A place for discussion
0
0
votes
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
36 Comments
September 20, 2026 2:07 am
Britain’s Climate Policy is Leaving Us Dangerously Exposed to Our Enemies
Burnham ‘determined’ to reach net zero by 2050
Prime Minister claims green economy is ‘best chance’ to reindustrialise Britain
A tanking economy with net zero driven rising unemployment is not my idea of reindustrialising anything other than China, India etc.
And the shocker
Wandsworth Council is proposing a significant 94% council tax hike, which would add £958 to the annual bill for households, bringing the total to £1,978. This substantial increase is being considered in response to a projected budget deficit of £215 million by 2030-31. The council attributes this financial challenge to considerable cuts in government funding and the financial situation inherited from the previous [Labour] administration. – London Local
The idea is redistribution…. Take from us in (Conservative) Wandsworth and give it to spendthrift Labour councils.
B’stards.
The council has always been among the lowest rates in the country because it has been run well, at least until the Labour lot got in and wrecked it. The voters in Wandsworth voted in a conservative council to get rid of Labour and now that council is being punished…
Wandsworth council tax row: Kemi Badenoch instructs lawyers to challenge cuts to Tory-run London council‘I think it is outrageous that Wandsworth Council is having to put up council tax. But they’re not doing it because they want to’ – Kemi Badenoch
If your council costs you more and/or is badly run fiscally like Birmingham and Croydon etc, that is not our problem. You need to fix it.
September 20, 2026 2:14 am
Here is a follow-up to last week’s Open Thread post. No AI.
This is a simplified exercise demonstrating propagation of uncertainty in a hypothetical step-iterated temperature response model. No unnecessary assumptions are posed.
The power intensity of energy input is a constant nominal value in W/m^2.
At step 0, the temperature is stable, and the exact temperature is known.
The sensitivity to the power intensity of energy input is: delta T = 0.27K/(W/m^2)
The epistemic uncertainty of the input is +/- 0.034 W/m^2 on a standard uncertainty basis. This is the only source of uncertainty in the model.
Each step is considered an independent instance in which the temperature result of the previous step is operated on using the nominal value of the input to obtain a new temperature result, which is then passed to the following step. The uncertainty is taken to be uncorrelated through the sequence of steps.
What is the standard uncertainty of the temperature after 17,520 steps? Use the Root-sum-square method to combine the uncertainties of the sequence of steps.
Answer:
The uncertainty contributed at each step is the same. +/- 0.034 W/m^2 * 0.27K/(W/m^2) = +/- .0092K
The final uncertainty is computed as sqrt (17520*(0.0092K)^2), giving a result of 1.22K, i.e. +/- 1.22K. This is on a standard uncertainty basis, i.e. one standard deviation.
Now someone may say, “Wait. The uncertainty shouldn’t accumulate! The uncertainty of the final temperature will just be +/- 0.0092K!” That would be true for a single instance of input -> response. But this is a step-iterated model, as described above. The buildup of uncertainty is unavoidable even as the temperature itself remains stable.
So what? This exercise points out a critical issue with the use of ANY time-step-iterated earth system model, running ANY scenario of emissions, to investigate the climate system response to the computed radiative “warming” tendency of incremental CO2. It was implausible all along to expect any diagnostic or prognostic value from that complex exercise. The accumulating uncertainty is far greater than the factor being investigated. It is circular. If you think you know the response in advance, then why the pre-stabilized, time-step-iterated models at all?
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter.
P.S. ######
Why those particular numbers for this hypothetical exercise?
The +/- 0.034 W/m^2 comes from the stated 100 ppm absolute accuracy of the TIM instrument aboard the International Space Station. We cannot measure Total Solar Irradiance any better than that. This uncertainty value corresponds to the nominal TSI divided by four, to represent the geometric average over a spherical surface.
The 0.27K/(W/m^2) sensitivity is a no-feedback value computed from an assumed 255.27K emission temperature vs a 255K emission temperature, which gives a 1 W/m^2 change.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/tsis/documentation/README.TSIS.pdf
“1.1.1 Instruments
TSIS-1 consists of two instruments, the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Spectral Irradiance
Monitor (SIM). …
TIM measures TSI across the entire solar spectrum. TIM is an ambient temperature, active cavity
radiometer. TIM measures TSI to an estimated absolute accuracy of 100 ppm (0.01%). TIM
measurements began on January 11, 2018.”
###### end P.S.
Let’s remember that the May 23, 2025 Executive Order “Restoring Gold Standard Science” includes this requirement in Section 4:
“(c) When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
This is important for skeptics of climate alarm to know about, in my view. The EPA, the DOE, the USGCRP, etc. must all be held to this requirement.
David, good posting of the Section 4: (C) “When using scientific information in agency decision-making…”. When Geologists write an important report, commonly recommending the spending of millions of dollars, it is common (at least for me and those working for/with me) to include a section, just before Conclusions and Recommendations, titled “RISK ANALYSIS: FATAL FLAWS, CRITICAL PATHS, AND RISK/REWARD ANALYSIS.”
The most obvious example in the CAGW reports, is a lack of comparing the cost and risk of Mitigation versus Adaptation.
Thanks, very interesting. It does seem quite logical that when you add one uncertain number to another uncertain number, the uncertainty would increase with each iteration. It does seem that the percent change in the total would decrease with each step but the total would grow beyond bound, The magnitude of the uncertainty in the actual value would be so high as to be totally useless. This maybe could be called the “Dibbell Uncertainty Paradox in
recursive Modelling”. The longer it runs the more useless it becomes.
I simply cannot understand why this simple progression can’t be understood by so-called physical scientists as well as mathematicians.
Assumption, measurement uncertainty = +/- 1
1.Input 10 +/- 1, the input range interval is from 9 to 11. The calculating algorithm needs to analyze *all* possibilities associated with the input range, 9 and 11. Let’s assume that the algorithm is just (output = input * 1)
The output from an input of 9 +/- 1 will be 9 +/- 1. ==> 8 to 10
The output from an input of 11 +/- 1 will be 11 +/- 1. ==> 10 to 12
Thus the input to the next stage will be 10 +/- 2
2.The input to the next step will be 8 +/- 1 and 12 +/- 1.
8 +/- 1 gives a range of 7 to 9
12 +/- 1 gives a range of 11 to 13
These become the possible inputs to the next stage, 7 and 13, or 10 +/- 3
At each step the measurement uncertainty ADDS.
It is just a simple progression. And it really doesn’t matter what the calculating algorithm is. That only affects the estimated central value, it doesn’t change the additive progression in measurement uncertainty.
There is only a “structural” correlation in the measurement uncertainties in that they are all assumed to be the same. That is *not* a requirement. The measurement uncertainty used for each step could be different. The uncertainties would still *add*.
There is no “calculation” correlation. Since the measurement uncertainties at each step are totally independent, i.e. the measurement uncertainty at step n is not determined by the measurement uncertainty in step n-1, there is no calculation correlation. Thus a simple addition of the measurement uncertainties is proper. Generate 17520 independent, random measurement uncertainty values, one for each step, and the same progression will ensue, Σu(i) from i=1 to 17520.
I even question the use of root-sum-square to add the uncertainties. The RSS method assumes some cancellation of random measurement uncertainty among multiple uncertainty components. But in a step progression, there are only two components, the measurement uncertainty of the input and the measurement uncertainty added by the algorithm to each possible uncertain input value. Assuming a partial cancellation between just two components is a stretch. Think of the direct addition as the worst possible result and the RSS addition as the best possible result.
There is absolutely no use of a 1/(n-1) factor against the measurement uncertainty in this. the n-1 factor is used to estimate SAMPLING uncertainty, not measurement uncertainty. There is no *sampling* involved in a step progression, just a plain calculation of (output = X * input). X may be additive, multiplicative, linear, non-linear, etc. NO sampling! And no sampling of measurement uncertainty.
Good job, David. You’ve nailed it.
Well, not completely. DD has assumed that the error factor generated by a single calculation has a “standard” shape, (common, but still an assumption) so he can use a “standard deviation” to measure the expected error range per calculation and compound it accordingly. Your example assumes a uniformly distributed error, (an error of +1 or -1 is as likely as 0), which really is a highly unlikely mistake for even the Thermometer-Readers to make in a Model.
When you do these calculations: Does the earth rotate and orbit the sun? Are the effects of moon the tides taken into account? Last winter in the Yukon and NWT air temperature plunged to -50° C which broke all previous low temperature records. Climate models usual address warming, but never about cold winters like in Canada where I live. What are winters like where you live?
There is recently a whole lot of foolish and silly talk about “climate change”. About 80% of the earth’s climate is water, ice and snow. Activities of humans will never affect the climates of the vast Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans, the Alps, Andes, Himalaya and Rocky mountains, and the Sahara, Gobi, Mojave and Atacama deserts. Activities of humans can modify local climates due urban island effects. In some regions activities of humans and their animals can cause vast reduction of plant life which results desertification.
“When you do these calculations: Does the earth rotate and orbit the sun? Are the effects of moon the tides taken into account?”
No, because there was no need. This particular post poses a hypothetical case where only the most fundamental concept of temperature response to the power intensity of energy input is considered, to highlight the buildup of uncertainty by step-iterated modeling. No disagreement with your points about the real planet.
September 20, 2026 2:15 am
NOAA’s Tides and Currents page is being redone.
If you follow the link, this terse sign comes up:
This site will no longer be available after
September 30, 2026. Please visit the new,
integrated Sea Level Trends and Extremes –
BETA site. If you have any questions
regarding this forthcoming change, please
contact our customer service support at
tide.predictions@noaa.gov.
I expect the new page will be a full of glitzy images with no useable content.
For example, the
“…absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.“
statement will be more buried than it is already or totally gone.
September 20, 2026 3:57 am
Thank you, David.
I have been promoting proper estimates of uncertainty on blogs including WUWT for more than 5 years. Here is the first of a 3-part article of 20 August 2022, link:
Uncertainty Estimates for Routine Temperature Data Sets – Watts Up With That?
The 2 main lessons from this exercise were –
- People generally know the textbooks methods like GUM on how to measure uncertainty, but many avoid doing it in favour of silence, or maybe because the uncertainty is so large that the validity of their work is shown to be questionable.
- Some agencies like Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology insist on dividing their uncertainty result by the square root of the number of observations, which is fine for synthetic numbers without confounding factors, but does not apply to field observations such as daily surface air temperatures. This is an unforgiveable error for the mathematically educated. Its use is giving Science a bad name. For 100 observations, this division by 10 creates a false but large decrease in the real uncertainty.
Carrying forward the error by time steps as in many climate models compounds the errror, errrror errrrror, as elegantly shown by Dr Pat Frank in this 2019 paper:
Frontiers | Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Geoff S
“Some agencies like Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology insist on dividing their uncertainty result by the square root of the number of observations”
This is *NOT* measurement uncertainty. It is SAMPLING uncertainty. The use of the (n-1) factor is only a shortcut for determining the standard deviation of the means of multiple samples, i.e. the SEM. The absolute correct method for determining this is to make multiple samples of the population consisting of “estimated value +/- measurement uncertainty”, take the mean of the estimated values from each sample, and determine the standard deviation of those sample means.
The sampling uncertainty equation should be SEM = σ/sqrt(n)
where σ is the population standard deviation.
Since the population standard deviation is probably unknown and many times only one sample is available the shortcut estimate SEM = s/sqrt(n-1) is used. If you assume that the sample is IID with the population the formula would actually be SEM = s/sqrt(n). If the single sample is not IID then s/(n-1) has its own uncertainty. For large n, 1/sqrt(n) and 1/sqrt(n-1) converge but the SEM calculated from a single sample may still be inaccurate since “s” may be significantly different than σ, especially if the population distribution is not Gaussian (or at least well-behaved).
Bottom line? Sampling uncertainty is *NOT* measurement uncertainty.
September 20, 2026 5:02 am
This WIKI entry is wrong. It assumes Earth radiates as a BB which I have demonstrated is wrong. Its reason for dividing Io by 4 is ½ & ½ nonsense. Io is divided by 4 to change the model from discular area to spherical area at ToA. This is Fourier’s model which even Pierrhumbert says is no good. It also uses a GHE balance graphic which I have demonstrated is also no good. It uses AU for some reason and never calcs W/m^2 correctly.
Calculation of equilibrium temperature
Consider a planet orbiting its host star. The star emits radiation isotropically, and some fraction of this radiation reaches the planet. The amount of radiation arriving at the planet is referred to as the incident solar radiation, I_oalbedo that depends on the characteristics of its surface and atmosphere, and therefore only absorbs a fraction of radiation. The planet absorbs the radiation that isn’t reflected by the albedo, and heats up. One may assume that the planet radiates energy like a blackbody at some temperature according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law. Radiative equilibrium exists when the power supplied by the star is equal to the power emitted by the planet. The temperature at which this balance occurs is the planetary equilibrium temperature.[4][5][6]
Derivation
In equilibrium, the solar flux absorbed by the planet from the star is equal to the flux emitted by the planet:[4][5][6]
F_abs=F_emit
A_B
F_abs=(1-A_B ) F_solar
F_solar
F_solar=I_o/4
6] The factor of 1/4 in the above formula comes from the fact that only a single hemisphere is lit at any moment in time (creates a factor of 1/2), and from integrating over angles of incident sunlight on the lit hemisphere (creating another factor of 1/2).[6]
Assuming the planet radiates as a blackbody according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law at some equilibrium temperature
T
e
q
{\displaystyle {T}_{eq}}, a balance of the absorbed and outgoing fluxes produces
Assuming the planet radiates as a blackbody according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law at some equilibrium temperature T_eq
F_emit=σ” ” T_eq^4
σ
(1-A_B )(I_o/4)=σT_eq^4
T_eq=((I_o (1-A_B ))/(4″ ” σ))^(1/4)
T_eq=((L_o (1-A_B ))/(16″ ” σ” ” π” ” d^2 ))^(1/4)
L_0 3.828⋅10^26 ” W” d
T_eq=1.07652⋅10^8 (1-A_B )^(1/4) (d/”meter” )^(-1/2) ” K”
T_eq=278.3296⋅(1-A_B )^(1/4) (d/”Au” )^(-1/2) ” K”
where the distance is given in astronomical units.
149597870700 m.[
September 20, 2026 6:21 am
Over a week ago at a local King Soopers I crossed paths with a EE I worked with over twenty years ago had not seen since.
We now live abut 10 miles apart.
I snail mailed to him a copy of my position paper.
It has yet to be delivered.
USPS AI leaned on by influencers?
USPS will not platform my “misinformation.”
That just strengthens my resolve.
Charles Bukowski: “Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others.”
Voltaire: “What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”
September 20, 2026 6:31 am
ISR aka Io = 1,368 W/m^2 (Luminosity W/spherical area m^2 at Au)
Divide by 4 to convert discular cross sectional area to ToA spherical area.
1,368 W/m^2 / 4 = 342 W/m^2
Apply 30% Bond (James) albedo.
(1 – 0.3) * 342 = ASR 240 W/m^2
ASR = OLR
OLR S-B equilibrium for 240 W/m^2 = 255 K, -18 C.
OLR equilibrium temperature without esoteric hocus pos handwavium.
Troposphere is full of molecular KE heat transfer processes which negates 396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate imaginary GHE loop.
September 20, 2026 6:35 am
This post is a follow up to an interesting article posted here a few weeks ago by Andy May. https:wattsupwiththat/2026/08/21/deployabe-energies-new-compact-nuclear-reactor/ Before I start, let’s define two abbreviations that I’ll use a number of times. High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor=HGTR. Deployable Energy=DE.
Deployable Energies (web site=https://www.deployable.energy)(DE) is a start up that promises to produce very small, easily installed, very inexpensive fission reactors built with off-the-shelf components for those who need such. Their website seems to be mostly marketing mush. But it appears they have managed to put together a credible prototype reactor that is currently undergoing testing at the Idaho National lab. Moreover, they seem to have built it in about five months. Their press release shows a cylindrical device about the size of a large trash can in the bed of a Ford pickup truck. Clearly, they have substantial technical smarts.
The following is my analysis of what little technical detail I could find on the DE website. Note that I am not a nuclear engineer, nor indeed an engineer of any sort. But I do have a STEM degree (BS in Chemistry — UCLA 1961). I have worked with the software of a number of large, complex systems and have worked with real engineers enough to have some idea of what they do.
The reactor is apparently a High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor(HTGR). If so, it does not produce electricity. Instead, it heats Helium gas to 700-900 degrees Centigrade. The very hot gas can then be used to generate electricity, promote chemical reactions requiring high temperatures, or similar purposes. HTGRs apparently are rated by the thermal power they produce not by the electrical power generated when they are used for that purpose. One megawatt thermal probably corresponds to about 400-600 kilowatt electrical. The amount of electricity depends on whether secondary recovery — a second turbine driven by steam boiled by the exhaust stream of the first — is used There are or have been a small number of HTGRs (9 or so) built in the past 62 years. This clearly is not a new, unproven technology although a trashcan sized very low power unit appears to be something new. There’s a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia,org/wiki/High-temperature_gas-cooled_reactor .
If one believes Wikipedia, and I don’t see any reason not to, there are two types of HTGR — prismatic and pebble bed. In prismatic reactors the fissionable material is arranged in columns which need to be replaced every five years or so. In pebble bed reactors, the fissionables are in ceramic coated “pebbles” that pass very slowly through the reactor. The depleted “pebbles” are removed at the bottom while fresh “pebbles” are dropped in from the top. In principle, that allows continuous operation for the 40 year (or more?) designed lifetime of the reactor. The DE device looks to be a prismatic reactor.
In both HGTR types the heat generated is transferred to pressurized Helium gas which is circulated through the reactor. Helium has the advantages of being chemically inert, having decent heat capacity, and being transparent to the neutrons emitted by fissioning material. In theory at least, no nuclear activity or products will be present outside the reactor core.
One virtue of HGTR reactors is that the ceramic coated fisssionables are designed such that the radioactives are close enough to each other to interact and generate significant heat through fission at much higher than natural background rates. But they can’t get close enough to go critical. The intent is that can’t melt down through any combination of misinformation (Three-Mile Island), human ineptitude (Chernobyl), or sequence of unfortunate events (Fukushima daiichi).
Larger HTGRs (all built to date) seem to have graphite moderator rods that can be moved in an out of the reactor core to damp the reaction when less power output is needed or when something goes wrong. It’s not clear that the DE one Megawatt device has those. On the other hand it’s not clear to me how one can do without something of the sort if for no other reason than that permitting device installation is likely to be impossible in some jurisdictions without some means of quickly shutting it down.
The only drawback to HTGRs that I could identify is that it appears to quite difficult to keep damaging contaminants out of the circulating Helium. Water at very high temperatures seeping into the Fort St Vrain reactor in Colorado seems to have caused significant corrosion problems throughout its ten year active period. Maybe that can be designed around. And maybe not.
DE HTGR Reactor — Part 2 (Part1 is above)
…
It appears to me that barring unexpected problems, the DE device should be fail-safe and should able to generate significant amounts of electricity when hooked to a generator. It will not be completely passive as a circulating pump for the Helium as well as (probably?) movable control rods and hardware to move them will be needed. And some sort of cooling will be needed for the generators. One MW thermal in, 400-600kw electrical out leaves 400-600kw thermal unaccounted for. It’s likely going to be waste heat that presumably needs to be disposed of via air or liquid cooling unless it can be put to beneficial use like facility heating or water desalinization.
One might reasonably wonder if 400-600kw of waste heat can be gotten rid of without a connection to a substantial local water supply. That could be a problem in arid areas like much of Western North America. I really have no idea. But diesel-electric locomotives apparently generate several times that much waste heat and they are, of necessity, air-cooled.
Overall– interesting and kind of impressive. A good start I think. However, It must be remembered that what is currently being tested looks to be just the heat source. Assuming that works out, the actual electric generation hardware using very hot, pressurized Helium still needs to be designed and tested. And quite likely some design changes will be required to satisfy local laws and environmental regulations. At the very least, installation in a populated area will likely require some sort of containment structure around the reactor itself.
Finally. I’d caution that despite the apparent simplicity, to be useful the reactor will turn out to be part of a fairly complex system. Historically, initial deployment of such systems tend to be costly and considerably more difficult than it might appear on the surface . Don’t be suprised if there are problems. Why? I’ll refer anyone who is interested to Admiral Hyman Rickover’s brief and entertaining 1953 “Paper Reactor” speech — https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html re the difference between a concept on paper and reality.
The water in Fort St Vrain came from the use of steam to drive the gas circulation fans instead of electricity. The steam/water leaked through the shaft seal to the circulating coolant and promptly corroded all manner of stuff particularly because of the very high operating temperature. A second design error was in the use of a single circulating water pipe to cool the concrete barrier between the reactor vessel below and steam generators above. The pipe failed and there was no backup. The Brits adopted HTGRs as their commercial power plant standard and built several in two generations. A small number are still running but their new builds are PWRs. The biggest hit on HTGR technology is high maintenance. Gas coolant affords little or no lubrications on plant parts that must move (such as coolant fans) and very high operating temperatures both of which add to maintenance difficulties. HTGRs can generally provide about 75% availability while PWRs can be 90s+%. General Atomics was the vendor for the first commercial HTGR in the US (Peach Bottom) and the Fort St Vrain machine. Both had short lifetimes around 8-10 years.
September 20, 2026 6:36 am
I’m going to go out on a limb and “call it” for the Arctic sea-ice (daily) minimum for 2026.
All of that AI data center processing power needs something to generate “hallucinations” from.
.
NSIDC data URL : https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
JAXA data URL : https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
