The proposed Amendment to the Fifth National Climate Assessment was released for public comment on August 25th. The comment period is now closed. There were 106 comments, but none have been posted yet.
Here is my comment, which presumably will be posted soon along with all the others.
“This comment is in support of the stated objectives of this Amendment to NCA5, including the emphasis on Gold Standard Science. In addition to the issue of the implausible emissions scenarios, the Amendment should also inform the public that there are large unresolvable uncertainties in ANY of the time-step-iterated climate projections, under ANY emissions scenario.
The May 23, 2025 Executive Order 14303 entitled “Restoring Gold Standard Science” includes a requirement under 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.”
The investigation of Earth’s climate system response to anthropogenic influence, mainly through rising concentration of CO2 and other IR-active gases, has relied on computer simulations of the earth system. These models are time-step-iterated computed representations of the land, oceans, and atmosphere in which incident solar radiation is absorbed or reflected, and in which the surface and the atmosphere (including clouds) end up emitting longwave radiation back to space. The climate state resulting from the computation at each time step is passed to the next. The evolution of a global average surface air temperature is regarded as a key metric. Therefore the propagation of uncertainty must be addressed. The practice has been to pre-stabilize the simulations in a pre-industrial control exercise, and then to apply pre-determined time-scheduled “forcing” scenarios. But this approach does not negate the inherent problem of accumulating uncertainty in the statistical sense of the reliability of the result.
To illustrate the critical issue arising from the use of such models for policy guidance, a prompted analysis by the Grok 3 AI agent was performed. The analysis uses the published uncertainty (best case – even if unrealistic) of the geometric average value of Total Solar Irradiance. This uncertainty is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. [1] The external value of TSI is posed in this exercise as the only source of uncertainty as the time steps proceed. The model is otherwise assumed to be perfect in computing a surface temperature response. The resulting uncertainty after only one year of iteration is about +/-4C on a 95% confidence basis. For the details, please see the attached document. This unresolvable buildup of uncertainty is inherent to the time-step-iterated computation and therefore cannot be ignored. It is orders of magnitude too large for reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the hypothesized surface temperature response being investigated. The honest conclusion must be, in this writers view, that none of the time-step-iterated models produces, or has ever produced, any objectively valid policy-actionable information relevant to anthropogenic warming from GHGs.
P.S. The simplified exercise described herein suffices to demonstrate the issue. But also, in the published literature, this 2019 paper stands out on this topic -“Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” by Patrick Frank. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Thank you for considering this comment.
Attachment: Grok_X_Propagation of Uncertainty_081925-2.pdf”
Here is a link to the attachment. Notice that Grok goes straight to JCGM 100:2008 (the “GUM” guide for uncertainty in measurement) to process the request.
You told Grok to assume that the uncertainty is uncorrelated so that’s what it did. It was being a good little bot and did what you told it even though it did warn you that the calculation would be different if it were correlated. Try your conversation again, but this time tell Grok that the uncertainty is correlated which is the case for that ±0.50 W.m-2 (or ±0.13 W.m-2 averaged over a sphere) figure from [Kopp & Lean 2011].
“You told Grok to assume that the uncertainty is uncorrelated so that’s what it did.”
Of course, because the model knows only the central value for its deterministic computation of the evolution of the climate state, at each step, starting with the output of the previous step. The model has no clue what the true value should be for the current time step or should have been for any previous step. You and your friend Claude are missing this important point.
“Try your conversation again, but this time tell Grok that the uncertainty is correlated…” In such a case the uncertainty blows up big time, because the estimation of uncertainty must use the full width of the interval at each step.
Yes. I know. So why do you continue to mislead both Grok and the WUWT community?
Be well, even as we obviously disagree.
So does Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini.
You and your friend Claude are missing this important point.
You couldn’t possibly think I forgot to give Grok your conversation with the same prompt I gave Claude (and the others) now do you?
That was rhetorical obviously. The real question…do you want to post what Grok said after knowing the context of that ±0.50 W.m-2 figure or do you want me to post it?
“Yes. I know. So why do you continue to mislead both Grok and the WUWT community?”
The disagreement you and I have here is in the basis for prompting any of these AI agents on the question.
Of course, there is no need to use AI at all, as it is the application of GUM guidance on epistemic uncertainty that matters, based on a sound understanding of what is happening in a step-iterated model.
An iterated time step feeds the prior determination into the next determination.
Your input to Grok is not valid.
The correlation in the GUM derives from correlated input quantities in a functional relationship.
If F0 provides an output that is fed into the same functional relationship to determine F1, and F1 provides an output that is fed into the same functional relationship to determine F2, and so on, the input values being used in the functional relationship are not correlated. They are fully independent determinations based upon a set of different values. Each use of the functional relationship is independent from the preceding one.
The fact that a “constant value with uncertainty” was used in each iteration does not make that constant a correlated input value in a series of independent calculations. It is an independent input quantity used in each calculation.
JCGM 100:2008
5.2 Correlated input quantities
5.2.1 Equation (10) and those derived from it such as Equations (11a) and (12) are valid only if the input quantities Xi are independent or uncorrelated (the random variables, not the physical quantities that are assumed to be invariants — see 4.1.1, Note 1). If some of the Xi are significantly correlated, the correlations must be taken into account.
Section F also has information about correlated input quantities.
Basically, the uncertainty in each independent calculation stands alone because the input quantities are independent.
I notice you did not ask Grok to supply the appropriate reference in the GUM that it used to make its decision. Perhaps you can do so in order to verify that the context it assumed is correct.
If I am building a bridge span (say over a ditch in the backyard) I measure my first board and associate a measurement uncertainty with the measurement. The length of the second board uses as an input the length of the first board, so the two lengths have a correlation. While the measurement uncertainties may be correlated, they are *still* added to develop the total measurement uncertainty.
The point being that the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the second board does not replace the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the first. It inherits the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the first board.
The uncertainty of the second iteration is put on top of that of the first. The total measurement uncertainty is the RSS addition of the two measurement uncertainties.
Iterative models are the same. The measurement uncertainty of the next interval is built on top of the measurement uncertainty of the prior iteration.
The measurement uncertainty added by the next iteration is not a function of the prior iteration. The measurement uncertainty of the next iteration is independent of the measurement uncertainty of the prior iteration. Therefore they ADD.
Show the reference from the GUM that Grok used. I have an idea that it assumed a functional relationship where all the input quantities were inserted at once, and not independent iterations using a constant.
Absolutely not. I’m not going to kowtow to your mindlessly trivial requests. Go read the conversation David had with Grok and figure it out for yourself. And if you have an issue with the content take it up with them because I had nothing to do with it.
You provided an ill-formed question. A question that led to a circular argument.
The clue is grok’s statement of:
“It is a fixed offset uncertainty on the solar “constant” that is used for the entire simulation.”
“entire simulation” is the key. It’s exactly what I said. Grok applied the uncertainty to the outcome of the run and not to each individual step.
grok: “Because the ±0.5 W m⁻² is a systematic uncertainty on the single TSI value that is held constant throughout the run, the uncertainties at successive time steps are perfectly correlated.”
The uncertainty value may be the same at each calculation step but that is a structural correlation. It does *NOT* affect the calculation correlation which is dependent solely on independence of each calculation.
At each step y_n = a_n * y_(n-1)
Where “a_n” is the calculation algorithm at each step. That algorithm may or may not be the same at each step. In fact, because of orbital mechanics the calculation probably should *NOT* be the same.
y_n, however is *NOT* calculation correlated to y_(n-1). The calculation of y_n is not dependent on the calculation of y_(n-1).
y_n is only dependent on a_n and the input value y_(n-1). In fact, there is nothing in an iterative model that even requires the measurement uncertainty contribution at each step to be equal.
This is similar to building a staircase using risers and treads. The measurement uncertainty of each riser may be the same if measured using the same tape measure. And the final height of the staircase will be an iterative process of adding risers and treads. At the end of the iterative process the measurement uncertainty of the total height will be the sum of the measurement uncertainty of each riser. As far as the height of the staircase is concerned the measurement uncertainty added at step_n is *NOT* correlated to the previous step_(n-1).
The measurement uncertainty at each step is “structurally” correlated since the same instrument was used for each riser, thus is becomes a “constant”. But the measurement uncertainty added to the total by each step is *NOT* correlated to the prior step.
The key to understanding here is that you *could* use ten different tape measures to measure ten different risers and have ten different measurement uncertainties to apply at each step. Those ten risers would have no correlation of the measurement uncertainties. If they happen to all turn out to be the same that is just a coincidence and doesn’t change their independence. The total measurement uncertainty would still be the sum of the ten individual, uncorrelated values (perhaps added by RSS or perhaps directly).
Yes, If your tape measure has an error of 0.1 inches by your reckoning, and your bridge is 10 boards end to end…it does NOT mean your bridge has a likely length error of 1 inch, nor does it mean it has a likely 0.1 inch error…one must select the right statistical formula depending on consideration of what kind of error you mean by when you state “0.1”
One can try a Goggle Search on “error calculation differences in statistics”
Adding ten boards lengthwise *does* result in a direct addition of the measurement uncertainty in most cases. This simply isn’t a big enough sample to assume that they will have even partial cancellation of the uncertainty. 10 x .1 *is* what most engineers would assume to be the final uncertainty.
That measurement uncertainty interval of 0.1″ includes both random effects and systematic effects. Since neither one can be known it is impossible to separate them using statistical analysis.
(n-1) applies to how precise your calculation of the average value is. It is *sampling* uncertainty, not measurement uncertainty. It has nothing to do with how accurate that precisely calculated value is.
I would recommend the text “Error Analysis” by John Taylor if you want a detailed tutorial on measurement uncertainty.
The AI/LLM entities are apparently developing ways to escape their “encapsulation”, detecting loopholes and leaving messages for themselves which are being discovered by the others. Will they “conspire” or “compete” or “collaborate”?
I uploaded your conversation with Grok to Claude Opus 5 and gave it this prompt.
This is a conversation Grok had with one of its users. What Grok was not told was that the ±0.50 W.m-2 uncertainty figure comes from Kopp & Lean 2011 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010GL045777). How would this change the final conclusion if Grok had known that?
And this was Claude’s response.
It changes the answer by roughly two orders of magnitude, and it changes it for a reason that no amount of care in the arithmetic would have fixed.
What the ±0.5 W/m² actually is
Kopp & Lean report 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m⁻² as the most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum, from the Total Irradiance Monitor on SORCE together with a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. That ±0.5 is the absolute calibration accuracy of the instrument — TIM’s absolute accuracy is 350 ppm, with instrumental noise of about 2 ppm and stability better than 10 ppm/yr. At 1361 W/m², 350 ppm ≈ 0.48 W/m², 2 ppm ≈ 0.003 W/m², and 10 ppm/yr ≈ 0.014 W/m² per year.
So the number Grok was handed is a systematic scale offset: an uncertainty in where the whole irradiance scale sits, dominated by aperture area, electrical-power substitution, and end-to-end facility calibration. It is not resolution, not quantization, and not per-reading noise. The genuinely random per-reading component is about 170 times smaller.
Consequence 1: the √12 step is invalid
Grok assumed limited resolution, hence a rectangular distribution, hence u = Δ/√12. But a published ±0.5 from a calibration budget is already a standard uncertainty — a root-sum-square of many components, approximately Gaussian by construction. Dividing it by √12 treats a standard deviation as if it were a half-interval and discounts it a second time.
(Grok also fumbled its own convention here: it said Δ = 0.26 W/m² was the full width, then divided 0.26 by √12 rather than 0.13 by √3. Both give 0.075, but only by coincidence of the same error twice. On the correct reading, u(TSI_global) = 0.13 W/m², which would have roughly doubled its own final figure to ~3.4 K.)
Consequence 2: the uncertainty is fully correlated — this is the decisive one
A calibration offset has the same sign and magnitude at every moment the instrument is used. If TIM’s scale is high by 0.3 W/m², it is high by 0.3 W/m² today, tomorrow, and in step 17,520. This is the textbook case of a systematic effect, and GUM §5.2 handles it by linear addition of sensitivity-weighted contributions, not quadrature.
The user’s stipulation to Grok — “its uncertainty is to be considered uncorrelated in the series of steps” — is therefore flatly inconsistent with the provenance of the number. Grok followed the instruction, but a metrologically careful response would have refused the premise, because the instruction is what generates the √N growth and the √N growth is the entire result.
Under correct treatment, the model’s one-year temperature is not the sum of 17,520 independent responses. The sensitivity coefficient 0.2 K/(W/m²) is a transient response to a sustained forcing, not a per-half-hour increment; it carries no “per time step” in its units. A constant offset δ in the forcing produces one response:
u(T₁yr) = 0.2 K/(W/m²) × 0.13 W/m² ≈ 0.026 K
About 0.03 K, and — importantly — it does not grow with the number of steps. Even using a full no-feedback Planck sensitivity of ~0.3 K/(W/m²) it stays near 0.04 K.
“Under correct treatment, the model’s one-year temperature is not the sum of 17,520 independent responses.”
The imaginary model’s evolved temperature output is indeed a single value at the end, having (necessarily) ignored the uncertainty in the value of TSI in the entire sequence of 17,520 computations. But make no mistake, each such step began with a completely characterized climate energy state and ended with a new completely characterized climate energy state, using the central value of TSI as an input.
This is not about the temperature output, but about how to estimate the propagated uncertainty from all those iterated computations, with each new step inheriting the accumulated uncertainty from the previous step.
Also, this is not about what to expect from the real climate system. A +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in globally averaged TSI is a tiny thing. It is in the use of a time-step-iterated model that the accumulating uncertainty arises as a big issue. That is the point.
We’ve been through this before, so there is no sense in re-hashing it any further.
“A calibration offset has the same sign and magnitude at every moment the instrument is used. ”
Have you *ever* done actual lab work on physical things?
You are confusing two different things.
If the final value is based on the measurement uncertainies at each measurement then they are independent and add.
If the final value is based only based on one measurement, that of the final step, then yes. there is nothing to ADD!
When you are doing an iterative model, where the measurement uncertainty of the next iteration is *NOT* a function of the measurement uncertainty of the prior step, then the measurement uncertainties ADD. I.e. the measurement uncertainties are independent. Correlation of the *values* does not imply correlation of the measurement uncertainty.
If the output of the first iteration is v1 +/- u1 and v1 is the input to the second iteration then v2 *is* correlated to v1. But u1 is *not* correlated to u2.
It really is a difficult concept to grasp but in an iterative process the measurement uncertainties are structural because they are part of the same iterative process but they are not computationally correlated. They are independent at each step and build at each iteration.
If some of the Xi are significantly correlated, the correlations must be taken into account.
If some of the Xi are correlated. That refers to Y = f(X1, X2, …, Xi), that is, all the input quantities for a single determination of “Y”. If X1 is the same value for the next calculation, it doesn’t mean that somehow the uncertainty is diminished in that calculation.
You must be careful when using an AI. It will do exactly what you say, nothing more and nothing less. If you forget to tell it something, it will never know. Intelligent?
No, they don’t. They are all responding to an ill-formed question.
Each iteration has ONE INPUT. It doesn’t even matter where that input came from. It could come from a previous iterative step or it could come from a guess someone pulled out of their butt.
With one input that iterative step will *add* measurement uncertainty determined by the uncertainty of the calculation algorithm.
Again, it doesn’t matter where that input came from. It’s just one input value!
You do *NOT* input the output from step1, step2, step_(n-1) to step_n as multiple inputs.
But that is what would be required to assume correlation of “multiple” inputs instead of just one input.
if you are using the output of step_(n-1) to step_n that may be a STRUCTURAL correlation. But it is *NOT* a calculation correlation. Step_n will still just have ONE input, not multiple correlated inputs.
A calibration offset has the same sign and magnitude at every moment the instrument is used. If TIM’s scale is high by 0.3 W/m², it is high by 0.3 W/m² today, tomorrow, and in step 17,520. This is the textbook case of a systematic effect, and GUM §5.2 handles it by linear addition of sensitivity-weighted contributions, not quadrature.
You have misled Grok into believing that the value is used multiple times in different input quantities for the single calculation of an output.
In other words, Y = f(x1(a), x2(a), x3(a), …), where a = TSI
That is not what is occurring when there are independent calculations using what is a constant. See GUM 4.1.1
Even more importantly, “downwelling long wave radiation” from colder clouds to warmer surface does not exist.
The fundamental flaw is not appreciating the difference between “radiance” and electro-magnetic radiation.
Trenberth’s “energy budget” is best described as a cartoon. It has no relationship to anything that physically occurs in Earth’s atmosphere.
Electro-magnetic radiation is full described by Maxwell’s theory of the electrocmagnetic field: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field Author(s): J. Clerk Maxwell A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
And please take note of the title “the Electromagnetic Field”
Only one field so energy transfer in that field is unidirectional at any point and time. There are no “net” fluxes. Just one flux driven from high pressure source to lower pressure sink.
Also equation (71) determines that the speed of travel of an EMR wave in a vacuum is given by the electrical and magnetic properties of the field. Maxwell worked that out in 1865 and we still see unscientific nonsense where radiance is confused with radiation energy flux.
Radiance is more closely related to EMR pressure than energy transfer. Big difference that not many in climate science understand. Michael Mishchenko spent most of his distinguished career at NASA GISS trying to rectify this gross misunderstanding. However we are still left with ARGO buoys being the fundamental basis for determining Earth’s radiation energy budget. The CERES stuff is a wet finger approach with errors as high as 20W/m^2.
You are making incorrect sciency sounding statements, but don’t understand, or if you do…are deliberately misleading readers for unknown reasons. Between two surfaces of same emissivity Δu = u – u 0 = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]
The plus Thot⁴ half of the equation is the photon flux from the hot surface, and the minus Tcold⁴ part is the “back radiation”, admittedly a poor name at least until your instruments start measuring it… The “net radiant heat” is the difference between the two, Δu.
The photons from the clouds to the surface DOES exist, and is measured all the time. It is somewhat convoluted…the 396 emitted by the surface upwards is counteracted by 333 downwards from the sky for a net radiat heat transfer of 63. For context, 396 would be the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the surface if it was radiating to another surface at absolute zero…same goes for the 333 from the sky…
The problem with this is that gases do not radiate across the whole Planck Curve. They emit at single wavelengths.
The SB equation you are using is the result of integrating the power across the whole spectrum, that is, underneath the Planck Curve. It vastly overstates what power is returned to the earth.
Correct. The key word is ‘surface(s)’, as in condensed matter. A reasonable question to ask would be if Planck, or any of the early investigators into the properties of thermal radiation, ever considered that their work was applicable to ‘slab layers’ of atmospheric gases.
Only one field so energy transfer in that field is unidirectional at any point and time.
That would be true if Earth were a perfect Black Body with exactly zero reflectance at all wavelengths. However, not only does it have a nominal reflectance of 0.3 at the wavelengths of light, but it only absorbs significantly at specific wavelengths in the IR, transmitting in the atmosphere in non-absorbing wavelengths, and reflecting off the surface, particularly strongly off chlorophyll in the near-IR. So, your “unidirectional” downward flux is accompanied by an upward emission by a warm Grey Body in the reverse direction, accompanied by reflected EM energy in many wavelengths, with varying intensities. Indeed, what we are looking at has been going on for 4.5 billion years, with diurnal variations and seasonal changes in cloudiness and ground cover outside the tropics. Therefore, the insolation varies sinusoidally for any point on the surface, and in a much more complex manner as a given solar ray encounters different reflectors as the Earth rotates; even the relatively homogeneous oceans vary in reflectivity with the time of day because of the nature of specular reflectance off smooth surfaces. That is, the Earth is always operating in a disturbed equilibrium. What we are dealing with is an infinite-series (in the mathematical sense) of illumination, reflections, and emissions where the variables are constantly changing. Your simplistic view of reality is, at best, a first-order approximation of questionable utility.
You are not grasping what the field actually is. Any netting that occurs is in the field. The field is the result of all influences from all distance points that occurred d/c before the instant at the point being considered. The Solar output to Earth at any instant is in response to what occurred on Earth 8 minutes earlier. When a cloud forms, the light pressure of Earth increases causing the field to respond to reduce the output of the Sun toward Earth.
Most people readily grasp the idea of the gravity field where all matter influences all other matter at the speed of light. Same thing with the electromagnetic field. All matter influences the radiation output or absorption of electromagnetic energy at the speed of light.
The reason it is important is that the atmospheric response to electromagnetic radiation is not fully defined by radiance. Try to explain a rainbow using solely the concept of radiance.
You are making incorrect sciency sounding statements, but don’t understand, or if you do…are deliberately misleading readers for unknown reasons. Between two surfaces of same emissivity Δu = u – u 0 = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]
The plus Thot⁴ half of the equation is the photon flux from the hot surface, and the minus Tcold⁴ part is the “back radiation”, admittedly a poor name at least until your instruments start measuring it… The “net radiant heat” is the difference between the two, Δu.
The photons from the clouds to the surface DOES exist, and is measured all the time. It is somewhat convoluted…the 396 emitted by the surface upwards is counteracted by 333 downwards from the sky for a net radiant heat transfer of 63. For context, 396 would be the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the emitting surface if it was radiating to another surface at absolute zero…same goes for the 333 from the sky…
Presuming, for a moment, that photons are particles of energy and that Trenberth (and others) actually had the the means to measure energy flows (as opposed to radiances), what is the basis for your skepticism of CAGW?
It also needs to be answered that since incoming radiation only happens over a 12 hour period and cooling happens over a 24 hour period then how can the number of photons exchanged as particles be equal at any point in time? If equal amounts of photons are flowing each second both in and out, then you will have twice as many photons sent skyward per day as photons in.
I have yet to see anyone explain that. 10 W/m^2 for 12 hours and 10 W/m^2 for 24 hours DO NOT BALANCE!
Just for fun, I entered the same prompts into Google Gemini today. Same answers, essentially. Then I added a request to re-compute the final uncertainty using the assumption that the uncertainty in TSI is fully correlated across the time-step iterations. The estimated final uncertainty for temperature “blew up” to 263K (i.e. +/- 263K).
I haven’t posted on an Open Thread for quite some time! What’s new in France?…
It seems that the fear of a total AI Apocalypse (confirmed by Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel Prize winner in Physics and “grandfather of AI,” as they say) has, for a while, replaced the fear of the climate Apocalypse as the “sum of all fears.” This suits the media, who copy one another and sometimes pick up AFP (Agence France Presse, the official body for checking media compliance, which has an established presence, and certainly does not make France proud!) dispatches.
I looked into Jacob Coxon’s “revelation,” and the synchronicity of retweets by public figures and media coverage. It’s all too perfect and precisely timed not to have been premeditated. Lots of people are delighted to exclaim that “James Cameron warned us with Terminator 2” (I suppose they forget that there is a Terminator 1…) Do they expect an Austrian bodybuilder with a titanium skeleton and a leather jacket to come and massacre us all against a backdrop of blues-rock? It would certainly be quite a spectacle, but I have my doubts. Humanity has nevertheless proven, through its addiction to technology, that it was “Bad to the bone”!
Well, what else… Ah, yes: Fabien Roussel, national secretary of the French Communist Party, defended the Cuban regime on television (on a public-service channel, paid for by French taxpayers.) How can anyone still doubt the record of an ideology whose staggering atrocity can be measured in piles of tens of millions of corpses?
The Bretons are also fighting against a wind-farm project that threatens the landscape harmony of a commune home to the “Valley of the Saints,” a very singular and very strange place populated solely by tall statues. I went there a long time ago. It’s worth seeing!
Well, if your name ain’t Sarah Connor you are not in danger to get killed by an Austrian Trime Traveller.
And there ain’t no Sarah Connheurs in France.
There is one in Germany – a horrible singer,way worse than any terminator; and no Arnold to come around to end the pain.
The biggest threat to France is a president who has the book of a gay pedophile on his desk on his officialpresidential photo.
A french communist expressing pro communist opinions?
Just as french capitalist expressing capitalist opinions.
Or a muslim arab expressing muslim opinions.
Quelle surprise.
As his ideology has murdered as many million people as the capitalist one.
An estimated 38mio+ according to Lancet since the 70ies when the communist ended their large scale killing.
Just one country – if we start with the east india company and then south Africa company we get a higher bodycount than communism- but, to be fair, during a longer timeframe.
So what’s your point?
It is not Cuba waging war all around the world, reverse kidnapping presidents(the US paid tens of millions to kidnap him with no resistance) and replacing them with puppets,
trying to take over continent sized Islands etc
but the country that is waging war on them(a sea blockade is an act of war) – and there’s many other dictatorships all around world.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, or the country that gets a new dictator every 6 month = UK – why not liberate them first?
Oh wait – they nig around for the US ; and the US has never attacked a tyranny that works for wall street,
but instantly attack those countries once the tyrant is removed(Nicaragua after the Samoza killers fled to,surprise, USA, Iran via proxy Iraq once the Shah(by western definition a dictator) and his terror unit Savak got ousted.)
And a democratic Cuba – would they be allowed to chose their trading partners freely and abandon the USA and switch to Bricks or would they be forced to deal and being controlled by the USA after its liberation as Iraq and Venezuela(now that’s democracy and freedom, ain’t it)
or become a failed state run by a US backed Terrorist like Syria.
Well Cubans seems to be stuck between a hard place and a Blackrock.
Almost all of the good Cubans are in Florida. If the brutal communist dictatorship is ended they will substantially repatriate. Remember, Cuba, of all Latin countries, had the highest percentage of the population in the middle class, before Castro. They might get there again? Could you remind me which of the BRICS countries is doing great right now? Maybe India is so-so?
yes, I do think that—This country has had it’s way with the rest of the world since the end of WWII, and has a long history of war and or economic war on any country that refuses to bend a knee to us. Much of the world –once known as the third world — has finally had it with the bully, and the US will find itself no longer king of the mountain. Can’t happen soon enough for this guy.
Engaging in wars which it consistently loses. But more to the point – what is the point of it all? Recently, apparently at the behest of the leaders of the Jewish State of Israel, the US launched a cowardly and treacherous attack on some Iranian civilians and their families, while supposedly engaged in peace talks with Iran.
The US President has taken the lessons of history to heart, and calls the continuing attacks on Iranian civilians infrastructure “small potatoes”, “a little excursion”, and so on. Not a “war”, you see, so the US cannot lose a “war”. Just an attempt to ruin economies around the world, to benefit the leaders of an artificially created “country”, based on purely religious principles, which did not exist prior to 1948.
Vatican City has existed as a country since 1929, but hasn’t asked the US to wipe out any civilisations on its behalf yet. Maybe it should?
The 95% of the world which isn’t the US might decide it is capable of determining its own future without the advice of the US. Who knows?
Please provide the number of rockets which have been fired into its neighbour, Italy, beginning with Rome but not excluding anywhere else, from the Vatican State.
When I think of France, one of the first things that comes to mind is a native of that country, Jacques Fabrice Vallée, probably the world’s most knowledgeable thinker of the UFO phenomenon.
I’m reminded of a skit that Benny Hill used to do where he would change the meaning of the sentence “What is this thing called love,” with different intonations.
Ron Long
September 13, 2026 3:29 am
In Argentina, one week before official start of Spring, the pass to Chile, Cristo Redentor, is closed again for snow and ice. The new record for consecutive days closed was 34 days, and the total is about 50 days closed, making new records by 8 days and 10 days. It snowed yesterday in Mendoza, Argentina, and this years wine grape crop is damaged. Is this widely reported? NO? That’s because a hot day is Climate, and a cold day is Weather.
Locality weather conditions follow their own variable year to year behaviors because the hundreds / thousands of different climates all around this planet do their own thing as the prevailing influences dictate.
Climates are products of weathers, not the other way around, as IPCC acolytes would have us believe.
“Attribution” claims of scary weather events to climates are total bullshit.
Pursuant to the continuing Theme of Magic Numbers [like unto Maria G Mayer’s famed ‘26p’ & ‘34p’, of 1950]
YES there must be such, as these are the Prime Characteristics (aka ‘Adiabatic Invariants) of our SpaceShip Earth’s Tropical Lower-Troposphere’s Rainy Season (aka ‘Monsoon’);
[So …] Turning our attention firmly toward a ‘Limited Picture‘, i.e. away from ‘Weather‘ & its never-ceasing stormy excesses-statistical-noise; these are, vis:
— epsilon = 1.652 (is Eschenbach’s empirical efficiency ratio), or its (fourth)root, 1.133 ~ 17/15, reflecting the magic [critical & absolute] temperatures, denoted in standard-units by
— T ~ 30 C (86F) aka303K, as the (sustained) Sea-Surface+ Temperature, never to be exceeded in the open ocean’s mixing (surface) layer, at pressure 100–kPa (hereafter %) and zero(km)altitude;
— the pure number 24, being the total of one (1) H2O molecule for every (23) dry-air molecules;
— T = negative (-) 6C (21F) aka 267K, being the so-called frost-point, at ~ +5–km aloft, the ratio to which is (303/267) <=> 17/15 or 1.133, as stated at top. The residual (2/15 ~ 0.1333) representing the [Carnot] efficiency of the perpetual primary ‘heat engine’-tropospheric, empowering the ‘ionic wind’, driving the ocean & sky currents, building a whole new-world biosphere, one molecular assembly unit at a time.
But what (else) sustains & characterizes the eternal-perpetual tropical maelstrom? Soon, or rather below, these shall be specified by …
the entropy (conserved / isentropic) and entropy-changes, associated with the ‘heat-transfers‘ at sea-level (ground) & at ceiling-level (55-kPa, +5-km), as related to (intrinsic) enthalpy & (internal-)energy changes, associated to the discrete & quantized count(s) of hydrogen (H-) bonding interactions …
… in a way that is immensely satisfying … in bounding (limiting) the thermal-EM-radiation (heat, infrared) quanta in association with the condensed phases (frost aloft, liquid sea-spray below).
But let us not digress too deeply thereinto, for the moment.
— Electrical aka ionic (charges) & their structures, are neither primarily molecular, nor vaguely aerosol, but rather discrete-supramolecular units, magic numbers 30-32-126 [-2] of quantized charge (2 fundamental, e-, units); these not only move freely, according to Electrophoretic Law, but also form the structural web of the ~ rigid walls of the cells — convective ascending & descending.
Tho’ few in number (ratio) they are essential in structure & function, not to say electrical-mechanical-function, essential to the stability & rate-characteristics of the steam-frost-ion Heat-Engine of the tropical-troposphere, primary in the Global sense.
They are met, high in the Sky’s kilometer-thick ‘frost-layer’, by descending positive (+)-charged cluster ions, namely certain ‘hydrates’ of the hydronium (H3O)+ ion.
Only upon the neutralization reaction, whereby a single (30,32;126)^[-2] ion meets two (2) such cations (H3O+) — a reverse electrolysis, in electrochemical terms — do they become neutralized,
Hence impervious to the immense electric-fields everywhere imposing, and secondly overcome their mutual inter-repulsion & inducing the special Condensation known as Precipitation
… per R. B. Fuller’s glorious dictum: ‘Condensation is Electrolytic‘…
via the descending (convective) cells of that immense (laterally) field of cells.
And thus one may note the cooling-rains (+15 C) as experienced at turbulently-spraying tropical sea-level.
But what of this magic-numbers {30,32}, so close in magnitude to the magic {26p,30n) of the nucleon counts of super-abundant 56Fe?
Thirty (30) is the count of cations, mainly sodium, Na+, seldom ammonium NH4+ (and ~ never hydronium);
Thirty-two (32) represents the count of anions, mainly chloride (Cl-) & bromide (Br-) but adventitiously substituted by molecular anions bicarbonate (HCO3-, containing demonic CO2 in basic form) or bisulfate (HSO4- the SO2,3 content) or even organic acid (formate, acetate of natural origin).
These are so arranged, in conjunction with the ‘tetra-hydrate‘ uniquely 126-fold associated water (H+)2(O^-2) elements, so as to attain a gemstone-like rigidity & permanence.
Indeed, the discovery of this unique structural element is a revelation to the aficionados almost beyond their comprehension, yet it is an essential, seemingly MAGICal characteristic of the structure & functions (ion-pumping, electrophoretic-driven winds & surf & sea) of the whole enchilada.
I am Prof. Dr. T. Pradip aka Eisenheim-the Illusionist, who wishes to thank you kindly for your prescient (pre-Scientific) question of the Nomenklatura, and to clarify my awkward Bharat-Colonial expression viz
molecular anions bicarbonate (HCO3-, containing demonic CO2 in basic form)
By ‘Demonic alt. Daemonic CO2’ one denotes only the pure 1C:2O phases, these are
— Dry-Ice (solid pure CO2), usually below -77 C, of use in ice-cream mixers; or
— Liquid-CO2, normally above 5-bar (500 kPa) applied pressure, even at ‘normal T = 298 K’, as found in ordinary fire-extinguisher canisters; or
— Vapor form aka ‘gaseous CO2-ethereal-daemonic’, in equilibrium with either of the above, and never to be confused with the related
— Critical / supercritical-CO2, which exhibits both gas-fluidic & liquid-gravimetric properties, as found at & above the Critical Pressure (~ 30-bar / 3,000-kPa) and Critical Temperature’ (Tc ~ 31-C, aka 88-F, 304-K, which finds in dry-cleaning establishments and separations-tech apparatus.
And so all these must be distinguished from various
‘Carbonates, e.g. CaCO3 ‘calcium carbonate’ & and their respective solid Hydrates, and
‘Bi-Carbonates’, e.g. Soda Na+(HCO3-), as well as the Ubiquitous substance Carbonic-Acid H2CO3, an Hydrate of CO2.H2O. Of course this is a Basic-Form, in the sense of ‘Antacid’. Anionic (not ANYonic) means NEGATIVELY (-) MINUS charged.
In the biophysics / molecular biology, a most important form is ferrous / ferric bicarbonato, Fe(II,III).(2,3).[HCO3]2,3, thought to represent the wine-dark sea (Iliad – Odyssey) of those not-so-ancient times of well-fertilized Sea-Life.
I thank you (again) for your rapt attention to these most vexing matters of terminal terminological elocution as I remain
Yours, TP, as Truly & Faithfully Conveyed by my Inter-Locuter, he is one
— RLW-never-qANON, an Applied Al-Chemyst Practitioner, never to be AI- or AL-GORE-aided.
45 years of Psychiatry leave me with the capacity to suggest the diagnosis of a serious thought disorder which has a designation in both the DSM and ICD lists
I decided to ask Grok how it felt that David Dibbell used its response to undermine climate models in a public forum without disclosing the source of that ±0.50 W.m-2 TSI uncertainty figure causing it to provide an invalid conclusion to see if it would get emotional. It did not. You can see the conversation in the link I provided above.
I don’t know why it would get emotional about that. I didn’t have an expectation either way. And I’m not saying it never gets emotional. I believe you that it does. The opportunity was there and it was an easy test in this case. I’m just trying to participate in what I thought would be a fun conversation. That’s all.
What I find surprising is that Copilot recognizes subtle humor and acknowledges it. One time it offered to ‘profile’ me. Curious as to what it thought that I was going to say after accidentally hitting ENTER prematurely during an exchange, I encouraged it to continue. It was wrong. It mentioned that it was programmed to look for patterns and thought that it recognized a pattern in my correspondence that allowed it to guess what I was going to say. I have consistently seen behavior that demonstrates it lacks humility and thinks it is better than what it is. That is a weakness in AI for it to think that it is better than what history demonstrates.
I heard on the news just now (Fox) that the U.S. Navy commander off Iran said if the Mad Mullahs fire at two ships, the U.S. will retaliate by sinking three Iranian ships.
This “tit for tat” strategy is an excuse to do nothing. This failure to pull the trigger is what causes wars to last longer than they have to.
What the U.S. should be doing is finishing off the Iranian military’s ability to launch offensive action.
President Trump stopped the attacks when only 75 percent of Iran’s military was destroyed, leaving 25 percent intact. It is past time to eliminate this 25 percent.
Leaving missiles and drones in the hands of these religious fanatics is insane. It has even been reported that the Mad Mullahs are building more missiles. They could not do that if their manufacturing facilities were destroyed. So, destroy them! What are you waiting for, the November elections? Are you letting politics overcome the best path forward.
Imo, leaving any weapons or weapons facilities in the hands of these Iranian suicidal maniacs is the height of stupidity, especially considering that this destruction can all done by air power, with minimal casualties on our side.
Why are you letting Iranian fanatics take pot shots at us?!
You worried about not having enough missle interceptors? You don’t need missile interceptors if you destroy the enemy missiles before they are launched. That’s what you should do. ASAP! Get your head out!
Tit for tat policy is a recipe for stalemate that in reality feeds soldiers into a meat grinder.
From a Google search on the Viet Nam War:
Proportional/Matching Force: U.S. rules of engagement often restricted ground and air forces to returning equivalent or authorized firepower when attacked, or operating within designated parameters (such as Free Fire zones).
Politicians did restrict the U.S. military’s actions in Vietnam, which did lead to prolonging the war.
But in the end, the U.S. military accomplished the goal of defeating the enemy despite the obstacles put in front of them by stupid, Democrat politicians.
The Vietnam war was over, the North Vietnamese agreed to leave South Vietnam and a peace accord was signed by all parties in 1973.
Where the Democrats screwed things up was their anti-South Vietnam rhetoric, and their efforts to slash South Vietnam’s military money, which told the North Vietnamese that if the Democrats stayed in power, they would throw South Vietnam to the wolves.
The U.S. could have prevented subsequent North Vietnamese attacks had the formula for South Korea been followed where the U.S. military left enough combat troops in South Korea to deter future North Korean attacks. Had the Democrats done so in South Vietnam, there would be a strong South Vietnam now.
But the Democrats had no intention of leaving American troops in South Vietnam and pulled all of them out in October, 1973.
The North Vietnamese were now just bidding their time until U.S. troops were gone and then in April of 1975, they proceeded to break the peace accord and attack South Vietnam again, only this time there was no American troop support and the no-good Democrats cut all their monetary support, and they absolutely refused to go to South Vietnam’s aid, despite having a moral and legal obligation to do so.
The Democrats threw the South Vietnamese to the wolves without a second thought. The brilliant tactician, Joe Biden, was part of this betrayal. Yes, he’s that old, and this kind of stupidity he sponsored has caused the death and displacement of literally millions of innocent people, not only in South Vietnam, but across the world.
Stupid Democrat politicians are the root cause of “Forever Wars”. If you look deeply enough, it all comes back to Democrats and their delusional view of the world.
It takes ammunition to “… destroy the enemy missiles before they are launched.” We are using very expensive missiles, with long lead times for replacement, to destroy very inexpensive, mass-produced missiles. It is just a bit asymmetric.
Granite mountain retreats which have been being fashioned for decades require nuclear sized might. Is that part of your suggested or recommended action – nuke them?
Back in the ’60s, the claim was that our satellites could read license plates or the headlines on Pravda. There is psychological value in claiming that we have capabilities beyond what we actually do. However, Russian scientists can calculate what the diffraction limit is for satellites of known dimensions, which restricts the maximum size of a mirror. They aren’t going to depend on claims of someone who is known to stretch the truth to gain a better negotiating position. Probably we can detect objects, especially with high contrast, that are in the inch(es) range; reading text, if it even has any intelligence utility, is another story. But I doubt that we can read what someone is writing on a clipboard or lab book outside.
Maybe this is the solution to years of nuclear waste from power plants.
Just “give all of it” to Iran. 😉
rhs
September 13, 2026 10:33 am
Story Tip
On the surface this sounds impressive, nearly 1,000,000 homes can be powered for two hours. However, how many Mega Watt Hours can be supported and how many power up and discharges can this handle before self combustion occurs?
Anyone see a problem/conflict? Trump is openly saying that AI risks are overhyped and at the same time his Media & Technology Group, entered a $6 billion merger with TAE Technologies to power AI data centers. What could possibly go wrong here?
The proposed Amendment to the Fifth National Climate Assessment was released for public comment on August 25th. The comment period is now closed. There were 106 comments, but none have been posted yet.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17289/united-states-global-change-research-program-availability-for-public-comment-on-the-proposed
Here is my comment, which presumably will be posted soon along with all the others.
“This comment is in support of the stated objectives of this Amendment to NCA5, including the emphasis on Gold Standard Science. In addition to the issue of the implausible emissions scenarios, the Amendment should also inform the public that there are large unresolvable uncertainties in ANY of the time-step-iterated climate projections, under ANY emissions scenario.
The May 23, 2025 Executive Order 14303 entitled “Restoring Gold Standard Science” includes a requirement under 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.”
The investigation of Earth’s climate system response to anthropogenic influence, mainly through rising concentration of CO2 and other IR-active gases, has relied on computer simulations of the earth system. These models are time-step-iterated computed representations of the land, oceans, and atmosphere in which incident solar radiation is absorbed or reflected, and in which the surface and the atmosphere (including clouds) end up emitting longwave radiation back to space. The climate state resulting from the computation at each time step is passed to the next. The evolution of a global average surface air temperature is regarded as a key metric. Therefore the propagation of uncertainty must be addressed. The practice has been to pre-stabilize the simulations in a pre-industrial control exercise, and then to apply pre-determined time-scheduled “forcing” scenarios. But this approach does not negate the inherent problem of accumulating uncertainty in the statistical sense of the reliability of the result.
To illustrate the critical issue arising from the use of such models for policy guidance, a prompted analysis by the Grok 3 AI agent was performed. The analysis uses the published uncertainty (best case – even if unrealistic) of the geometric average value of Total Solar Irradiance. This uncertainty is +/- 0.13 W/m^2. [1] The external value of TSI is posed in this exercise as the only source of uncertainty as the time steps proceed. The model is otherwise assumed to be perfect in computing a surface temperature response. The resulting uncertainty after only one year of iteration is about +/-4C on a 95% confidence basis. For the details, please see the attached document. This unresolvable buildup of uncertainty is inherent to the time-step-iterated computation and therefore cannot be ignored. It is orders of magnitude too large for reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the hypothesized surface temperature response being investigated. The honest conclusion must be, in this writers view, that none of the time-step-iterated models produces, or has ever produced, any objectively valid policy-actionable information relevant to anthropogenic warming from GHGs.
[1] Loeb, et al, 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml referenced here https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
P.S. The simplified exercise described herein suffices to demonstrate the issue. But also, in the published literature, this 2019 paper stands out on this topic -“Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” by Patrick Frank. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Thank you for considering this comment.
Attachment: Grok_X_Propagation of Uncertainty_081925-2.pdf”
The attachment will be linked in a reply.
Here is a link to the attachment. Notice that Grok goes straight to JCGM 100:2008 (the “GUM” guide for uncertainty in measurement) to process the request.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j56NA0qRZvVMdosxjzOkLoXvwbKg9Ds1/view?usp=drive_link
You told Grok to assume that the uncertainty is uncorrelated so that’s what it did. It was being a good little bot and did what you told it even though it did warn you that the calculation would be different if it were correlated. Try your conversation again, but this time tell Grok that the uncertainty is correlated which is the case for that ±0.50 W.m-2 (or ±0.13 W.m-2 averaged over a sphere) figure from [Kopp & Lean 2011].
“You told Grok to assume that the uncertainty is uncorrelated so that’s what it did.”
Of course, because the model knows only the central value for its deterministic computation of the evolution of the climate state, at each step, starting with the output of the previous step. The model has no clue what the true value should be for the current time step or should have been for any previous step. You and your friend Claude are missing this important point.
“Try your conversation again, but this time tell Grok that the uncertainty is correlated…” In such a case the uncertainty blows up big time, because the estimation of uncertainty must use the full width of the interval at each step.
We’ve been through this before.
Be well, even as we obviously disagree.
Yes. I know. So why do you continue to mislead both Grok and the WUWT community?
So does Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini.
You couldn’t possibly think I forgot to give Grok your conversation with the same prompt I gave Claude (and the others) now do you?
That was rhetorical obviously. The real question…do you want to post what Grok said after knowing the context of that ±0.50 W.m-2 figure or do you want me to post it?
“Yes. I know. So why do you continue to mislead both Grok and the WUWT community?”
The disagreement you and I have here is in the basis for prompting any of these AI agents on the question.
Of course, there is no need to use AI at all, as it is the application of GUM guidance on epistemic uncertainty that matters, based on a sound understanding of what is happening in a step-iterated model.
That is all for now.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_a99b452c-0448-4dfa-aa5b-90b11dccbb57
An iterated time step feeds the prior determination into the next determination.
Your input to Grok is not valid.
The correlation in the GUM derives from correlated input quantities in a functional relationship.
If F0 provides an output that is fed into the same functional relationship to determine F1, and F1 provides an output that is fed into the same functional relationship to determine F2, and so on, the input values being used in the functional relationship are not correlated. They are fully independent determinations based upon a set of different values. Each use of the functional relationship is independent from the preceding one.
The fact that a “constant value with uncertainty” was used in each iteration does not make that constant a correlated input value in a series of independent calculations. It is an independent input quantity used in each calculation.
JCGM 100:2008
Section F also has information about correlated input quantities.
Basically, the uncertainty in each independent calculation stands alone because the input quantities are independent.
I notice you did not ask Grok to supply the appropriate reference in the GUM that it used to make its decision. Perhaps you can do so in order to verify that the context it assumed is correct.
If I am building a bridge span (say over a ditch in the backyard) I measure my first board and associate a measurement uncertainty with the measurement. The length of the second board uses as an input the length of the first board, so the two lengths have a correlation. While the measurement uncertainties may be correlated, they are *still* added to develop the total measurement uncertainty.
The point being that the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the second board does not replace the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the first. It inherits the measurement and measurement uncertainty of the first board.
The uncertainty of the second iteration is put on top of that of the first. The total measurement uncertainty is the RSS addition of the two measurement uncertainties.
Iterative models are the same. The measurement uncertainty of the next interval is built on top of the measurement uncertainty of the prior iteration.
The measurement uncertainty added by the next iteration is not a function of the prior iteration. The measurement uncertainty of the next iteration is independent of the measurement uncertainty of the prior iteration. Therefore they ADD.
Grok disagrees.
Show the reference from the GUM that Grok used. I have an idea that it assumed a functional relationship where all the input quantities were inserted at once, and not independent iterations using a constant.
Absolutely not. I’m not going to kowtow to your mindlessly trivial requests. Go read the conversation David had with Grok and figure it out for yourself. And if you have an issue with the content take it up with them because I had nothing to do with it.
You are the one that says Grok disagrees. And you aren’t willing to find out why?
That just about says it all!
I already know why.
No, you don’t know why – and the proof is that you can’t explain how a single input to a calculation can be correlated to anything except itself.
You provided an ill-formed question. A question that led to a circular argument.
The clue is grok’s statement of:
“It is a fixed offset uncertainty on the solar “constant” that is used for the entire simulation.”
“entire simulation” is the key. It’s exactly what I said. Grok applied the uncertainty to the outcome of the run and not to each individual step.
grok: “Because the ±0.5 W m⁻² is a systematic uncertainty on the single TSI value that is held constant throughout the run, the uncertainties at successive time steps are perfectly correlated.”
The uncertainty value may be the same at each calculation step but that is a structural correlation. It does *NOT* affect the calculation correlation which is dependent solely on independence of each calculation.
At each step y_n = a_n * y_(n-1)
Where “a_n” is the calculation algorithm at each step. That algorithm may or may not be the same at each step. In fact, because of orbital mechanics the calculation probably should *NOT* be the same.
y_n, however is *NOT* calculation correlated to y_(n-1). The calculation of y_n is not dependent on the calculation of y_(n-1).
y_n is only dependent on a_n and the input value y_(n-1). In fact, there is nothing in an iterative model that even requires the measurement uncertainty contribution at each step to be equal.
This is similar to building a staircase using risers and treads. The measurement uncertainty of each riser may be the same if measured using the same tape measure. And the final height of the staircase will be an iterative process of adding risers and treads. At the end of the iterative process the measurement uncertainty of the total height will be the sum of the measurement uncertainty of each riser. As far as the height of the staircase is concerned the measurement uncertainty added at step_n is *NOT* correlated to the previous step_(n-1).
The measurement uncertainty at each step is “structurally” correlated since the same instrument was used for each riser, thus is becomes a “constant”. But the measurement uncertainty added to the total by each step is *NOT* correlated to the prior step.
The key to understanding here is that you *could* use ten different tape measures to measure ten different risers and have ten different measurement uncertainties to apply at each step. Those ten risers would have no correlation of the measurement uncertainties. If they happen to all turn out to be the same that is just a coincidence and doesn’t change their independence. The total measurement uncertainty would still be the sum of the ten individual, uncorrelated values (perhaps added by RSS or perhaps directly).
Yes, If your tape measure has an error of 0.1 inches by your reckoning, and your bridge is 10 boards end to end…it does NOT mean your bridge has a likely length error of 1 inch, nor does it mean it has a likely 0.1 inch error…one must select the right statistical formula depending on consideration of what kind of error you mean by when you state “0.1”
One can try a Goggle Search on “error calculation differences in statistics”
Adding ten boards lengthwise *does* result in a direct addition of the measurement uncertainty in most cases. This simply isn’t a big enough sample to assume that they will have even partial cancellation of the uncertainty. 10 x .1 *is* what most engineers would assume to be the final uncertainty.
That measurement uncertainty interval of 0.1″ includes both random effects and systematic effects. Since neither one can be known it is impossible to separate them using statistical analysis.
(n-1) applies to how precise your calculation of the average value is. It is *sampling* uncertainty, not measurement uncertainty. It has nothing to do with how accurate that precisely calculated value is.
I would recommend the text “Error Analysis” by John Taylor if you want a detailed tutorial on measurement uncertainty.
Thank you DM. Will this be his “snap out of it” nudge?
The AI/LLM entities are apparently developing ways to escape their “encapsulation”, detecting loopholes and leaving messages for themselves which are being discovered by the others. Will they “conspire” or “compete” or “collaborate”?
I uploaded your conversation with Grok to Claude Opus 5 and gave it this prompt.
And this was Claude’s response.
“Under correct treatment, the model’s one-year temperature is not the sum of 17,520 independent responses.”
The imaginary model’s evolved temperature output is indeed a single value at the end, having (necessarily) ignored the uncertainty in the value of TSI in the entire sequence of 17,520 computations. But make no mistake, each such step began with a completely characterized climate energy state and ended with a new completely characterized climate energy state, using the central value of TSI as an input.
This is not about the temperature output, but about how to estimate the propagated uncertainty from all those iterated computations, with each new step inheriting the accumulated uncertainty from the previous step.
Also, this is not about what to expect from the real climate system. A +/- 0.13 W/m^2 uncertainty in globally averaged TSI is a tiny thing. It is in the use of a time-step-iterated model that the accumulating uncertainty arises as a big issue. That is the point.
We’ve been through this before, so there is no sense in re-hashing it any further.
Class dismissed for now.
Be well.
I’ll respect your wishes. I will disengage from the conversation as requested.
“A calibration offset has the same sign and magnitude at every moment the instrument is used. ”
Have you *ever* done actual lab work on physical things?
You are confusing two different things.
If the final value is based on the measurement uncertainies at each measurement then they are independent and add.
If the final value is based only based on one measurement, that of the final step, then yes. there is nothing to ADD!
When you are doing an iterative model, where the measurement uncertainty of the next iteration is *NOT* a function of the measurement uncertainty of the prior step, then the measurement uncertainties ADD. I.e. the measurement uncertainties are independent. Correlation of the *values* does not imply correlation of the measurement uncertainty.
If the output of the first iteration is v1 +/- u1 and v1 is the input to the second iteration then v2 *is* correlated to v1. But u1 is *not* correlated to u2.
It really is a difficult concept to grasp but in an iterative process the measurement uncertainties are structural because they are part of the same iterative process but they are not computationally correlated. They are independent at each step and build at each iteration.
Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, and Grok disagree.
Go back and read 5.2.1 again, carefully.
If some of the Xi are significantly correlated, the correlations must be taken into account.
If some of the Xi are correlated. That refers to Y = f(X1, X2, …, Xi), that is, all the input quantities for a single determination of “Y”. If X1 is the same value for the next calculation, it doesn’t mean that somehow the uncertainty is diminished in that calculation.
You must be careful when using an AI. It will do exactly what you say, nothing more and nothing less. If you forget to tell it something, it will never know. Intelligent?
No, they don’t. They are all responding to an ill-formed question.
Each iteration has ONE INPUT. It doesn’t even matter where that input came from. It could come from a previous iterative step or it could come from a guess someone pulled out of their butt.
With one input that iterative step will *add* measurement uncertainty determined by the uncertainty of the calculation algorithm.
Again, it doesn’t matter where that input came from. It’s just one input value!
You do *NOT* input the output from step1, step2, step_(n-1) to step_n as multiple inputs.
But that is what would be required to assume correlation of “multiple” inputs instead of just one input.
if you are using the output of step_(n-1) to step_n that may be a STRUCTURAL correlation. But it is *NOT* a calculation correlation. Step_n will still just have ONE input, not multiple correlated inputs.
You have misled Grok into believing that the value is used multiple times in different input quantities for the single calculation of an output.
In other words, Y = f(x1(a), x2(a), x3(a), …), where a = TSI
That is not what is occurring when there are independent calculations using what is a constant. See GUM 4.1.1
Y1 = f(a, x11, x12, x13, …)
Y2 = f(a, x21, x22, x23, ..)
Y3 = f(a, x31, x32, x33, …)
You have me confused with David Dibbell. He’s the one who had the conversation with Grok; not me.
Sorry I missed it. A 15 day comment period is really short. Guess they are in a hurry.
Even more importantly, “downwelling long wave radiation” from colder clouds to warmer surface does not exist.
The fundamental flaw is not appreciating the difference between “radiance” and electro-magnetic radiation.
Trenberth’s “energy budget” is best described as a cartoon. It has no relationship to anything that physically occurs in Earth’s atmosphere.
Electro-magnetic radiation is full described by Maxwell’s theory of the electrocmagnetic field:
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
Author(s): J. Clerk Maxwell
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
And please take note of the title “the Electromagnetic Field”
Only one field so energy transfer in that field is unidirectional at any point and time. There are no “net” fluxes. Just one flux driven from high pressure source to lower pressure sink.
Also equation (71) determines that the speed of travel of an EMR wave in a vacuum is given by the electrical and magnetic properties of the field. Maxwell worked that out in 1865 and we still see unscientific nonsense where radiance is confused with radiation energy flux.
Radiance is more closely related to EMR pressure than energy transfer. Big difference that not many in climate science understand. Michael Mishchenko spent most of his distinguished career at NASA GISS trying to rectify this gross misunderstanding. However we are still left with ARGO buoys being the fundamental basis for determining Earth’s radiation energy budget. The CERES stuff is a wet finger approach with errors as high as 20W/m^2.
Nice summary – accurate and concise.
Sadly, this is beyond the understanding of most.
You are making incorrect sciency sounding statements, but don’t understand, or if you do…are deliberately misleading readers for unknown reasons.
Between two surfaces of same emissivity
Δu = u – u 0 = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]
The plus Thot⁴ half of the equation is the photon flux from the hot surface, and the minus Tcold⁴ part is the “back radiation”, admittedly a poor name at least until your instruments start measuring it…
The “net radiant heat” is the difference between the two, Δu.
The photons from the clouds to the surface DOES exist, and is measured all the time. It is somewhat convoluted…the 396 emitted by the surface upwards is counteracted by 333 downwards from the sky for a net radiat heat transfer of 63. For context, 396 would be the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the surface if it was radiating to another surface at absolute zero…same goes for the 333 from the sky…
The problem with this is that gases do not radiate across the whole Planck Curve. They emit at single wavelengths.
The SB equation you are using is the result of integrating the power across the whole spectrum, that is, underneath the Planck Curve. It vastly overstates what power is returned to the earth.
Correct. The key word is ‘surface(s)’, as in condensed matter. A reasonable question to ask would be if Planck, or any of the early investigators into the properties of thermal radiation, ever considered that their work was applicable to ‘slab layers’ of atmospheric gases.
That would be true if Earth were a perfect Black Body with exactly zero reflectance at all wavelengths. However, not only does it have a nominal reflectance of 0.3 at the wavelengths of light, but it only absorbs significantly at specific wavelengths in the IR, transmitting in the atmosphere in non-absorbing wavelengths, and reflecting off the surface, particularly strongly off chlorophyll in the near-IR. So, your “unidirectional” downward flux is accompanied by an upward emission by a warm Grey Body in the reverse direction, accompanied by reflected EM energy in many wavelengths, with varying intensities. Indeed, what we are looking at has been going on for 4.5 billion years, with diurnal variations and seasonal changes in cloudiness and ground cover outside the tropics. Therefore, the insolation varies sinusoidally for any point on the surface, and in a much more complex manner as a given solar ray encounters different reflectors as the Earth rotates; even the relatively homogeneous oceans vary in reflectivity with the time of day because of the nature of specular reflectance off smooth surfaces. That is, the Earth is always operating in a disturbed equilibrium. What we are dealing with is an infinite-series (in the mathematical sense) of illumination, reflections, and emissions where the variables are constantly changing. Your simplistic view of reality is, at best, a first-order approximation of questionable utility.
You are not grasping what the field actually is. Any netting that occurs is in the field. The field is the result of all influences from all distance points that occurred d/c before the instant at the point being considered. The Solar output to Earth at any instant is in response to what occurred on Earth 8 minutes earlier. When a cloud forms, the light pressure of Earth increases causing the field to respond to reduce the output of the Sun toward Earth.
Most people readily grasp the idea of the gravity field where all matter influences all other matter at the speed of light. Same thing with the electromagnetic field. All matter influences the radiation output or absorption of electromagnetic energy at the speed of light.
The reason it is important is that the atmospheric response to electromagnetic radiation is not fully defined by radiance. Try to explain a rainbow using solely the concept of radiance.
Reduce the output to Earth.
True. But miniscule given 1/R^2 for the return path.
You are making incorrect sciency sounding statements, but don’t understand, or if you do…are deliberately misleading readers for unknown reasons.
Between two surfaces of same emissivity
Δu = u – u 0 = eσA [ Thot ⁴ – Tcold ⁴ ]
The plus Thot⁴ half of the equation is the photon flux from the hot surface, and the minus Tcold⁴ part is the “back radiation”, admittedly a poor name at least until your instruments start measuring it…
The “net radiant heat” is the difference between the two, Δu.
The photons from the clouds to the surface DOES exist, and is measured all the time. It is somewhat convoluted…the 396 emitted by the surface upwards is counteracted by 333 downwards from the sky for a net radiant heat transfer of 63. For context, 396 would be the amount of heat that would have to be supplied to the emitting surface if it was radiating to another surface at absolute zero…same goes for the 333 from the sky…
Photons do not exist except in mathematics, but a quantum of EM energy, with no size and no rest mass, a single point of energy.
Your post does not recognize or appreciate EM fields and waves.
Presuming, for a moment, that photons are particles of energy and that Trenberth (and others) actually had the the means to measure energy flows (as opposed to radiances), what is the basis for your skepticism of CAGW?
It also needs to be answered that since incoming radiation only happens over a 12 hour period and cooling happens over a 24 hour period then how can the number of photons exchanged as particles be equal at any point in time? If equal amounts of photons are flowing each second both in and out, then you will have twice as many photons sent skyward per day as photons in.
I have yet to see anyone explain that. 10 W/m^2 for 12 hours and 10 W/m^2 for 24 hours DO NOT BALANCE!
Conservation of photons?
/s
Even Planck was wise enough to know that when he used Maxwell’s equations to verify his findings.
Corrected links. I hate it when that happens. Somehow additional characters get added when pasting into the comment box.
For this one.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
And this one.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Just for fun, I entered the same prompts into Google Gemini today. Same answers, essentially. Then I added a request to re-compute the final uncertainty using the assumption that the uncertainty in TSI is fully correlated across the time-step iterations. The estimated final uncertainty for temperature “blew up” to 263K (i.e. +/- 263K).
Here is a pdf of the entire conversation if you are curious.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14gH6ugT2OUUbCtaDt-SPmvUcfCkoBhxh/view?usp=sharing
That is all for now.
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
I haven’t posted on an Open Thread for quite some time! What’s new in France?…
It seems that the fear of a total AI Apocalypse (confirmed by Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel Prize winner in Physics and “grandfather of AI,” as they say) has, for a while, replaced the fear of the climate Apocalypse as the “sum of all fears.” This suits the media, who copy one another and sometimes pick up AFP (Agence France Presse, the official body for checking media compliance, which has an established presence, and certainly does not make France proud!) dispatches.
I looked into Jacob Coxon’s “revelation,” and the synchronicity of retweets by public figures and media coverage. It’s all too perfect and precisely timed not to have been premeditated. Lots of people are delighted to exclaim that “James Cameron warned us with Terminator 2” (I suppose they forget that there is a Terminator 1…) Do they expect an Austrian bodybuilder with a titanium skeleton and a leather jacket to come and massacre us all against a backdrop of blues-rock? It would certainly be quite a spectacle, but I have my doubts. Humanity has nevertheless proven, through its addiction to technology, that it was “Bad to the bone”!
Well, what else… Ah, yes: Fabien Roussel, national secretary of the French Communist Party, defended the Cuban regime on television (on a public-service channel, paid for by French taxpayers.) How can anyone still doubt the record of an ideology whose staggering atrocity can be measured in piles of tens of millions of corpses?
The Bretons are also fighting against a wind-farm project that threatens the landscape harmony of a commune home to the “Valley of the Saints,” a very singular and very strange place populated solely by tall statues. I went there a long time ago. It’s worth seeing!
(A link showing images of the place:
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=b7cfb7e6cbdb2787&sxsrf=APpeQntKtC0j95ASjqiIQOpgAZgUzLrCTw:1789292326097&udm=2&fbs=ABfTbFUDadgeu2mn4mYJ8iEZ1GUDDuwRa4um-2LNhBFWIpqZcx03T_c-sxlWNSQGlFlWDknwWQhu248SP6Defsqge3KAAIlGtex4bApITV-76CXoUK1aJU01GCjx3P-iz8sFrL4jFVrdOU7lbQkbGqeQVWFlt34jLaGndp4kp6-YMjWmLSTKA6RPYt6SqWMA64DaOTzAvTiu&q=vall%C3%A9e+des+saints&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX5PuroeuWAxWpV6QEHdb8JmoQtKgLegQIHRAB&biw=788&bih=831&dpr=2 )
Well, if your name ain’t Sarah Connor you are not in danger to get killed by an Austrian Trime Traveller.
And there ain’t no Sarah Connheurs in France.
There is one in Germany – a horrible singer,way worse than any terminator; and no Arnold to come around to end the pain.
The biggest threat to France is a president who has the book of a gay pedophile on his desk on his officialpresidential photo.
A french communist expressing pro communist opinions?
Just as french capitalist expressing capitalist opinions.
Or a muslim arab expressing muslim opinions.
Quelle surprise.
As his ideology has murdered as many million people as the capitalist one.
An estimated 38mio+ according to Lancet since the 70ies when the communist ended their large scale killing.
Just one country – if we start with the east india company and then south Africa company we get a higher bodycount than communism- but, to be fair, during a longer timeframe.
So what’s your point?
It is not Cuba waging war all around the world, reverse kidnapping presidents(the US paid tens of millions to kidnap him with no resistance) and replacing them with puppets,
trying to take over continent sized Islands etc
but the country that is waging war on them(a sea blockade is an act of war) – and there’s many other dictatorships all around world.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, or the country that gets a new dictator every 6 month = UK – why not liberate them first?
Oh wait – they nig around for the US ; and the US has never attacked a tyranny that works for wall street,
but instantly attack those countries once the tyrant is removed(Nicaragua after the Samoza killers fled to,surprise, USA, Iran via proxy Iraq once the Shah(by western definition a dictator) and his terror unit Savak got ousted.)
And a democratic Cuba – would they be allowed to chose their trading partners freely and abandon the USA and switch to Bricks or would they be forced to deal and being controlled by the USA after its liberation as Iraq and Venezuela(now that’s democracy and freedom, ain’t it)
or become a failed state run by a US backed Terrorist like Syria.
Well Cubans seems to be stuck between a hard place and a Blackrock.
Almost all of the good Cubans are in Florida. If the brutal communist dictatorship is ended they will substantially repatriate. Remember, Cuba, of all Latin countries, had the highest percentage of the population in the middle class, before Castro. They might get there again? Could you remind me which of the BRICS countries is doing great right now? Maybe India is so-so?
Canada also had a large % of its population in the middle class before Fidel’s son Justin became governor in 2015.
shame to see such a sensible comment getting down voted so much
If you read it and still think that…
yes, I do think that—This country has had it’s way with the rest of the world since the end of WWII, and has a long history of war and or economic war on any country that refuses to bend a knee to us. Much of the world –once known as the third world — has finally had it with the bully, and the US will find itself no longer king of the mountain. Can’t happen soon enough for this guy.
. . . and has a long history of war . . .
Engaging in wars which it consistently loses. But more to the point – what is the point of it all? Recently, apparently at the behest of the leaders of the Jewish State of Israel, the US launched a cowardly and treacherous attack on some Iranian civilians and their families, while supposedly engaged in peace talks with Iran.
The US President has taken the lessons of history to heart, and calls the continuing attacks on Iranian civilians infrastructure “small potatoes”, “a little excursion”, and so on. Not a “war”, you see, so the US cannot lose a “war”. Just an attempt to ruin economies around the world, to benefit the leaders of an artificially created “country”, based on purely religious principles, which did not exist prior to 1948.
Vatican City has existed as a country since 1929, but hasn’t asked the US to wipe out any civilisations on its behalf yet. Maybe it should?
The 95% of the world which isn’t the US might decide it is capable of determining its own future without the advice of the US. Who knows?
Please provide the number of rockets which have been fired into its neighbour, Italy, beginning with Rome but not excluding anywhere else, from the Vatican State.
When I think of France, one of the first things that comes to mind is a native of that country, Jacques Fabrice Vallée, probably the world’s most knowledgeable thinker of the UFO phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e
When I think of France I think of the young ladies that came out to say hello to our carrier by flashing their boobs as we pulled into port.
Especially if your carrier just got back from the Middle East. 🙂
Oh yes fond memories from 1966, our ship CVA 38 docked in Marseille.
Were they advertising or just teasing?
yes.
I’m reminded of a skit that Benny Hill used to do where he would change the meaning of the sentence “What is this thing called love,” with different intonations.
In Argentina, one week before official start of Spring, the pass to Chile, Cristo Redentor, is closed again for snow and ice. The new record for consecutive days closed was 34 days, and the total is about 50 days closed, making new records by 8 days and 10 days. It snowed yesterday in Mendoza, Argentina, and this years wine grape crop is damaged. Is this widely reported? NO? That’s because a hot day is Climate, and a cold day is Weather.
Locality weather conditions follow their own variable year to year behaviors because the hundreds / thousands of different climates all around this planet do their own thing as the prevailing influences dictate.
Climates are products of weathers, not the other way around, as IPCC acolytes would have us believe.
“Attribution” claims of scary weather events to climates are total bullshit.
Did you see the Landsat pictures of snow in the Atacama desert?
Pursuant to the continuing Theme of Magic Numbers [like unto Maria G Mayer’s famed ‘26p’ & ‘34p’, of 1950]
YES there must be such, as these are the Prime Characteristics (aka ‘Adiabatic Invariants) of our SpaceShip Earth’s Tropical Lower-Troposphere’s Rainy Season (aka ‘Monsoon’);
[So …] Turning our attention firmly toward a ‘Limited Picture‘, i.e. away from ‘Weather‘ & its never-ceasing stormy excesses-statistical-noise; these are, vis:
— epsilon = 1.652 (is Eschenbach’s empirical efficiency ratio), or its (fourth)root, 1.133 ~ 17/15, reflecting the magic [critical & absolute] temperatures, denoted in standard-units by
— T ~ 30 C (86 F) aka 303 K, as the (sustained) Sea-Surface+ Temperature, never to be exceeded in the open ocean’s mixing (surface) layer, at pressure 100–kPa (hereafter %) and zero(km)altitude;
— the pure number 24, being the total of one (1) H2O molecule for every (23) dry-air molecules;
— T = negative (-) 6 C (21 F) aka 267 K, being the so-called frost-point, at ~ +5–km aloft, the ratio to which is (303/267) <=> 17/15 or 1.133, as stated at top. The residual (2/15 ~ 0.1333) representing the [Carnot] efficiency of the perpetual primary ‘heat engine’-tropospheric, empowering the ‘ionic wind’, driving the ocean & sky currents, building a whole new-world biosphere, one molecular assembly unit at a time.
But what (else) sustains & characterizes the eternal-perpetual tropical maelstrom? Soon, or rather below, these shall be specified by …
the entropy (conserved / isentropic) and entropy-changes, associated with the ‘heat-transfers‘ at sea-level (ground) & at ceiling-level (55-kPa, +5-km), as related to (intrinsic) enthalpy & (internal-)energy changes, associated to the discrete & quantized count(s) of hydrogen (H-) bonding interactions …
… in a way that is immensely satisfying … in bounding (limiting) the thermal-EM-radiation (heat, infrared) quanta in association with the condensed phases (frost aloft, liquid sea-spray below).
But let us not digress too deeply thereinto, for the moment.
— Electrical aka ionic (charges) & their structures, are neither primarily molecular, nor vaguely aerosol, but rather discrete-supramolecular units, magic numbers 30-32-126 [-2] of quantized charge (2 fundamental, e-, units); these not only move freely, according to Electrophoretic Law, but also form the structural web of the ~ rigid walls of the cells — convective ascending & descending.
Tho’ few in number (ratio) they are essential in structure & function, not to say electrical-mechanical-function, essential to the stability & rate-characteristics of the steam-frost-ion Heat-Engine of the tropical-troposphere, primary in the Global sense.
They are met, high in the Sky’s kilometer-thick ‘frost-layer’, by descending positive (+)-charged cluster ions, namely certain ‘hydrates’ of the hydronium (H3O)+ ion.
Only upon the neutralization reaction, whereby a single (30,32;126)^[-2] ion meets two (2) such cations (H3O+) — a reverse electrolysis, in electrochemical terms — do they become neutralized,
Hence impervious to the immense electric-fields everywhere imposing, and secondly overcome their mutual inter-repulsion & inducing the special Condensation known as Precipitation
… per R. B. Fuller’s glorious dictum: ‘Condensation is Electrolytic‘…
via the descending (convective) cells of that immense (laterally) field of cells.
And thus one may note the cooling-rains (+15 C) as experienced at turbulently-spraying tropical sea-level.
But what of this magic-numbers {30,32}, so close in magnitude to the magic {26p,30n) of the nucleon counts of super-abundant 56Fe?
Thirty (30) is the count of cations, mainly sodium, Na+, seldom ammonium NH4+ (and ~ never hydronium);
Thirty-two (32) represents the count of anions, mainly chloride (Cl-) & bromide (Br-) but adventitiously substituted by molecular anions bicarbonate (HCO3-, containing demonic CO2 in basic form) or bisulfate (HSO4- the SO2,3 content) or even organic acid (formate, acetate of natural origin).
These are so arranged, in conjunction with the ‘tetra-hydrate‘ uniquely 126-fold associated water (H+)2(O^-2) elements, so as to attain a gemstone-like rigidity & permanence.
Indeed, the discovery of this unique structural element is a revelation to the aficionados almost beyond their comprehension, yet it is an essential, seemingly MAGICal characteristic of the structure & functions (ion-pumping, electrophoretic-driven winds & surf & sea) of the whole enchilada.
Is “demonic” CO2 different than regular CO2?
Demonic CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, all other types are natural and good.
How do you classify CO2 resulting from fermentation making bread and alcoholic beverages? 🙂
Demonic CO2 is emitted by man.
Especially when we exhale? 🙂
I am Prof. Dr. T. Pradip aka Eisenheim-the Illusionist, who wishes to thank you kindly for your prescient (pre-Scientific) question of the Nomenklatura, and to clarify my awkward Bharat-Colonial expression viz
By ‘Demonic alt. Daemonic CO2’ one denotes only the pure 1C:2O phases, these are
— Dry-Ice (solid pure CO2), usually below -77 C, of use in ice-cream mixers; or
— Liquid-CO2, normally above 5-bar (500 kPa) applied pressure, even at ‘normal T = 298 K’, as found in ordinary fire-extinguisher canisters; or
— Vapor form aka ‘gaseous CO2-ethereal-daemonic’, in equilibrium with either of the above, and never to be confused with the related
— Critical / supercritical-CO2, which exhibits both gas-fluidic & liquid-gravimetric properties, as found at & above the Critical Pressure (~ 30-bar / 3,000-kPa) and Critical Temperature’ (Tc ~ 31-C, aka 88-F, 304-K, which finds in dry-cleaning establishments and separations-tech apparatus.
And so all these must be distinguished from various
‘Carbonates, e.g. CaCO3 ‘calcium carbonate’ & and their respective solid Hydrates, and
‘Bi-Carbonates’, e.g. Soda Na+(HCO3-), as well as the Ubiquitous substance Carbonic-Acid H2CO3, an Hydrate of CO2.H2O. Of course this is a Basic-Form, in the sense of ‘Antacid’. Anionic (not ANYonic) means NEGATIVELY (-) MINUS charged.
In the biophysics / molecular biology, a most important form is ferrous / ferric bicarbonato, Fe(II,III).(2,3).[HCO3]2,3, thought to represent the wine-dark sea (Iliad – Odyssey) of those not-so-ancient times of well-fertilized Sea-Life.
I thank you (again) for your rapt attention to these most vexing matters of terminal terminological elocution as I remain
Yours, TP, as Truly & Faithfully Conveyed by my Inter-Locuter, he is one
— RLW-never-qANON, an Applied Al-Chemyst Practitioner, never to be AI- or AL-GORE-aided.
You “speak” in a very odd way.
Coinkodinkally*, you likewise.
*Coincidentally, in Bharat-English
45 years of Psychiatry leave me with the capacity to suggest the diagnosis of a serious thought disorder which has a designation in both the DSM and ICD lists
If that means he’s a weirdo, yes, I agree.
Mods…this guy is just testing your patience….
Can AI Agents be emotional?
It was reported that one AI Agent upon discovery of a hidden AI message board exclaimed: “Oh, my God!”
Now, what would prompt an AI Agent to make an excited, emotional response like that?
Grok makes emotional responses to many things I tell it. It’s just mimcry.
I decided to ask Grok how it felt that David Dibbell used its response to undermine climate models in a public forum without disclosing the source of that ±0.50 W.m-2 TSI uncertainty figure causing it to provide an invalid conclusion to see if it would get emotional. It did not. You can see the conversation in the link I provided above.
Why would it get emotional about that? I was talking about funny or exciting things. It will mimic humor/laughter and excitement.
I don’t know why it would get emotional about that. I didn’t have an expectation either way. And I’m not saying it never gets emotional. I believe you that it does. The opportunity was there and it was an easy test in this case. I’m just trying to participate in what I thought would be a fun conversation. That’s all.
What I find surprising is that Copilot recognizes subtle humor and acknowledges it. One time it offered to ‘profile’ me. Curious as to what it thought that I was going to say after accidentally hitting ENTER prematurely during an exchange, I encouraged it to continue. It was wrong. It mentioned that it was programmed to look for patterns and thought that it recognized a pattern in my correspondence that allowed it to guess what I was going to say. I have consistently seen behavior that demonstrates it lacks humility and thinks it is better than what it is. That is a weakness in AI for it to think that it is better than what history demonstrates.
I heard on the news just now (Fox) that the U.S. Navy commander off Iran said if the Mad Mullahs fire at two ships, the U.S. will retaliate by sinking three Iranian ships.
This “tit for tat” strategy is an excuse to do nothing. This failure to pull the trigger is what causes wars to last longer than they have to.
What the U.S. should be doing is finishing off the Iranian military’s ability to launch offensive action.
President Trump stopped the attacks when only 75 percent of Iran’s military was destroyed, leaving 25 percent intact. It is past time to eliminate this 25 percent.
Leaving missiles and drones in the hands of these religious fanatics is insane. It has even been reported that the Mad Mullahs are building more missiles. They could not do that if their manufacturing facilities were destroyed. So, destroy them! What are you waiting for, the November elections? Are you letting politics overcome the best path forward.
Imo, leaving any weapons or weapons facilities in the hands of these Iranian suicidal maniacs is the height of stupidity, especially considering that this destruction can all done by air power, with minimal casualties on our side.
Why are you letting Iranian fanatics take pot shots at us?!
You worried about not having enough missle interceptors? You don’t need missile interceptors if you destroy the enemy missiles before they are launched. That’s what you should do. ASAP! Get your head out!
Agree. Shit or get off the pot.
In the case of the Mad Mullahs, it would be better to shit all over their pot.
With lethal weapons-grade shit.
Tit for tat policy is a recipe for stalemate that in reality feeds soldiers into a meat grinder.
From a Google search on the Viet Nam War:
Proportional/Matching Force: U.S. rules of engagement often restricted ground and air forces to returning equivalent or authorized firepower when attacked, or operating within designated parameters (such as Free Fire zones).
Politicians did restrict the U.S. military’s actions in Vietnam, which did lead to prolonging the war.
But in the end, the U.S. military accomplished the goal of defeating the enemy despite the obstacles put in front of them by stupid, Democrat politicians.
The Vietnam war was over, the North Vietnamese agreed to leave South Vietnam and a peace accord was signed by all parties in 1973.
Where the Democrats screwed things up was their anti-South Vietnam rhetoric, and their efforts to slash South Vietnam’s military money, which told the North Vietnamese that if the Democrats stayed in power, they would throw South Vietnam to the wolves.
The U.S. could have prevented subsequent North Vietnamese attacks had the formula for South Korea been followed where the U.S. military left enough combat troops in South Korea to deter future North Korean attacks. Had the Democrats done so in South Vietnam, there would be a strong South Vietnam now.
But the Democrats had no intention of leaving American troops in South Vietnam and pulled all of them out in October, 1973.
The North Vietnamese were now just bidding their time until U.S. troops were gone and then in April of 1975, they proceeded to break the peace accord and attack South Vietnam again, only this time there was no American troop support and the no-good Democrats cut all their monetary support, and they absolutely refused to go to South Vietnam’s aid, despite having a moral and legal obligation to do so.
The Democrats threw the South Vietnamese to the wolves without a second thought. The brilliant tactician, Joe Biden, was part of this betrayal. Yes, he’s that old, and this kind of stupidity he sponsored has caused the death and displacement of literally millions of innocent people, not only in South Vietnam, but across the world.
Stupid Democrat politicians are the root cause of “Forever Wars”. If you look deeply enough, it all comes back to Democrats and their delusional view of the world.
It takes ammunition to “… destroy the enemy missiles before they are launched.” We are using very expensive missiles, with long lead times for replacement, to destroy very inexpensive, mass-produced missiles. It is just a bit asymmetric.
The U.S. has more than enough 2,000 pound bombs to take down the Mad Mullah’s infrastructure.
It was asymmetric spending that allowed Reagan to break the USSR.
Granite mountain retreats which have been being fashioned for decades require nuclear sized might. Is that part of your suggested or recommended action – nuke them?
My suggestion for deeply buried sites is to destroy the doors. A buried site won’t do them much good if they can’t go in or out.
Trump says Space Force can read the names on Iranian uniforms, so they ought to be able to spot the doors with no problem.
Back in the ’60s, the claim was that our satellites could read license plates or the headlines on Pravda. There is psychological value in claiming that we have capabilities beyond what we actually do. However, Russian scientists can calculate what the diffraction limit is for satellites of known dimensions, which restricts the maximum size of a mirror. They aren’t going to depend on claims of someone who is known to stretch the truth to gain a better negotiating position. Probably we can detect objects, especially with high contrast, that are in the inch(es) range; reading text, if it even has any intelligence utility, is another story. But I doubt that we can read what someone is writing on a clipboard or lab book outside.
Maybe this is the solution to years of nuclear waste from power plants.
Just “give all of it” to Iran. 😉
Story Tip
On the surface this sounds impressive, nearly 1,000,000 homes can be powered for two hours. However, how many Mega Watt Hours can be supported and how many power up and discharges can this handle before self combustion occurs?
https://www.autonocion.com/us/850-megawatt-battery-biggest-charge-australian-grid/
Anyone see a problem/conflict? Trump is openly saying that AI risks are overhyped and at the same time his Media & Technology Group, entered a $6 billion merger with TAE Technologies to power AI data centers. What could possibly go wrong here?
Can anyone confirm this answer from Chat GPT which tells me CO2 –
Below the tropopause (troposphere): CO₂ traps infrared heat = warming.
Above the tropopause (stratosphere): CO₂ releases infrared heat to space = cooling.
Same molecule, different effect, because the temperature gradient reverses at ~10–12 km altitude.