP 8.5 and pitches alternative energy. IOW it backs away from an extreme claim but is still a Believer.
Consider the published heating rate/cooling rate error for the RRTM and RRTM-G radiative transfer components which are used in the time-step-iterated earth system models. This error value is computed using LBLRTM as the reference.
“…the computed cooling rates agree to within 0.1 K/day in the troposphere and 0.3 K/day in the stratosphere…”
https://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_description.html
“…the computed cooling rates generally agree to within 0.1 K/day in the troposphere and 0.3 K/day in the stratosphere…”
https://rtweb.aer.com/rrtmg_lw_description.html
To compare, let’s use the UAH linear trend for the lower troposphere temperature anomaly. This gives a slight warming at 0.16 deg C(K) per decade for the entire record. This is 0.000044 deg C(K) per day.
The published ~+/- 0.1 deg C(K) per day uncertainty interval is ~4500 times greater than the long-term trend being investigated for potential longwave influence from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O.
Also, using days as a time step to be consistent with the published heating/cooling rate error, the uncertainty builds to ~+/- 2 deg C(K) after just 365 steps, assuming the RSS method is used for propagation. There is no value at all for detection or attribution of the factor being investigated, concerning CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases.
The conclusion must be that there was never any sound justification for using time-step-iterated climate models to generate scenarios of any hypothetical emissions pathway. So let’s please stop giving unearned credit to any of the more moderate emission scenarios. None are reliable representations of what to expect.
And let’s take this requirement seriously, as stated in the 5-23-2025 EO “Restoring Gold Standard Science” in Sec 4(c): “When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
This is critically important within the DOE, as Secretary Wright has recently named Dr. Matthew Wielicki as director of the effort to write the next version of the National Climate Assessment.
That is all for now. Thank you for your patience in this matter.
The attentive reader will note that I’ve said nothing about the LBLRTM (Line By Line) reference itself. Does it give a “true” value? No. No one knows the true value of the radiative heating/cooling rate at any particular location at any particular time past or future in the real atmosphere. So there’s that little detail to consider too.
The various energy conversions and transport occurring in the “real atmosphere” are much too complex to be represented by a simple (average) thermometer reading, whether calculated or projected!
Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa) is not complex.
Nicholas, the equation for radiation is as follows:
Pnet = ϵσAsThot^4 − ϵσAsTcold^4
The gravelly/watery surface that absorbs on a long term average about 160W/m^2 of sunlight emits 3 times as much heat by radiation, and 4 times as much by evaporation as would be applicable to your conduction/convection formula….63,80,vs 17 respectively on your favorite BAMS cartoon…so declaring it “not complex” is VERY wrong….
160w-m2 is the global estimate. Multiply by 4 you get 640w-m2 (52 degrees C). The is the amount of heat loss from the tropics to the poles. The ratio of molecules to radiation is 5500:1 (5500 molecules to 1 photon). So the 3 times as much heat by radiation and 4 times as much by evaporation is nonsense. Total watts earth receives is 173 x 10^14 watts. This is 390w-m2 x 87% of the earth total area (minus areas of snow and ice, that reflect this heat), divide by 100% of the earth 510,064,500,000 m2 you get 340w-m2 (average amount of watts earth emits). The 52 degree C, is 25C at the tropics and -27C at the poles. Note also: 15% heat transport is radiation, convection and latent heat is 85%. An analogy for your 3 to 4 times nonsense from google Gemini AI. “It is the equivalent of a bank accounting error where you pass a single $10 note back and forth between two people 4 times and claim $40 of total wealth was generated”. Google AI also said “The reason standard models get away with printing “398 W/m² surface emission” alongside “340 W/m² solar input” is because they are counting internal recirculated energy as if it were a primary source.”
“52 degrees C is 25 Tropics and -27 poles”….I think you are horribly misinterpreting….398 W/m^2 is the energy content of the photons emitted by a surface at about 16C with an emissivity close to 1.0…in the case of the sea and soil of the Earth…is also receiving from its surroundings (the sky) about 340 watts worth of photons…for a net radiant heat outwards of approximately 398-340=58 watts…of which somewhere between 20 and 40 goes directly to outer space depending on cloud cover through the atmospheric window….
I suggest you read another AI response or three. Here’s one that’s actually reasonably enlightening….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181.
Andy May’s copilot AI is what you seek…
For my money, most everything Andy posits on the subject of EEI is usually worth serious consideration. However, while copilot’s ~64% attribution of tropospheric energy flow to non-radiative mechanisms is certainly directionally better than Trenberth’s measly ~20%, it’s still based on the phenomenological physics that conflates the radiative properties of IR-active gases with those of condensed matter.
Obfuscate & bloviate PhD handwavium smoke.
Intelligent response, old buddy….
In line w the stone walling dissing of my points.
After years of this I figure you just drew the short straw to hassle me by dodging my points & changing the subject to rambling esoteric handwavium.
Dodging ? I go to the needed detail to address your points so that it becomes a learning experience for others (and yourself should you choose to read them)…who might need help understanding those energy balance graphics…which are mostly “Net Heat” but then throw in photons between surfaces…which isn’t “Net Heat” till you subtract the two numbers…but I only have a morning coffee to provide commentary…
But it is close to being imaginary. 🙂
One has to be careful how averages are handled in computations. In System Dynamics modeling, time delays (lags) are handled with running (aka moving) averages.
I am not certain that these modeling codes use a time-step-iterated methods if what you mean by that is an explicit time step code. When I was doing heat transport modeling I always used implicit methods, as they don’t accumulate error in the way you are suggesting.
I think the ‘time-stepping’ arises from the manner in which ‘radiative forcing’, aka CO2, is introduced into the atmosphere. In other words, they don’t just dump the 8.5 W/m^2 (or whatever) into the model and let it rip, but introduce it over some time period, typically ending ~ 2100, by which time all of us, including the modelers and policy makers, will have passed on to our eternal reward.
Hello Frank,
You are probably right about the schedule of “forcings” prescribed for the climate models to generate various scenarios. But that’s a different thing.
When I use the description “time-step-iterated” I am referring specifically to the computation of motion, mass, properties, radiative transfer, etc. in discrete time steps in the numerical modeling of the general circulation. This is how Grok on X explained it just now.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/fa52167a34fa460ba515cd6fba3daf88
You’re correct. Even if the total ‘forcings’ (I hate that word) were initialized up front, the model would still need to step through time until ‘equilibrium’ was attained, not to mention the need to ‘model’ the impacts of diurnal / seasonal energy flows. In retrospect, I think Kevin may have been referring to how a line-by-line model would require multiple iterations, as opposed to time steps, to converge to a solution.
But one would suppose, and in the absence of hard evidence otherwise I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error — sort of like using Runge-Kutta instead of first order forward differences. But there are other methods that can take time steps in an implicit scheme that are quite good at avoiding this issue. There is always numerical dispersion, of course, but my complaints would focus on parameterization that doesn’t capture physics of the problem.
‘…I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error…’
I don’t understand why errors wouldn’t accumulate. Every time the model ‘comes up for air’ to perform a calculation, it’s going to be fed incremental forcings, some of which, e.g., cloud cover, have uncertainties around them that are greater than the magnitude of presumed CO2 forcing,
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for your reply.
“But one would suppose, and in the absence of hard evidence otherwise I would give the modelers benefit of doubt, that they use explicit time steps that have little accumulation of error…”
The issue is not the accumulation of “error” in the sense of imperfect computational execution within the model. And although my original post above included an exercise to demonstrate the rapid buildup of uncertainty introduced by the published heating rate/cooling rate error for the radiation transfer parameterization, the issue is not fundamentally about the technical details of the modeling itself.
Even with an imaginary model perfected in high fidelity to the climate system response to energy input, a rapid buildup of uncertainty cannot be avoided, taking into account that the central value of TSI brings its own measurement uncertainty into every computational time step. It would be most welcome if you would take the time to fully consider this comment I made to DOE last year about the issue.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
Please keep in mind that uncertainty is not error per se. No one knows the true value of a future condition. But propagation of uncertainty can most definitely be evaluated even as the model computes a stably evolving deterministic projection.
Be well.
This is exactly right, uncertainty is rather a limit on knowledge, quantified as standard deviation/variance.
My problem is that it continually expressed that uncertainty is eliminated by dividing by the √9000 stations in a global average. Then turn around and say that each station therefore must not have any uncertainty. If the models are fed temperatures from individual stations around the globe in order to have a global gradient, each has its own uncertainty and a “global average uncertainty” is not applicable. This has to be dealt with instead of simply making excuses.
Hi Kevin,
“I am not certain that these modeling codes use a time-step-iterated methods if what you mean by that is an explicit time step code.”
Please consider the NCAR CAM5.0 atmospheric model as an example of CMIP6-generation modeling. This model uses RRTMG for radiative transfer.
This is from the online description.
“4.10.5 Time Sampling
Both the shortwave and longwave radiation is computed at hourly intervals by default. The heating rates and fluxes are assumed to be constant between time steps.”
The default dynamic time-step is 30 minutes for this model.
Source: https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/technotes%3A594
In this particular post today, I am using an exercise of 1-day “steps” in the simple recognition that the model (any of them) inherits the computed energy state of the earth system from the previous step (“day”) along with the accumulated uncertainty arising from the +/- 0.1 deg C(K) per day published heating/cooling rate error for the radiative transfer modeling.
Best regards to you.
Does in not make sense that every time a calculation is performed, the propagation of error is introduced? Therefore, it would seem that there is a tradeoff between the temporal resolution of sequential calculations and the rate of growth of the uncertainty.
“Does in not make sense that every time a calculation is performed, the propagation of error is introduced?”
Yes. That is the premise of the comment I made to DOE last year on the “Critical Review” report.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
Also, yes, it seems plainly so, as you say, “…that there is a tradeoff between the temporal resolution of sequential calculations and the rate of growth of the uncertainty.”
The difficulty is establishing that the uncertainty actually adds with each iteration. Propagation of uncertainty usually means though the chain of instruments, measurement, data reduction, and ending perhaps with the “measurement equation”. Just as it is possible to underestimate uncertainty by leaving out essential elements, it is possible to over estimate by adding uncertainties that do not reappear with each time step, but in fact apply to an entire model run.
There are two main contributors to the uncertainty in a model.
The uncertainty from No. 2 will propagate through each step as a systematic effect.
If the output state of each prior step becomes the input state for the next step then the “uncertainty-interval” will compound from step to step. You can add each uncertainty-interval directly or do it using RSS which involves the assumption that some of the random uncertainty will cancel during the propagation.
The total uncertainty of the output step “n” will be the sum of the systematic effect (No. 2) plus the algorithm uncertainty of No. 1.
The uncertainty of the initial conditions is certainly a “measurement uncertainty”.
The uncertainty of the algorithm is not much different than the uncertainty of a tape measure used to measure a 2″x4″ board. If that 2″x4″ board is used as the input to the next stage of construction its measurement uncertainty will add to the measurement uncertainty of the prior construction. And the measurement uncertainty of the prior construction will be the sum of the measurement uncertainty of each individual 2″x4″ board that has been added previously.
Climate science gets around this by using the ever-present meme of “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”.
No accumulating systematic effect from initial condition uncertainty since all of the measurement uncertainty cancels. Thus the only remaining uncertainty is sampling uncertainty and this can be minimized by using a large sample size.
No accumulation of algorithmic uncertainty (it is all random, Gaussian, and cancels).
Leaving the model outputs with no uncertainty. “It all averages out in the end”.
This is the crux of the problem. If the uncertainty is in the inputs, then the output will also have at least that uncertainty in each itertion unless there is a mechanism to somehow reduce it.
The fact that there is no detailed analysis of uncertainty in any paper I could find tells me
Propagation of uncertainty is not the applicable process. That is used to determine a combined uncertainty when a functional relationship has multiple variables.
Dr. Pat Frank has shown that the GCM’s devolve into a linear relationship. That is something like “y = ax + δx”. If a ≥ 1, which it must be in a rising trend, You get the following sequence when a = 1,
step 1 -> y = x + δx
step 2 -> y = (x + δx) + δx = x + 2δx
step 3 -> y = (x + 2δx) + δx = x +3δx
Which means in an iterative process the uncertainty adds. One could perhaps make the assumption that the δx’s add in quadrature, but they still add. Parameter errors are no different. Unless something is done during the iterations, initial errors will increase.
I spent some time looking for papers I could access discussing uncertainty in GCM’s. The only papers I found dealt with errors and uncertainty as it pertains to initial condition changes and parameter changes can affect ensemble outputs. That is not really the same as acknowledging that the values being used are uncertainty and what admitting what the uncertainty intervals might be.
I meant to add this and forgot. Propagation of measurement uncertainty is designed to weigh properly varying uncertainties. The uncertainty of a minor variable should not receive as weight as a larger one. It is one reason relative uncertainties are used. Certainly, in a GCM, this will be the case, however the determination of the weighting will be difficult to do. When deal with “feedbacks”, small quantities can have an oversize effect.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g CO2. How do we convince the people and the politicians that the amount of this gas in the air is so small, it cannot cause any global warming as claimed by the IPCC and the collaborating scientists?
It is the change from ~280 to 431 ppmv (151 ppmv) over the course of a century (0.30 g CO2) that is supposed to have caused this CAGW that the “scientists” are fretting about!
The corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists always report the concentrations of CO2 in the air in ppmv, which are large menacing numbers that frighten the people into giving them generous financial support for their global warming and climate change research. Since 1988, they have and are still running the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
Look how this fraud has damaged the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia, for example. I don’t see much change happening in these countries in the near future.
I prefer to put it that the composition of the atmosphere has changed, in layman’s terms, by 15 thousandths of 1% in 175 years, or less than 1 thousandth of 1% per decade. Even that is not entirely due to human activity, the largest part of the increase (95% by some estimations) is natural.
Harold, the problem is that line by line absorption calcs show that doubling CO2 will increase the heat absorption of the atmosphere by about 3 watts. It’s a matter of the radiative absorption efficiency, more-so than the number of grams. See the notes under fig. 10 of this H&vanW article. Basically, denying ANY warming is a non-winnable debate. Saying it results in a minor temp increase IS winnable, which is an important position to start from. There are wild papers out there claiming 6C rise for CO2 doubling…while 288 C to 289 C surface temp is an emission increase of 5.4 watts, so less than a degree increase if only 4 watts…not including WV increases and other stuff that is also debatable….
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
Less than a gram of arsenic can kill a grown man.
Small amounts alone are not evidence that something doesn’t matter.
A molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon than passes that energy to another molecule in less than a micro-second and is immediately available to absorb another photon.
What makes CO2 more or less meaningless when it comes to thermal regulation, are two things
1) CO2 mostly overlaps water. Where ever there is water in atmosphere, it competes with CO2 for many of the same photons.
2) As a green house gas, CO2 is pretty much played out. About 50% the work CO2 can do, has been done by the time CO2 reaches 50ppm. At 400ppm, CO2 is about 90% of the way to complete saturation. All increases are just taking an ever smaller bite out of that remaining 10%.
“1) CO2 mostly overlaps water. Where ever there is water in atmosphere, it competes with CO2 for many of the same photons.”
There is a sig proportion of non-overlapped absorption remaining
One, narrow band. Non-trivial perhaps, significant, no.
It’s also in a band in which the earth is not a strong emitter.
No:
I meant the important one at 15 micron.
I don’t understand why people get voted down for simply showing data — I thought data was supposed to end arguments. At any rate there is a lot of overlap, but the CO2 on the shoulder of that water vapor window is important, as it leads initially to the 3 W/m2 of deficit LWIR at TOA that eventually, when energy balance is restored results in somewhere between 0.8 K and 1.2 K of extra surface warming Ceteria paribus.
there is no justification in using the concept of balance when examining the total energy input and the total energy shedding of the extremely complex system of the planet.
It is always in flux, and the flux changes from day to night and season to season
The experimental and observational minimum requirements are immensely complex, variable in time and variable in surface properties and variable in regions on the oblate spheroid.
To get the precision required with current supercomputers, one run would take several human lifetimes.
What you are saying is that there is no point in invoking the First Law of Thermodynamics. Look, balance over a daily cycle might not be perfectly valid. There may be an imbalance that would show up in temperature rising or falling — over time this is how the seasons operate. Over a year one would expect the balance to be a bit better — there are deviations and certain years are warmer or cooler, of course. It may be that there never is perfect balance. It’s what might occur if climate is dominated by power law distributions, for example.
But throwing the First Law out seems like a bad approach.
He’s not really saying “throw out the First Law”. He’s saying the First Law is a time function and the state profile of the components of a system must be integrated over time in order to understand the system.
For instance, heat input to the system we call Earth happens over a 12 hour period that we call daylight. It’s why the temperature goes up during part of the day. But at the same time the system has a 24 hour period of cooling, i.e. heat output.
The state of the system at any point in time will never balance as far as input and output. It can’t. If it did then the 24 hour cooling period would put out every bit of heat input it receives over the 12 hour period. The earth would truly become a frozen ball.
You can’t balance input and output RATES when they are time functions with different periods of operation. You must balance input and output totals, i.e. joules, and not joules/sec.
The First Law involves Joules of energy, not joules/sec.
ΔU = Q – W.
Their reputations precede them…
Even so, when a person with bad intent even points out something true, then we are obliged as true skeptics to deal with it.
‘I don’t understand why people get voted down for simply showing data — I thought data was supposed to end arguments.’
They shouldn’t. The only problem with AB’s graph is that it is always used to convey the conjecture that CO2 and H20 (WV) trap heat in the troposphere because LWIR ‘photons’ emitted by the Earth are absorbed and spontaneously emitted by these gases all the way up from the surface to the tropopause in accordance with the phenomenological physics of applying radiative transfer to atmospheric gases.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
Stop comparing the effect of Earth’s CO2 concentrations with Earths H2O concentrations. It’s a stupid idea.
Err, I didn’t …
I showed the relative absorption bands of CO2 and H2O, and their partial overlap at the 15 micron band – which is that associated with Earth’s LWIR emission.
Stop using chemistry to argue physics questions. It’s a stupid idea.
Actually, a bit of chemistry that does apply to this problem is Beer’s Law. It enables one to calculate absorbance (or Transmittance) when two different species have overlaping absorbance spectra. Used in spectrophotometry all the time.
“…is immediately available to absorb another photon.”
Which means that it waits around, along with other CO2 and H2O molecules that already saturate the atmosphere, for the next rare photon of the exact wavelength that it can capture. The more CO2 molecules there are in the atmosphere, the longer the wait times for a specific molecule between available photons.
Harold.
Look at this image.
<img src=”https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=1&Type=IR&Large=on“ alt=”NIST CO2 Absorbance Spectrum” width=”600″ height=”600″>
For every wavelength the concentration of CO2 is exactly the same along the path, so why more absorbance in places — ans: because the cross-section for absorption is much greater at certain wavelengths. Concentration is not the whole story.
Untangling a big blackout:
https://wyofile.com/wyoming-authorities-call-on-rocky-mountain-power-to-explain-role-in-massive-november-power-outage/?utm_source=WyoFile&utm_campaign=96b18fbcf9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_07_09_05_32&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-96b18fbcf9-446113746
I assembled a submission here regarding this blackout. Maybe it will show up today.
Carumba! 500 kV’s a big deal — way more than is needed to wheel wind energy around, so looking forward to reading your take on the incident.
The story has even odder elements to it, and though I can’t level questions to the utility myself, I can get the gist of what they are claiming and then write a public comment if I see fit to the PSC and the office of consumer advocate (OCA).
I wish FERC had been a party to the report because I worry that NERC and WECC between them may allow some CYA into the report. I have come to distrust Rocky Mountain Power. But the 500kV line in question is the “Gateway South” which was sold by Rocky Mountain Power as a way to move wind energy out of Wyoming to the southwest. However, in their pitch to the Utah PUC the story was told slightly differently. I pointed this out to the OCA years ago, but no one paid much attention.
If you read what the various actors involved (southwest power pool, western area power authority, the RCW and PACE) were worried about before the line was taken out. Then what actually occured, and read the tale in the report, well, let’s just say I have some trouble making sense of it.
Just as an example, people worried that taking that line out of service would result in excessive wind energy on the remaining grid to the Wyoming side of Aeolus substation near Medicine Bow. They wanted 820MW of wind disconnect beforehand. If that was what all parties involved feared, how in the world did voltage at substations beyond Aeolus in Wyoming have voltage sag to 0.28pu within half a second of opening the Gateway South?
From the linked article:
‘[The report] credits both battery storage and wind energy throughout the impacted area for supporting “a faster frequency recovery across the interconnection” and for providing “readily available capacity during system restoration.”’
I’ll bet (/s). I seriously doubt that any ‘grid scale’ thermal generation facility would ever rely upon wind or solar in the event a black start of that facility was required.
Actually there is a well-defined order to a black start in this region and it does not involve wind/solar. It begins with one of the coal-fired units up in northeastern Wyoming. Unfortunately because of poor communication, and the fact that what happened didn’t seem to have occurred to anyone looking at the planned event beforehand, people began to guess about the state of the network, and acting in unhelpful ways.
Unverified and Unvalidated Posts at WUWT
WUWT and its audience have long been very strong supporters for Independent Verification and Validation of computer software that is used to advance arguments by Climate Science(tm). Independent V&V is excellent practice for all scientific and engineering software. That practice is frequently codified in Laws associated with any potential actions that might endanger the health and safety of the public.
It is generally accepted that sufficient information to allow Independent replication of calculated results is considered a necessary requirement. An argument that has been the focus at WUWT from time-to-time. Recall the ‘source code not made available, then no acceptable results have been presented’ discussions.
Recently, a Post at WUWT reviewed the Verification and Validation concepts as generally applied to scientific and engineering software:
Unverified and Unvalidated. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/13/unverified-and-unvalidated/
Following that Post, a summary of modifications to, and calculated results by, a Constructual climate science model was published at WUWT:
The Model that Works. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/
A couple of Comments inquired about the lack of completeness of the model equations and numerical solution methods WRT V&V.
C1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/comment-page-2/#comment-4206779
Response: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/comment-page-2/#comment-4207114
C2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/comment-page-2/#comment-4208893
Response: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/comment-page-2/#comment-4209624
At the time of the Response to the last Comment, numerical values of some parameters are still not reported. The calculated results cannot be independently validated and replicated. By WUWT standards, the Post should have been rejected.
The Model that Works WUWT Post is related to a published paper:
Willis Eschenbach (2026). Computational implementation and empirical validation of a Constructal climate model. BioSystems, Volume 263, 105740. Available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030326472600050X
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2026.105740
The published paper presents some modifications to the model-equation systems given in References [1, 2, 3]. The WUWT post has failed to meet any of the SOP V&V requirements long and vigorously supported by WUWT. The published paper also fails requirements supported by WUWT, but that is beyond control of WUWT. Apparently these failures were also not cited by reviewers of the published paper.
WUWT can provide an important example of V&V by correcting existing deficiencies in the The Model that Works Post. Addition of specific examples of both Verification of numerical solution methods and Validation of the proposed system of equations aspects applied to the modified Constructal climate model system would greatly improve WUWT’s bona vides WRT Software V&V.
A separate WUWT Post that considers and develops illustrative applications of V&V to the model equations, numerical solutions and applications would be widely supported and appreciated.
1. Adrian Bejan and A. Heitor Reis, (2005). Thermodynamic Optimization of Global Circulation and Climate, Int. J. energy Res., Vol. 29, pp. 303–316, DOI: 10.1002/er.1058.
2. A. Heitor Reis and Adrian Bejan, (2006). Constructal Theory of Global Circulation and Climate”, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans., Vol. 49, pp. 1857–1875.
3. M. Clausse, F. Meunier, A.H. Reis and A. Bejan (2012). Climate Change, in the Framework of the Constructal Law, Int. J. Global Warming, Vol. 4, Nos. 3/4, pp. 242-260.
The same is true for Rick Willoughby’s articles. Trust but verify.
Which isn’t trust.
The UK has recorded 35C in May & June & July for the first time (only on record obviously).
It has so far had 8 days of 34C and above beating 1976 and 2020.
2026 is about 0.75C warmer than the previous warmest year in the entire mean CET series, which if maintained, would double the warming of the last 25 years.
Cruel summer, Banarama
https://youtu.be/l9ml3nyww80
35C
Isn’t it wonderful! Lighten up, dude.
Strat, all I did was post some weather trivia without comment. It’s you that was triggered to feel resentment at the facts.
As usual.
A couple of years ago, here in central Washington State, we had 47°C (~116°F) and survived. At the rate of cooling since than I’m ordering an outdoor camera to watch for an approaching glacier.
Best use time lapse not motion activated.
“entire mean CET series”
Measured where?
All the CET sites are massively compromised by urban warming a awful site maintenance.
Sites used have also changed so cannot be compared with sites used earlier in the series.
The Met Office vandals and climate zealots are now in charge of the numbers.
Strategical placement of weather stations combined with adjustments cause 90% of
all warming.
That’s why neither food production, nor ice coverage, nor sea levels
are effected by AGW.
And the ski industry ” suffered ” from massive growth since the end of snow was announced and is expected to grow 50% in the next decaded.
Affected.
I said nothing about AGW. It’s’s just weather facts. But your points are irrelevant and/or factually wrong in any case.
Lol, massively compromised. You mean perhaps not quite ideal, but still very good.
Yer they fiddled it to increase temperatures by nearly a degree in one year. You’ve left science behind and started on the fruitcake.
No, I mean massively compromised… and totally unfit for the purpose of comparing temperatures over time.
Your petty ad homs bounce right back at you.
Funny then, that satellites manage to track surface temps so well (in degree), with the trend in both more or less the same.
Heck have Lefties corrupted Mr Roy at UAH and Mears at RSS as well (sarc).
Half of a cycle does not a climate make.
I wonder what the cause could be…
Coming out of an little iceage it’s fine as it is 😀
Considering the quality of the current ground based network, trying to base any conclusion based on it alone is a fool’s errand.
Good stations, if any still exist, are only accurate to about a tenth of a degree C.
From recent surveys, a very solid majority are only accurate to 3 to 5 degrees C.
Going back in time, the records are even more abysmal as you have to also factor in the fact that there aren’t enough stations to make even a rough guess as to what the average temperature was, even if all the stations were of good quality.
Then there is also the futility of trying to compare stations that were recorded once a day, with both high and low estimated by eye and then recorded to the nearest degree, with stations that take readings every few seconds and then record the average of those readings every 15 minutes.
Beyond that, there is the idiocy of comparing the thermal response of large glass tubes filled with mercury, with that of thermal couples that weigh only a few grams.
Only someone with absolutely no interest in science and even less in accurate measurements would try to make a big deal out of differences in the record between now, and decades ago, much less several centuries ago.
Again, nice soapbox rant, doesn’t alter the weather trivia or the manifest and substantial rapid warming of the UK climate.
So the fact that the weather data gathering system is not fit for purpose is irrelevant in determining whether that system has recorded a record heat wave?
Really.
Warming mainly from bad sites and urban warming…
… as shown by comparing to remote sites..
You won’t learn, because you don’t want to – that would be stupid as it would confront your raging confirmation bias, but yet again I bring it to the attention of denizens who might be a little, shall I say, sceptical (UK spelling).
Comparing coastal stations, especially those with a prevailing wind from off oceans, is like apples and oranges with inland stations.
Surely some people, if not this one, realise that air over water reverts to the temperature of the water (SST). You know, the ocean heats the air above it – just like land heats the air above it!
Now your notion that the sea is as hot as the land during the day is a tad stupid, may I say (sarc).
Trying to denigrate the CET via comparison only works with those who don’t or refuse to understand these basic meteorological/physics facts.
Does this same thing apply to finding a global average temperature from SST and land temperatures? Wouldn’t that be just another reason that a global average is meaningless?
Obviously not (using common-sense).
Since the percentage of oceans vs landmass is unchanging (on human timescales).
Then the averaging out of both on an ongoing basis is perfectly valid in acertain the GSMAT.
So SST and land temps are not apples and oranges? If they are different, is an average a orple or a apange?
Spencer and Christy addressed this issue in their 2023 paper and noted that researchers have concluded most of the difference is the poor distribution of land sites. I’d say poor quality also.
You seem to have a predilection toward non-scientific conclusions. MarkW made an excellent point about many past records being recorded to the nearest degree with an uncertainty of at least ±1° and probably more. Tell how you accurately know past temperatures that allow conclusions that are any more accurate than that resolution. Say, to the tenth or hundredths of a degree. How do you peer into the past and make that kind of judgement?
If you are going to create averages or trends using data that have different resolutions, you must consider that in your results. You must also consider how averaging data with different measurement uncertainty values affects the calculations. I see none of that.
How do you know?
He knows because that is what he has been taught to believe.
Its something isn’t it, people in Europe, holding off on getting air conditioners because they think it’s part of the problem, because of the disinformation being spread.
“The UK has recorded 35C in May & June & July for the first time (only on record obviously).”
Therein lies your chicken little problem.
It’s just trivia, if you like chicken try KFC.
Any fact that refutes what you have been taught to believe, is just dismissed as trivia.
Fascinating.
“Any fact that refutes what you have been taught to believe, is just dismissed as trivia.”
Says the man who can no longer deny the data, so he attacks the data gatherers.. Too funny. Very Trumpian strategy.
The data is questionable.
I see that in your universe Trump is responsible for all bad things that happen. Isn’t blaming “Trumpian strategy” essentially the same thing as you are accusing MarkW of?
I was watching the cricket yesterday – what a great England win. Then the football – what another great England win. The ecstatic, large crowd at the cricket match were revelling in the amazingly wonderful weather. It was a bit cool here in the San Francisco Bay Area in the morning, but it warmed up nicely by the end of the game against Norway. Whoever said 1976 above reminded me of a great week I had in Pembrokeshire that year (July I think). Not a cloud in the sky – incredible wildlife there if you’re into birdwatching. The point being that if you morbidly don’t like great weather, and it scares you stupid, you can probably get help (although there’s a long waiting list in the UK because of spending on something that doesn’t exist, with YOU being part of your own problem).
As our friend David would say – thank you for your attention to this matter.
The only good news today is the weather.
More than one.
Hell got a new ViP today.
And modern medicine has proven that people can live up to 70+ years with AIDS these days.
God Bless Lindsey Graham.
The Ukrainian people love Senator Lindsey Graham.
The Israeli people love Senator Lindsey Graham.
The Iranian peoples (not the fanatics) love Senator Lindsey Graham.
The Taiwanese people love Senator Lindsey Graham.
Senator Lindsey Graham went to bat for all these people and many more.
He will be missed.
I gained interest in the climate debate in the late 90’s on Yahoo Answers listening to avatars such as Dana and Dr. Jello argue about evidence for and against AGW. And back then till present day the global average of the Lower Stratosphere with a linear regression line, was and is used as evidence implicating CO2 as the cause of the increasing energy imbalance. Something did not make sense because there appeared to be step changes that occurred after the effects of El Chicon and Pinatubo dissipated. It finally dawned on me, that if you are not looking at the tropics for clues about the greenhouse process, you may as well go outside and look for chemtrails. The plot below shows the UAH lower Stratosphere with global average, north, tropics and south and it is very clear that there never was a step change with those events. There is nothing smooth about changes in the stratosphere (other than volcanic SO2 events), the stratosphere changes in strange annual and bi-annual cycles.
One for TheFinalNail
You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites. If you understood science and statistics you would know that.
Besides, if the MO data wasn’t being competently processed it would be a wild mismatch with (at least 3) satellite data sets and weather balloon datasets, it isn’t.
“You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites. If you understood science and statistics you would know that.”
No, you can’t. The measurement uncertainty interval overwhelms the ability to identify the changes you wish to find. You can’t see the signal for the uncertainty! If *YOU* understood metrolgy at all you would know that!
Satellites don’t measure temperature. When they do measure has to be used to “estimate” what the temperature is. The word “estimate” means uncertainty. If you understood statistics, especially variance, you would know that.
Climate science is the art of deriving signals that support whatever you believe, from random data.
I think what he is saying is that you have to use the junk sites to get a warming trend.
In what passes for your mind, if a station with a +/- of 5C, detects a 0.1C trend, then the trend can’t be dismissed?
No wonder you are stupid enough to believe that CO2 drives the climate.
Those Class 1 sites show very little warming.
Valentia in Ireland is another good example.
It is because they are junk sites, that you observe a much steeper warming trend than is real
Note that Valentia shows the 1940s was warmer than around 2000…
… just like most other raw untainted data from the whole region.
“You can still discern a warming trend from what you call junk sites.”
You might be right. Some sites show a distinct temperature rise whenever a nearby AC unit is running. /sarc
Since you are obviously a statistician then you should know that uncertain data points cannot be adequately addressed without dealing with what the uncertainty does to trends.
You are trying to make the case that whatever the uncertainty is, the stated value is accurate over time. Do you know what uncertainty bars n a graph are and why they are used?
Children just aren’t going to know what a heatwave is
Apparently at least 3 or more of the sites counted as Class 1… should NOT be.
In this thread, Ray Sanders explains why.
Met Office Class 1 Sites | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
How not to escape a charging bison.
Ouch.
Good news. The bison ran away unharmed.
that’s gonna leave a mark.
And a Paul,and a Peter…
Obviously didn’t like having its picture taken without permission
I have never understood why people simply to do not understand to leave wildlife alone. My thought is that it is the “Walt Disney” effect or the “Bambi” effect-isn’t that little 1500 pound creature with a bad attitude and horns cute? Wife says its because we’re so urbanised that nobody understands that wildlife is-well-wild…bears are not cuddly, moose are cranky and aggressive, snakes bite. Tombstone epitaph: Here, hold my beer, or hey guys, watch this. That guy is lucky to be alive-if he is.
He obviously was too close but not outrageously so, at least not selfie close.
I inadvertently and occasionally cross paths with bear and moose. The above incident prompts me to reexamine my encounter strategies.
You have obviously never worked cattle. Bulls are more than cranky, they are irrational and can charge at any time. Cows are generally more docile but can be cranky especially with calves. You just don’t EVER trust them. It is one reason horseback herding is done.
I am reminded of pistol training. If you have your firearm drawn, 7 feet between you and your assailant gives you time to decide to use your firearm. That’s just a little over an average person’s height. If you must draw first, the distance gets a larger.
You don’t realize how fast and quick these beasts can move. If you want to get out of your vehicle to take a picture, you need to be far enough away to reach it if charged. Otherwise, roll down a window and stay in the vehicle.
Bull bison sends Yellowstone visitor flipping through the air in campground attack caught on video
Over Christmas break in 1974, two friends and I traveled to West Yellowstone and rented three snowmobiles for a day trip into the park. This was back when you could could still travel through the park on a small snowmobile.
At about 5 PM, after dark, we left Old Faithful and were headed back towards West Yellowstone when a cloud of bright green dots appeared in the distance ahead of us.
It was a buffalo herd in the process of crossing the road and the bright green dots were the retinas of their eyes being illuminated by our headlights.
We had to wait twenty minutes or so before the last of them had gotten across and then we quickly boogied on through there.
It was only 42 degrees F below zero at the time. That same night, because the air was so clear and cold, we were among the few that year who got a decent naked-eye unassisted look at Comet Kohoutek.
Amazing.
Great story BB!
Kohoutek,
There was such excitement about it in November, then it failed to brighten and people got bored with it. In early January 1974 I left the MSU cafeteria at Bozeman to see a glorious comet with a long tail in the western sky just after sunset. It was the best comet I ever saw, that is for sure.
Bison victim tally
Far less than the Bison-as-victim tally !
Scissor, man, there is no good strategy except to just escape to a place where his poor eyesight, weak mind, and short attention span become your allies.
I come from a long-time ranching family. My grandfather also ran a construction company, gravel pit, an International Harvester dealership, and raised unusual animals. He had 65 bison as pets, basically, long before it became fashionable.
They were endless trouble. One escaped confinement by climbing over corral railings just as I was passing by after lunchtime. I was maybe 10 or 12. He chased me through trees and brush. I imagine it looked quite a bit like this video, but I did manage to get into a grove of carrigana bushes where he couldn’t get a bead on me. So, it didn’t end as badly.
Mess with the bull and you are going to get horned!
instead of running, the man should have gotten behind a tree or some other obstacle.
Sun reflecting space mirror plan gets the green light. Stuff like this really should be illegal.
https://theconversation.com/the-u-s-just-approved-a-giant-space-mirror-to-test-sunlight-on-demand-low-earth-orbit-is-getting-weird-283482
What’s scary is that ideas like this fall into the FAFO catagory-never a good place to be.
Yet you keep whingeing about high temps.
Nope, you’re assuming what I intend or feel. I’m just a weather geek. You and the other hotheads are the only ones having a coronary over it.
Perhaps that’s due to what you type.
NASA/JPL “scientist” and climate alarmist Peter Kalmus refused to abide by a return to site directive from JPL and was involuntarily terminated. Looks like he’s going to go full retard.
https://climatehuman.substack.com/p/i-was-just-forced-to-resign-from
i went to the link and skimmed through what appears to be a self written pity party by mr. kalmus. then i read this near the very end.
“I’m terrified of the hotter future we’re heading toward; I’m even more terrified of heading there in the dark”
he must not be aware of this…
https://theconversation.com/the-u-s-just-approved-a-giant-space-mirror-to-test-sunlight-on-demand-low-earth-orbit-is-getting-weird-283482
thank you mrgrimnasty
I read his weepy “Goodbye JPL” Substack just to gauge the extent of his TDS and self-absorption. Switches from astrophysics to “climate change” alarmism in 2006, convinced the globe was going to burn up. Everything he published thereafter amounts to ambulance chasing, grandstanding and getting arrested for various public displays of vitriol
Perhaps he can get treatment in Carolina for his mental disorders.
We the People may be stuck paying a pension, but at least we’re free of his salary and benefits
Good summary.
JPL doesn’t have pensions. 403b employer contributions end, tho.
Where is Paul Harvey’s “Rest of the Story” on this?
October 2025: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) reduced its workforce by 550 employees, or approximately 11% of its total staff. This was the third round of layoffs. And from what I found, Kalmus is suffering severly from the AGW virus and needs mental help.
Going to?
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature is 288 K, 15 C, while without it that temperature would be 255 K, -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also without consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper and no GHE means no 30% albedo.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render the “extra” energy of the surface upwelling as a 396 W/m^2 black body impossible.
The GHE is failed science and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
The Earth’s surface temperature varies between 12-17 degrees Celsius throughout the year.
What is the reason for the Earth’s varying surface temperature?
When the Earth’s surface temperature drops during the period August-January, does the Earth emit more energy than it receives?
When the Earth’s surface temperature increases during the period February-July, does the Earth emit less energy than it receives?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Yes.
The earth is a heat sink, just like the ocean is. It simply doesn’t re-emit all of the heat energy it receives instantaneously, it is *NOT* a black body. Some of the heat energy that is conducted into the earth during summer doesn’t get released until fall/winter. The same thing happens with the ocean.
The idea that in and out flux values balance over short periods of time is one of those garbage memes climate science is so fond of.
If climate science was *truly* interested in CLIMATE, they would be looking at precipitation and ground temperatures and basing land models on those. There isn’t a chance of being able to do that for the oceans, there just isn’t adequate measurement networks to track all of the various heat paths associated with the oceans.
Thought experiment. A billiard ball in the middle of a billiard table.
A strong source of heat/light shines on it.
It achieves a certain temperature – emitting exactly the same amount of energy per second as it is absorbing. Turn up the power on the heat/light source and it absorbs more energy per second until it reaches a temperature at which its energy emission matches. It is now stable under a more powerful source at a higher temperature emitting the same energy as it is absorbing.
Three states. Cooler – warming – warmer.
Elementary, dear Watson. It does not matter whether it is the black ball, or the cue ball.
Your example has a lot of holes in it. “emitting exactly the same amount of energy per second as it is absorbing” is the first. The billiard ball needs to be a heat sink that stores some of the absorbed energy. That is what happens to soil and allows farming, i.e., the soil warming to depth.
The second hole is “Turn up the power on the heat/light source and it absorbs more energy per second“. Exactly how does the sun “turn up the power” that causes temperature to rise?
The “Earth’s surface temperature” varies between 233K and 313K constantly, every day, depending on location. The silly GAT calculation has little to do with the real world.
Several have commented Schroeder’s nonsense previously
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180014
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1409.1024 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 13 degrees Celsius.
When the solar irradiance at Earth distance is 1316.3182 W/m^2, the Earth’s temperature is about 17 degrees Celsius.
Does the Earth emit more energy than the Earth receives when the solar irradiance is 1409.1024 W/m^2?
Does the Earth emit less energy than the Earth receives when the solar irradiance is 1316.3182 W/m^2?
Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance:
20260103 = 1409.1024 W/m^2
20260701 = 1316.3182 W/m^2
https://lasp.colorado.edu/data/tsis/tsi_data/tsis_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
These averages are based on a lot of assumptions. At best, they should have a variance quoted to make them understandable. Any point on the earth only receives insolation in pulses, not continuously. That raises the temperature to some max value, but the remaining period is cooling to a baseline Tmin. To understand what is actually occurring, the variance of these two need to be included with the “average” value.
How industrial green tech and infrastructure create a “Rural Heat Island” effect that can distort climate data:
The New “Rural Heat Islands”: How Grid Infrastructure Alters Local Data
We know about Urban Heat Islands, but massive utility-scale infrastructure is creating distinct, localized microclimates that mimic greenhouse gas signatures on weather sensors:
Large Wind Farms:
The Physics: Mechanically disrupt the stable nighttime atmosphere, pulling warmer air from aloft down to the ground.The Impact: Raises local nighttime surface temperatures by 0.5°C to 0.7°C.Utility Solar Farms (PVHI Effect):
The Physics: Large arrays replace high-reflectivity natural soil with dark, light-absorbing panels, converting excess solar energy into trapped heat.The Impact: Elevates surrounding nighttime air temperatures by 3°C to 4°C.Grid Batteries (BESS):
The Physics: Inevitable thermodynamic inefficiencies convert 10-15% of stored electricity into heat, which industrial HVACs continuously vent into the air.The Impact: Blasts exhaust air 5°C to 15°C hotter than ambient, raising perimeter temperatures by 1.5°C to 3°C.AI Data Centers (DHI Effect):
The Physics: 100% of the electricity used by servers becomes waste heat, constantly rejected by massive chiller systems into the local boundary layer. Gigantic electric heaters.The Impact: Creates a thermal plume raising local surface temperatures by 2°C, extending up to 4.5 km away.The Climate Measurement Catch:
Because these installations are built in open, rural spaces, their thermal plumes blend into the exact reference stations used to measure baseline global warming. By raising the nighttime temperature floor (T_min), this localized industrial footprint perfectly mimics a greenhouse gas signal—injecting data contamination into regional climate records.
Tom… just wondering if you are still keen for me to name the Jan 6 rioters who assaulted police and people who Trump released? Happy to do so.
Jan 6th was basically an afternoon tea party compared to the massive insurrection and civil disobedience that has been conducted by the Democrats since Trump was elected.
The Trump supporters had a justified cause, shown by the election fraud continuing to be found.
The Democrat zombies are fighting the direct will of the American people who elected Trump with very specific mandates.
Insurrection, sedition, call it what you will. And you support it !
Well yeah. List them individually by name and the specific charges either leveled or that the were found guilty of.
If you don’t mind I’ll wait for Tom.
I think Frazier has it right. We need specifics if we are going to get into this. Some people broke the law and some did not but got railroaded anyway. Trump says he is pardoning the people who got railroaded, not the guilty parties.
I saw a news item yesterday where a judge let some Proud Boys off. He said the U.S. Constitution demanded it.
Btw, The Proud Boys do not represent the Republican Party. They are a small, radical group that’s always looking for trouble. Leftists claim Proud Boys are mainstream Republicans but they are not.
The Republican Party is becoming a party of former democrats. Former democrats like Trump can see how stupid the party is over controlling people and just plain stupid policies. From owning slaves right up to the Covid nonsense Democrats are just clueless. I mean how dumb do you have to be to think former dudes should be playing against and with women and girls? It’s mind boggling.
The Democrats still have a slave mentality. How else can you justify socialist policies of taking most of what you produce to share it with those who don’t produce. The takers become the oppressors and the producers become the slaves.
Sounds good.
I am happy to list individuals, so you can check, but I am not going through all of those he pardoned who were violent, because there are just too many. And given you felt Trump had pardoned no one who had been violent, then I would have thought one would have been enough.
Here are the numbers….
More than 300 individuals plead guilty to or have been convicted of assaulting or obstructing law enforcement. Of those, 69 individuals specifically admitted to assaulting police officers using a dangerous or deadly weapon.
All of these were pardoned.
Some specific names of people who committed physical violence against others include:
So Tom do you have no comment about the criminals Trump released who had been violent towards police? If not that is disappointing. I thought you genuinely thought there were no people released who had attacked police. Now you know there are, are you not surprised? How do you feel about him doing that? I mean he talks about law and order. This is a clear example of a man who does not support police over his own supporters. That’s not law and order…..
Mr. Simon: He’s probably trying to find a credible source, but I wouldn’t blame him if he found you not meriting response.
Because? Is the truth not worthy of pursuing?
If I was shone a video of a perpetrator actually attacking police I would deem him guilty and unworthy of a pardon.
That’s all I can say.
Another thing: Are there people convicted for Jan 6 that Trump did not pardon? If so, what were their crimes?
Tom, thanks for replying. And thanks for being polite. I appreciate that.
”If I was shone a video of a perpetrator actually attacking police I would deem him guilty and unworthy of a pardon.”
I didn’t know I had to find a video as well. That wasn’t in the job description. But OK here is some graphic stuff. After about 1 minute you can see the cops being beaten.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w&t=70s
Another thing: Are there people convicted for Jan 6 that Trump did not pardon? If so, what were their crimes?
There were. Instead of a full pardon, Trump commuted the sentences of about 14 individuals, including Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, who was charged with seditious conspiracy. And two people who refused to accept the sweeping pardon... Pamela Hemphill and Jason Riddle—formally rejected Trump’s pardon. Hemphill stated accepting the pardon was an insult to the Capitol Police, and Riddle argued he did those things and the actions weren’t pardonable
Well, the reason I would like a video is to see if the person charged actually did attack a police officer. Is struggling back and forth over a metal traffic barrier an attack on police?
I think a lot of those cases were hyped up by the Biden administration to demonize Trump and Republicans.
In other words I don’t believe anything the Biden administration puts out about Jan 6. I have no doubt some violence was perpetrated by some people but I’ll have to see it to believe it in any specific case.
I think Jan 6 was blown way out of proportion for political purposes.
President Trump is going to give a speech tonight which he characterizes as being a very important speech dealing with election integrity.
Maybe Trump has some evidence of election fraud to relate to us tonight.
What I am hearing from you Tom is you believe Trump and not Biden. Why is our business, but I can’t for the life of me see how that works when Trump publicly lies almost daily.
I think tonight’s speech will be more of him trying to justify to the world why he lost to Biden. He simply can’t accept defeat. It will be nonsense about voting machines and mail in ballots. It will be I’m the greatest president ever and the war will be over tomorrow. He will tell everyone he has secured the border and how everyone is out to get him. Same old…..
He never rang Biden on the night. He didn’t go to his inauguration. It seems he just doesn’t have it in him to be decent at times like that.
What’s your opinion of the Minnesota Governor, Waltz pardoning an illegal alien convicted of raping a 10-year-old child?
We no longer have to worry about this illegal alien raping another American child because Trump deported him a few days ago.
“What’s your opinion of the Minnesota Governor, Waltz pardoning an illegal alien convicted of raping a 10-year-old child?”
My understanding is Tou Lue Vang not an illegal alien. He was a legal resident, but I have no sympathy for anyone who rapes a child so if the law allowed him to be deported good I say. So bad work by those who pardoned him. But my concern for children around sexual offences by adults is why I am hoping all of those who raped and assaulted the Epstein girls are held to account. Hopefully before they die.
I know that many people were coerced into pleading guilty. It was the lesser of two evils for them.
I do not support pardoning people who assault police, but don’t have enough information to decide the cases you cite.
The Biden administration was intent on convicting as many people as possible to blow this situation out of proportion.
Remember the guy who was at the Capitol wearing a Viking helmet with horns? He was doing nothing except wandering around the Capitol Building. He was even given a little tour by the Capitol Police. They even unlocked doors for him. His only transgression is he went into Nancy Pelosi’s office and sat in her office chair. Yet he was arrested and spent months in jail. For doing nothing harmful.
There were a lot of innocent people like that who got caught up in all the Democrat politics so Trump has good reason to pardon some of them.
“I know that many people were coerced into pleading guilty. It was the lesser of two evils for them.”
You mean their lawyers recommended that. Fair enough, that is their privilege and is how the law works.
“The Biden administration was intent on convicting as many people as possible to blow this situation out of proportion.”
I’m gonna ask you to provide evidence (not opinion) of this.
“Remember the guy who was at the Capitol wearing a Viking helmet with horns? He was doing nothing except wandering around the Capitol Building.”
Which he broke into and should not have been doing. That was a secure area. He broke the law.
“He was even given a little tour by the Capitol Police. They even unlocked doors for him.”
That’s not true Tom. There are videos of Police moving people around, trying to usher these people out of the buildings in a non violent way. Investigations and Capitol Police leadership confirmed these were tactical responses to overwhelming crowds. Just think about it Tom. Why would they want to show a violent group around, who had just broken into the building they are guarding? that makes no sense.
“There were a lot of innocent people like that who got caught up in all the Democrat politics so Trump has good reason to pardon some of them.”
Maybe that is true. Do you have any offical evidence (not opinion) for this?
It is true about the Viking guy. I saw videos of his wandering. I saw capitol police showing him around and unlocking at least one door for him, and he was practically alone, there were no crowds in the neighborhood. The capitol police were standing there watching when he sat in the Speaker’s Chair. They had no problem with it.
And I think Biden even put the Viking in solitary confinement, trying to make him out to be some radical right wing leader.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/06/jan-6-footage-shows-cops-bringing-qanon-shaman-to-senate-floor/
This doesn’t appear like the Capitol Police are attempting to restrict his access. In fact they appear to find an alternate path into the Senate chamber
I have watched the Tucker Carlson (incidentally a man who now says Trump is the enemy) and while the editing could lead you to believe what he is saying is true, that is not what the police said…
“Jacob Chansley was not “innocently” shown around. Known as the “QAnon Shaman”, he was part of the initial mob that violently breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Although some surveillance footage showed him walking alongside a few overwhelmed Capitol Police officers who were vastly outnumbered and using de-escalation tactics, law enforcement officials, including U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, have explicitly called the “tour guide” narrative outrageous and false. [1, 2]
Chansley was an active participant in the riot. He entered the Senate chamber, left a threatening note for Vice President Mike Pence, and ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding. He was subsequently sentenced to 41 months in federal prison”
You can read the full break down by the associated press here…
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-january-6-jacob-chansley-tucker-carlson-193191103193
And just incase you don’t have the time to read the article…. here is what the police spokes person had to say about the whole tour guide falsehood…
“Last night an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6 attack,” Manger wrote. “The opinion program never reached out to the Department to provide accurate context. One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false.”
“and while the editing could lead you to believe what he is saying is true, that is not what the police said…”
Editing can’t change the fact that the police were not trying to stop him. They even led him through five or six police officers at once and not one attempted to intervene.
The video did not originate from Carlson or Fox. You trying to use that as evidence it didn’t actually occur is insane.
The fact that they shot an unarmed girl should make you wonder if the police have any veracity at all.
Let’s just think about this. What is the most logical explanation here?
Given the police statement above and the video evidence of the violence the mob displayed, outside and while they entered the building….. I’m going for number 1. How about you Jim?
“The fact that they shot an unarmed girl…. “
An unarmed girl who was with a violent mob who were storming a federal building in an attempt to subvert the democratic process. I’d say they were doing their job. And so would you if it was a democrat.
You are making assumptions without pertinent facts. The video shows one person. Are you trying to claim that six or seven police officers could not have tackled him, handcuffed him, and led him away?
I make my conclusions based on facts. You are only basing them on what you think was going through the police officers’ minds. I remind you, that the Capitol Police used deadly force on an unarmed woman. That seems to violate your assumption that they just let people in without attempting to stop them.
What facts? You have a couple of video clips that could potentially mean anything. There have been in depth reviews of this day that found what you are saying is a complete load of nonsense. I come back to it…. do you really think the police would politely show this violent gang around? I can’t think of a single reason why they would do that. Can you?
Quit equivocating. The issue was the “viking” guy. I showed you a video from official cameras that showed him walking calmly with Capitol Police.
These police were not in a hurry to wrestle him to the floor, handcuff him, and remove him from the premises.
Your video is not in dispute. Now I’d like you to answer my question… why do you really think the police would politely show this violent gang around? What possible reason would they have to do this?
Just so you know…. this is what Chansley’s lawyer said in court …
He [Chansley] regrets very very much having not just been duped by the President, but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made.”
Sounds to me like a guy who knows he has stepped over a line.
“ do you really think the police would politely show this violent gang around? I can’t think of a single reason why they would do that. Can you?”
Perhaps because they weren’t being violent at the time?
“Perhaps because they weren’t being violent at the time?”
All the more reason to not rile them up and to keep the whole thing deescalated. The police had seen the violence and mayhem outside. They were outnumbered. The last thing they wanted to see was to have that happen inside. So they kept it calm and tried to usher the mob outside. Not rocket science Tim/Jim.
Did you read this before you hit post? Al you are doing is saying that non-violent is violence and the police should have acted based on that garbage assumption. I believe this is similar to the doctrine of “prior restraint” or “preemptive policing”. Nether allow action against an individual before an illegal act is committed by the individual. Preemptive policing would require the same action against everyone, e.g. forming a bounded gathering area where everyone must be. It can not be action against a selective individual based on an assumption of future criminal activity. It’s the concept behind traffic stops involving all motorists rather than random stops of individuals without reasonable suspicion.
“ried to usher the mob outside”
stop moving the goalposts. The issue here isn’t “the mob” but an individual.
New Jersey and nuclear power https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/2026/approved/20260713a.shtml
Eco-liars more:
Biologists allowed David Attenborough to tell BBC viewers that Barents Sea bears were dying of starvation in his 2011 Frozen Planet episode when they knew it wasn’t true | polarbearscience
Susan Crockford has written extensively on arctic ice, bears, and some on dogs/wolves. She has been tapering off, moving on to other activities. She and partners consul on identification of remains.
Of special note is her explanation that too much ice is bad for polar bears because seals need open water, and that polar bears do fine when there is little ice on Hudson’s Bay in summer – they go to land, where females den in any cases.
She and colleagues consult on identification of animal remains. I don’t know if she was able to identify remains of dogs that might have been Coast Salish ‘hair dogs’, she has analyzed remains and sees indications they had two types of dogs.
Alex Epstein reports via LinkedIn that the NYT is backing off alarmism, Why Climate Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade,’ 26May26.
A small start but apparently is mostly about RCP 8.5 and pitches alternative energy. IOW it backs away from an extreme claim but is still a Believer.
Scientists Ditched a Scary Climate Scenario. What Now? – The New York Times, apparently reports on a new technical paper.