Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

An Icelandic volcano is a gold mine for scientists who study the possible history of life on Mars [link]

Correctly simulating Southern Ocean and Antarctic mixed-phase clouds requires very low levels of ice nuclei [link] Note: crazy high ECS in CMIP6 are tied to SH clouds

Ocean eddies sternly affect global mean sea level projections [link]

Trees and methane: methane eating bacteria [link]

Cloud changes in the period of global warming: Results of the ISCCP [link]

NOAA’s preliminary analysis showed the annual increase in atmospheric methane for 2020 was 14.7 parts per billion (ppb), which is the largest annual increase recorded since systematic measurements began in 1983. [link]

Tackling challenges of a drier, hotter, more fire prone future [link]

Pathways and modification of warm water flowing beneath Thwaites glacier [link]

Did climate change cause societies to collapse? New research upends the old story [link]

Emergent constraints on future surface albedo feedback [link]

Close relationship between polar motion and climate change in the past [link]

New study ties solar variability to the onset of decadal La Nina events [link]

UK builds site to recycle plastic with high pressure steam [link]

Evaluating the economic cost of coastal flooding [link]

A reconciled solution of Meltwater Pulse 1a, when global sea-level rose ~18 m within 500 years. [link]

Melting of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf – one of Antarctica’s largest – is likely to go down for a long time before it goes up. [link]

A volcanic trigger for Earth’s first mass extinction? [link]

One of Earth’s biggest carbon sinks has been overestimated [link]

Large scale conditions for the record setting southern California marine heatwave of August 2018 [link]

On model-satellite differences in tropical tropospheric warming trends – its natural variability [link]

Researchers trying to make sense of the global #methanol budget found that the #atmosphere above remote #ocean regions is a source of methanol, but the ocean is overall a net sink for methanol. [link]

Research published in Nature shows that the ocean mixed layer has changed substantially over the past five decades. The density gradient at the bottom of the mixed layer has increased, and the layer itself has deepened. https://go.nature.com/2NT0Cup

‘Direct’ observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth’s energy budget off balance [link]

Since 1960, Australia has not experienced any continent-wide changes in rainfall patterns. Summers seem to be slightly wetter overall, with “increased water availability in the tropics”. https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002216942031338X

Why are Arctic connections to mid-latitude weather patterns still so controversial? They’re complicated, they vary regionally, and they differ in early vs. late winter. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdb5d

Acceleration of western Arctic sea ice loss linked to the Pacific North American pattern [link]

Sea levels are rising fastest in big cities – here’s why [link]

Multidecadal trends in Antarctic sea ice extent driven by ENSO-SAM over the last 2000 years [link]

Technology and policy

Decarbonizing California’s grid requires more than wind and solar [link]

Climate change: to adapt is to be human [link]

Companies announce world’s first CO2 free gas plants [link]

Satellite network to find carbon super-emitters [link]

Lomborg: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change and the cost of climate policies [link]

6 ways the US can curb climate change and grow more food [link]

Farming our way out of the climate crisis [link]

Optimality versus reality: Closing the gap between renewable energy decision models and government deployment in the US [link]

The US is worried about shortages of critical minerals for electric vehicles, military tech [link]

Provocative article: Why has climate economics failed us? [link]

Indian Point nuclear power plant is shutting down. That means more fossil fuels [link]

China’s plan for Himalayan super dam stoke fears in India [link]

What should be done to curb big tech? [link]

Loose fit infrastructure can better accommodate climate change [link]

Least-cost targets and avoided fossil fuel capacity in India’s pursuit of renewable energy. [link]

India pushes back deadline for coal-fired utilities [link]

The problems with solar geo-engineering [link]

French court orders demolition of seven wind turbines [link]

Return of the carbon tax: why it is so popular with industry lately [link]

Is climate change a foreign policy issue? Opportunity now, not prophecies of doom, should spur America to become a global leader [link]

Food, farming and the fate of planet Earth [link]

Hurricane Ivan was a disaster to the Gulf Shores area, and with the implementation of FORTIFIED Commercial, the damage was not replicated from Hurricane Sally [link]

China’s climate Realpolitik [link]

The ‘Green Energy’ that might be ruining the planet [link]

The key to a 100% clean electricity future in California is Clean Firm Power [link]

Make it rain: US states embrace ‘cloud seeding’ to try to conquer drought. [link]

Model-based policymaking or policy-based modelling? How energy models and energy policy interact [link]

NAS Report: Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance [link]

7 reasons why artificial carbon removal is overhyped [link]

Flood risk behaviors in US riverine metropolitical areas: racial inequities [link]

Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective [link]

About science and scientists

Fascinating essay. Not one of the boys: memoir of an academic misfit [link]

The parallels between mechanisms of mis/disinformation in popular media, and ways that mis/disinformation creeps into in science or reporting about science. [link]

Attempts to muzzle Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans” resulted in the climate cancel crowd having to pay defendant legal fees [link[

Lindzen: The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? [link]

The unbearable wholeness of beings [link] The problem with reductionism in biology

Persuasion and the Prestige Paradox: Are high status people more likely to lie? [link]

Climate anxiety is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon [link]

Scientists should admit they bring personal values to their work [link]

Brokerage at the science-policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance [link]

The rise of a culture of censorship [link]

Why the Arabic world turned away from science [link]

‘Garbage’ models and black boxes? The science of climate disaster planning [link]

491 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Right and wrong – our love, compassion and courage – probably is a religion.

  2. From GWPF 2021-04-16:

    ‘Obscene’ windfarm subsidies revealed by new data
    Lord Lawson: ‘This madness has to stop’

    “London, 16 April: The Global Warming Policy Forum has condemned what it called the “obscenity” of windfarm subsidies and has called for a complete rethink of energy policy.

    GWPF research has shown that just six offshore windfarms are now sharing £1.6 billion pounds in subsidies between them every year. Three receive annual subsidies of over a quarter of a billion pounds each year. On a single day in April last year, Hornsea 1 received a subsidy payment of nearly £1.5 million pounds.”

    “The level of subsidy is sufficient to cover the construction cost of these windfarms in just six or seven years, meaning that future payments will represent almost pure profit for the operators.

    The cost of the Contracts for Difference regime is accelerating, and rose by £0.7 billion last year alone, reaching £2.3 billion in 2020. Consumers are already paying out £6 billion under the Renewables Obligation and another £1 billion under the Capacity Market.

    Direct subsidies therefore amount to an annual payment from each household of £350, a sum that is rising by at least £25 per year. ”

    “There are further bills to pay too, because windfarms are causing destabilisation of the electricity grid. The cost of the Balancing Mechanism, which deals with grid imbalances, is rising rapidly, costing each household £65 per year, a figure that is rising at a rate of £20 per year.

    And the consumer is having to pay for upgrades to the electricity grid too.

    Lord Lawson, GWPF director, said:

    “We are in the middle of an economic crisis and consumers are hit with astronomical costs for unreliable wind energy. These multi-billion subsidies are not only a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but are damaging the UK economy as a whole. This madness has to stop.”

    Benny Peiser said:

    “The level of handouts is an obscenity. Every time a new windfarm comes on stream, the consumer is hit with a double whammy – a relentless increase in annual subsidy payments to windfarm operators and an annual bill for fixing the damage that is done to grid stability. This can’t be kept hidden for much longer. The chickens are coming home to roost very soon, and there will be a big political price to pay”.

    The GWPF article is here: https://mailchi.mp/ca657dfd9d2e/obscene-windfarm-subsidies-revealed-by-new-data-181266

    • My (initial!) critique of said “GWPF article” is here:

      • Can you give us an example of any point made by GWPF that you refuted?

      • Mornin’ Mike (UTC),

        Did you spot my “initial”?

        As per usual the GWPF construct a couple of charts with no reference to their alleged “research” or the underlying data and then bleat about “obscene subsidies” for renewable generation.

        If they’d said that the once United Kingdom’s energy policy is a pig’s ear in a dog’s dinner I’d agree with them, but they didn’t do that either.

        Can you by any chance provide me with a link to said “research” or the data on which it is allegedly based?

      • Jim Hunt, The GWPF graphs list their source as a company called Low Carbon Contracts Company that according to its website tracks UK wind farm payments. I can’t get the links from your website to load. Here’s a response to your tweet from someone who apparently could:

      • DoS attack by the look of it.

        Try again now. Quickly!

        Do you suppose that the GWPF have cleaned up their act over the last 4 years?

      • So the made a mistake four years ago and corrected it. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do? You couldn’t find a more recent mistake or more to the point, something wrong with their expose on UK offshore wind?

      • You didn’t read my brief post carefully enough Mike. The alleged “correction” was in error as well as the original article.

        Believe it or not I can read the “source” mentioned on the GWPF’s charts, but nobody has provided me with a link to the GWPF’s data yet.

        Least of all the GWPF!

    • “We are both scientists who can attest that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one.”

      Argument by analogy and metaphor. And their key claim is simply not so. It is selective reading of a body of credible science that suggests – inter alia – tipping points in Pacific Ocean cloud cover or abrupt transitions to an icier Arctic.

      The only question in my mind is what – given uncertainty – are the practical and pragmatic responses. You may argue about it until the cows – cows are great – come home. But as Hayek said – you are only at best postponing the inevitable.

      • The “week in review” seems to last a month or more at the moment?

        What’s more any “abrupt transition” in the Arctic would seem to be in the less icy direction?

      • Do you imagine that I am unaware of sea ice decline in the Arctic? Igor Polyakov – for whom I have immense respect for as a scientist – suspects that a state change has occurred in the Arctic. We are far from understanding – some more than others – the complex pathways that lead to glacial transitions.

        e.g. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00491/full

      • David Wojick

        What are the analogy and metaphors? They are stating an expert opinion. They may be right or wrong but there are no analogies or metaphors.

      • Crusades is not science. This pointless accusation has been swapped by both sides for decades. At the personal level I am mightily tired of being accused of blind faith every time I challenge some crude contrarian cr@p couched as indisputable fact.

        Yet you fail to address the bigger point?

      • Mornin’ Robert (UTC),

        My NRT Arctic update was directed at Lindzen & Happer et al. and their advocates rather than your good self.

        Thanks for the link BTW. I’m familiar with Polyakov et al., Dec 2018, but not previously with this one.

  3. My take on Biden’s plan to finance 500,000 EV charging stations. Seven ways, none works.
    https://www.cfact.org/2021/04/10/fed-funding-fantasy-ev-charging/

  4. “Recent studies highlighting the presence, and traceability, of the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun have revealed the occurrence a new type of event in the solar lexicon—the “Terminator” (Dikpati et al., 2019; Hurd & Cameron, 1984; McIntosh et al., 2019). Stated simply, a terminator is the event that marks the hand‐over from one sunspot cycle to the next. It is an abrupt event occurring at the solar equator resulting from the annihilation/cancelation of the oppositely polarized magnetic activity bands at the heart of the 22 years cycle; that is, there is no more old cycle flux left on the disk. Put another way, a terminator is the end of a Hale magnetic cycle.”

    The Hale cycle is an obvious candidate as a driver of decadal Pacific Ocean variability – given the correspondence in periodicities. My hypothesis is that it is the result of solar magnetism modulating the Mansurov Effect in the polar regions. Changing polar surface pressures drive changes in the polar annular modes – that in turn change patterns of winds and currents.

    I am eagerly awaiting the outcome of the current Pacific Ocean climate shift.

  5. Click to access Briggs-Climate-Attribution.pdf


    Briggs on climate change attribution studies.

  6. “Concurrent droughts and heat waves can substantially increase fire risk and the scale of burned areas (although the degree of their impacts varies considerably with different fire regimes and histories). For example, tens of millions of trees died during the 2012–2016 California drought, creating a massive fuel load for wildfires”

    El Nino rains through 2016 into 2017 turned the state green and greatly boosted the undergrowth fuel load, then the bigger fires happened. Look at the records of how large the fires were in 1879 after the 1877-78 super El Nino, and the rest of the Gleissberg solar minimum, because El Nino conditions increased.

    “For example, during the 2011 Texas, 2012 Great Plains, and 2012–2016 California droughts, the DTF addressed the increasingly important role of heat in shaping these extreme events through timely reports about their dynamic causes, such as the role of sea surface temperature variability and anthropogenic forcing in producing them”

    That’s treble bad, anthropogenic forcing has nothing to do with the warm AMO phase, or the negative NAO conditions which persisted through the summer and autumn of 2012. The Northeast Pacific warm blob exacerbating the 2013-2015 drought is also the stuff of centennial solar minima, there’s an ideal analogue in 1876-1877.

  7. I cringe when I read “climate crisis.” It is such an ignorant, but powerful way to frame a very complex, contentious issue.

    • I always read that as ‘science crisis’ since AGW has seriously exposed the lack of integrity of so many, and damaged the scientific community’s reputation.

  8. Did climate change cause societies to collapse?
    Yes, the greatest civilisation collapses of the Holocene. During the 4.2kyr event, and 1350-1190 BC, both grand solar minima periods. The latter is a very good analogue for the next two centennial solar minima from 2095 and 2200.

    • The 4.2kyr and 1300bce are just two of several. More recent were the 300bce Greco/Phoenician; ~600ce and ~1650ce in Europe are known. The 4k2yr was the last of the drastic ones.
      However there is evidence of the earlier ones. 3200bce; 4375bce; 5200bce and 6150bce. Roughly they occur in steps of 980 years. But the initiation of collapse starts in mid cycle. One such date is 3550bce, about which evidence from various sources is increasing. Among others it is the date of abrupt desiccation of the Sahara from the findings in sediment cores by Dr P deMenocal.
      The reason is here, writ in stone: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/searching-evidence-deaths-tsunamis-and-earth-dynamics/
      Mathematics is an excellent international language, but it has also been the language of obfuscation. Perhaps science should question G F Dodwell rather than ignore he ever existed.

      • “Mathematics is an excellent international language, but it has also been the language of obfuscation.” – mm

        One of your more profound statements mm.

      • Grand solar minima series occur on average every 863 years, as from 2225 BC, 1360 BC, 500 BC, 350 AD, and 1215 AD. The earliest three dates that you give appear to be during warmer periods for the mid latitudes. The 6.2kyr event period was dominated by strong trade winds, meaning a positive NAO/AO regime, and had village settlement expansions in the Indus, Serbia, and even in southern England with wheat growing. There was similar cooling in Greenland as in the 6.2ky event during the late 700’s AD, which had the warmest summers for northern Europe in the MWP (Esper et al 2014). The third much colder period in Greenland 2700-2450 BC was when city building worldwide began.
        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/schwabe-cycle-variability-ulric-lyons

      • typo.. 8.2kyr event.

      • OK, let’s talk international.
        6150bce: a time of distress – the sinking of Doggerland amongst others. Then the LIA at ~1680ce (between 1645 to 1715). Total 7830 for 8cycles >> ~978yrs/cycle. (the longer the stretch of time the nearer the result – usually). However all dates in between are now known.
        Ulric L says ” 2700-2450 BC was when city building worldwide began.” Yes 2700 was the ascendance or peak of the Akkad/Sumer civilisation plus others. Also a time when things start to go wrong.
        The earlier peak -3550bce, also a turning point, culminated in disastrous conditions at about 3200bce (in the Med – point of abrupt collapse), and archaeologically the start of major irruption of peoples and abandonment and depopulation. Where to??
        Maths has names. Sumerian numbers names are based on a quinary system, base5. So the base60 maths was developed elsewhere. (the 90 day division of a season, and therefore 360 div of a circle seems to have been known in the Med well before 3550bce). From thereon the links become tenuous. (from a medical perspective there seems to have been transfer of a medical trait from the Med to the Near east). To add, T Jacobsen said that ” the 4th millennium in Mesopotamian archaeology is conspicuous by its absence”
        But as always, the devil is in the details.

      • Megamythical.
        The sinking of Doggerland was around 6500–6200 BC.
        2700 BC was also a time when things start to go wrong? what’s that supposed to mean?
        From 3565 BC should be a warm period, but you call it a turning point, whatever that may be.
        3200 BC was the start of the Aegean Bronze Age, and a host of other cultures globally, how is that an abrupt collapse?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history
        There is no 978 year periodicity in the solar signal, so I don’t expect one in the weather and climate either.
        Have you any idea how hot it was in Europe in the 1650’s?

        Click to access weather1.pdf

      • Ulric L
        To answer your queries:
        Doggerland was said to have disappeared around 6150bce; the 8k2BP event. It is a spike; here https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmeteo.lcd.lu%2FBLOG%2FTemperature%2Fcurrent_previous_interglacial.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmeteo.lcd.lu%2Fglobalwarming%2Findex2017_2019.html&tbnid=9F4gx0mbT4jTiM&vet=12ahUKEwigxIak6InwAhUvuqQKHVxEDk4QMygFegQIARBO..i&docid=quRV3H5g3TFdaM&w=530&h=414&q=renee%20hannon%20climate%20charts&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwigxIak6InwAhUvuqQKHVxEDk4QMygFegQIARBO
        and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2-kiloyear_event

        Jumping to “There is no 978 year periodicity in the solar signal, so I don’t expect one in the weather and climate either.” The evidence says otherwise. It may not be in the solar signal, but it is evident in much else. This site ‘Climate Etc’ started it, see here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/
        Now, correlations is not evidence, but correlations to evidence is another matter. Note the Eddy cycle roots in the link. All correlate to events, the latter half to known historical civilisation changes.

        Eddy cycle peaks correlate to the best times of civilisations, but it was also the time when those civilisation began to feel the stress of change. However that time has a very wide margin, yet change they did. The only time I could see a reason for it is in my earlier link, an obliquity change at 3550bce as recorded in the structures. The reverse change happened around 2345bce (Dodwell’s ) and that is also recorded. Both turning points were abrupt, but what triggered them at that point in time remains obscure.

        3200bce, an Eddy root, the Piora Oscillation, a time of drastic tectonic change (calendars built after that date record a change of axial orientation of about 47degrees – tectonic rotation-; plus other proxies). Civilisations that rose after that were the Akkadian/Sumerian and Harappan circa 2700bce. The Mycenaean (your Aegean?)+ Babylonian was at a later peak near 1750bce (collapse at 1250 but feeling the stress earlier 1300bce).

        One finds from various proxies that the dates correspond to spikes in the many proxies. Contrary to dogmatic belief the earth and its climate are not a finely designed control system, but subject to shift to extremes at short notice. There is a religious belief that a creator made things unchanging for our convenience, forgetting or ignoring that the evidence shows otherwise.

      • The said Lake Agassiz release was before 6200 BC. Around 6200 BC there was likely renewed cooling there as there was in Greenland, because of a strongly positive NAO/AO regime, not because of a glacial lake release.
        I would have agreed about Eddy cycles before I had found the right evidence for the ordering of grand solar minima series at every 863 (+/-20) years.

      • Ulric L
        6200bce has been linked to several ‘speculative’ events. However I would still go to the first attempt on my part to understand. That was a comparison of temp anomaly at polar and equatorial. 6200bce appear as a low point but with sharp upturn at both poles, and opposite at equator. Which to me then meant an obliquity increase. It was the same as 4375bce and 2345bce (both obtained early from tree-rings also), the latter being the Dodwell date. 6200bce is also a spike, but too early for archaeology. The two later dates correspond to dimensional changes (a change in the equinox to solstice angle; it is not simply ‘climate’).
        What I link to are global and severe changes. Climate change is just one collateral event.

      • 6200 BC was very cold in Greenland and there was a large very warm spike at Vostok. ENSO would have been cold because of strong trade winds. There is no possible connection between such events and changes in obliquity.

      • Oh – and ENSO shifted from La Nina to El Nino dominant states around 5,500 years ago as solar activity transitioned from low to high.

      • Thank you Robert, we can now finally agree that low solar increases El Nino conditions. Well done.

      • As always I can’t comprehend how you come to that conclusion. Low solar activity (more cosmic rays) is concurrent with a La Nina dominant state. It could of course be a coincidence.

      • Let’s make it absolutely clear. You have interpreted ny statement to mean the opposite of what I said.

      • RIE added “Oh – and ENSO shifted from La Nina to El Nino dominant states around 5,500 years ago as solar activity transitioned from low to high.”

        There, another 5500BP date; 3550bce. Seven years ago that was the most obscure date that I grappled with. It had to be somewhere but there was absolutely nothing in sight. Now its cropping up everywhere. Even poor Otzi has been tied to that date (no one to date AFAIK has explained his abrupt freezing; that he has no sign of body decomposition even due to body heat after death).

      • Ulric L says ” — 6200 BC was very cold in Greenland and there was a large very warm spike at Vostok.–” That is one way of putting it.
        Greenland – Gisp2- records the bottoming, a cold time, but with abrupt turning to warm. Vostok records a fast increase in warming from minor bottoming. Both act in unison. Equatorial Kilimanjaro exhibits a temp downturn at that period.

        But don’t believe anything – check out the basics.
        1. From https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology/article/an-interhemispheric-volcanic-timemarker-in-ice-cores-from-greenland-and-antarctica/B49D4AC170CA0B9612CA191D7770B1DB Quote “Subsequent chemical analyses of all A.D. 1259 ice layers show similar compositions. We suggest that the A.D. 1259 signals registered in both Greenland and Antarctica were caused by the same volcanic disturbance and that its epicenter was located at the Earth’s equatorial zone, which enabled global distribution of the acid gases.”
        This proves that global events effect both poles simultaneously. I used that fact to correlated proxies date-wise. There exist different chronologies of ice-cores that would make no sense if taken at face value. Then the correlations at 6200, 4375 and 2345bce are surprising. That also puts meaning into other proxies which by themselves would lead nowhere.

      • MM. The 8.2kyr event was some 150 years long, and involved very different processes to your very brief volcanic eruption event. Apples and oranges at the extreme.

      • Ulric L
        Q ” The 8.2kyr event was some 150 years long,” Likely longer but indeterminate yet. I have come across 5k6bce and 5k7bce. However there appears misunderstanding here. 8k2 > an abrupt event; the warming period that follows is a resulting effect, but no more on that from my side.
        The volcanic event I mentioned has nothing to do with the above. I use it as a check on whether polar changes on global events ( ex: the end of the YD) are simultaneous or with delay of centuries one from the other.
        (then I choose which gospel to follow/dissect)

        Incidental: the ‘150 yr long’ appears here (seen first at WUWT) https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line_updated2.pdf
        I used it for comparison on same time-axis in 2017 here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/113/
        Correlating data from various sources usually provides something new. Then they seemed abrupt chaotic changes; until this, a year later https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/figure-122.png

        ps Dr R Hannon had some very informative charts on the previous four glacial periods. They appeared at WUWT here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years/ Q: “The cooling period after a D-O event normally lasts a few hundred years. Although most of the evidence for D-O events is from the Greenland ice cores, some have suggested that they are global events13. These events can also be seen in Antarctic ice cores, but they are more subtle.”

      • My findings on grand or super solar minima series occurring every 863 (+/-20) years make Eddy and Bray cycles redundant and obsolete.
        Did you read my comments on the 2013 WUWT post which you linked?

      • Ulric Lyons | April 20, 2021 at 10:50 pm | says “Did you read my comments on the 2013 WUWT post which you linked?” No, cannot see any reply for Apr20 from you. Where?

        Re your 863 +/-20, this is an awkward number to fit in the stretch of time between 1680CE and 6195BCE. Instead of eight cycles you can fit nine, but meaning that at mid period, around 3000bce, they are completely out of step, and will match with none of the proxies and the dates of ascendance and collapse of civilisations.
        On the other hand the 980 (actually the Eddy is given also as 975+/-50) over that stretch fits also. But more than that it agrees with proxies and historic dates in between, at every cycle, that were found even before the Eddy came to light here.

      • MM
        863 yrs should not fit between 1680CE and 6195BCE because in the mid latitudes one was warm and the other was cold, and the start of the LIA series begins 1215 not 1680. I’m done here.

      • The chart is a high resolution ENSO proxy conveniently spanning the last millennia. But floods and drought are consistent with dominant La Nina conditions before 1900 ad.

        There is a link between low polar surface pressure, more zonal polar winds, Pacific Ocean gyre circulation and fish abundance modulated by nutrient rich upwelling. The science is close to 2 decades old. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).

        A positive SAM is associated with an acceleration of the South Pacific gyre and a cooler eastern Pacific during the hiatus. There is an equivalent process in the north that helps to explain the common periodicity of ocean states in both hemispheres. That is changes in PDO states coincident with changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO states. The ‘salt chart’ is confirmation of long term Pacific Ocean states but the mechanism is discernible in modern observations.

        Here’s a few bright young guns from the University of Rhode Island, I think they almost get it right – much more so than you. I have spent 40 years trying to understand this mechanism.

        https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        You consider yourself to be superior to climate scientists – expressed as such many times – and have little need therefore to be familiar with the literature – something usually considered de rigueur in any field of natural science – and are inevitably a crusader for your own perspicacity. It is such a seductive cognitive trap.

        The evidence is abundant and conciliant. But you reject the evidence – in this case both the ENSO proxy and cosmogenic isotopes – out of hand because it is inconsistent with your narrative. And are rude and obnoxious about it.

      • Robert writes:
        “You consider yourself to be superior to climate scientists – expressed as such many times – and have little need therefore to be familiar with the literature – something usually considered de rigueur in any field of natural science – and are inevitably a crusader for your own perspicacity. It is such a seductive cognitive trap.”

        That’s very rude and it’s a false allegation, I have read the literature which you have not, about the increase in El Nino conditions during the Maunder and Dalton solar minima, and I have seen the historic records of El Nino frequency double during the Dalton Minimum.

        “The evidence is abundant and conciliant. But you reject the evidence – in this case both the ENSO proxy and cosmogenic isotopes – out of hand because it is inconsistent with your narrative. And are rude and obnoxious about it.”

        The evidence for El Nino conditions increasing during low solar periods is abundant, and the rest of your rant is self projection.

      • You are persistently misguided – and rude – and expect that your assertions alone are persuasive.

      • “That’s very rude and it’s a false allegation, I have read the literature which you have not, about the increase in El Nino conditions during the Maunder and Dalton solar minima, and I have seen the historic records of El Nino frequency double during the Dalton Minimum.”

        There is no such literature – most certainly not any cited by Ulric.

      • RE
        “You are persistently misguided – and rude – and expect that your assertions alone are persuasive.”

        More self projection.

        “There is no such literature – most certainly not any cited by Ulric.”

        Proof that you have not looked at the literature.

      • ‘Low solar activity (more cosmic rays) is concurrent with a La Nina dominant state. It could of course be a coincidence.’

        Correct, during the Little Ice Age it seems that La Nina conditions were more dominant and I suspect the PDO was intensely negative at times.

        The warm PDO at the end of last century was particularly strong, coinciding with a very spotty sun, but the high priests said the rise in world temperatures must be caused by CO2.

    • “Grand solar minima series occur on average every 863 years..” – Ulric

      Where does that number come from?

      • From my link at the foot of my comment where you quoted that from.

      • Ulric – you’re a crazy person like RIE if you believe that standard planetary alignment can account for solar cycles. There’s been decades of research by scientists in the recent past who toiled endlessly to make the obvious connection – yet none succeeded.

        Not one of them considered Newton/Einstein to fundamentally incorrect though. If a *strong* gravitational interaction of dark matter cores is assumed when on the same orbital plane of low axial tilt, then a solution is possible:

        Ceres: Douglass cycle
        Jupiter: ~11yr cycle
        Jupiter Trojan dark moon: ~88yr cycle
        Venus: ~215yr cycle

        The methodology predicts a ~88 day cycle for Mercury (axial tilt 2°), which is perhaps lost in the data of solar variability and also a faint impression on Earth’s tidal data which is yet to be found.

        (Note the hypothesised Trojan dark moon has a 8:1 orbital resonance with it’s host Jovian planet)

      • Calling me crazy is not how science works, and it appears to be a projection.
        That sunspot cycles peak at quadrupole configurations within elliptical orbits is one of the two fundamental reasons for their variable length.
        So lots of other people never found anything because their heads were full of big ideas about what they believe the mechanisms are, which constricted their search to never identifying the key correlations. When one gets it right, it becomes easy to see why everyone else got it wrong.

      • Ulric, your link doesn’t give enough information about how your planetary alignment works imo. I suggest you use some diagrams to show how your hypothesis is unique from those who went before you.

        Btw your explanation can’t account for the 5.7yr tree-ring cycle of climate change whilst mine can:
        ….
        Discovery of the 5.7-year Douglass cycle: A pioneer’s quest for solar cycles in tree-ring records.
        ..
        The astronomer A.E. Douglass is generally recognized as the founding father of dendrochronology. He studied tree rings in the search for evidence that solar variation (as seen in sunspots) is reflected in climate variation. He was convinced that his quest was successful. 
        ..
        The findings here reported suggest a much stronger influence of tides on the tree-ring records than commonly considered. 
        ….
        https://escholarship.org/uc/item/91t5r0jv

      • 🎵Tree Rings🎵 from the album Hands of Gravity by The Hiatus:

        https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdhvjg5_1BE&feature=share

      • The most compelling fact of solar activity is it’s aperiodicity. It evolves as the sun orbits the barycentre – the center of mass – of the solar system.

      • Nonsense Robert, it is periodic, sunspot cycles, centennial solar minima, and grand solar minima series, which the movement of the Sun relative to the barycenter can explain none of. Your anonymous chart has no sign of the 4.2kyr and 3.2kyr mega-drought super solar minima, so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

      • Alan wrote:
        “I suggest you use some diagrams to show how your hypothesis is unique from those who went before you.”

        Well as you already know, none of them found anything.
        Good luck with predicting the weather and climate with your 5-7 year Douglas tree ring ‘cycle’.

      • There are quite obviously no strict periods. The solar magneto hypothesis is the most obvious explanation. The sun spinning in a variable magnetic field caused by n-body orbits in the solar system.

      • In fact I will find errors on graphs which everyone else on this blog fail to notice, even the authors, ask Javier. I found substantial noise errors in your linked graph there within moments, and I am not convinced that you have understood it. You appear to be conflating trends in the geomagnetic dipole field, with trends in solar forcing. To claim that total solar forcing has increased since 5500 years ago is barking mad, and is fabricated to conform to your irrational confirmation bias of El Nino conditions increasing with higher solar forcing.

      • Whoops – this must go here.

        It data is inconsistent with the narrative – reject the data? In the scientific method – it is meant to be the other way around.

      • I am rejecting your claim of increased El Nino conditions with higher solar activity, as it is inconsistent with the data at all scales.

      • I am skeptical of your entire thesis.


      • Robert, being wedded to that one salt chart while rejecting the evidence and the logic for increased El Nino conditions during centennial solar minima, is confirmation bias, not scepticism.

      • When it becomes difficult to place replies in the right place – it is time to quit the thread.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comment-947890

    • Robert, if solar had really transitioned from low to high, then the Holocene Optimum would have been cooler than now. During glacial maximum there are near permanent El Nino conditions.

      • Or walk and chew gum. There is much more to surface temperature than ENSO. The Holocene cosmogenic isotope data is just so.

      • ESNO acts as a negative feedback at all scales. El Nino conditions increase due to volcanic aerosol solar dimming, during periods of weaker solar wind states at seasonal to annual scales, and of course regularly during centennial solar minima for the same reason, and at multi-millennial scales with lower orbital forcing.

      • ‘El Nino conditions increase due to volcanic aerosol solar dimming, during periods of weaker solar wind states at seasonal to annual scales …’

        ENSO is an enigma, do you have something definite that I can get my teeth into?

  9. “Our results indicate that the PNA pattern is important for projections of Arctic climate changes, and that greenhouse warming and the resultant persistent positive PNA trend is likely to increase Arctic sea-ice loss.”

    Well the PNA anomalies are generally the inverse of NAO anomalies, so as per usual they have the whole science backwards, and the positive PNA trend since 1995 is due to weaker indirect solar forcing and not to rising CO2 forcing.

  10. Thank you Dr. Judith.

    For me,

    Ocean eddies = tidal forcing increase

  11. “Dear Robert Ellison,
    You started reading the paper “Cloud Changes in the Period of Global Warming: The Results of the International Satellite Project”. Get the Summary here:”

    Intrusive much? I stopped reading because it said nothing new. The TOA satellite results hint at low level cloud changes as a positive feedback to warming. The instrument sources in jury rigged observing systems should be compared. But the results from ERBE and ISCCP instruments have been confirmed by the purpose build CERES observing system.

  12. I am baffled at the California grid article. While they recommend using “clean firm” sources to augment solar, they say that if they don’t do that, solar and wind alone are enough to avoid outages – even when they talk about weather systems that can cause long losses of solar and wind.

  13. “The Earth’s pole, the point where the Earth’s rotational axis intersects its crust in the Northern Hemisphere, drifted in a new eastward direction in the 1990s, as observed by space geodetic observations.”

    There’s also the possibility of new physics at Earth’s core which would simultaneously account for unexplained changes in the geomagnetic field.

    • New physics is the very *last* place to look when you encounter new phenomena, unless you are doing so in a particle accelerator. The odds of this behavior being due to new physics are maybe 1 in 10^9.

      • “The odds of this behavior being due to new physics are maybe 1 in 10^9.” – mesocyclone

        Lol! The evidence is building to a crescendo for a new theory of gravity. Your knowledge in this philosophical area of possibilities reflects in your laughable hand-waving estimate.

      • Actually, it reflects how solid physics is, except at the subatomic level, where a few anomalies may hint at, for example, a failure of the standard model, or a lack of satisfying unification between quantum theory and general relativity, although some string theorists think they’ve got it, it’s just a giant mathematical hairball.

        But for a new physics to be responsible for large scale effects in the earth’s core, it will be the sort of thing that physicists observe. They have observed nothing like that. The closest I can think of, from 30 years ago, was Steven Jones’ speculation that the excess He3 in volcanic emissions might be due to a fusion process. But as far as I know, that went nowhere.

      • Well done meso. It is the Galileo gambit. As in they thought Galileo was crazy – but he was right – so am I. In a reality that Lowry has little acquaintance with the odds of missing gravitational anomalies in the local system are indeed remote. Lowry insists we have to accept his thought bubble at face value or we are no different than Galileo’s detractors. Skepticism is the real path to truth – and they inevitably get than wrong. Note that he responds with bald assertions and derision.

        I have a lot more confidence in Tim Palmer reconciling the indeterminacy quantum mechanics with relativity in what he calls super-determinism at a fundamental level.

        We may look for universal truth – but some humility is a must when contemplating the face of God.

      • “We may look for universal truth – but some humility is a must when contemplating the face of God.” – RIE

        A scientific unification of the physical forces of nature *doesn’t* exclude the validity of an individual’s personal religion.

        If a new force is confirmed and found to be a *strong* force of gravity which is indeed the mystery driver of climate change, then this is a good thing for humanity, whether one is devoutly religious or not.

    • We may seek a universal truth and Alan may stumble over it – but the odds of that must be truly astronomical. And ‘belief’ in general relativity is religious fundamentalism apparently.

  14. I’m pleased that the correlation between solar variability (sunspot cycles) and climate cycles has been reestablished.

    “The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field on the amount of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth. However, a robust physical link between cosmic rays variations and climate has yet to be determined.”

    The age old problem of a credible mechanism still exists, also for the ~88-yr and ~215-yr cycles etc.

    New physics at Earth’s core gives a causation via gravitational forcing by a third planetary body’s orbital inclination which affects *both* the sun and Earth.

  15. “Pronounced changes in the Arctic environment add a new potential driver of anomalous weather patterns in midlatitudes that affect billions of people.”

    Roger Hallam co-founder of Extinction Rebellion said live on the BBC that this will kill 6 billion people within ten years, and they didn’t even challenge him on it. The warming of the Arctic is the axis of evil for climate alarmism.

    “A source of uncertainty arises from the chaotic nature of the atmosphere. Thermodynamic forcing by a rapidly warming Arctic contributes to weather events through changing surface heat fluxes and large-scale temperature and pressure gradients. But internal shifts in atmospheric dynamics—the variability of the location, strength, and character of the jet stream, blocking, and stratospheric polar vortex (SPV)—obscure the direct causes and effects. It is important to understand these associated processes to differentiate Arctic-forced variability from natural variability.”

    Arctic warming is natural variability, it’s a negative feedback in response to weaker solar wind states since 1995. Changes in regional sea ice extent may vary blocking factors, but the weekly noise of NAO/AO anomalies driving the jet stream variability is not chaotic internal variability, that is a response of weekly changes in the solar wind speed/pressure. And that is the primary driver of the aforesaid anomalous weather patterns in midlatitudes that affect billions of people. The blocking factors just alter which regions are impacted most by the NAO/AO anomalies. For a more extreme example, with a northeast Pacific warm blob blocking, and low solar gives negative AO, while the NAO can go slightly positive. Like in early 2014, with a cold northeast US, and a very mild and wet UK. But the whole event was dependent on the low solar signal during Jan-Feb 2014. I had a 650 comment argument with WUWT big guns Leif, Pam, and Willis over my long range solar based prediction for that winter, I wasn’t wrong.

  16. A Volcanic Trigger for Earth’s First Mass Extinction?

    This is the same argument that keeps occurring with the infamous demise of the dinosaurs circa 66mya correlating with *both* the Yucatan peninsula impact event and the volcanic Deccan Trapps in India.

    New physics dark matter impactor of the Earth’s innermost core can account for both simultaneously due to the geographical locations being near antipodal.

  17. A big narrative of climate change was once ‘ice albedo feedback’.
    Reduced Arctic Sea Ice would lead to increased absorbed solar radiation, which would create a feedback loop of further sea ice loss.

    However, when I recently examined model runs
    ( https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/ar5plots/lplat.html )
    and selected RSPA difference ( 2090s from the 2000s ), this was the result:

    GISS Model E apparently obviates surface albedo decrease with even greater cloud albedo increase, resulting in negative, not positive Arctic ice albedo feedback.

  18. This was Written:
    Correctly simulating Southern Ocean and Antarctic mixed-phase clouds requires very low levels of ice nuclei

    Getting Model Correlations in Southern Ocean and Antarctic mixed-phase clouds requires very low levels of ice nuclei in the Models.

    This is not the same thing as proving Correctly, this is just achieving Correlation and Correlation is not Causation.

    This kind of junk has been written many times and it has been ignored many times that Correlation is not Causation.

    If you get Correlation with real data, it can be valuable and useful.
    If the Correlation is obtained using a Model, it is always suspect,
    Models are tweaked to correlate and that means nothing.

  19. Geoff Sherrington

    Judith,
    Thank you for these Week in Review-Science Edition posts. They invite me at least to read material that might not otherwise come to attention.
    Do they contain a trend over the last 5 years or so? Is there less reporting of observation and measurement and more reporting about what people are talking about, seen by some as chattering class material? I make no comment whether this is good or bad, it is as it is. But I’ve always liked nice, clean meaningful new data. Geoff S

    • The climate science articles that I highlight tend to be observationally and theoretically based. Climate model papers are included only if the experiments are intelligently designed to provide insights. I avoid papers dominated by climate model wankery, which increasingly dominates the field. There is presently more interesting papers in the 2nd two categories, IMO – policy, technology, sociology of science

      • “I avoid papers dominated by climate model wankery..” – curryja

        That made me laugh out loud! 😄

      • “I avoid papers dominated by climate model wankery…”
        Very useful to the debate (not) but it does show off your disrespectful and cognitive bias. Good to see it in black and white, and it seems your fanboys like that sort of language. Nice.
        (I know, I know – ‘they did it first’, ‘they treat me like that’, ‘I didn’t start it’, blahblahblah)

      • It’s funny to see the peanut gallery in action here.

        Judith is absolutely correct about models and everyone (who is experienced) knows it, even Palmer and Stevens who have a recent paper on it. It’s only those who know nothing who can cavil at this.

        Basically, the numerical truncation errors in climate models are very large, orders of magnitude bigger than the small changes in energy flows they are trying to model. Under this scenario (with the underlying problem being ill-posed) any skill is caused by cancellation of large errors caused by tuning. And any skill will be accidental outside of the tuning metrics or quantities related to them.,

      • dpy,

        “any skill will be accidental outside of the tuning metrics or quantities related to them”

        As a scientist, you’ll have just omitted the reputable citation for that, right dpy?

        As it invalidates an entire field at a strike of your masterful keyboard and all.

      • Must be a different Palmer and Stevens?

        > In our view, the political situation, whereby some influential people and institutions misrepresent doubt about anything to insinuate doubt about everything, certainly contributes to a reluctance to be too openly critical of our models. 

        […]

        While we are certainly not claiming that model inadequacies cast doubt on these well-settled issues, we are claiming that, by deemphasizing what our models fail to do, we inadvertently contribute to complacency with the state of modeling. This leaves the scientific consensus on climate change vulnerable to specious arguments that prey on obvious model deficiencies; gives rise to the impression that defending the fidelity of our most comprehensive models is akin to defending the fidelity of the science; and most importantly, fails to communicate the need and importance of doing better.

      • I think Josh your reading comprehension problem is showing itself. This is about the models which have little to do with radiative physics and other fundamentals of climate theory. What you quote is just them explaining why it should be acceptable to admit that virtually all the detailed patterns in model results are not skillful. The obsessive need to use phony defenses of the models to “keep doubters from questioning the concensus” is harming the field. It’s about time someone said this and they finally did it. I don’t think they have been canceled yet.

        And VTG, the anonymous activist merchant of doubt is even more clueless. Model performance has little to do with the whole of the scientific endeavor in climate science. Your comment conflates two wholly separate scientific activities.

      • “The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change.” Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens

        Tim Palmer has long been an advocate of initialised decadal scale modelling with stochastic parametrization. This yields a family of solutions and the possibility of developing probability distributions of possible future – perhaps a decade at most – states. Beyond that ‘projections’ continue to diverge from reality and become quite pointless.


        https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

        Hurrell et al (2009) put it into a real world context.


        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/12/2009bams2752_1.xml

        “As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.” op. cit.

        Something for every political crusader with a superficial understanding and a cultural bias to dislike.

      • Thanks Robert for the better balanced selection of quotations that more accurately the content of the paper.

      • dpy

        “…the anonymous activist merchant of doubt…” etc etc yadayadayada.

        Usual flow of content free insults to deflect from the fact that you can’t cite any science to back up your bombast.

      • VTG has evidently learned nothing about the unfulfilled potential of models. And I know that Joshua is not capable of learning anything. They are as committed to empty posturing as any crazy contrarian curmudgeon. As for Murphy – we have it in black and white that he is a pompous ass.

      • -snip-
        These systematic errors do not invalidate the use of such climate models in providing scientific input into mitigation policy. These models, our best attempts to solve the laws of physics applied to climate, are quite unequivocal in showing that there is a substantial risk of dangerous, even calamitous, climatic impacts arising from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. It is a statement of scientific fact that to reduce this risk will require a reduction of our carbon emissions.
        -snip-

      • When Tim Palmer writes in the PNAS perspective about self reflection – he may not have has Joshua in mind. I suspect that Joshua is more the ‘congealed into the view…’ type. There has been little to no progress on the statistics of model families since this statement in the TAR.

        “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of (perturbed physics) ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential”. TAR 14.2.2.2

        In the interim Tim Palmer pioneered medium range probabilistic weather forecasting. And more recently a fractal theory of super-deterministic quantum mechanics. Amazin’.

        And while there are fundamental physical properties of the Earth system – such as tipping points – the essence of empirically observed Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – there is little confidence that we have much of a handle on it. In this context – a 2007 article by James McWilliams is worth checking out. Although it is epistemologically dense and a stout heart is a prerequisite. This evocative vignette appears in a footnote,

        “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

        Tapio Schneider of the MIT Climate Dynamics Group did something remarkable with eddy resolving scale modelling in 2019. This enables cloud physics to be modelled mathematically – rather than using parametrizations. But to do the same for the entire planet would require quantum computing. Nonetheless – an intriguing result of 8 degrees C warming at CO2 levels we might reach by 2100 under my favourite SSP 5 scenario. Pragmatic responses are preferable to hysterical grandstanding.

        Tim Palmer and Bjorn Steven advocate for an entirely new class of Earth system model. Can we thus make some progress? Oh I think they should try – otherwise all the billion dollar data may go to waste. Even now – I feel some of the excitement I felt when I first realised I could numerically model hydrological processes. Despite the initial puzzlement at unstable solutions.


        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0912-1

        I could not let Joshua’s quotation that he imagines supports his congealed view slide. But now if you will excuse me – I am trying to stream iZombie.

      • UK-Weather Lass

        If planet Earth doesn’t know exactly what it may be doing this time next week then every living thing on the surface should be in trepidation and yet I see no changes in behaviours of the wilder creatures who hang about in the same places I do and are, it would seem, much more in tune with nature. The sea change observed since the machinations of ‘the hockey stick’ has been the introduction of fear rather than confidence in ability to tackle ‘unknowns’.

        RIE’s first post on this thread is a video which is well worth a watch although it is about one farm, the farmer and his family, his business and is open to the usual criticisms except that the chief characters all care including the creatures both great and small involved who seem to be better enjoying life. It is a story about a successful relationship with nature which, however short term, is about doing things that work to solve things which stopped working.

        My criticism about climate change and SARS-CoV-2 is that fear should not rule over us because if we make mistakes when not under pressure then we must make one hell of a lot more when under pressure. We need to get back to doing things that work and not chasing illusional and fanciful magic tricks performed by people who are getting paid big bucks for performing them.

      • The video is a case study, Many more examples are not difficult to find. It involve farmers because they feed the world and need to make a profit. There are many ways to do it.


        https://www.excellentdevelopment.com/

        1 million sand dams for 0.5 billion people by 2040 will transform a continent.

        There is immense support from government, business and professional organisations.

        https://www.agriculture.com/news/pepsico-announces-2030-goal-to-scale-regenerative-farming-practices-across-7-million-acres
        https://www.4p1000.org/

      • There is a bit of a history that continues to evolve through today into tomorrow. Excuse me for being passionate about this. The amazing soil scientist Rattan Lal is in the tradition of Hugh Bennett. Professor Lal estimates that 157 ppm CO2 can be sequestered as carbon in soils and vegetation by 2100. It’s worth a go. .

      • I respect uncertainty Chief, unlike some others in these here parts.

        Speaking of uncertainty, how’s that decade or three of cooling you predicted with 100% certainty workin’ out for ya’? How many times did you predict that, over how many years? David Young may actually be catching up to you in wrongness. But fret not, he could never match you in unintentional irony. In that you’re the chief and always will be.

      • It was of course the hiatus starting from the last Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2000. Is there another climate shift under way now? The only unintended irony is that Joshua imagines that he has a point to make. From a decade ago on this blog.

        “Sea surface temperature is negatively correlated to marine stratiform cloud. Multiple satellite data sources show that over most of the period of warming there was planetary cooling in the infrared band where greenhouse gases were expected to result in warming – and strong planetary warming as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space. As a testable hypothesis, the current cool La Niña mode of the Pacific decadal pattern will lead to increased cloud cover and global cooling over another decade or three. After that, in a chaotic climate, it is anyone’s guess.” https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

        The hiatus ended in 2014 with a spike in temperature largely caused by a reduction in cloud cover over a very warm eastern Pacific.

        e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        The globally coupled patterns of decadal to millennial shifts in Pacific Ocean states is a fascinating puzzle to solve. Decadal shifts are of course missing in ‘state of the art’ models. GSW is the global stadium wave for those in the know.

        “The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        I have retired as Chief Hydrologist – people like Joshua couldn’t cope with it. I was apparently claiming to be authoritative. Joshua is of course a person with a habit of latching onto some point or other he imagines is telling and repeating it endlessly. I have on occasion replied without reading his comments. It makes no difference. Too funny.

        “Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’

        Just on another point from the weather lass – climate has shifted in the past as much as 16 degrees C regionally in as little as a decade (NAS 2002) or so. Organisms adapt, move or die. They don’t see it coming.

  20. The Planet ( N*cp ) product IMPORTANCE

    N – is the planet’s rotational spin
    cp – is the planet’s average surface specific heat

    N*cp is the product of planet’s N and cp

    Now, let’s have two identical planets, but with different rotational spin N1 and N2, and with different average surface specific heat cp1 and cp2. Which planet has the highest mean surface temperature Tmean ?

    Of course, since every planet has its own unique rotational spin (diurnal cycle) and every planet has its own unique average surface specific heat… we should compare for the two planets N*cp – the product of N and cp.

    Consequently, the planet with the highest N*cp product should be the planet with the highest mean surface temperature Tmean.

    Example:
    Earth’s (N.earth) = 1 rot /day
    Moon’s (N.moon) = 1 /29,5 rot /day

    Earth’s (cp.earth) = 1 cal /gr.oC (watery planet)
    Moon’s (cp.moon) = 0,19 cal /gr.oC (regolith)

    For Earth the (N*cp) product is:
    (N.earth)*(cp.earth) = 1*1 = 1 rot.cal /day.gr.oC
    For Moon the (N*cp) product is:
    (N.moon)*(cp.moon) = (1 /29,5)*0,19 = 1 /155,3 rot.cal /day.gr.oC

    Let’s compare the products:
    (N.earth)*(cp.earth) / [(N.moon)*(cp.moon)] = 1 /(1 /155,3) = 155,3

    What we see here is that the Earth’s N*cp product is 155,3 times higher than the Moon’s N*cp product.
    And the satellite measured mean surface temperatures are

    Tmean.earth = 287,16 K
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

    Tmean.moon = 220 K
    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

    It is obvious that Earth’s higher rotational spin and Earth’s higher surface specific heat make Earth on average a warmer than Moon planet.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Mars is at 1,524 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is S = So*(1/R²) = So*(1/1,524²) = So*1/2,32 .

      (1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32
      As a result the solar flux on the Mars’ top is 2,32 times weaker than that on the Moon.

      But, Mars rotates much faster, than Moon. Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours, or 0,9747 rot /day
      Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days.
      So, Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon.

      Interesting, Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
      Let’s calculate:
      The rotation difference’s fourth root is
      (28,783)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,3162
      And the irradiating /rotating comparison
      2,32 /2,3162 = 1,001625

      It differs only 0,1625%
      It is almost equal!

      It is obvious – the Mars’ 28,783 times faster rotation equates the Moon’s 2,32 times higher solar irradiation.
      That is why Mars has almost the same satellite measured mean surface temperature as Moon.
      Tmean.mars = 210 K
      Tmean.moon = 220 K

      What we observe here is the solar irradiated Planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon!
      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • In the previous thread Robert has questioned:
        “…And I keep asking if no crazy contrarian has a problem with the planetary rotisserie effect?…”

        Thank you Robert. It is a brilliant idea, it is a wonderful insight you had about the solar irradiated Planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon!
        Well, the Planet surface rotational warming phenomenon actually can be seen as an analogous to the humble rotisserie. Yes, it is analogous to planetary rotisserie effect.

        Let’s analyze what exactly the humble rotisserie effect consists of.

        1). There is (coming from one direction) a source of the incident radiative energy (bone fire, electrical resistance or sun).
        2). There is the distance the irradiated body has from the source of energy (in meters, kilometers or AU)
        3). There is the distance square inverse law (1/R²). The energy flux on the body’s surface mitigates according to the distance square inverse law.
        4). We have the body’s surface specific heat capacity (cal /gr.oC). It is a major surface’s property, because it describes the qualities of the interacting with the radiative flux matter.
        5). We have the rotation – which, please notice, is a very important element in both cases, the Planetary Warming and the humble rotisserie effect.

        A short excurse to the humble rotisserie’s invention History.

        Well, it was not always like we used to see it happening now in the improved rotisseries with the constant emission the electrical resistance provide, and with the constant rotational spin from an electric motor.
        At first there was not any rotation at all. And there was not distance.
        Simply the ancient people had put the raw meat on the burning charcoals.
        They were experimenting.
        Meat got burned from one side and was left raw on the other.
        So they did the first step towards the rotisserie – they started turning the meat around!
        Next they noticed was – the faster they turn the meat, the better it was cooked. It was neither burned no left raw. It was perfect for them at the time.
        You have barbequed, haven’t you? It is an ancient way of cooking meat. The meat should be “rotated” to get cooked well. Have you heard of a friend how does the best barbeque ever? The secret is in FASTER ROTATION.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • I was encouraging others to respond to your crude planetary rotisserie thought bubble. Instead – we get the evolution of the doner kebab machine.

      • > the Planet surface rotational warming phenomenon actually can be seen as an analogous to the humble rotisserie.

        That rings a bell, Christos:

        Think of a chicken roasting on a spit…the Earth rotates, so that higher input flux is cooking the heated part of the chicken/Earth as it rotates. Overall, in time, your chicken/Earth can be nicely roasted, despite the fact that if you averaged out that input over the whole chicken/Earth surface area instead of just the part that is receiving the energy, you might conclude that the chicken is not receiving enough to cook at all…

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662186

        Do you happen to know that commenter, kiddo, I mean Christos?

        Many thanks!

      • In a complex system there are multiple factors involved.

        Earth’s system is very complex…
        But in a complex system there are some major factors which play the dominant role, and there are many minor factors.

        Also in a complex system there are multiple micro factors.
        It is said that in complex system there are millions nano factors.

        Science admits that in complex system there is an infinite number of infinitesimal significance factors.
        When we model the Earth’s system mean surface temperature, we should take in consideration the major factors ruling the surface temperature.

        These factors are
        1. The Solar flux So = 1.362 W/m2
        2. The Earth’s average albedo a = 0,306
        3. The Φ = 0,47 (smooth spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor)
        4. The Earth’s rotational spin N = 1 rotation /day
        5. The Earth’s average surface specific heat cp = 1 cal /gr.oC

        The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to play a significant role in Earth’s mean surface temperature.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • ‘We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        These indices are nonlinear oscillating nodes on a global network. They are the source of major climate variability in a dynamically complex spatio-temporal chaotic Earth system.

        https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        Imagining that complexity is another term for complicated is an error. As are the ‘new physics’ constants that do not appear anywhere in the canon of physical sciences.

    • The Planet Radiative Energy Budget

      The Budget considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does. The Planet Radiative Energy Budget can be applied to all planets.

      We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
      0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
      And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
      0 ≤ a ≤ 1

      Notice:
      “Φ” is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).
      Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
      So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • CERES omits planet specular reflection.

        Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be “seen” by spacecraft’s SW radiation measuring sensor.
        Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensor’s plate.

        Therefore planet specular reflection is not taken into account not only for Earth, but also for other smooth surface planets without atmosphere (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).

        Why it is a problem?

        It is a problem, because by omitting the planet specular reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface solar flux the planet effective temperature (equilibrium temperature) Te is calculated wrongly.

        To calculate planet’s Te we should know the exact “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident on the planet solar energy flux.

        Te – planet effective temperature:

        Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴

        Te.correct – the planet corrected effective temperature:

        Te.correct = [ Φ (1 – a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴

        Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)

        Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
        Φ = 1 – for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
        Φ = 1 – for gases planets

        In the Table we have the planet effective Te and the planet corrected Te.correct (which are calculated with the Te.correct equation) comparison.

        Planet…….Te……Te.correct
        Mercury….439,6 K…..364 K
        Earth……….255 K…….210 K
        Moon…….270,4 Κ……224 K
        Mars……..209,91 K…..174 K

        When comparing the Te and Te.correct it becomes obvious how important is the planet surface specular reflection portion for the correct calculation of the planet theoretical equilibrium temperatures.

        To have calculated the planet equilibrium temperature we should have correctly estimated the planet radiative budget:
        Energy in = energy out

        Φ(1 – a)S πr² (W) is the correctly estimated planet’s energy in (the “absorbed” not reflected portion of the incident solar energy).

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  21. Concerning https://go.nature.com/2NT0Cup; Jean-Baptiste Sallée et al, Summertime increases in upper-ocean stratification and mixed-layer depth

    It is worth noting that examines the changes in the ocean mixed layer without mentioning a word about the possible contribution of the world merchant fleet, fisheries and other marine uses.
    Here is a post that deals with this topic in relation to the Baltic Sea. “The influence of the Baltic Sea climate reinforced by humans; Activities at sea contribute to warming. The Baltic Sea shows how it’s done.”
    https://1ocean-1climate.com/the-influence-of-the-baltic-sea-climate-reinforced-by-humans/

    • The mixed layer becoming deeper implies increased energy from the bottom of the oceans imo.

      • From the Jean-Baptiste Sallée paper, p.592:
        The fundamental vertical structure of the world ocean consists of three main layers: the surface mixed layer, which continually exchanges heat, freshwater, carbon and other climatically important gases with the atmosphere; the pycnocline, characterized by its pronounced stratification—that is, an enhanced density contrast between shallower and deeper layers, which inhibits cross-layer vertical mixing; and the deep ocean, which is largely isolated from the atmosphere

      • Yes, I read that too. So?

        New physics gravitational forcing can increase energy from the bottom of the ocean due to an increase in the bulge of the lithosphere. The oceans are effectively pushed from beneath creating tidal effects that could increase the undulations of the pycnocline.

        Energy could therefore be transmitted from the bottom, through the pycnocline and increasing ocean mixing above it.

      • With the view on the ocean temperature structure (here Pacific: https://oceansgovernclimate.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2.jpg ) any energy transmission from the bottom to the top layer seems unlikely. Any mile a motor ship moves forward, has an effect on the temperature and salinity structure of the surface layer.

      • I wasn’t talking about bottom ocean temperature variation… blah..

    • Alan relies on an increase in solid Earth tides changing climate as the neutron star matter cores of planets and moons come into cosmic alignment.

  22. Fighting ‘yesterday’s battles’?
    It’s ‘too late’?
    ‘We’ have ten years?
    “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
    34:00 here on our diagram
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
    34:05 around 2030 . . .
    we
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
    Louis Arnoux.

  23. It seems Judith and the WSJ are big fans of Steve Koonin?

    Hence I bring you Ken & Andy’s patented pre-bunking from many moons ago:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/andy-lacis-responds-to-steve-koonin/

    “Ignoring that much of what he says suggests a woeful lack of understanding of the topic itself, that anyone of his supposed intellectual calibre would construct an argument that essentially goes “look, this number is small, nothing to worry about” is remarkable, and not in a good way. It’s one thing to suffer from hubris, but it’s hard to see why if one’s argument is so obviously silly.”

    • WSJ: “Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.”

      Biden: “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity,” the former vice president said. “Unchecked, it is going to actually bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It’s real. And we have a moral obligation.”

      Live not by lies.

    • At the end of the day, Lacis is a chief proponent of the CO2 control knob theory of climate change. Koonin is open to greater complexity and uncertainty regarding climate processes. Ocean circulations, solar and geologic processes are hugely important on decadal to century time scales, which makes this ‘pre-bunking’ fairly irrelevant.

      • If you don’t much care for that one then how about Ken’s more recent (2019) pre-bunk then?

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/kooninisms/

        “Somewhat bizarrely, Koonin has a response to Gavin [Schmidt]’s post that he has posted on WUWT. Given that Koonin has no climate expertise, presumably he thinks that his status as a physics Professor gives him the credibility to speak about the topic. Bit odd that he would then post his response on a site that has none.”

        Followed by much mention of CO₂ of course.

        Plus there’s Gavin’s 2021 post-bunk too:

      • As Gavin Schmidt has served in his role as a gatekeeper to what the public is allowed to see regarding climate science, now, with is new entitlements at NASA as well as other endeavors, he pursues his manipulations of media and public discourse specifically to discredit data, views, perspectives that are contrary to his consensus establishment’s narratives.

        I for one, will purchase Steve Koonin’s latest book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t” when it comes out in May 2021.

      • ‘Andy, Ken and Gavin’ – and Jim – hardly seem to be at the leading edge of climate science. I’d suggest looking for smarter and wiser people.

      • Thanks so much for your kind words Robert!

      • Are you claiming to be a leading light? Or just better than Judith? I claimed to be crazy above.

      • Well, my Arctic alter ego does have some expertise in a rather narrow cryospheric speciality:

        Nutty as a fruit cake!

      • Robert – I replied earlier, but my words of wisdom seem to be stuck in moderation.

        Perhaps I shouldn’t have included a link to YouTube?

      • Curious George

        I propose Robert I. Ellison.

      • Full disclosure – I may be ineligible. I was in hospital a couple of years ago and they were wondering what to do with me – in the nicest possible way. Daisy came in saying “Oh you – you just talk all the time – that’s how they know you’re crazy.”

      • At the end of the day, the climate glitteratti don’t like Koonin because he got the inside scoop on them.
        He was undersecretary of energy, which gave him a front-row seat to the analysis of what the Jim Hunt’s and ATTP’s of the world were pushing in terms of “alternative energy” solutions. And he got it from people who genuinely wanted to be sympathetic to the climate gang.
        Plus he was able to see what was actually happening in the rest of the world in terms of energy use and development- in particular the less than interesting performance of “renewables” in Europe and the rapid growth of emissions in China and India that the “climate concerned” energetically ignored.
        And he got a front row seat into the lengths people were willing to stretch the “science” in the media order to justify bad policy (hello RCP 8.5).

        Again, all of this happened within an administration that was genuinely sympathetic to the cause and truly expected to hear some degree of rational thinking grounded in evidence. They were… disappointed, is a polite way of putting it.
        That’s why Koonin’s book is really a reflection of the global shift that happened during the Obama administration:
        Faced with reality, Obama, Merkel, Macron, and Putin went all-in on natural gas.
        The “climate concerned” celebrated the closing of reliable emissions-free electricity generation and went all-in on the incoherent Extinction Rebellion and a poorly educated teenager.
        China went all-in on coal, giving rise to fun notion that Australian coal doesn’t hurt the atmosphere if it’s burned in China. That is an important point because, as an official in the energy department, his department was charged with explaining to coal mining unions (and steel ones) why is that “science” says they can’t have the same deal the Aussies enjoyed.

        In other words Koonin was in the room when Obama learned that peak oil wasn’t real, natural gas was plentiful, cheap and much cleaner than coal, shutting down nukes was silly, wind and solar were decades away from real, and COP agreements were many things but they absolutely were not even close to being an effort to reduce global emissions.

      • Robert – Since my previous “leading light” evidence has still failed to appear, my Arctic alter ego will take another tack:

      • O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” He chortled in his joy!

        My “waves in ice” video has been picked up off the Climate Etc. cutting room floor. Can anyone explain to me what caused it to disappear “into moderation” in the first place?

        Start at 50:45 if you merely want to hear my contribution to the learned proceedings.

  24. This paper is a comprehensive review (125 pages, 700+ citations and thousands of authors) of the physical interactions and processes in Antarctica affecting the stability of the Ice Sheet and thus GMSLR.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019RG000663

    There are the obligatory shoutouts to the hysterical half. But the authors have also provided a thorough discussion of the dynamics involved and the uncertainties remaining regarding the Ice Sheet’s future. That includes a fair reference to the role that geothermal activity plays in the mass balance.

    “The range and spatial distribution of geothermal heat flux at the base of the AIS influences ice dynamics through changes in ice deformation from changing ice temperature, and via the production of subglacial meltwater, both of which affect the ice base, and thus flow of grounded ice. Except in rare circumstances, such as subglacial volcanism, geothermal heat flux is a stable feature of the geology on glacial to interglacial cycles, and changes little over millions of years. It is, however, affected by erosion or sedimentation and the topography, so paleoreconstructions may need to consider those influences. Despite being a stable condition over glacial to interglacial cycles, its interactions with the ice sheet may change rapidly as the thermodynamic setting of the interface changes. Under certain conditions, the thermodynamics of ice are very sensitive to heat flux, and a change in the overall thermodynamic system may lead to a changing association with the heat flux, despite the heat flux itself (remaining) stable.”

  25. Thus, the increased snow in Greenland due to warming temperatures explains the loss of ice mass.

    As things get warmer and we get more and more snow eventually we end up covered in miles of snow and it is called an ice age.

  26. It seems Judith and the WSJ are big fans of Steve Koonin?

    Hence I bring you Ken & Andy’s patented pre-bunking from many moons ago:

  27. A price crunch happens well before complete fossil fuel depletion with exponentially increasing energy demand globally. The economic principle of substitution kicks. One problem has been solved – cheap and endlessly renewable electrons from wind and solar.

    “Conventional hydrogen and blue hydrogen cost about $2 per kilogram (though the price varies depending on where it’s produced), while green hydrogen is around twice as much.

    That price, however, is falling steeply with renewable energy prices and cheaper costs to make equipment used for electrolysis, called electrolysers.

    An Australian National University report last year estimated Australia could currently produce green hydrogen at about $3.18-3.80 per kg and at $2 per kg by the end of the decade…

    Among the largest of these is the $51 billion Asian Renewable Energy Hub, which plans to produce 26 gigawatts of cheap solar and wind power for the Pilbara. That’s more power than Australia’s entire fleet of coal-fired power stations.

    Some of this electricity will be used to electrolyse water to create hydrogen, which will be converted into ammonia for export.

    The Pilbara, of course, is a major supplier of iron ore. With a plentiful supply of hydrogen, “green steel” could be produced in towns like Port Hedland or Karratha and exported to the world.

    In October last year, the Federal Government granted the hub “major project status” to expedite its approvals process and help it export its first shipments in 2028.

    Other developments include Origin Energy working with Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy Industries on a green liquid hydrogen export project in Townsville.

    The South Australian Government has launched a $240 million project to build the largest green ammonia plant in the world.

    The Federal Government, meanwhile, has prepared a strategy to “position the [hydrogen industry] as a major player by 2030”.

    A memorandum of understanding was signed this week between Origin Energy and the Port of Townsville to build a hydrogen export facility. The $51B Asian Renewable Energy Hub was announced in October last year.

    • Does that $2/kilogram extra for “green” hydrogen include all the money being dumped into massive batteries?
      If we go back through the record of renewables hucksterism in Australia, are we going to find that the whole idea all along was to make hydrogen (and then convert everything to burn hydrogen)? As opposed to what we all recall- which was that wind and solar were cheap and ready replace coal as a direct source of electricity.
      Now, instead of your air conditioning unit running right off of the windmills and solar panels (with expensive batteries), all that green infrastructure needs to get switched over to hydrogen production so you can enjoy energy at twice today’s cost. Yay.

      • If only we had cheap, advanced nuclear energy – we could make as much cheap hydrogen as we like. Hydrogen is already a fairly sizable industry globally. It might give up some options. You have such touching faith in fossil fuel price stability. The cornucopia is eternal?

      • We have (had) cheap plentiful nuclear power. If making hydrogen with it makes sense, I’m sure they’re doing it.
        Peak oil is the fad that never has to be accurate or interesting- although it did spark conversations about energy density and portability (where hydrogen has issues.)
        The main reason we don’t have a hydrogen economy, of course, is because a Republican championed it, so the entire enviro/climate community and their media mavens attacked it relentlessly and anti-intellectually, just like they did nuclear. Because the enviro/climate community is only interested in politics.
        George W Bush promoted the hydrogen economy in his state of the union address in 2003 and pledged to fund innovation in the space with more than a billion a year. But… Republican, so we had to wait long enough (until 2021 apparently) to hear the critics were wrong and we shoulda done that back in ’03. Oh well. It’s not like there is any urgency.

      • Ancient nuclear plants have initial costs that are fully amortized. But they are coming to the end of their economic life cycle. Energy is fungible – matters not at all the source as long as it is cost competitive. That depends not only on innovation but on supply and demand for fossil fuels – in a market where supply is diminishing with sources becoming more difficult and costly to access and demand increasing exponentially.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      Is ammonia with its molecular shape a Greenhouse gas able to absorb IR like (say) methane?
      Have you seen residence time estimates for NH3 in our atmosphere?
      Geoff S

      • Ammonia is a gas at room temperature. The purpose of adding nitrogen to hydrogen is that it can be liquified at a higher temperature and lower pressure than hydrogen alone. Thus it is easier to store and transport. Hydrogen can be recovered at the back end for energy. Hydrogen reacted with nitrogen is of course an existing source of nitrogen fertiliser and other products. Usually the hydrogen is steam formed from natural gas.

  28. TYPO—Judith: The second link below actually goes the the first article below:

    Climate anxiety is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon [link]

    Scientists should admit they bring personal values to their work [link]

  29. I have bigger problems with subsidising a mature technology.

    ‘The project has a government contract that guarantees a set price of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of electricity produced and was “designed with the risks of a first-of-a-kind project (sic) in mind”, he said.

    The set price is high enough for EDF Energy to remain in line for healthy shareholder returns from the Hinkley Point project despite its rising costs.’

    The contract price is about twice the going rate providing a nice little cash cow for EDF.

    • “I have bigger problems with subsidising a mature technology.”

      You must be horrified to know governments subsidize agriculture and medicine. This happens because subsidies are designed to benefit consumers- keep costs down.
      In energy, subsidies of Hinkley actually do that while the experience is that even higher subsidies of renewables still results in skyrocketing energy prices.

      • You subsidise agriculture and medicine? If you want inefficient production. Sunrise industries are a bit of an exception. The subsidies for Hinkley are paid for directly by UK consumers.

      • All subsidies are paid for by consumers- check out the residential cost of electricity in Germany and California.
        Yes, agriculture is subsidized. Pretty much everywhere. In some cases it means you pay more: sugar, milk, and now corn thanks to environmentalists who insist on burning it in cars. In most it means you pay less. It’s also protectionist and based on national security. A foreign country that owns your food supply owns you.

      • Am efficient and competitive agriculture feeds the world.


        “Support measures as a share of gross farm receipts. The All countries total includes all OECD countries, non-OECD EU Member States, and the 12 Emerging Economies. The OECD total does not include the non-OECD EU Member States. Latvia and Lithuania are included only from 2004. The 12 Emerging Economies include Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine and Vietnam.
        Source: OECD”

  30. Tony Heller makes an excellent observation at time 2:30

  31. Coralline Limestones in South East Australia and relevance to global warming impacts on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR)

    There are many Silurian coralline limestone deposits on the Australian Southern Tablelands

    The Silurian period spanned 444–419 Ma ago.

    During the Silurian, this part of Australia moved from latitude 10°N to 5°S – i.e. close to the Equator (source: Scotese Animation: Paleogeography (750 Ma – Present-day)) [1].

    The high and low average tropical temperatures during the Silurian ranged from 22.7 °C, to 28.9 °C (source: Scotese, 2021) [2], average 26.3 °C.

    The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) spans latitudes 9°S– 24°S [3].

    The 2010–15 average temperature of these latitudes was 25 °C to 22 °C (source: Berkeley Earth) [4].

    This indicates that coral reefs thrived at temperatures up to 3.9 °C higher than the present average temperatures of the latitudes spanned by the GBR [5].

    The Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) in 2020 was 15.16 °C (source: Berkeley Earth) [6].

    Coral reefs lived and thrived through times when GMST was up to 32.7 °C (250 Ma ago) (Source: Scotese Phanerozoic Paleotemperature Summary) [7], i.e. 17.5 °C warmer than 2020.

    These points indicate that global warming is beneficial for coral reefs, not harmful as is being claimed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) [8].

    References

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObhGzHH2aw

    [2] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1654vkl6b_Fy-2R_VdvcUpg4IZP4r4rqP

    [3] https://www.latitudegeography.org/great-barrier-reef.html

    [4] https://www.latitudegeography.org/great-barrier-reef.html

  32. “Reef-building corals cannot tolerate water temperatures below 64° Fahrenheit (18° Celsius). Many grow optimally in water temperatures between 73° and 84° Fahrenheit (23°–29°Celsius), but some can tolerate temperatures as high as 104° Fahrenheit (40° Celsius) for short periods.”

    Reference: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralwaters.html

    443 million to 416 million years ago? I can’t imagine that there is a huge relevance. There are 411 types of hard coral in the GBR – with associated zooxanthellae – each adapted to niche environments. The latter may go resulting in bleaching and others with different tolerances might recolonise the coral – if it lives. A likely adaptation to changing conditions.

  33. From sea levels rising fastest in big cities

    “Parts of Tokyo for instance sank by 4 metres during the 20th century,…..”

    4,000 mm in 100 years. At current rate of 3-3.5mm for GMSLR, it would take 1300 years to have the same RSLR.

  34. Tony –

    Don’t know if you’ll see this (comments closed on that COVID thread for some reason)

    P-scores don’t look so great for the UK up until January, 2021. I wonder what happened in January that might have caused such a dramatic change. Any ideas?

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores?country=BRA~JPN~MEX~GBR

    • Oh, and I’m curious about your thoughts on this excerpt from that BMJ articlen

      -snip-
      But last year bucked the almost straight downward trend to record the highest death rate since 2008 and the highest year-on-year increase since 1943 (fig 5).

      • Tony –

        Joshua asked me a question which I tried to answer.

        Is this the question that you tried to answer?

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comment-947714

        ‘Cause I don’t see where you tried to answer.

        Or did you try to answer the question as to why you’re so sure that vaccinations fully explain the steep drop in infections and deaths in the UK at the beginning and end of January, respectively? ‘Cause I’m not clear as to where you tried to answer that either.

      • There is nothing wrong with your emboldened statement, except someone has made a typo. The year in question was 1940 when the excess deaths over the previous year were 91396. The same figure for 2020 was 91105. The only year to exceed these two was 1918 with 125830.

        To put this into context the top ten years for the number of deaths were:

        1918 715246
        1900 695867
        2020 695812
        1976 680799
        1979 675576
        1972 673938
        1940 673253
        1985 670656
        1973 669692
        1974 667359

        For the death rate figure, no year before 2000 has a lower figure for deaths as a proportion of the population, but there are other ways of measuring this which take into account the age profile of the population. These could have given the 2008 date.

    • Joshua

      Presumably it was the effects of a very effective vaccination programme that started in November with the most at risk group. Then combine that with the sad fact that many of the most vulnerable had already died.

      tonyb

      • “that started in November ”

        Try again.

      • VTG – I apparently missed the start of this conversation on another thread.

        However if the UK is under discussion here, and you’re prepared to take the word of the BBC for it, then is there any advance on December?

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55227325

      • Vtg

        The first public vaccination was 8 th December but limited NHS vaccination and trial vaccinations took place several weeks before that as the infrastructure had to be put in place wth the low temperature freezers before general vaccination could take place.

        Tonyb

      • tony –

        > Presumably it was the effects of a very effective vaccination programme

        What % of people in the UK, and in particular people in the most vulnerable groups, were fully vaccinated by the 3rd week of January?

        Keep in mind that deaths towards the end of January. But cases peaked at the beginning of January, and vaccinations wouldn’t have likely had a great deal to do with that as (1) they aren’t as effective at preventing infections as they are at preventing severe disease and death and (2) up until very recently, there has alway been a direct linkage between case rates and death rates – allowing for a lag. Your apparently firm conviction that the drop in deaths would be something fully attributable to vaccinations and fully independent from a reduction in infections would seem to stand in contrast to about a year’s worth of prior evidence

        Also, apparently you missed this:

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comment-947714

        Oh, and I’m curious about your thoughts on this excerpt from that BMJ article:

        -snip-
        But last year bucked the almost straight downward trend to record the highest death rate since 2008 and the highest year-on-year increase since 1943 (fig 5).

      • er…deaths began dropping towards the end of January, that it.

      • Looking at this, seems that 2nd doses plus two weeks to become fully effective didn’t take off until close to the end of February. Or perhaps I’m wrong about that?

        https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

      • I’m thinking that at the end of January, maybe around 3% of the UK public had been fully vaccinated:

        Click to access COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-14-January-2021.pdf

        Does that seem about right to you?

      • “The first public vaccination was 8 th December but limited NHS vaccination and trial vaccinations took place several weeks before that as the infrastructure had to be put in place wth the low temperature freezers before general vaccination could take place.”

        So December then.

        And of course, if we are to be serious (what? here? Doubtful ), impact on deaths in January (1000+/ day) would be negligible from that programme.

        But you knew that already.

      • Vaccinations several weeks before December 8th equals November.

        Joshua asked me a question which I tried to answer.

        Why don’t you give us the benefit of your thoughts on the subject?

        Tonyb

      • Tony,

        The vaccine was not dosed outside of clinical trials until Dec 8th.

        Claiming there was a vaccination programme in November is simply untrue.

        Most of the fall in deaths in the UK is down to a very hard lock down. The tail end more the vaccination and hopefully opening up will now be possible without a major surge thanks to vaccination.

      • VTG

        I link to this source as others are paywalled

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9473933/Vaccines-not-lockdown-blame-rapid-drop-cases-scientist-says.html

        Vaccination was the main reason for the fall in deaths. This very hard lockdown did not exist, at least in our part of the UK which has consistently always had the lowest rate. . We did not have a curfew. People were frequently outdoors-by far the safest place as the Govt finally admitted.

        Trying to keep people indoors was entirely counter productive. which is why the advice is now ‘stay outdoors.’

      • But, but, but……..

        The Daily Fail isn’t a peer reviewed journal Tony! Do you have a link to such a thing? As per usual The Fail doesn’t, and ZOE isn’t the be all and end all.

        Quote mining your article reveals:

        “Dr Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London and health analytics firm Lane Clark & Peacock LLP, said: ‘The January lockdown clearly helped break the chain of transmission resulting in cases and deaths declining across the whole population.”

      • Vaccination was the main reason for the fall in deaths.

        The fall in deaths initially is in lockstep with the fall in cases.

        The fall in cases can’t be vaccine related – there are nowhere near enough people vaccinated.

        John Burn-Murdoch from the FT does an excellent visualisation

        And there’s an official analysis here

        Click to access PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf

        Most of the reduction in deaths would have happened without vaccination.

        Essentially no-one agrees with Spector, unsurprisingly as he’s so obviously wrong.

      • jim,

        you seem to have accidentally missed out the rest of his quote

        “The greatest declines in infection and mortality rates however were seen in the older and more vulnerable groups who had received Covid-19 vaccination during this period.’

        There are an awful lot of people naturally immune or due to their age are very little affected by the virus.

        I am not sure if we are that far apart on this, People kept apart which was good whether you want to call it a lockdown or people sensibly ignoring the bad advice to stay indoors combined with vaccination.

        tonyb

      • I did say I was “quote mining”.

        I also mentioned it was from the Daily Fail!

        Any learned journal articles spring to mind at this juncture?

      • That tweet thread from John Burn-Murdoch makes Tony’s point if you look at the whole thing.
        He explicitly shows – and notes – that the rapid fall in hospitalizations is due to vaccination of older people. He claims that hospitalizations DECLINED at a slower rate for young people and attributes some “unknown” amount of that to lockdowns.

        Why would that be? In part because young people know their survival rate is 99.99% if they even catch it so they are, obviously, ignoring the lockdowns and hanging out with their friends. This is why lockdowns aren’t working in New York and Michigan as well. Go look at case counts by age group.
        It takes a special kind of mind to destroy an economy to “protect” an age group that ignores your mandates from a mortality rate that is approaching “struck by lightening” levels of risk.

        The only “lockdown” that would have really worked would have been quarantining people in NYC and London etc back in March of last year. Instead, they shut down cafes and watched everyone with Covid flee those cities. If you recall, Cuomo made the news early last year for attacking any state that tried to limit arrivals of fleeing “locked down” New Yorkers. He called it a Civil Rights violation. Then, of course, later in the year he issued edicts ordering people from the rest of the country to stay out of New York.

        Tony, check out Judy’s retweet of the NYT article re wood pellets. If the “environmentalists” in the US succeed in choking off the wood pellet supply to the UK, what will that do to energy prices?

    • I answered your question at 9.09 . Other comments had no subject and read’snip

      • Tony –

        Maybe you’re seeing something on your screen that I can’t see on mine?

        I fail to see where you answered this:

        Oh, and I’m curious about your thoughts on this excerpt from that BMJ article:

        But last year bucked the almost straight downward trend to record the highest death rate since 2008 and the highest year-on-year increase since 1943 (fig 5).

        Did you provide your thoughts? Weird that I can’t see them. Maybe something’s wrong with your Ipad?

        Also, I don’t see where you responded to this:

        Keep in mind that deaths [dropped] towards the end of January. But cases peaked at the beginning of January, and vaccinations wouldn’t have likely had a great deal to do with that as (1) they aren’t as effective at preventing infections as they are at preventing severe disease and death and (2) up until very recently, there has alway been a direct linkage between case rates and death rates – allowing for a lag. Your apparently firm conviction that the drop in deaths would be something fully attributable to vaccinations and fully independent from a reduction in infections would seem to stand in contrast to about a year’s worth of prior evidence

        Would you mind posting again? Maybe other people are having trouble seeing you responding on those issues. You wouldn’t want to rob the of your wisdom, would you?

  35. Pingback: Amazonin sademetsä on maailman peräsuoli? | Roskasaitti

  36. JC … Thank you for the Susan Haack piece. I put her on my reading list. She’s very appropriate for these discussions.
    I have one for you, Susanne K Langer, Feeling and Form. Not epistemology, but a very interesting theory of symbolism … particularly art. After all, one can eat science alone …

  37. A UK newspaper article in the Guardian reports that a 20ft rise in sea level is imminent. Mallen Baker researches the truth to such claims:

  38. date isolated increase % total tests
    4/8/2021 76,993 4,396 6.1 1,736,528
    4/9/2021 82,312 5,319 6.9 1,645,430
    4/10/2021 65,003 -17,309 -21 1,443,515
    4/11/2021 46,662 -18,341 -28.2 1,141,718
    4/12/2021 51,326 4,664 10 1,372,935
    4/13/2021 75,262 23,936 46.6 1,275,845
    4/14/2021 76,767 1,505 2 1,386,467
    4/15/2021 71,913 -4,854 -6.3 1,475,218
    4/16/2021 78,738 6,825 9.5 1,686,425
    4/17/2021 62,885 -15,835 -20.1 1,635,448
    4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
    4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
    47,210 is 3.4% of total tests.
    total deaths today 443
    % down a little more. They are keeping ahead of the virus coming over the border. I do not know why they want to keep the border open. Every death since they opened the border is on them. You had the positives dropping waiting for the antibodies to meet the vaccine and they would clean out the vrus together.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/8/2021 76,993 4,396 6.1 1,736,528
      4/9/2021 82,312 5,319 6.9 1,645,430
      4/10/2021 65,003 -17,309 -21 1,443,515
      4/11/2021 46,662 -18,341 -28.2 1,141,718
      4/12/2021 51,326 4,664 10 1,372,935
      4/13/2021 75,262 23,936 46.6 1,275,845
      4/14/2021 76,767 1,505 2 1,386,467
      4/15/2021 71,913 -4,854 -6.3 1,475,218
      4/16/2021 78,738 6,825 9.5 1,686,425
      4/17/2021 62,885 -15,835 -20.1 1,635,448
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      57,712 is 4.8% of total tests.
      Today was about was bad. % went way up. Deaths almost doubled. Total tests went down 200,000.
      I hope you found me over here.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/8/2021 76,993 4,396 6.1 1,736,528
      4/9/2021 82,312 5,319 6.9 1,645,430
      4/10/2021 65,003 -17,309 -21 1,443,515
      4/11/2021 46,662 -18,341 -28.2 1,141,718
      4/12/2021 51,326 4,664 10 1,372,935
      4/13/2021 75,262 23,936 46.6 1,275,845
      4/14/2021 76,767 1,505 2 1,386,467
      4/15/2021 71,913 -4,854 -6.3 1,475,218
      4/16/2021 78,738 6,825 9.5 1,686,425
      4/17/2021 62,885 -15,835 -20.1 1,635,448
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      63,160 is 4.2% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 834
      I believe the total positive and deaths must include the border crossers. That is why the % is up. The vaccine and antibodies should overtake the border crossers soon.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/8/2021 76,993 4,396 6.1 1,736,528
      4/9/2021 82,312 5,319 6.9 1,645,430
      4/10/2021 65,003 -17,309 -21 1,443,515
      4/11/2021 46,662 -18,341 -28.2 1,141,718
      4/12/2021 51,326 4,664 10 1,372,935
      4/13/2021 75,262 23,936 46.6 1,275,845
      4/14/2021 76,767 1,505 2 1,386,467
      4/15/2021 71,913 -4,854 -6.3 1,475,218
      4/16/2021 78,738 6,825 9.5 1,686,425
      4/17/2021 62,885 -15,835 -20.1 1,635,448
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      64,780 is 3.2% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 859
      After 19:00 GMT the CDC 1,300,000 tests to total tests. Sounds familiar.Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/8/2021 76,993 4,396 6.1 1,736,528
      4/9/2021 82,312 5,319 6.9 1,645,430
      4/10/2021 65,003 -17,309 -21 1,443,515
      4/11/2021 46,662 -18,341 -28.2 1,141,718
      4/12/2021 51,326 4,664 10 1,372,935
      4/13/2021 75,262 23,936 46.6 1,275,845
      4/14/2021 76,767 1,505 2 1,386,467
      4/15/2021 71,913 -4,854 -6.3 1,475,218
      4/16/2021 78,738 6,825 9.5 1,686,425
      4/17/2021 62,885 -15,835 -20.1 1,635,448
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      67,070 is 4.0% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 743
      % is up from yesterday. Hopefully that is because they are testing a higher % of border crossers.
      Tomorrow is another day. The AMERICAN PEOPLE controlled the virus spread for 10 months.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      51,950 is 3.4% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 737

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      34,736 is 3.1% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 273
      Today is Sunday again so I expect today’s test number to be down but % is a % and that is down which is a good sign.. The death number also is down.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      44,574 is 3,1% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 422
      With the border open we will be back where we were in June. The border crossers will be infecting Americans. They will be tested at the hospital, or at a test sight. The contact tracers will be notified and we will be treading water indefinitely.
      THE VACCINE CAN NOT OVERCOME THAT!

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      50,630 is 4.8% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 829
      Positives are up, total tests are up, and % is up. I just pray I made a mistake somewhere. They have the 6 day rule!!!
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      55,942 is 3.3% of total tests.
      Total tests today 865
      % readings for yesterday and today do not make sense. Add the two together it is 3.8%. I will go with that.
      Have to go listen to our President now to be told the open border is not a problem. But for that the country would be open.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      55,916 is 3.4%% of total tests.
      Total tests today 844
      Nothing interesting today. Just treading water.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      57,974 is 3.9% of total tests
      Total deaths today 7521
      Total deaths for April 21,654
      Remember, the contact tracers and testers are keeping that number low because of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      41,489 is 5.6% of total testsTomorrow is another day.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 -28.8 1,231,173
      29,545 is 2.4% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 306
      Today is Sunday. We have to wait a few days. This is not believable!!

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      38,463 is 3.3% of total tests.
      tadays total deaths 443
      % is up from yesterday, tests are down from yesterday, not a good sign.
      Ms. Curry has a new post about climate change. I gave my definition of climate change. I am correct.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      41,173 is 4.0% of total tests.
      Total tests today 802
      Total positives up, tests down, % up and deaths up.
      It looks like the border crossers are infecting more than the antibodies and vaccine can prevent.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      4/18/2021 42,981 -19,904 31.6 1,107,914
      4/19/2021 47,210 4,229 9.8 1,390,636
      4/20/2021 57,712 10,502 22.2 1,196,900
      4/21/2021 63,160 5,648 9.8 1,500,271
      4/22/2021 64,780 1,620 2.6 2,013,389
      4/23/2021 67,070 2,290 3.5 1,658,731
      4/24/2021 51,950 -15,120 -22.5 1,532,282
      4/25/2021 34,736 -17,214 33.1 1,130,589
      4/26/2021 44,574 9,838 28.3 1,456,752
      4/27/2021 50,630 6,056 13.5 1,048,995
      4/28/2021 55,942 5,312 10.5 1,691,443
      4/29/2021 55,916 -26 -0.05 1,661,724
      4/30/2021 57,974 2,058 3.7 1,481,225
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      44,940 is 2.5% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 725
      I hope the test number and % are correct. It looked like they dumped a couple hundred thousand at the end of the day.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      45,479 is 3.3% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 841
      They say on the news things are improving. It looks to me we are just treading water. At least they are keeping the tests high.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      46,535 is 3.0% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 756
      Still treading water.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      5/8/2021 33,833 -12,702 -27.3 1,373,740
      33,833 is 3.5% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 640
      Still treading water.

    • Robert Clark

      date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      5/8/2021 33,833 -12,702 -27.3 1,373,740
      5/9/2021 21,989 -11,844 35 850,213
      21,989 is 2.6% of total tests.
      Today in Sunday, and Mother’s day. I would expect the total tests and positives to be down, but not the %. That looks very good.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      5/8/2021 33,833 -12,702 -27.3 1,373,740
      5/9/2021 21,989 -11,844 35 850,213
      5/10/2021 28,127 6,138 27.9 1,132,435
      28,127 is 2.5% of total tests.
      total deaths today 355
      % is down again today. The vaccine and antibodies are beating the border crossers. Until they close the border they must keep up the testing and contact tracing.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      5/8/2021 33,833 -12,702 -27.3 1,373,740
      5/9/2021 21,989 -11,844 35 850,213
      5/10/2021 28,127 6,138 27.9 1,132,435
      5/11/2021 32,901 4,774 17 1,052,864
      32,901 is 3.1% of total tests.
      total deaths today 724
      Positives are up. Percentage is up. Tests are down.
      The boder crossers won today. Not a good sign.
      Tomorrow is another day.

    • date isolated increase % total tests
      5/1/2021 41,489 -16,485 -28.4 1,099,637
      5/2/2021 29,545 -11,944 2.4 1,231,173
      5/3/2021 38,463 8,918 30.2 1,154,575
      5/4/2021 41,173 2,710 7 1,031,317
      5/5/2021 44,940 3,767 9.1 1,815,261
      5/6/2021 45,479 539 12 1,393,278
      5/7/2021 46,535 1,065 2.3 1,543,595
      5/8/2021 33,833 -12,702 -27.3 1,373,740
      5/9/2021 21,989 -11,844 35 850,213
      5/10/2021 28,127 6,138 27.9 1,132,435
      5/11/2021 32,901 4,774 17 1,052,864
      5/12/2021 34,741 1,840 5.6 1,146,779
      34,741 IS 3% of total tests.
      Total deaths today 816
      T0tal positives up a little. Tests up a little. Deaths up. % up. Not a good sign.

  39. “By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self‐similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst.” Mandelbrot and Wallis, 1968, Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology

    While it might explain those remarkable ’empirical observations’, Mandelbrot’s self similar math required the system to have infinite memory. A questionable notion from the start. But they describe Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics and put it into a familiar – to many around the world – religious context. It is not just extremes but includes what hydrologists call regimes – the periods with strings of similar sized events – and abrupt transitions between states. It is behaviour diagnostic of membership of the very broad class of dynamic, coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. It is a system in which small changes in control variables initiate large transitions in system state. Does anyone imagine that this behaviour will change? Can it be modelled? I think someone should try.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0912-1

    Tipping points is a message that is only getting louder. It was never tenable to claim that catastrophe was not part of ‘mainstream climate science’ – less so by the day.

    “Tipping point dynamics can be used to determine system transition conditions at which the perturbed state is no longer decaying but growing and tipping into a new and potentially stable functional branch of the possible outcomes. In the face of catastrophic changes that might be coming, it is vitally important for policy makers and others to know the conditions at which a tipping point could be reached and exceeded. The earth system is highly nonlinear with many positive and negative feedback interactions so that the tipping behavior is complicated.” https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1748-9326/page/Focus_on_earth_system_resilience_and_tipping_behavior

    And just for laughs.

    • Curious George

      “In the face of catastrophic changes that might be coming, it is vitally important for policy makers and others to know the conditions”.
      Extremely clear. Let’s act on all “might” prophecies.

    • Cloud can be modelled at eddy resolving scales. At that stage – it is simply math and physics. To model at cloud resolving scale globally requires 1000’s of times more computing power. Quantum computing might fit the bill.


      The standard risk management approach is to consider both probability and consequence. With a 10C rise in global temperature by 2100 caused by a breakup of marine boundary layer stratocumulus at high CO2 levels – we might arbitrarily assess the probability as low – the consequences are extreme. Ignoring it on the basis of uncertainty makes no sense at all.

      “Remember, then, that scientific thought is the guide to action; that the truth at which it arrives is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we can act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.” William Kingdon Clifford, The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885)

      Quoted from: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

      Does contrarian hand waving at what they collectively dislike threaten to turn back the clock on human progress? I think collectively they lack the numbers to have that sort of impact. Rather the global Leviathan moves on without them.

      “This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” SSP 5

  40. Thanks, interesting collection, as always.
    Something that caught my eye (a video):
    https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/20/watch-perspectives-on-the-pandemic-13/

    “The pharmaceutical industry is manufacturing all these medical journal articles, behind the scenes, for marketing purposes.”

    Nothing new for most of us, but still disgusting.

  41. In researching studies on evidence of MWP and LIA in South Africa (of which there is no shortage), I came across this sentence in a paper on paleo reconstruction:
    “Organic matter decomposition can have a potentially significant influence on both sediment d13C and C/N, and therefore using either proxy in isolation may produce misleading results in many coastal environments.”

    MISLEADING RESULTS

    My interest is on a broader scale than just sediment. The question I have is how much confidence should we have on any and all paleo reconstruction. I’m assuming that the practitioners are aware of them. But I don’t remember an in-depth discussion or study evaluating the reliability and caveats associated with the variety of methods used in paleo reconstruction.

    In the same research into South Africa, I read a paper on Australia temperatures during the MWP and LIA. The authors spoke of a lack of extremes in their findings. They used summer/growing season dendrochronological data. Which begs the question. What was happening during the winters. And further, how can any conclusions be made about average temperatures when the modern era uses daily instruments data and paleo data is based on only a portion of the reality of actual temperatures.

    Speaking of extremes, what kinds of inferences could ever be made using the extremes of temperatures in North Dakota against the extremes of Charleston, South Carolina. Probably none.

    • “Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#13

      Broad strokes using different proxies involving fossil plant leaves or stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon. None of it precise. Very long term CO2 levels depend on a balance between volcanic emissions and slow geological sequestration. Higher CO2 levels leading up to the early Eocene max – followed by an acceleration of Himalayan uplift resulting in accelerated weathering and a CO2 drawdown.


      But still CO2 variability alone in this coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system is insufficient to cause the range of temperature variations. It is presumed that at the PETM ice had disappeared long ago leaving Baffin Island looking somewhat like this.

      Eliminate the impossible and a ephemeral positive cloud feedback remains – although all evidence of that is lost. At CO2 levels that we may approach this century in a fossil fuel powered optimum economic growth scenario.
      I suggest – rather than sacrificing economic growth that we take a serious look at our energy options.

  42. David Young –

    7-day moving average of daily deaths in Sweden.

    Feb 27th: 20
    April 2nd: 20

    Just one of many examples that display your wrongful thinking:

    dpy6629 | April 13, 2021 at 9:12 pm |

    > […]

    Early to late March!! March 1 was 21 and April 1 was 15. You cherry picked two dates in a pseudo-scientific attempt to justify your original rash falsehood.

    At what point will you show up to be accountable for your error? You were informed about the issues with the lag, but you absolutely insisted (in early April) that the death rate wasn’t flat. You trotted out a long list of insults in comment after comment because I told you, after accounting for the lag, at best the trend would be flat.

  43. Not sure this has been covered:
    Letter to EMA warning of dangers of mRNA vaccines: https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

    An excellent interview of Dr. Bhakdi that explains the mechanism for clotting in the mRNA vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U

    • Curious George

      Aren’t the mRNA vaccines the only ones with no reports of clotting?

      • George,

        I don’t believe that’s correct; according to Bhakdi, mRNA vaccines will cause clots. Haven’t been following all this that closely but I understand that J&J vaccine has been paused in US, and the Astra Zeneca shot, not used in US, has had several reports of clotting. According to Bhakdi, all mRNA vaccines will cause clotting because the first cells they contact beyond the site of injection are cells lining the blood vessels, and the mRNA, once into those cells, induce them to produce spike proteins. The spike proteins, protruding from the cell surfaces, physically attract platelets but in addition the white blood cells attack and destroy the lining cells that produced the spike proteins, and this debris, along with debris from spike protein production, makes something like traffic jams (clots) along the vessels. Particularly bad when this clotting happens in the brain and may be why some people, after the second shot, get headaches (as did my wife, who was laid up in bed for a day.) Bhakdi asserts that after the second shot the immune system is primed to quickly and aggressively spring into action when it encounters spike proteins either from a booster vaccine or else from a virus that primarily attacks the lungs, and the results could be disastrous.

        He certainly sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, and the complaint to the EMA was endorsed by numerous scientists who believe the that mechanism described is credible.

        Would be good to hear from people with medical training who might be able to give some insight into this.

        It’s a bit confusing to me whether the J&J does or doesn’t do essentially the same thing as the mRNA vaccines, but using a different pathway. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/vaccine-safety-j-j-vaccine “Unlike the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, the J&J vaccine does not use mRNA. Instead, it uses an adenovirus vector to get the needed instructions to our cells.”

      • Curious George

        Don, I verified that Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines. J&J and Astra Zeneca seem not to be – please correct me if I am wrong. Clotting only has been reported for them. I don’t mean to offend Dr. Bhakdi, he surely knows what he is talking about. Does Mother Nature agree with him? In climatology I see many predictions that Mother Nature simply ignores.

      • George,
        Not sure about a lot of things, but I do know that Bhakdi, and many other doctors, are concerned about the mRNA vaccines because of the mechanism I’ve described. Will be looking into this more.

        This just came across my desk: a compilation of reports of adverse effects to the Covid vaccines. Don’t know what to make of this at this point. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DczVUPjOli3J4rHHtvRzh94NVT74x0kM/view

      • The mRNA vaccines don’t release mRNA into the bloodstream. The release it into the cells – a place full of mRNA as part of normal cellular protein making.

        The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines wraps the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle, specifically so it will be absorbed by the cell. The other two use an adenovirus vector, which infects the cell and then releases the mRNA *into the cell*. If the mRNA was able to get into the blood stream, then the bloodstream would be full of mRNA produced normally by the cells.

        What makes its way out of the cell is the spike protein or other proteins precisely built by the mRNA.

        There are links in this thread to blatant anti-vax sites, where every death after a vaccine is treated as caused by the vaccine. That sort of scare mongering is obvious, and nobody should be fooled bye it. Likewise, the VAERS adverse event reporting system does not have high quality data. Anyone can put an event into it. Any systemic reaction is treated as serious – say, a day of muscle aches.

        The severe reactions probably get a CDC follow-up, but the others don’t.

        It is sad to see vaccine myths promulgated on this site.

      • Judging from the reports that we’re getting from the Covid-19 vaccines of strokes, bleeding, clotting, etc., many of which are reported in the local news if not reported on the mainstream news, it appears that Mother Nature is agreeing with Dr. Bhakdi. Paradoxically, if one has too many clots then the clotting mechanism is exhausted and one starts to bleed: DIC (Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, extremely rare.) The mechanism he describes makes sense. This was what the doctors warned the EMA of because they could see the pathways that the mRNA vaccines had to take, of (apparent) necessity, and they requested that the EMA clarify that these pathways were the wrong pathways and they’d been tested to confirm that they were incorrect, and that the correct pathways the vaccines took was A, B, C, etc. The EMA didn’t provide the requested science, so it seems that Bhakdi and company are correct and the EMA is … well, I don’t know what the EMA is up to. That’s how I’m reading it now.

        Just as the second shot elicited a stronger reaction in recipients (because the immune system had been primed by the first shot), so too would a third shot (a booster) or even a normal coronavirus infection, or a re-challenge by Covid-19, potentially cause a reaction out-of-proportion to the danger (ADE: antibody dependent enhancement.)

      • I’m in the process of reviewing the Bhakdi interview and at about the 35:40 minute mark we find that the J&J vaccine is a gene-based vaccine, just as the AstraZeneca vaccine is. But these work the same as the mRNA vaccines in that a code is inserted into your own cells that makes the cells produce spike proteins, only the J&J uses an edited, harmless adenovirus that has a code for the spike protein inserted. The adenovirus infects the cells (harmlessly) and then the code goes to work to manufacture the spike protein presented on the surface of your own cells. A short video explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxMhgMCrsKw

        Bhakdi makes no distinction among these vaccines; they essentially all do the same thing by inducing your cells to make spike proteins. And, we have clotting problems with these gene therapy vaccines as well as with the mRNA vaccines, through a mechanism that I think Bhakdi does an admirable job of explaining.

        Interesting stuff.

      • Curious George

        “And, we have clotting problems with these gene therapy vaccines as well as with the mRNA vaccines.”
        Please link to reports of a clotting problem with mRNA vaccines.

      • ““And, we have clotting problems with these gene therapy vaccines as well as with the mRNA vaccines.””

        These are *not* “gene therapy vaccines.” They do not introduce DNA, nor do they alter DNA. They are protein building machines (mRNA) which rapidly fade away.

        There is a difference between clots after the vaccine and clots due to the vaccine. So far, no evidence has tied the unusual clotting problems to mRNA vaccines, and even with the viral-vector vaccines, the incidence of problems is very, very low – 1/1,000,000. On the other hand, clotting problems occur in about 14% of those diagnosed with COVID19, including asymptomatic cases.

      • mesocyclone says, “These are *not* “gene therapy vaccines.” They do not introduce DNA, nor do they alter DNA. They are protein building machines (mRNA) which rapidly fade away.”

        Did you watch the Bhakdi video? He calls them gene therapy vaccines, so I’ll go with him on that. Wikipedia: “messenger ribonucleic acid is a single-stranded molecule of RNA that corresponds to the genetic sequence of a gene, and is read by a ribosome in the process of synthesizing a protein.” Sounds an awful lot like “gene therapy.”

        But let’s not quibble over words. The main point is, is the mechanism that Bhakdi describes correct or not?

        Bhakdi makes clear that the mRNA rapidly fades away: that isn’t the issue at all. Take some time to understand what he’s saying.

        Let me be perfectly clear: I’m all for a safe Covid-19 vaccine. My wife got one (her decision.) I’m all for anything that gets us out of perpetual cycles of lockdown, providing there’s no coercion to get these vaccines. But my concern is, are these vaccines ticking time bombs? If Bhakdi and friends are correct, then Covid-19 booster shots could be disastrous.

        We have ivermectin: it’s safe, and it works. Maybe we should be going that route?

      • That is not how gene therapy works, and the use of the term is tendentious and done to scare people.

        I don’t watch long videos, especially once with a 98% chance of being quackery. If he can’t explain in text, he’s lazy.

        As for the booster shot – can you explain why he says they will be a problem? Is he talking about ADE or original antigenic sin, or what?

        I’m glad I got my mRNA shots. Far less antigenic material than provided by a virus, far less to confuse the immune system, very precise system.

      • mesocyclone’s assertion that clotting from Covid-19 is far worse than clotting from vaccines is debunked: https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/our-posts/fact-checking-covid-vaccine-experts/

      • The article ignores the fact that clots have been found in many COVID19 survivors and patients who didn’t go into the hospital, and even in those who were asymptomatic. And, it tries to make us think that clots are less likely in COVID19 patients because the clots are only in hospitalized patients, but… the ratio of COVID19 hospitalized patients to vaccine hospitalized patient is enormous. The risk of hospitalization from COVID19 is around 1 in a million, but from COVID19, it is over 1 in 100 (of diagnosed patients).

      • mesocylone, OK. But I dispute your numbers, for the simple reason that we have a bias of saying that everything that looks like a Covid-19 problem is a Covid-19 problem, but almost nothing that looks like a Covid-19 vaccine injury is a vaccine injury. This I think is simply a natural tendency not to want to see iatrogenic harms.

        Regardless of what the numbers are, if we’re careful about this and really want to find out what’s going on, the proper authorities would do autopsies and test all adverse vaccine reactions for D-dimer levels to determine clotting potential. After all, these really are experimental vaccines, and so far the appropriate authorities haven’t ponied up the data requested by Bhakdi et al that proves that the appropriate animal testing has been done that addresses their concerns.

        So I don’t want to hear dismissals, I really don’t even want to hear assurances from the authorities that it’s 1 in ten billion or whatever. I want to see the animal experiments that ruled the clotting mechanism out and I want to see the proper authorities test D-dimer levels on adverse events to rule out the plausibility of the Bhakdi mechanism. Autopsies after Covid-19 vaccine deaths would be useful. These are experimental vaccines and they’re only approved on an emergency use basis, because, you see, we didn’t want to use ivermectin, a cheap and effective drug used safety for decades. If we had used ivermectin, then EUA wouldn’t be possible for vaccines. Isn’t that interesting?

        A large part of the danger from the Bhakdi mechanism, if this is real, would be from booster shots. So we should figure this out.

      • “But I dispute your numbers, for the simple reason that we have a bias of saying that everything that looks like a Covid-19 problem is a Covid-19 problem, but almost nothing that looks like a Covid-19 vaccine injury is a vaccine injury. This I think is simply a natural tendency not to want to see iatrogenic harms.”

        I disagree that this bias exists. In fact, I think it runs the opposite way.

        In the case of the rare clotting events that have caused the J&J pause, it is a very low platelet level combined with the clot – approaching a DIC situation. That is very unusual, hence the suspicion that it might be tied to the clot.

        But you want gold plated, years long experiments.

        We don’t have the time. It’s a public health emergency, and in an emergency, you do what you can. That said, there have been animal experiments and there have been, from the very start, autopsies on COVID19 deaths. Obviously, not on a large percentage of them, because of the logistical issue – we don’t have enough medical examiners to come even close to that.

        As for Bhakdi – if he can’t put it in writing, why should anyone pay attention? Science isn’t by YouTube videos. There are plenty of people in the world with the sort of credentials he has, but most of them actually publish their stuff in journals, or at least pre-prints.

        I have yet to see a single credible one who uses YouTube or other videos as a way of dissemination of ideas. Bhakdi is not a specialist in this area, but he is in related areas. There have been a number of people like that who have popped up with ideas outside the consensus. All the one’s I’ve looked in to were just wrong.

        Yes, this is, in some sense, a giant experiment. And that would be true with no vaccine whatsoever. Some hypothetical harm from a vaccine is the sort of thing the experts think about, are aware of, test for if they can. The very real harm from COVID19 (which Bhakdi has denied) is far worse.

        And this experiment has already been done in hundreds of millions of people. We are not seeing the level of death or disability that COVID19 causes, not even close.

        You talk about the Bhakdi mechanism, or whatever. How about spelling it out? Without that, this is a waste of time.

      • Curious George

        Don – regarding the Bhakdi theory, please avoid this trap:
        I fear that even the STEM students are being trained to think that science is entirely about doing the math and getting the right answer and that experiments are only about getting the same answer as predicted by the calculations.

      • Curious George

        “I want to see the animal experiments that ruled the clotting mechanism out.”
        I don’t know how to prove a negative.

      • I made it as far as the “so-called pandemic” rhetoric – immediately followed by a comparison of 60 projected deaths in Germany (under 60 years old) from vaccination compared to 55 under 60 deaths in Germany during first six months of the “so-called pandemic.”

        Of course, assuming the numbers are valid, limiting it to that window is misleading as the deaths from covid will continue over time (with no vaccinations) whereas the clotting deaths from vaxing would (presumably) be time limited. Even if they aren’t, there’s a more basic logical problem. With the clotting the deaths would necessarily be limited to those under 60 who are vaxed, but given the apparent very significant reduction to spread from vaxing, the under 60 cohort getting infected without getting vaxed would be transmitting the virus to vulnerable seniors. Perhaps once all vulnerable seniors were vaxed, the comparison would be more valid.

        Looks extemely agenda driven.

        Might be about as plausible as Don’s theory about the World Trade Towers collapsing because of controlled demolition.

      • Joshua notes a logical problem: “With the clotting the deaths would necessarily be limited to those under 60 who are vaxed, but given the apparent very significant reduction to spread from vaxing, the under 60 cohort getting infected without getting vaxed would be transmitting the virus to vulnerable seniors.”

        Nice try, Joshua. But your use of the word “necessarily” here shows that you haven’t paid attention to the argument. Maybe you should actually watch the whole video and read the complaint to the EMA? Because, you see, clotting deaths from the Covid-19 vaccines would in no way be limited to those under 60. You’d know that if you knew the argument.

        In fact, we can suppose that the most severe effects from the Covid-19 vaccines– if the supposed mechanism is actually real– will affect the elderly the most, and we can likely say that this is “necessarily.”

      • Don –

        > Because, you see, clotting deaths from the Covid-19 vaccines would in no way be limited to those under 60. You’d know that if you knew the argument.

        That was in reference to the cohorts he was comparing. Maybe you should watch the video again and you’ll see his statement I was referring to. It was close to when he talked about the “so-called” pandemic.

      • You are correct on that point, Joshua. My apologies.

      • Thanks Don. I appreciate that.

      • BTW –

        Re Kory and some general issues about research vs. doctoring – I thought this is a good article.

        Re Ivermectin the situation in India is intersto f as apparently it was in widespread usage there, including outside of clinical settings and contrary to helping it may be significantly complicating matters in a negative fashion.

        That isn’t to say that I think I’ve seen evidence to convince me that Ivermectin isn’t an efficacious therapeutic, just more evidence that… it’s complicated.

    • Don,
      You might want to add this to your collection of flashing red lights.
      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/experimental-vaccine-death-rate-for-israels-elderly-40-times-higher-than-covid-19-deaths-researchers

      I might be promulgating a vaccine myth. The numbers they are presenting are alarming and very possibly alarmist. Although the numbers are founded on Israeli Health Ministry statistics, those data are not complete, and I am unable to judge whether the inferences are valid or not.

      A re-analysis of published data from the Israeli Health Ministry by Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ reveal, in short, that the mRNA experimental vaccine from Pfizer killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period. Among the younger class, these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.

      While the full mathematical analysis may be found in the article itself, the authors demonstrate how among “those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2 percent … died during the three-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100,000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100,000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.”

      “This scary picture also extends to those below 65,” the researchers continued. During the five-week vaccination process “0.05 percent, meaning 50 among 100,000, died. This is to be compared to the 0.19 per 100,000 dying from COVID-19 (who) are not vaccinated … Hence the death rate of this age group increased by 260 (times) during this five-week period of the vaccination process, as compared to their natural COVID-19 death rate.”

      • kribaez, thanks for that.

        It’s interesting that the analysis found that these people died between doses and hadn’t received the second dose. Could be age and frailty made them unable to overcome the vaccine reaction even after a first dose.

        The Bhakdi video is well-worth watching and the concerns that he and other doctors raise are worth considering.

        More stuff is coming in at a fire-hose rate. Here’s a preview of a chapter from a book Bhakdi has written that explains the dangers of mRNA vaccines, beginning on page 12. What is apparent on the first skimming of this is that Bhakdi states that when we normally inject anything into the muscles, the substance is rapidly disseminated. Therefore, we can expect the same thing of the Covid-19 vaccines, and the retort of the EMA, that the vaccine substance remains localized and doesn’t disseminate throughout the body, seems suspicious, especially since they provided no data in the form of animal studies to back that claim up. https://www.goldegg-verlag.com/goldegg-verlag/wp-content/uploads/corona_unmasked_engl_leseprobe.pdf

        More stuff: Dr. Kory, of ivermectin fame, has gone off on the WHO for dismissing that drug. Over an hour-long video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLnW_3_r2c

        My big concern is, what if these vaccines really are causing too many severe reactions and these are under-reported, in a similar fashion as the benefits and safety of ivermectin are going under-reported? Then what if we get booster shots for Covid-19 variants and the reaction to these boosters, through the mechanism described by Bhakdi, causes serious and widespread reactions, including death, which are them blamed on the variants? And what if our response isn’t “the vaccines really are dangerous” but ” the booster doesn’t work against the variants!”? More lockdowns to stay safe? Vaccine passports out of necessity?

        What with everything so far that has gone one regarding Covid-19 that makes no sense at all, I don’t think this doomsday scenario is at all implausible. So it really is imperative that we get to the bottom of what these vaccines are doing in the body, aside from producing antibodies to the Covid-19 spike protein.

      • Dr. Kory examines the WHO and shows how it’s going along with a disinformation campaign against ivermectin. He’s upset.

      • kribaez

        yes you are promulgating a myth. Your report comes from Early March and went round the world on conspiracy web sites. There is not a word of truth in it. Here are some data that leads to links

        https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-debunking-experimental-vaccine-death-rate-for-israels-elderly-40-times-higher-than-covid-19-deaths.11642/

        Don’t you think that in an open country like Israel, if true, this would have been a huge story and the end results recreated in many other countries with high vaccination rates such as the UK?.

        The fact that gold plated conspiracy journals such as the preppers weekly repeated it demonstrates its lack of credibility.

        tonyb

      • I think we should be as suspicious of the debunkers as we are of the fact checkers.

        Deaths after vaccination in Gibraltar as well.

        It doesn’t matter if conspiracy blogs cover the story. It doesn’t matter if Donald Trump says it or if Joe Biden says it. It matters whether there are credible causal links and whether anyone has gotten off their butts to look into it as a serious matter of medical concern, and having done so can demonstrate that the suspected mechanism in experimental vaccines isn’t happening at all. If they can’t or won’t do this, there’s a word for it: negligence. Questions have been raised by serious scientists and if we’re so concerned about “staying safe,” we should address those questions.

        Hand-waving and saying one-in-million or the benefits outweigh the risks isn’t any kind of a scientific statement useless it’s backed up with credible and detailed data. Where is that data, that supposedly the EMA has but won’t hand over? And we’re supposed to believe it?

        We’re in a era when The Lancet will publish blatantly junk science on hydroxychloroquine and then have to retract that peer-reviewed paper within days. We’re living in an era when we turn our backs on ivermectin when we could be saving thousands of lives– and yet we cry and moan about staying safe. These aren’t normal times and I’m not sure who we can trust, but my guess is that some self-proclaimed debunker who is a retired video game programmer isn’t that person.

      • Curious George

        “I want to see the animal experiments that ruled the clotting mechanism out.”
        You ignored my earlier request for mRNA clotting reports. You want (me) to prove a negative. How should I do it?

      • Tonyb,
        I wasted a fair bit of time trawling through your debunking reference without finding any hard data which counters the claim. If you think that there is a dispositive argument there, it would be helpful if you could point me to it.
        The most clear-sighted view of the controversy is stated by a commenter “mendel” in his last post on March 5th. The table showing deaths after vaccination does not reconcile with the claimed efficacy of the vaccine, and appears to be very high when compared with expected deaths from the unvaccinated general population. The first part is easier to explain than the second, I think. The efficacy measures of the vaccines are typically only assessed after a period of either 9 days or 14 days (depending on vaccine) has elapsed – when its effectiveness against COVID should have started to kick-in. The basis for this is that the vaccine is not curative and only becomes prophylactic after a period of time is elapsed. Hence deaths from COVID within this early period do not represent a failure in vaccine prophylaxis.
        Adverse events including deaths within this early period are generally assessed separately as part of the vaccine risk assessment process. Hence the low number of deaths attributed to the vaccinated population in the efficacy comparisons have already ignored/discounted any deaths occurring within this early period. No conspiracy here.
        The data presented in the table shows a high number of deaths in the early period after vaccination. The first question is: are these data accurate? The second question is: how do they compare with the deaths in the unvaccinated population on a like-for-like comparison over the same period of time? Seligman is claiming that the data are validly obtained from the Israeli Health Ministry and that a comparison suggests that the vaccine is increasing death rates relative to the unvaccinated population. I did not find anyone addressing these two points in a manner which puts the controversy to bed. It should be a simple matter for the Israeli Health Ministry to publish actual statistics on deaths by age in the unvaccinated and vaccinated population week by week over this period of vaccination, and that should be an end of the matter. Why have they not already done so?

      • kribaez

        In the interests of fairness I have linked to a new study that queries infection rates

        https://lockdownsceptics.org/2021/04/24/new-oxford-study-confirms-spike-in-infections-following-vaccination/

        Let me be clear, I think the pandemic has been made much worse by absurd actions by politicians and advisers, ranging from house arrests (aka lockdowns) through the decanting of infected or untested old people from hospitals into care homes, allowing hospitals to become centres of infection, with many of those who went to hospital for other reasons catching covid inside it, and last but not least that many who supposedly died OF covid actually died WITH it, ie it was not the primary cause of death.

        Politicians wish to cover up their many shortcomings by claiming vaccinations have ridden to the rescue or that lockdowns were the saviour.

        However, the problem i have with the idea of numerous elderly dying of the vaccine is that we have no proof of if, dead bodies

        Our area has a much higher than UK average elderly population. It also has just about the highest vaccination rate. Our hospitals are quiet. The funeral service directors are quiet. The Doctors are quiet. No one in the shops or coffee shops are talking about elderly friends or relatives dying after being vaccinated.

        So without the proof-the bodies-it is difficult to see how the wilder claims can be true

        tonyb

      • I recall seeing reports of comparisons of Covid infection and mortality outcomes in vaxed vs. non-vaxed in Israel, They might not have been able to fully control for behavior (maybe those non-vaxed took more risks). But it was a high-quality analysis, controlling for a lot of important predictive variables (that might also be associated with behavior) like age.

        I’m sure you could find it if you looked. I’m not going to bother, but this conspiracy theory is obviously implausible: it is predicated on a belief that huge numbers of public health officials and medical researchers in many countries around the world, not just Israel, are conspiring to hide data on widespread mortality associated with the vaccines. Just not plausible.

      • I did take the time to Google the website. Take a look at their headlines on vsccines:

        https://www.lifesitenews.com/tags/tag/coronavirus+vaccine

      • My reply to a lot of the concerns is in another sub-thread, by accident.

      • Joshua

        Those endorsing the notion that the vaccine kill many elderly need to come up with the proof-which in this case will be dead bodies, no doubt combined with a social media melt down. It is highly implausible

        tonyb

      • Tony –

        Can you imagine the number of bodies from 40 X higher from vaccines?

        How are they hiding all those bodies, keeping people from noticing their relatives missing, keeping the senior housing institutions from seeing all the empty chairs in their dining rooms?

        I did stumble across this from my Twitter feed:

        https://m.jpost.com/health-science/covid-vaccine-prevents-57-percent-of-symptomatic-cases-after-1st-dose-clalit-660123/amp?__twitter_impression=true

      • Joshua

        Yes, I find this total lack of evidence rather bemusing, from the number of bodies that are being hidden to friends and relatives keeping quiet about the carnage.

        No evidence yet still this 2 month old story has legs. Perhaps it sprung from a grain of truth that those first to be vaccinated would be the most vulnerable and the ones most likely to die, but it is difficult to see how the story had the legs to get round the world and keep running.

        tonyb

      • Tony –

        I did see some blog comments from sources I thought credible that cited evidence I thought credible (i.e., preprints from established journals) that early on there was some evidence of increased morbidity in the first two weeks or so after the first shot among elderly vax recipients (or possibly people with immune system deficiencies or even among those who had already been infected). As I recall, that evidence wasn’t controlled for potentially confounding variables like behavior or a differential in the risk profile in those who got vaxed the earliest. There was also some scientific literature from credible sources describing a potential explanatory mechanism.

        I haven’t seen anything on that phenomenon more recently so I don’t know if any of that evidence played out over time but I suspect that if it had we’d be hearing more about it. And it was limited to that time window and certainly wasn’t on the order of a 40 X !!!!!! increase.

      • Please note that the “Bhakdi mechanism” doesn’t require that the vaccines don’t work, nor does it require that people are dying from the vaccines. All that it requires is for adverse events to be caused by clotting, and headaches, bruising, bleeding, etc., would qualify. As mentioned, testing adverse events for D-dimer levels would be a good way to see if clotting is involved and if, therefore, the proposed mechanism has merit.

        If the vaccines are working, then fine, and if a few people die from the vaccines, we could very well say the the risk is worth it: I’m OK with that. But I’m not so OK with the risk if we start giving this vaccine to healthy young people who are at low risk from Covid anyhow.

        Once again, the real issue is booster vaccine and/or re-challenge by coronavirus. In those cases, according to the theory, the reaction to the vaccines could be severe. Then I’m not so sure the risk would be worth it.

        It’d be nice to sort these things out, and I don’t think the Bhakdi group is out-of-line for asking if the proposed mechanism of action had been ruled out before the vaccines were approved.

      • And of course, that 40 X is a low estimate:

        > Yativ and Seligmann stipulate that even these “estimated numbers of deaths from the vaccine are probably much lower than actual numbers

        I’m thinking they must have some kind of machine to teleport the bodies to Mars or something.

    • Please pay attention everyone. I know it can be hard what with all the information coming at us during these times, but if you’re going to attack me, it helps to understand what the argument is about.

      Bhakdi has put it in writing; it’s here, as I linked to before at the very start of this: https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595 They are quite detailed in their request that the Bhakdi mechanism (my shorthand for this) be ruled out, because, theoretically, the pathway they describe in detail– of the vaccines getting into the blood and infecting the cells lining the blood vessels, thereby causing blot clots and/or (paradoxically) bleeding– makes biological sense, and they supply several references to back up their concern. The original letter (linked above) to the EMA is signed by 13 professionals including Bhakdi, and the endorsing signatures of medical professionals runs to about 100. So, I think their concerns might have substance.

      When you imply that the burden is on me, or on Bhakdi et al, to prove that this mechanism doesn’t exist, you miss the point of the complaint to the EMA: please demonstrate to us that you’ve done the requisite animal experiments to rule out the mechanisms taking place as we’ve outlined, as a matter of public health and to keep the public safe. What they’re saying, then, is that the EMA is claiming that these vaccines are all fairly safe, and in so doing, we’d assume that the plausible (and likely) pathway for the vaccines into the blood vessels– where they would necessarily insert their genetic material into the epithelial cells– has been ruled out through experiments; please reassure us with the data from the experiments. The EMA has refused to so this, for reasons unknown, and the greatest fear is: they haven’t ruled out the mechanism at all, or they’ve done it in a haphazard and inadequate way.

      https://archive.org/details/frontline-workers-testimonies-vaers-reports-26-mar-2021/page/n9/mode/2up Here are a number of adverse events following the vaccine that point to the possibility of the mechanism that Bhakdi outlines.

      I don’t say that this is happening for sure and that we all need to be scared witless, but I do think the EMA and other agencies need to provide credible evidence that the proposed mechanism has been ruled out through appropriate experiments, as an urgent matter of public health.

      Please note that a major concern of the Bhakdi group and those endorsing their concerns isn’t so much the current vaccination schedule, but challenges from booster vaccines or even from a normal coronavirus infection. If they’re correct, then boosters could elicit rapid and devastating reactions since the immune system has been primed twice before to cause it to react in a robust fashion to challenges by spike proteins, and worse, with boosters these reactions could be targeting the blood vessels.

      As for Joshua– as usual, irrelevant ad hominem attacks are interjected because he doesn’t understand how to stick to the actual argument.

      • Curious George

        You spread doubts about vaccines – without a sliver of supporting evidence. Several hundred million of COVID vaccines have been applied to humans, with few problems. The burden is certainly on you to supply any evidence. Is this how you prove a negative?

      • “You spread doubts about vaccines – without a sliver of supporting evidence.”

        Did you read the letter to the EMA signed by 13 scientists and endorsed by about 100 more, or not? You call that “no shred of evidence”? We have no real evidence if their theory is correct or not, and that’s the point.

      • > Did you read the letter to the EMA signed by 13 scientists

        No, Don.

        You got a link?

      • Found it.

        So you got Bhakdi has become a known crank, Marco Chiesa, who’s a psychiatrist, C Stephen Frost, a known freedom fighter who retweets Denis Rancourt, Margareta Griesz-Brisson, a neurologist, and Martin Haditsch, a virologist who made all the contrarian rounds already.

        There are other names, I note a Doctor of Ostheopathy, but srsly.

      • Nice job, Willard. Just ignore all the other credentialed scientists who signed on to this.

        I see biochemists, immunologists, many MDs, at least one professor of cell biology, molecular scientists, etc., etc. All quacks?

        I’m not trying to convince anyone. I put this out so you’d be aware of it, and I’ve done my best to answer objections in the interest of setting the record straight, so far as I understand it. If you don’t want to listen to it, suit yourself. If you think they’re all quacks, I’m not here to convince you otherwise.

      • Curious George

        Since when is a signature – maybe of an MD – any evidence? That letter is only an evidence that these people are “concerned”.

      • > Just ignore

        If your list gets underwhelming after the first five names, Don, so much the worse for the list.

        But just for you: let’s count the number of “biochem” in the page. You got Michael Palmer, Karina Reiss, Hootan Kazemi, Michael Yeadon, and Roxana Bruno.

        By an amazing coincidence:

        Storm tides and coastal protection on the German North Sea shore

        This essay first appeared on the website wattsupwiththat.

        https://sciborg.uwaterloo.ca/~mpalmer/northsea.html

        Nice try.

        Tell me if you want more.

      • Willard,
        What’s your point?

        In my view, these people– whether they’re scientists or street urchins or whatever– have a legitimate concern that makes sense to me, and my supposition is that Bhakdi knows more about this than I do.

        So what I’d like is for someone to explain the REAL mechanism of the vaccines such that they don’t get into the bloodstream and invade the epithelial cells there because, you see, the job of the vaccines is to invade cells and have them produce spike proteins– yes or no? Would they do that to the cells lining the blood vessels, yes or no? Would the spike proteins, protruding from the epithelial cells of the blood vessels, cause platelets to cling to them, yes or no? (The answer here is undoubtedly “yes.”) Would the cellular debris from the production of spike proteins cause the lymphocytes to attack and kill the cells lining the blood vessels, yes or no? (So far as I understand, the answer is again “yes.”) So you see, these questions can, I suppose, be answered scientifically– why not? Animal experiments exist, the EMA claims it’s done them, yet the EMA is unwilling to share one single shred of the data from these experiments with the street urchins who raise these concerns. Is that normal? Is that good science? Is that reassuring? Is anyone paying attention or just shooting first?

        Maybe you can explain to us what really happens? But I don’t suppose you could because even the EMA hasn’t ruled out that action on the epithelial cells doesn’t take place to any great degree, in anyone, ever. Yet, we undoubtedly have problems with clotting in some of these vaccines! But the mechanism can’t be true!

        I think people turn they’re brains off when there’s any hint of “conspiracy theory,” which leads me to believe that the function of the phrase “conspiracy theory” is to make people turn their brains off. Who cares if street urchins say it’s true? Is it true? That’s the central question.

      • > What’s your point?

        You appeal to authorities. I shoot them down. Simples.

        Let’s follow through. Karina Reiss published a book with Sucharit called Corona, False Alarm?

        If you want me to look into another one, Don, feel free to ask.

      • I read what Bhakdi “put it writing.” It is a long chain of hypotheticals, accompanied by a claim that unless there is proof that each hypothetical in the chain is wrong, use of the vaccines is not responsible.

        Not mentioned is that traditional vaccines may very well also cause the same effects – after all, if they didn’t result in antigenic material, they wouldn’t work.

        How about looking at the actual outcomes of the vaccination of hundreds of millions of people?

      • Willard: “You appeal to authorities. I shoot them down. Simples.”

        No, Willard; I appeal to a plausible mechanism posited by people who might know what they’re talking about.

        mesocyclone: “Not mentioned is that traditional vaccines may very well also cause the same effects – after all, if they didn’t result in antigenic material, they wouldn’t work.”

        No, mesocyclone, and I’m not even going to tell you why not. I’m going to let you do some research for yourself so you can understand what makes these gene therapies– this is exactly what they are because they use genetic material, inserted into the cells, to cause their effects– different from traditional vaccines. Once you rise to the occasion of actually trying to understand what the argument is concerning these experimental vaccines, then you might understand why what you’ve said is just plain wrong.

      • “No, mesocyclone, and I’m not even going to tell you why not. I’m going to let you do some research for yourself so you can understand what makes these gene therapies”

        I know exactly how they work. And mRNA is no mystery – it’s fundamental to life. My daughter used to design actual genetic material – DNA plasmids – to create mRNA in cells in genetic experiments via RNAI.

        There are four mRNA vaccines – two with pure RNA, two with viruses carrying DNA that make mRNA. [Note: the pure RNA vaccines are wrapped in lipid nanoparticles]

        RNA is not “genetic” material in humans. It is a transfer mechanism between the actual genetic material – DNA – and the ribosomes, where the mRNA directs the precise creating of proteins.

        I am not too interested in the sort of source you quote. Not very credible, given the thousands and thousands and thousands of more qualified specialists who disagree, and given the amazing success and low serious adverse side effect profile of the pure RNA vaccines (as opposed to the virus vector vaccines which likely, but very rarely cause a thrombotic event with thrombocytopenia.)

        The sources give a long chain of hypotheticals, and then insist that if one cannot rigorously prove the *absence* of each element of the chain, then the vaccine is dangerous. That’s an assault on scientific logic.

      • > I appeal to a plausible mechanism

        Sure, Don:

        Did you read the letter to the EMA signed by 13 scientists and endorsed by about 100 more, or not? You call that “no shred of evidence”?

        Do you really think that the very first sentence I quoted from you would have escaped me?

      • Willard, just stop. It’s not about how many people endorsed this or what their qualifications are, although yes, it’s nice to have people who likely know what they’re talking about speaking up.

        At this point, it’s about whether or not the authorities have disproved, through experiments, the potential for the mechanism.

        Let’s review:
        1. Get the vaccine.
        2. It goes into the muscle and thence into the lymph nodes. Does it bypass the bloodstream? Is it plausible that the vaccine would? No, it really isn’t plausible. It’s a question of quantity and persistence.
        3. When in the bloodstream, the vaccine material attacks the epithelial cells lining the blood vessels. These vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, are designed to enter our own cells.
        4. The vaccine causes our own cells to produce spike proteins. This is what it’s designed to do. But in the case of the blood, those cells would also line the blood vessels.
        5. Epithelial cells of the vessels produce spike proteins and present them on the outside of their cells, as instructed.
        6. Cellular debris from production of blood vessels attracts lymphocytes which seek out and destroy the cells that produced this: your own cells.
        7. Platelets touch and stick to spike proteins; if there are a lot of these in particular areas, then you might get an aggregation of platelets within a small area. You might get aggregation of platelets in many areas. You might get so many clots– possibly each too small to do much damage by itself– that it causes DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation. Your clotting mechanism is all used up and you start to bleed.

        Sounds concerning. Is it real? I don’t know. Should we do animal experiments to test the mechanism? Makes sense to me.

        Does the mechanism require dead bodies right now? No. Does it require adverse events right now? Yes, and bad headaches, etc., would qualify. Does a headache prove the mechanism is real? No, of course not. The only thing that proves anything are animal experiments that rule out the proposed mechanism, or other data that demonstrates that the mechanism makes no biological sense. Simply saying that it doesn’t work that way, with no hard evidence, doesn’t count. Ignoring it I don’t think makes any sense whatsoever in this era of obsessive worry about “staying safe.”

        If the mechanism is real, does that mean the vaccines are dangerous? Not necessarily, and not for everyone. But it’d be nice to know what’s going on.

        So what am I missing? Ah yes: this looks like conspiracy theory therefore it isn’t worth paying any attention to. Well then, that settles the science, doesn’t it?

        I’m more than happy for someone to explain to me how this mechanism can’t possibly be real, using a scientific explanation.

      • > It’s not about how many people endorsed this or what their qualifications are,

        Then stop citing a letter and boast about the credentials of the signatories, Don.

        In a nutshell, No U.

      • Willard, I mentioned the signatories and endorsers because it seems they might know what they’re talking about– not street urchins– but the point is, is the mechanism valid or not?

        It’s not about who signed whatever. Stop pretending that it is, or that I claimed it was.

        Got a scientific explanation for how the gene vaccines work that shows that they don’t enter the blood vessels and cause the epithelial cells to produce spike proteins? I didn’t think so.

        I don’t claim the mechanism is real. I claim that we don’t know and we should find out, to add to add the things we’re crying and moaning about “staying safe.” Or, when we say “vaccine” does any concern with safety go out the window? Even if these are experimental vaccines, which they are?

        Look, dismiss it if you want to, but I simply would like to know the details of the mechanisms of how these vaccines work, not just theoretically but in actuality, and we certainly should have figured that out by now. If this mechanism precludes any issues with clotting, and this can be demonstrated scientifically, so be it. Yet so far the authorities have been unable to do that. Just coincidence, I’m sure.

      • > I mentioned the signatories and endorsers because it seems they might know what they’re talking about

        That’s exactly what an appeal to authority is, Don.

        And I mentioned that the first signatories are known Covid contrarians helps me show that we should take the list with a grain of kosher salt.

        So I’d say you have little wiggle room left.

      • Willard, your argument is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

        Focus on the argument not the man.

  44. This paper shows an association between the nonexistent AMO and the nonexistent Hiatus in TMIN in North America, which when last checked still existed, in spite of the best efforts of the Cancel Culture.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000443

  45. For many commenting on here, Nothing Else Matters

  46. Tackling challenges of a drier, hotter, more fire prone future

    How much does Gavin Newsome pay activist undergraduates to start fires in California’s forests?

    Is it enough to start a new mini gold-rush to the state?

  47. Is climate change a foreign policy issue? Opportunity now, not prophecies of doom, should spur America to become a global leader

    Yes. It will lead to war.
    When China, Russia and India fail to decarbonise fast enough for ecofascist America, Kamala Harris will declare war on them. This is by far the most likely scenario for nuclear war in the near-mid future.

  48. Climate anxiety is an overwhelmingly white phenomenon

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-climate-anxiety/

    which nicely destroys the racist illusion that whites are more intelligent than non-whites. Climate alarmism shows white elites to be astonishingly stupid. However violence has always been an effective substitute for intelligence.

  49. David Young –

    Worldometers – 7-day moving average in Sweden of deaths per day:

    Feb 27 – 20
    April 6 – 19

    Should I count up the number of times that you insulted me because I explained to you that there was a flattening out of the trend?

      • Yup, that’s Kwok et al. The paper notes that:

        “So another way of calculating Rt for a pathogen in a given population is by multiplying R0 by the proportion of that population that is non-immune (i.e. susceptible) to that pathogen.6 Hence, R0 will only equal Rt when there are no immune individuals in the population (i.e. when all are susceptible).”
        https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30154-7/fulltext

        This is equivalent to the classical HIT calculation from R0 of “HIT = 1 – (1/ R0)”. For example, with R0 of 4, to bring Rt to 1 at which point infections/day are not increasing, one needs to multiply R0 by 25%. A 25% susceptible percentage means 75% of people are immune. That matches the 75% for HIT one gets from plugging R0 of 4 into “HIT = 1 – (1/ R0)”.

        So Kwok et al’s Rt is actually an R0 under baseline conditions with a non-zero number of immune people (such as with a non-zero number of people immune due to prior infection); i.e. under conditions with no additional public health interventions nor behavior changes beyond what would have occurred at the same time of year in 2019. Thus, it is not an Rt under additional non-baseline public health interventions and/or additional behavior changes. You literally cannot make sense of Kwok et al.’s Rt without using and understanding R0. Anyone who claims otherwise, or claims Kwok et al. undermines R0-based definitions of herd immunity, hasn’t read + understood the paper. This is introductory-level immunology and epidemiology.

        “Kwok calculated what is called a “herd immunity threshold” based on R as calculated from case data. That’s proves you were wrong about herd immunity threshold.
        Kwok is a real scientist.”

        The progress of the COVID-19 epidemic in Sweden: an update

        “People use herd immunity in many ways but I don’t view R0 as a meaningful number. It can’t be measured and varies all over the place as conditions change. Rt is all we can measure. Noone has had any substantive defenses of R0.”

        The progress of the COVID-19 epidemic in Sweden: an update

    • 7-day average of Covid deaths per day (per CDC)

      New York City 38.7 (lower population than Sweden, locked down for over a year)
      New York as a whole: 59.3 (not quite twice Sweden’s population, but three times the daily deaths, locked down for over a year)
      Michigan: 34.5 (smaller population than Sweden, locked down for over a year).

      Worldometer 7-day moving average of daily deaths for France: 298. Six times the population as Sweden, fifteen times the number of daily deaths.

      Why do you think Sweden currently has a comparably low rate of daily deaths from Covid? Herring?

    • Joshua likes to focus on minutae that are as Jeff points out irrelevant to the important stuff. You keep doing the cherry picking thing which is really fallacious. Even you as a layman should be able to understand that. You seem like a canus familiarus who develops an obsession with its owner and spends all its time following its owner around.

      Overall, Sweden did just fine and the epidemic will continue to wane as vaccinations increase and summer arrives.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Context is very much lacking in the comments regarding the analysis of Sweden’s covid stats.

        Sweden covid death rate is 133 per 100k while Europe as a whole is 122 per 100k. slightly worse than the average.
        NY has approx 265 deaths per 100k which is 2x sweden.

        As dpy states, sweden did just fine, with the damage the hard lockdowns caused.

      • Like clockwork with the comparisons to all of Europe, and not the countries with which comparisons would likely have significantly fewer confounding variables of the sort that people trying to evaluate the efficacy of different national policy approaches would try to limit.

        The context was the claims of Nic (and a posse of other libertarians and rightwingers) who claimed that Sweden had reached “herd immunity” 9 months ago, and again two months ago, as the result of their “light touch” approach – along with the claims that reaching that point earlier would net them benefits in a relatively lower rate of morbidity and mortality.

      • I’m beginning to think that y’all actually can’t comprehend why confounding variables makes comparisons like NY to Sweden highly problematic.

      • Yes Joe, It’s the same in the US. No clear correlation between severity of mitigations and death rate. You simply can’t explain this away by hand waving exercises. Simply no way to explain California vs. Florida vs. Texas vs. New York except to admit severe restrictions don’t lead to better outcomes in practice.

        ATTP has a post on this that I think is quite muddled. It essentially claims that lockdowns must work because they limit interpersonal close contact which is how viruses spread and that they only appear to not work because they were imposed too late. But there is also a lot of work showing that they work while ignoring the literature showing that they didn’t work in practice.

        “Hence, it’s not lockdowns themselves that cause the outcome to be worse, it’s that regions that have failed to act appropriately at an early stage of the epidemic need to then implement much stricter interventions than those regions that took effective action at an early stage of the epidemic.”

        A little like arguing that double blind studies show that cancer chemo doesn’t work for lung cancer, but that that’s only because it is applied at too late a stage. If we just did it when there were only a few cancer cells then it would work. Of course, that’s almost impossible, but hey the chemicals differentially kill cancer cells so the treatment must work.

      • “No clear correlation between severity of mitigations and death rate. ”

        Hi Dpy, that statement is not entirely true, but in a way that Josh et al would never acknowledge.
        The CDC found that the say at home order in the city of Chicago resulted in an increase of daily overdose deaths of 3 per day. In one city that has less than half of the population of Sweden. They documented that severe mitigations killed people.
        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010a3.htm

        To recap for any lurkers: Nic attempted to figure out when herd immunity would happen, using Sweden. His forecasts for reaching herd immunity were wrong- just like every other scientists forecasts for anything COVID related. This was probably due mostly to the discovery that “immunity” is time limited (the reason people are telling you that annual booster vaccine shots will be necessary) as well as controlled by viral load (and amount of antibodies- some who caught the virus are less immune than others).
        Because Nic’s examination of a real and interesting topic – herd immunity – produced an inaccurate but interesting thought experiment, Joshua et al declared all work by Nic to be utterly useless and politically motivated (just like all the thousands of inaccurate forecasts by climate scientists- ha, just kidding, their errors are pure!).
        Josh posts numbers to attempt to convince you that Sweden weathered COVID far worse than nations that locked down, that today their daily death rate is unusually high, and that this must mean Sweden’s goverment failed because they didn’t pick the preferred policy.
        In reality, Sweden performed comparably or better than locked down democracies and, as a result have a daily death rate from Covid that is much, much lower than a great many western democracies that are still locked down.
        As the world begins to recognize that long-term lockdowns really were a costly mistake and even California and New York lift them, there will be a tremendous effort in the media and political sphere to silence reality and promote comforting myths about the efficiency of lockdowns.
        Some believe this is the new, “post normal,” real purpose of “science”- to validate whatever action a preferred political party undertakes and discredit any critics.
        This battle of wills, which we also see in climate, is a critical moment for science. Will there be a search for an objective truth about what lockdowns really did and didn’t accomplish and how this global epidemic started? Or will there be a search for any way to cook the books to justify or even hide governmental negligence?
        The side of obfuscation has a powerfully ally- the public’s attention. Most people just want this over with. If their state declares victory due to vaccine, people will want to get on with their lives. If they even read any review of policies, they will want to hear the sacrifice was worthy, the people they voted for competent, and they won’t want to think about the implications of discovering the source of this epidemic. Science will be pressured to comply with those desires.
        Others are pushing science to take the opposite approach. Rather than slinking quietly away from their mess, they see grand opportunity in total political control of economies and ability of science to manufacture the doomsday prophecies that will justify keeping the lockdowns permanent.
        How this plays out will determine public trust in science.

      • Jeff –

        The only remaining question is whether you’re remarkably obtuse or simply not trying to understand:

        You say:

        > The CDC found that the say at home order in the city of Chicago resulted in an increase of daily overdose deaths of 3 per day.

        The CDC says:

        > Whether the observed increase during the stay-at-home order was a continuation of increases begun in the 16 weeks before the stay-at-home order or a spike temporally associated with the stay-at-home order is unclear.

        And that doesn’t even take into account the unsupported counterfactual assumption in your reasoning – that absent interventions the outcomes wouldn’t have been the same or even worse. You don’t know the answer to that although you think that you do

        As per usual, you fail to understand my position – despite my having clarified your misunderstanding many times. Again, the reason why you keep getting it wrong is a mystery. It’s clearly not worth taking the time to once again point out how your fantasies about what I think or what my motivation are, are false.

      • Yes Jeff, our local obfuscators are quite bad in their merchant of doubt roles. They don’t care about truth or dialog. Their sole goal is to discredit those who don’t parrot their party line. Josh, VTG, etc. contribute nothing with their cherry picking and fallacious reasoning.

      • David Young from The B Company,

        “Merchants of doubt” refers to those who spread FUD.

        Who is spreading FUD here?

        You are, David.

        The long and the short of it is that the WHO is the establishment.

        Not Nic. Not you. Not the lockdown contrarians.

        Contrarians are, wait for it, contrarians.

        And that’s the memo.

      • “You simply can’t explain this away by hand waving exercises. Simply no way to explain California vs. Florida vs. Texas vs. New York except to admit severe restrictions don’t lead to better outcomes in practice.”

        Yeah, you can. For example, look at *when* the New York death. rate was very high – early in the epidemic, when a lot of knows were then unknowns, and some were even unknown unknowns. Also, the population density is very different. So is the climate. Finally, it is very hard to measure the effect of government imposed restrictions because, as I’ve pointed out before, some people impose restrictions on themselves for their own safety while others ignore government restrictions as much as they can.

        For example, I was very strict in protecting my vulnerable self and wife. But if Arizona had had an outdoor mask mandate, I would have ignored it, because masks outdoors, unless you are close to people, are stupid.

      • meso says:

        > Yeah, you can. For example, look at *when* the New York death. rate was very high

        On top of the other points that you discuss (which anyone considering this seriously should consider) is an important related factor; interventions were implemented in many areas to the extent of the pandemic was already established. Thus, outcomes after the interventions, to some extent, are essentially a function of the conditions existing when the interventions were implemented.

        Those areas where they were implemented the most strongly would necessarily be areas where conditions would lead to increased likelihood of worse outcomes even if the interventions were efficacious. Thus, simply comparing outcomes in areas where interventions were implemented to areas where they weren’t, isn’t actually a reasonable way to evaluate the efficacy of the interventions.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Jeffsail – nice summation –
        While from a purely technical sense, Nic did get the timing of Sweden’s herd immunity incorrect, he appeared to make a similar mistake that all the other epidemiologists made. He most likely misinterpreted the substantial drop in case load in the summer as indication of approaching herd immunity, instead of recognizing the Hopes simpson curve as a major factor. Please note that every epidemiologist has ignored the well documented history over the last 300+ years detailed in Edgar hopes simpsons work. Note also that the covid infection rate has been following the hopes simpson curve almost to a T in every western country.

        Context in the overall data (not the minutia) is far better to develop an understanding of the infection rate curves. As you stated, Sweden, in spite of much looser mitigation protocols, fared better than most other western countries,

        Josh on the other hand became so obsessed with proving nic wrong, that he lost sight of the broader picture. Classic case of cant see the forest for the trees.

      • > Yeah, you can.

        Agreed.

        We should *never* misunderestimate the contrarians’ power to explain away stuff by waving their hands.

      • > Sweden, in spite of much looser mitigation protocols, fared better than most other western countries,

        It’s interesting just how difficult it is for people to grasp the importance of confounding variables.

        To the extent that Sweden did better than “most other western countries” it would (at least arguably) be expected to – because of numerous structural advantages in terms of baseline health status of the population (e.g., less obesity or other comorbidities), greater ability to work from home, smaller average household size, more sparse population density/distrubution, social norms that would likely increase baseline social distancing, fewer multi-generational households, better access to healthcare, greater social conformity, higher SES, other advantageous socio-demographics such as lower immigrant populations, less travel to/from early hotspots, (less) proximity to early hotspots like Lombardy, greater time for preparation (because exponential growth started after there was more time for preparation), etc.

        Of course, that should be balanced against other factors like Sweden’s euthanasia-like policies w/r/t treating infected seniors in congregate housing that would likely increase per capita mortality even as it might likely decrease per capita morbidity (or population infection).

        I don’t think, at all, that Sweden’s outcomes relative to “most other Western countries” should in any way be ignored. But it should be placed in the proper context w/r/t questions of confounding and moderating and mediating variables that are well-known to be related to health outcomes and in particular outcomes as related to infectious disease.

        Of course, as I’ve said many times, what’s interesting is to see people insist on comparisons to “most other Western countries” while ignoring the implications of them having done so much worse than those “other Western countries” that would (arguably) be the best comparisons for when considering the importance of confounding, and mediating and moderating variables.

      • Thanks Joe-
        The perils of letting politics overwhelm science.

        After a global pandemic like this one, the world needs scientists to help us understand so we better handle the next one. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure on science to avoid understanding, justify policy in hindsight, and as a result to consciously un-prepare us for the next one.
        Case in point- what will be the policy recommendation from science for the next one? Depends on which political party is in power unless sufficient time has passed to airbrush history.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Lots of confounding variables regressing to the mean

      • Joe –

        > Lots of confounding variables regressing to the mean

        A conclusion for which you have no evidence (or at least never discuss).

        Leaves the impression it might just be religious belief.

      • Interesting article on Vietnam, related to the efficacy of interventions and the importance of differentiating among different interventions rather than just using a facile rhetorical frame of “lockdowns.”

        Interesting take on being open to changing one’s mind in the face of emerging evidence.

        https://www.vox.com/22346085/covid-19-vietnam-response-travel-restrictions

      • Joshua, have you ever been to Sweden? The only, only factor you cite as working in Sweden’s favor that is close to accurate is population density. They have lots’o obesity, their medical system is like Britain’s NHS (wait forever for rationed care), etc. But Sweden is really big and they only have about 10 million people.

      • Tom –

        I’ve never been to Sweden.

        It’s important to consider distribution of population as well as some averaged density for the hole country. Sweden’s population is, as i understand it, fairly concentrated in comparison to many other countries – in particular the other Nordic counties which I’m suggesting are a much better comparison.

        As for comorbidities, I only listed obesity as an example – all in all what matters most is the average # of comorbidities ranked by their explanatory lower for COVID outcomes. That said, if you’re going to be comparing Sweden to European countries for obesity, you might want to do more than simply visit there and count on your fingers?

        https://jakubmarian.com/percentage-of-obese-population-by-country-in-europe-map/

      • And the whole country.

      • This might be an better reference to get a sense of obesity in Sweden relative to other Nordics, compared to Sweden relative to the rest of Europe.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate

      • Tom –

        > The only, only factor you cite as working in Sweden’s favor that is close to accurate is population density.

        Do you have any other typically useful comments to make?:

        https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/hh-size-av/map/country/

      • That said, I should remove immigrant population from my list of socio-demographic advantages, as even compared to Western Europe let alone the other Nordics it seems that Sweden would be at a disadvantage for expected risk for poor COVID outcomes along that metric.

  50. From Lomborg’s excellent paper

    “2.2. Adaptation: less damage from future catastrophes of coastal flooding
    Many argue that the climate costs of future problems from climate change will be immense. What often underpins such claims is the fact that adaptation to the problems is neglected, leading to climate costs being vastly exaggerated compared to the more realistic costs of a world where adaptation takes place
    Take studies of a very obvious cost of climate change, coastal flooding, caused by sea level rise. When presented to the public, the future costs are often shown as being in the tens of trillions of dollars per year or above. In the alarmist book, The Uninhabitable Earth, coastal flooding impacts are summarized this way:
    If no significant action is taken to curb emissions, one estimate of global damages is as high as $100 trillion per year by 2100. That is more than global GDP today. Most estimates are a bit lower: $14 trillion a year, still almost a fifth of present-day GDP.
    Yet, because it ignores adaptation, this description exaggerates the problem by up to TWO THOUSAND TIMES (my emphasis). The misleading narrative is, unfortunately, often encouraged by research that routinely neglects adaptation or treats it as a casual add-on.”

    MY COMMENT
    In 1983, EPA said the following

    For decades such predictions, prophecies, forecasts, have been wrong. The kind of mentality that was wrong about 10 feet of SLR in 1983 is still claiming an apocalyptic future.

    At what point will someone pause, look around at past errors and rethink the exaggerated assumptions that are still being used and make more plausible predictions?

  51. David Young –

    You posted time after time on the topic of the death rate in Sweden. Apparently, at yhe time you get it was a significant issue.

    Time after time, in April, you insisted that the rate was declining strongly, using the present continuous tense. Just a few examples:

    April 4:

    > I told you what I found. Deaths in Sweden are continuing to decline.

    April 5:

    > You cherry picked that fact to hide the fact that deaths are strongly declining and have been for quite a while.

    April 10

    > That’s how cases can be flat or even rising as in Sweden while deaths continue to decline.

    There are many more examples.

    When I informed you each time that you were wrong, and that the tend was flat, time after time you called me a “liar,” or insulted me in other ways, and insisted I wasn’t qualified to assess the trend.

    I asked you what you would do if after allowing time for a lag, it became unarhuably apparent were wrong. You didn’t really answer.

    It is now unarguably apparent you were wrong.

    And now, after posting on the topic time after time, day after day, you want to downplay the significance as if you being unargusbly wrong isn’t the aspect that’s changed?

    What will you do now?

    • David Young –
      ,
      Here’s what I said on April 4th:

      > Deaths also aren’t falling significantly over the past few weeks. They fell for a while but seem to have stabilized and with allowing time for the lag, given the rise in ICU admissions, may very well turn out to be rising over this period – as would be suggested by the significant rise in ICU admissions.

      Here’s what you said on April 5th:

      > “You were wrong to claim that deaths were leveling off and you cover that with more very repetitious word salads, another sign of an unfocused intellect.”

      You tell me I was wrong (which I wasn’t) and insult me based on your mistaken belief that I was wrong. The pattern repeated many times.

      Show some accountability.

  52. W.H.O.’s hypocracy on naming UK variant, Brazil variant, Indian variant etc “but if someone uses the word China & virus in the same sentence then they are branded a racist.”

  53. For those who didn’t read the Lomborg paper and for those who rely only on the PNM (preferred narrative media) this graph for global drought might be a surprise given the propaganda that is in the ether.

    • For the same group referenced above. I was going to reply to the article on why there are so few climate papers by economists by sharing observational data but Lomborg has done a better job than I ever could have. Maybe economists have actually performed their due diligence and realize how much hype there is.

  54. More from Lomborg

    6.1. Priorities of environmental concerns
    Fig. 27 makes it clear that almost all environmentally caused deaths come from outdoor and indoor air pollution plus ozone; unsafe water and sanitation plus handwashing; and lead and radon. Global warming makes up less than 2% of global environmental deaths, and 0.26% of all global deaths (UNDESA 2017).

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      Cereskid – the attribution of deaths due to ozone is greatly overstated.

      One of the leading studies on premature mortality from increases in ground level ozone is the Bell / McDermott study “ozone and short term mortality 95 US cities”. JAMA. 2004 Nov 17; 292(19): 2372–2378. That study is considered the gold standard for studies of the premature mortality due to increases in ground level ozone.

      However, that study is so fraught with errors , that it should be withdrawn
      Errors including
      1) lack of control
      2) data collection bias
      3) negative correlation in relation to other factors
      4) attribution of premature deaths in cities where the level of ozone is significantly below the body’s ability to any negative effects.
      5) much higher correlation of premature deaths to other factors which are dismissed.

      The conclusions in this study are similar to the conclusions drawn in the studies used by the EPA 2.5 in which the law of diminishing returns was repealed by the scientists.

    • All those other things that cause more deaths than global warming are super duper cancel you existential threats.

  55. Biden pledges to cut greenhouse emissions by 50% by 2030.

  56. UK Builds Site to Recycle Plastic With High Pressure Steam
    $41M to build a plant to recycle 80,000 tons of plastic. The estimate is 350,000,000 tons are produced yearly, to rise to 600,000,000 tons in 20 years. At present, only 14% of the plastic is recycled. The plant uses high pressure steam, which must require substantial energy to produce.
    Why not burn the plastic to produce energy? The profit from the electricity sale can be used for pollution/CO2 mitigation. At the least, one could reduce the amount waste and produce electricity with a similar amount of CO2, given similar efficiencies between the steam and electric generation.
    It really is madness.

    • Madness. I agree. The CV of mixed plastics is typically about 30 to 40 MJ/kg, compared to gasoline, say, which has about 46 MJ/Kg. Roughly speaking, 80,000 metric tonnes of mixed plastics has a CV of around 2800MJ – or 0.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per year. A modern high-temperature incinerator with cogeneration could provide heat and electricity to a medium-size town while ensuring no atmospheric pollution. CO2 can be scrubbed from the flue gas at extra capital cost and energy usage, but given the low cost of the fuel, it would still be an attractive prospect and solves several problems simultaneously.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        kribaez … thanks for taking the time to pass along the good information, 0.5 million barrels of oil equivalent! And the additional bonus of reduced landfill and ocean deposit. There are also savings as we already have a waste handling infrastructure and minimal siting issues as the plants can be built at existing landfills or central handling/transfer areas.

  57. David Young –

    You posted time after time on the topic of the death rate in Sweden. Apparently, at the time you get it was a significant issue.

    Time after time, in April, you insisted that the rate was declining strongly, using the present continuous tense. Just a few examples:

    April 4:

    > I told you what I found. Deaths in Sweden are continuing to decline.

    April 5:

    > You cherry picked that fact to hide the fact that deaths are strongly declining and have been for quite a while.

    April 10

    > That’s how cases can be flat or even rising as in Sweden while deaths continue to decline.

    There are many more examples.

    Here is an update:

    Worldometers – 7-day moving average in Sweden of deaths per day:

    Feb 27 – 20
    April 8 – 18

    Should I count up the number of times that you insulted me because I explained to you that there was a flattening out of the trend?
    When I informed you each time that you were wrong, and that the tend was flat, time after time you called me a “liar,” or insulted me in other ways, and insisted I wasn’t qualified to assess the trend.

    I asked you what you would do if after allowing time for a lag, it became unarguably apparent were wrong. You didn’t really answer.

    It is now unarguably apparent you were wrong.

    And now, after posting on the topic time after time, day after day, you want to downplay the significance as if you being unarguably wrong isn’t the aspect that’s changed?

    What will you do now?

    • Cherry picking proves nothing. It is fallacious and even a layman should know this and stop it. This is the 20th time you’ve repeated this like a parrot repeating a new word. What I said was true at the time and you are lying about it. Deaths were declining and seem to be continuing to do so. You posting new numbers not available when this happened shows you are fully fallacious.

      • David Young –

        > You posting new numbers not available when this happened shows you are fully fallacious.

        What you said at the time was that deaths in Sweden were (strongly) declining. At that time I explained to you that the appearance that they were strongly at that time was merely a function of the lag in reporting.

        I explained to you that in fact, the trend at that time was flat (as was obvious at the time) based on data that weren’t affected by the lag, and that once the lag had passed it would obviously extend to that time.

        You said I was unqualified to assess the trend, called me a “liar” and leveled all manner other insults along with that.

        And you were wrong.

      • Repeating fallacious reasoning changes nothing. I posted numbers from that time at 15 day intervals proving that over the course of 2 months deaths declined strongly. You really are like a pet who becomes obsessed with its master and constantly follows the owner around peeing on his shoe. You are also constantly rehashing things that are not important implying that your time has little value. If it did you would employ it on something important. My time is valuable and I’m not going to waste any more of it on you.

      • David Young –

        > I posted numbers from that time at 15 day intervals proving that over the course of 2 months deaths declined strongly.

        I explained to you at the time (early April) that the death rate dropped up until late February and then had remained flat after that time until the time that we were having the discussion.

        In response, you said that I was ‘lying,” cherry-picking, blah, blah, and added in a whole slew of insults.

        I patiently explained your error in thinking – and that after accounting for the lag it would be completely obvious that at the time we were having that discussion the trend was flat, and had been so since late February.

        The most interesting part of all of this is that you are a rewnown scientist who has vast experience in data analysis, and you were unable to see something that was obviously apparent to even someone like myself, who doesn’t have those admirable skills you possess or vast experience in data analysis such as you have.

        What could explain why I saw something so easily, something that your talents and experience would equip you to be so much better in understanding, that not only did you miss, but insisted wasn’t the case even after I pointed out your error? And it didn’t even happen just once. I happened over and over, over a period of days.

        > My time is valuable and I’m not going to waste any more of it on you.

        Lol. How many times have you said that? And what does it say that you keep doing something that you have repeatedly said you consider to be a waste of your valuable time?

        So may mysteries about your behavior, David Young. I wonder if you displayed such behaviors in your work environment.

    • I have for a long time contended myself with reading rather than commenting. However, your use of statistics in the preceding comment is so egregious that I decided to comment. First of all you quote two numbers of an entire bicameral plot to prove your point, which is cherry picking in the extreme. A look at the entire plot without using any other information would lead to the conclusion that, at present that the death rate is a low for the graph. Any forecast for the future would be ill advised given that the death rate has peaked twice in the past, a third peak is a possibility, also a flat line is a possibility. Saying that the graph is “flat” ignores the recent peak. You could have described it as flat and at a low, but your trying to argue against a “decline” is again ignoring most of the graph. Also, when a curve is moving asymptotically toward zero, (which is currently what is happening, note that the possibility exists for another curve deflection upward) it is wrong to call that flat in the context you are using.
      Using other information (not just the graph) as far as vaccination, etc. the most likely forecast for the future is an asymptotic decline toward zero as the percentage of people vaccinated, or immune increases to the herd immunity threshold. Even if the numbers increase a small amount (within the error bars) it could still be considered to be within the decline.

      • atandb –

        > However, your use of statistics in the preceding comment is so egregious that I decided to comment. First of all you quote two numbers of an entire bicameral plot to prove your point, which is cherry picking in the extreme.

        There was a context for the discussion.

        That context was that in early April, David Young said that the 7-day moving average death rate in Sweden was “strongly declining.” He used the present continuous tense. (He also said that the ICU admissions rate was “strongly declining” at the same time.)

        At that time, I explained to David Young that in fact, after a significant drop up until late February, since that time (up until early April when I was commenting), in fact the tend was flat

        In response, David Young said I was a “liar,” accused me of cherry-picking, being unqualified to make an assessment, and leveled all manner of other insults.

        We could pick any of the dates on which David Young said that I was “lying” as the end date of the stretch stating in late February (which I made clear was the start date from which I was discussing with reference to the current trend at that time).

        February 27th, the per day death rate of the moving average was 20.

        On April first it was 20
        On April second it was 20
        On April third it was 21
        On April fourth it was 19
        On April fifth it was 20
        On April sixth it was 19
        On April seventh it was 19
        On April eighth it was 18

        Which of those dates would you want to use, or averaging which of those dates, would you want to use to assess whether David Young was correct when he said that I was “lying” and insulted me in many other ways because I said, in early April, that the trend rate had flattened out?

        I actually picked the date among those that it was the lowest.

        David Young was wrong, just as I said he was wrong.

      • atandb

        Here is the context – David Young’s comment:

        dpy6629 | April 2, 2021 at 12:26 pm |
        Despite ‘case’ growth, deaths and ICU admissions continue to fall.

        Here was my response at the time:

        > Deaths also aren’t falling significantly over the past few weeks. They fell for a while but seem to have stabilized and with allowing time for the lag, given the rise in ICU admissions, may very well turn out to be rising over this period – as would be suggested by the significant rise in ICU admissions.

        And in response David Young said;

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 8:48 pm |
        ICU admissions are rising. You cherry picked that fact to hide the fact that deaths are strongly declining and have been for quite a while.

        By saying I’m cherry-picking, you are effectively saying that at no point, no matter how long a flat trend might exist, or even if there were a long trend of rise that didn’t reach the peak of early January, at no point could anyone way that the trend isn’t “continu[ing] to fall.”

      • As long as the graph is in the asymptotic decline, which it is, it is a decline. Does not matter what the average is, how much of the graph you want to select, etc. What you did was cherry picking. David Young’s assertion of “strongly declining” is correct, but not what I would have used. The asymptotic curve is still strongly declining according to statistics. I would not have used that description, but your objection to it is fallacious.

      • On Feb. 27th, the per day rate of the 7-day average was 20.

        The average 7-day moving average of the per day death rate of all the days subsequent to Feburary 27th, up until April 8th, was 18.9.

        I look forward to further explanation of how my choice of dates equals cherry-picking. The end date I picked had a value of 18 – actually LOWER than the average number for all the dates between April 8th and February 27.

      • > As long as the graph is in the asymptotic decline, which it is, it is a decline.

        Unless the graph has no statistical significance, of course.

        From a decline one does not simply infer a strong decline anyway.

      • atandb –

        > As long as the graph is in the asymptotic decline, which it is, it is a decline. Does not matter what the average is, how much of the graph you want to select, etc. What you did was cherry picking. David Young’s assertion of “strongly declining” is correct, but not what I would have used. The asymptotic curve is still strongly declining according to statistics. I would not have used that description, but your objection to it is fallacious.

        I provided you with the context. David Young said that the per day death rate in Sweden was “continuing to decline.” He also said it was “strongly declining.”

        In response, I said that the sharp drop up until February had flattened out, and that it was flat from that time forward.

        In response, he said that I was “lying” and added in all manner of other insults.

        Are you really going to hand your hat on a defense of David Young, by saying that a decline from 20 to 18.9, after a drop from 99 to 20, isn’t fairly described as flattening, or flat?

        Really?

        Here was my comment at the time:

        > Deaths also aren’t falling significantly over the past few weeks. They fell for a while but seem to have stabilized and with allowing time for the lag, given the rise in ICU admissions, may very well turn out to be rising over this period – as would be suggested by the significant rise in ICU admissions.

        And in response David Young said;

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 8:48 pm |
        ICU admissions are rising. You cherry picked that fact to hide
        the fact that deaths are strongly declining and have been for quite a while.

        [please note the use of the present continuous tense]

        You’re really going to persist with this?

      • atandb

        This is why I love me some Climate Etc.. Here we have someone sophisticated enough to pull out “asymptotic” in a discussion of trends, who’s going to assert that it’s “cherry picking” to argue that when I say (on April 2nd):

        > Deaths also aren’t falling significantly over the past few weeks. They fell for a while but seem to have stabilized …

        I’m “cherry-picking” when the trend fell from 99 to 20 up until February 27th, and stayed at around 19 or so from that date forward to April 8th.

        And to double down, you’ll defend David Young’s response when he said:

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 8:48 pm |
        […] deaths are strongly declining and have been for quite a while.

        I love me some Climate Etc.

      • atandb –

        I look forward with amusement to see you defend David Young in the following exchanges as well (extra points for including words like “asymptotic” and “bicameral”).

        I said:

        Joshua | April 5, 2021 at 9:22 pm |

        […]

        I pointed out that actually, the rate of deaths has flattened out after a significant drop, and that once you consider the lag (in conjunction with the significant increase in ICU admissions) they may actually be rising.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-sweden-an-update/#comment-946564

        David responds:

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 9:55 pm |
        You are wrong on the death data.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-sweden-an-update/#comment-946565

        and he also responds:

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 10:36 pm |

        […]

        You were wrong to claim that deaths were leveling off and you cover that with more very repetitious word salads, another sign of an unfocused intellect.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-sweden-an-update/#comment-946570

      • atandb –

        > David Young’s assertion of “strongly declining” is correct, but not what I would have used.

        Truly a classic.

      • jungletrunks

        atandb, uh, you should listen to Josh and Will. Just because the U.S. population is quickly approaching nearly two thirds of its population being vaccinated, this shouldn’t imply that COVID cases will break the current baseline and continue falling. In the U.S. (are Swedes being vaccinated?), you should consider that cases may just as easily rise again — pardon the latter religious expression. To surmise this line of thinking; global vaccinations may prove to be a worthless endeavor, as hinted by those in knots of a particular political persuasion; though one should point out that for this particular group argumental consortial cherries matter, logic doesn’t necessarily; it depends on what you’re going for.

        As a fully vaccinated individual, I’m off to a good restaurant in a 100% non lockdown area with a quickly recovering economy.

      • Jungletrunks
        I looked at the vaccine data for Sweden, and they do have a couple problems that I was previously not aware of:

        1. The vaccination rate is very low.
        2. There is beginning to be a discrepancy between people who have the first shot and people who have the second. For whatever reason, Sweden has a problem with people getting that second shot.
        In context, I have always stated that a third rise in incidence is possible. Now that I have seen the data, it is the most likely scenario, unfortunately.

        Hopefully they will get their act together. I am also vaccinated, but took the easy way out with the single shot (before it was discontinued), with no side affects.

        During most of the outbreak, I spent my time in an area of the country where the infection rate was miniscule for all but minorities. I am currently in a metro area, and that is were I got my shot. Talk about a mass spreader event! The lines were very long, but moved rather quickly. The person behind me in line could not help themselves from being so close that I could feel their breath, but that was two weeks ago, so I guess I don’t get it now, or if I do it will be with reduced affects. Of course, that is assuming that I already did not have it and not know it, which is possible as I have allergies, which if the symptoms were mild enough would have masked COVID symptoms. I have never been tested, so I don’t know.

        Enjoyed your comments, though.

      • > Just because the U.S. population is quickly approaching nearly two thirds of its population being vaccinated, this shouldn’t imply that COVID cases will break the current baseline and continue falling.

        More generally, Trunks, just because X shouldn’t imply Y unless from X one can derive Y.

        There’s no need for any evidence to say that cases will eventually fall. A bit of common sense suffices.

        Please don’t make me look.

      • atandb –

        Lest you get any further along towards David Young’s level of wrongness, you should know that you’re also defending the following:

        dpy6629 | April 4, 2021 at 12:46 pm |
        You are cherrypicking Josh as is often the case. If you look at the Wiki page on the Swedish epidemic cases and admissions are indeed both rising but deaths were declining throughout March.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-sweden-an-update/#comment-946497

        To which I said:

        > Deaths also aren’t falling significantly over the past few weeks. They fell for a while but seem to have stabilized and with allowing time for the lag, given the rise in ICU admissions, may very well turn out to be rising over this period – as would be suggested by the significant rise in ICU admissions.

        I would appreciate it if you could once again explain how David Young was right and I was wrong (cherry-picking), etc. I want to consult with some folks who are rather familiar with statistics, and I wouldn’t want to portray your argument in an inaccurate fashion

      • atandb –

        Daily how David Young was wrong update:

        dpy6629 | April 5, 2021 at 9:55 pm |

        You are wrong on the death data. The usual lag people use is 2 weeks between cases and deaths. Deaths have been falling for at least 8 weeks while cases have been increasing.

        So according to David Young, deaths had been falling for 8 weeks. Four weeks prior to when he said that, on March 5th, the 7-day moving average was 20. As of now, the April 5th 7-day moving average was…wait for it… 20.

        Now I ask you again, please give me the advantage of your statistics expertise to explain how I was wrong at that time when I said that the trend wasn’t significantly declining, that in fact it had flattened out, or that it was flat. I need someone schooled in statistics to ‘splain this to me.

        While you’re at it, please’ splain to me how David Young was correct when he said the following in the same day:

        You were wrong to claim that deaths were leveling off.

        Or perhaps on April 6th

        I then said deaths and ICU admissions were declining which I later corrected to include only deaths. You said deaths were essentially steady which is also wrong.

      • Joshua,
        I have looked at the graph of data for Sweden’s COVID cases. I am satisfied that:
        1. Sweden’s incidence was in the declining portion when I looked at it.
        2. Sweden’s vaccination rate is concerningly low.
        3. Sweden’s rate of getting the second shot is also not good.
        As far as helping you pick someone’s statements apart, I do not have the time nor the inclination to do so. The information is readily available for anyone to check. As far as picking apart your statement, I had forgotten that it was a longer portion of picking apart that you had done previously, so the individual statement that I looked at with the two points was out of context. I am not going to go through this long list of statements that you have composed to figure out which are correct and which are not. I am satisfied that in general the above statements fall within good faith characterizations of the graph in that if there are statements that are not precisely true, they are within the characterization of the arguments being made. If a comparison is to be made between Sweden’s incidence, and other places, that comparison should be made in terms of incidence per capita, and not looking at individual points on the graph. I believe that you made the argument somewhere that we need to be careful when making such comparisons to include areas that are similar (population density, age distribution, first incidence vs when protective measures were implemented, cultural values that might affect implementation, etc.) except for the item that we are trying to compare like whether masks were worn or not. I agree strongly with this statement, and will not argue against good faith attempts to do this, because which preventative measures are effective and which are not is a very important question, whereas the questions you are trying to get me to address are not. I assume they are important to you, but I just don’t see how they answer the big picture.

      • atandb –

        > I had forgotten that it was a longer portion of picking apart that you had done previously, so the individual statement that I looked at with the two points was out of context.

        Understood. I can certainly understand why you’d have looked at that one statement to conclude I was “cherry-picking.” Certainly, its entirely appropriate for you to want to not make further judgement without investigating the full context, and there’s certainly no reason why you’d be obligated (or interested enough) to do so. And there’s certainly no reason why you should take my word for it that I’m giving you the full context.

        I’ll just repeat one last time, however, that I was called a liar and insulted in all manner of other ways, when I responded to David Young’s statements he made in early April – stating such things as that there had been a decline in deaths in Sweden for more than 8 weeks, and that there was a decline throughout March, etc.

        My responses were on the order of that after a decline up until late February, the evidence was clear even if hidden behind a lag, that there hadn’t been a significant decline thereafter (up until the point I was commenting), that there had been a flattening out (relative to the earlier drop), that in early April the rate of deaths were essentially steady (after a month with no material decline), etc.,

        Now you stated a confident conclusion that David Young was correct about a decline, and that I was wrong to say that there had been a flattening, etc., – when it is unequivocal both that David Young was wrong and that I was correct, and IMO you might have applied the same caveats before stating those conclusions.

        > I assume they are important to you, but I just don’t see how they answer the big picture.

        Not really. In the end, the fact that as an individual he makes statements that are obviously totally wrong is completely meaningless w/r/t the big picture. I just like tweaking David Young, because he’s so easily tweakable, and because it serves as a good example for how some “skeptics” get so far ahead of their skis when integrating uncertainty into their reasoning.

  58. New Zealand sells it’s soul to China:

    • New Zealanders don’t have souls.

      • The New Zealand foreign minister, with Maori face tattooed just 5 years ago, gave a left-leaning speech glorifying the cultural Taniwha with the Chinese dragon.

        Little does she know that these are anything but benevolent and in the not-too-distant future, I predict will be confirmed to be the ferocious laval stage of biological ufos.

  59. China is ‘lapping up’ Joe Biden’s virtual climate summit:

    • Having Alan Jones as your guide to climate science is as stupid as it gets.

      • He’s got of common sense, something which is unfortunately not common.

        I was impressed with the Morrison government which has torn up the Belt & Roads Initiative Andrews made with the CCP.

        The next step for proper justice is to see Dan on trial for the death of ~800 due to the botched hotel quarantine which he alone decided didn’t require guarding by the ADF.

      • UK-Weather Lass

        Listening to the radio this morning there was a truly awful climate reformist named Leo Murray claiming that billions of people in Bangladesh, would lose their lives from a 3C increase by EOC (i.e. IPPC’s worst case scenario) to which the presenter scoffed and responded with ‘Why are they going to die? Haven’t people always historically moved away from danger when able?’!

        A little later it took a member of our House of Lords to cloud the issue still further by stating that Bangladesh is predicted to be a net land gainer under some observations of changing land/sea boundaries.

        Nobody bothered to mention the raft of coal fired power stations being built in China so that the rest of us can cut our own energy throats and live in expensive, intermittent energy misery.

        If nothing else it demonstrates the damage done by the misinformation that has been allowed to circulate and cloud judgements for what must now be at least four decades. Why has science as a body allowed this to happen?

      • Why whine about it when you have abdicated responsibility.


    • At Joe’s “Summit” BoJo contrived to make the once Great Britain even more of a global laughing stock:

      • On the contrary, Boris Johnson will again make Britain great again by leading the world in *not* jumping to Greta’s tune – spending eye-watering amounts of money on something in which the science is not yet settled is a fallacy.
        ..
        “It’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny-hugging’ or however you want to put it,” he said.

        “Nothing wrong with bunny-hugging but you know what I’m driving at.”
        ..

        I do Boris, yes.

      • Are you quite sure Boris knows what he’s talking about Alan. On this or any other topic? FYI:

        https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bunny-hug

        Noun
        1. a ballroom dance with syncopated rhythm, popular in America in the early 20th century
        2. a piece of music in the rhythm of this dance

  60. It begins and ends with farmers and they need to make a profit. Letting consumers know about it is the next step. The Savory Institute has just announced the 50th verified land to market supplier. In time for Earth Day,.

  61. Mornin’ All (UTC),

    My Arctic alter ego’s humble contribution to Earth Day 2021:

    Discuss!

  62. The latest highly qualified defender of the scientific process, Steve Koonin, talks about how in 2014 he started to find out that the foundations of climate catastrophism were not as solid as he was led to believe. His new book just released is “Unsettled”:

    • 18:39 Koonin explains how the climate data is distorted simply by the statistical method of representation.

      • I’m sure all of us have had the same experience as Koonin when they started to ask questions about the science, data and historical record. I had no reason to doubt anything about AGW in the 1980s. It was only 10-15 years ago when I developed an interest in the issue after I noticed the criticisms of the “rogue” scientists usually involved ad hominems rather than refutations of what those scientists were saying.. When the specifics about the science became the focus, a defensiveness seemed to bleed through.

        It was the same kind of reaction I encountered leading up to the 1980-82 recession when program managers were briefing me on their budgets and they had to defend their funding and why they couldn’t absorb budget cuts. Those who didn’t have the answers or were unable to justify their programs got defensive or avoided answering the questions or engaged in ad hominems against anybody and everybody. Anything but answering direct questions.

        Good for Koonin for asking pertinent questions. I’m torn about whether to buy his book. Because I’m cheap, but also because I wonder what new insights he will provide that haven’t already been discussed here for years.

      • I wonder what kind of ad hominems, rationalization, digression and deflections will occur from this graph over at Dr Spencer’s site.

      • “It was only 10-15 years ago when I developed an interest in the issue after I noticed the criticisms of the “rogue” scientists usually involved ad hominems rather than refutations of what those scientists were saying.. When the specifics about the science became the focus, a defensiveness seemed to bleed through.”

        Yes, exactly the same with me. I was researching gravity anomalies online when someone introduced me to the inconsistencies in ice age theory. It was at the time of the ‘Pioneer Gravity Anomaly’, which passed through the plane of the solar system. I combined that with a scientific paper which concluded orbital inclination was a better fit to the data than Milankovitch eccentricity.

        I’m the same about his book. In fact any book now, I feel as though I know enough.

        Hopefully I’ll do well in a job interview next week and forget about the problems of the world and concentrate on caring for wheelchair-bound young adults. I also need to earn some money (!)

    • 39:00 this part ends with Koonin briefly revealing his inner thoughts on how “the Medieval Warm Period is no longer talked about”.

    • 43:00 Koonin takes up Alex’s crucial point about how climate scientists are not fully understanding how difficult it is to maintain the interrupted energy supplies at such low cost which we are all so used to the developed world.

    • Unlike Alan Lowry – Steve Koonin has an essentially conventional view of the physics of climate change.

      “For certain, some things are settled. We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that they are largely responsible for warming of surface temperatures globally. We also are confident in our understanding as to why this warming is expected to be amplified over land masses and the Arctic. Likewise, we are confident in our understanding of how the hydrological cycle amplifies the effects of this warming and how warming amplifies the hydrological cycle. For these and other broad brush strokes of the climate change picture, we are also increasingly confident in our ability to usefully bound the magnitude of the effects. From this certainty stems the conviction that additional warming is best avoided by reducing or reversing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases.” Palmer and Stevens

      There is uncertainty – which is not talked about by any crazy contrarian other than Judith – and the potential for surprises emerging from the fundamental nature of the Earth system as a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system. Not either stable equilibrium or purely periodic – but random and chaotic. Involving shifts in the mean and variance of climate states over much than 100 years. Sometimes very dramatic shifts. That climate is a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system underpins Tim’s Palmer’s short list of settled science. I suggest smiling grimly and getting on with it.

      RCP 8.5 is not nearly ambitious enough. My “world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5

      Restoring soils and ecosystems is geoengineering – although not as grandiose as some proposals. I am convinced enough that wind and solar have some utility. I have great hopes for advanced nuclear fission reactors in the near future.

  63. My graph reveals that the peak “measured” volume of Arctic sea ice this year is significantly lower than any other year since CryoSat-2 was launched, albeit with large “error bars”.

    What have Steve Koonin’s inner thoughts got to do with that fact?

  64. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will again split into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field to the north.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Europe will be hit by an onslaught of Arctic air that will cause heavy damage to orchards. A stratospheric wave from the north will reoccur in the eastern US in early May, and will likely reach Europe in the second half of May.

  65. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Very weak solar flares cause extremely low levels of UV radiation.

    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html

  66. Ireneusz Palmowski

    I predict a slow decline in the Nino 3.4 index over the month.

    • Can I ask an off the top my head uninformed question: what’s the reason for the undulations of the blue line given in the SST graph above?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        The solar wind increases by leaps and bounds during this cycle. You can see longer periods of decreasing solar wind speed, such as from the 25th of March to the 8th of April. A stronger solar wind causes a stronger pressure of the jet stream from west to east. In response, a stronger easterly wind appears along the equator, obviously with some delay. We are currently in a period of stronger solar wind, so a decrease in SST along the equator can be expected.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        To better understand what I mean, take a look at the South Pacific in the graphic below. You can see that the stronger solar wind coincides with the stronger pressure of the jet stream eastward.

      • “You can see that the stronger solar wind coincides with the stronger pressure of the jet stream eastward.” – Ireneusz

        Is this explanation just your own idea or is it also from a more official source?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        This particular explanation is my observation. However, many associate the latitudinal circulation with an increase in the magnetic activity of the solar wind (on Earth this manifests itself as an increase in geomagnetic activity).

      • “However, many associate the latitudinal circulation with an increase in the magnetic activity of the solar wind..” – Ireneusz

        Can you provide a link? Also, what’s your background in science, if you don’t mind me asking?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Let’s see how much the temperature drops in the central equatorial Pacific after the recent increase in solar wind speed.

  67. The French have united in a quest for covid freedom, dancing and singing in this protest song:

    • A belated Happy Earth Day to you too Russell!

      Not to Lord Lawson however! He and Benny still haven’t parted with a link to the data they allegedly rely on.

    • Thanks for improving the lives of poor people by giving them cheap reliable power by buying yourselves Teslas and putting solar panels on your roofs.

  68. __n__n__n__n__n__

    It is a test. I am trying to drew the planet diurnal cycle’s graph.

    • __n_n_n_n_n__

      Well, it is a poor result, but it permits to the following important thesis.

      Planet emits the “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident solar flux on the very instant.

      “n” represents the day-hours planet surface temperatures curve.

      “_” represents the night-hours planet surface temperatures.

      Night-hours temperatures’ graph is linear (almost) and has a very low emission capacity.

      So, conclusively, everything – the entire interaction happens during the day-time hours.

      So = 1362 W/m²

      When considered the Albedo = 0,7

      the So*0,7 = 952 W/m²

      Since the whole interaction happens during the day-hours in order to approximate the “absorbed” = emitted energy

      we shall divide by 2

      952 W/m² /2 = 476 W/m²

      Tday-time = ( 476 W/m² / σ ) ^ 0,25 = 303 K

      It is an approximate calculation of the Earth’s WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE the day-hours uniform day-time Hemisphere radiative effective temperature.

      For the rest, the night-hours dark Hemisphere there is not incident radiative energy left in this model.

      If we decide to approximately calculate Earth’s entire globe surface average (mean) temperature we do not have the night-hours temperatures available to do that.

      So, the only thing available, we can “borrow” the close by Moon’s measured night-hours temperatures which are
      Tmax.night = 125 K
      Tmin.night = 93 K

      Average moon night Tnight-time = (125 + 93)/ 2 = 109 K

      Now, let’s calculate the approximate Earth’s mean surface temperature

      Tmean = ( Tday-time + Tnight-time ) / 2

      Tmean = ( 303 + 109 ) / 2 = 206 K

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A strong geomagnetic storm is forecast for Sunday. The magnetic pulse will be sudden and very strong. An increase in seismic activity and volcanic eruptions can be expected.

    • How can your prediction be measured with accuracy? Would you accept a negative result? I know someone who monitors the Yellowstone Park seismometers daily and don’t expect your prediction to make the impact you’re suggesting.

  70. Speaking of updating previously held positions in light of emerging evidence, I’m hoping that Nic Lewis will be writing a post to explain why it appears he was so completely wrong about the interaction between “herd immunity,” seroprevalence, and the effects of interventions, with consideration of what’s going on in India right now.

    • Nic Lewis; February 6, 2021:
      “No doubt the fact that the epidemic seems to be dying out in India despite there being relatively few restrictions enforced there and people’s behaviour having at least partially normalised won’t cause you to reconsider your position.”

      COVID-19: why did a second wave occur even in regions hit hard by the first wave?

      And pigs fly.

      • Atomsk – I’d be interested in any light you could shed on issues that result in vaccine hesitancy or skepticism. I see arguments here about “still experimental” and various assertions about blood clots.

      • Same factors that result in climate (faux) “skepticism”, evolution “skepticism”, GMO “skepticism”. For example:

        – baseless distrust of the evidence-based consensus of experts in that field
        – paranoid conspiracy theories to avoid accepting what the published scientific evidence shows
        – refusal to accept science they think may be ideologically-inconvenient (ex: right-wingers who object to the vaccines because they think it may lead to vaccine mandates, people who prefer “natural remedies”)
        – over-reliance on non-expert, contrarian, crackpot sources that spread misinformation, because they agree with the ideology of those sources (ex: Fox News, Alex Berenson)
        – manufacture of false doubt, where they pretend as if uncertainty on some small aspect of vaccines, means corresponding uncertainty on the larger point of vaccines being safe and effective enough for the vast majority of society to be vaccinated

        And so on.

        There’s a reason why a lot of the same non-experts who claimed to be “skeptical” of mainstream climate science, now claim to be “skeptical” of vaccine science. There’s a reason so many of them are politically conservative.

        I, Potholer54, and numerous others have been warning for a decade that the same sort of mindset that leads to contrarianism on climate science, will do the same on vaccine science, GMOs, evolutionary biology, etc. depending of how people adapt their political and religious ideologies to the scientific evidence on those subjects. There’s been paper after paper published on this for years. Yet much of the political right didn’t bother to listen and let the conspiracism fester in their community, since it suited them on topics like climate science. Well, they can go reap what they’ve sown now that they have to contend with that same mindset on vaccine science.

        “Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines”
        “Vaccine risk perceptions and ad hoc risk communication: An empirical assessment”
        “Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection”
        “Conservative and liberal views of science: Does trust depend on topic?”
        “Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion”
        “The determinants and consequences of accurate beliefs about childhood vaccinations”
        “The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate”
        “Beliefs about childhood vaccination in the United States: Political ideology, false consensus, and the illusion of uniqueness”

        from 9:23 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBIET-uEbXA&t=563s

    • Joe - the non epidemiologist

      Josh – Speaking of updating previously held positions in light of emerging evidence, I’m hoping that Nic Lewis will be writing a post to explain why it appears he was so completely wrong about the interaction between “herd immunity,” seroprevalence, and the effects of interventions, with consideration of what’s going on in India right now.

      Josh – big picture – not minutia
      1) Still havent learned about the hope-Simpson curve
      2) India total cases is less than 1,200 per 100k vs a range of 8k to 10k for other industrialized countries which is substantially less than most all other industrialized countries

      Try not to get lost in the detail with your obsession trying to prove Nic wrong.

    • A prominent “skeptic,” often featured as an important contributor to modeling analysis, writes a series of posts at a prominent “skeptic” website over a period of months where he repeatedly under-estimates the uncertainties to wind up wrong in his modeling as well as in his confidently offered predictions regarding the economic impact of the phenomena he is modeling. He is cited by a sitting US Senator and featured all over right-leaning social media.

      Interesting that you don’t his errors are particularly worthy of discussion.

  71. Reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions substantially using a portfolio of measures is painless. Fossil fuels or wind and solar is a false dilemma. “A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.” A consideration of options is the basis of rational engineering cost/benefit analysis.

    China – who now want to be friends with Australia again – start from a low base. Sure – we’ll be friends – as long they realise that flexing their recently acquired muscle doesn’t impress us much.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

  72. “Rossby waves, also known as planetary waves, are a type of inertial wave naturally occurring in rotating fluids. They were first identified by Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby. They are observed in the atmospheres and oceans of planets owing to the rotation of the planet.” Wikipedia

    The polar vortex is a rotating planetary wave that extends from the surface to the stratosphere. The Northern Annular Mode (NAM) – otherwise known as the AO – index is derived from polar and subpolar surface pressures.

    It may be influenced by solar UV, the heliospheric magnetic field charging the global electric circuit or formation of cloud condensation nuclei as the upper atmosphere is more or less shielded from cosmic radiation. But undoubtedly most variability by far emerges from internal climate feedbacks.

    Can the NAM index be predicted? Absolutely not.

  73. ENSO is drifting to a neutral state – as it tends to do this time of year. The graph seems to be mislabelled. 2019? The thick black line is 2021.

    Can it be forecast? With some difficulty. This is the output of one of those perturbed physics probabilistic ensembles.

  74. Today class, we are going to learn a new word. And we will learn how to use that new word in a sentence.

    From “ Tackling challenges of a drier, hotter, more fire prone future ”


    From Lomborg

    The new word, class, is TRUNCATE. The new sentence is “Truncate much?”

    Now that you have learned a new word today, may you go forth and brainwash to your hearts content. Happy Hunting.

  75. / I’m moving through the dark
    Of a long black night
    Just moving with the moon
    And the light it shines
    And I’m thinking of a place
    And it feels so very real
    Just moving through the dark /

  76. JC … I enjoyed the Unbearable Wholeness of Beings. Thank you. After passing it along to a friend and suggesting that he might enjoy Hans Jonas’, “The Phenomenon of Life”, which is a similar examination, he sent me back this excellent short video of Corey Anton discussing Jonas.

  77. I wish you guys would leave some space for Joshua to comment! Shame on you!

  78. They’re at it again!
    The same Dr Evil labs in Oxford that became public enemy # 1 by making a low-cost covid19 vaccine hurting the profits of big pharma, have now added insult to injury by making a vaccine against malaria with efficacy above 75% for the first time.

    The EU together with America’s FDA and Anthony Fauci are expected to join forces again to discredit the vaccine and prevent it reaching people suffering from malaria. The FDA dismiss malaria as being financially uninteresting. They have already ordered 10 million doses of the vaccine which they plan to sit on until they expire. EU officials expressed confidence in being able to find errors in the methodology of the phase 2 clinical trial of the malaria drug allowing them to discredit it worldwide. President Macron of France called it the “wrong vaccine made by the wrong people against a disease which is only imaginary hysteria anyway”.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56858158

  79. No doubt, many readers here will appreciate this study (if they haven’t seen it already):

    -snip-
    The partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans has increased rapidly over the past century, driving ocean acidifcation and raising concern for the stability of marine ecosystems1–3. Coral reef fishes are predicted to be especially susceptible to end-of-century ocean acidification on the basis of several high-profile papers4,5 that have reported profound behavioural and sensory impairments—for example, complete attraction to the chemical cues of predators under conditions of ocean acidification.
    Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes, such as the avoidance of chemical cues from predators, fish activity levels and behavioural lateralization (left–right turning preference). Using data simulations, we additionally show that the large effect sizes and small within-group variances that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. Together, our findings indicate that the reported effects of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fshes are not reproducible, suggesting that behavioural perturbations will not be a major consequence for coral
    reef fishes in high CO2 oceans.

    Click to access Clark_etal_2020.pdf

    • “In response to the ‘reproducibility crisis’ that affects many scientific disciplines19, the scientific community is demanding that studies are rigorously conducted and independently replicated before drawing broad conclusions and implementing management measures, particularly when describing widespread phenomena of global importance20.”

      I conclude from this study that increasing CO2 to 1000 ppm in short order isn’t the dumbest and most unnecessary idea in a history of dumb ideas? Joshua knows – he is a world ranking expert in dumb ideas.

  80. In spite of the government’s attempts to drive tax preparers crazy, I am still here. Why I am right and some of you are wrong:

  81. In this PDF you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth’s average albedo value of
    a = 0.3

    Click to access 19940020024.pdf


    NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
    An Earth Albedo Model
    A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below

    Thomas W. Flatley
    Wendy A. Moore
    Goddard Space Flight Center
    Greenbelt, Maryland

    National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration
    Goddard Space Flight Center
    Greenbelt, Maryland

    1994
    (NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p

    Page 1
    “With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.

    Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”

    Page 2
    “According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:

    Fin = Fsun(ne’,S) wa_/m2

    This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3”

    Page 15
    “Conclusions

    This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”

    • The launch of purpose built instruments in the early 2000’s enabled a quantum leap in precision. It is found that albedo changes all the time. And here I am being sarcastic.

      “One of the challenges involved in producing ERB datasets from satellites is the need to convert the radiance measurements at a given sun–Earth–satellite configuration to outgoing reflected solar and emitted thermal TOA radiative fluxes. To estimate TOA fluxes from measured CERES radiances, one must account for the angular dependence in the radiance field, which is a strong function of the physical and optical characteristics of the scene (e.g., surface type, cloud fraction, cloud/aerosol optical depth, cloud phase, etc.), as well as the illumination angle. Because the CERES instrument can rotate in azimuth as it scans in elevation, it acquires data over a wide range of angles. Consequently, one can construct angular distribution models (ADMs) for radiance-to-flux conversion directly from the CERES measurements. Furthermore, because CERES and MODIS are on the same spacecraft, the ADMs can be derived as a function of MODIS-based scene-type parameters that have a strong influence on radiance anisotropy.”

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/22/4/jtech1712_1.xml
      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/24/4/jtech1983_1.xml

  82. “Climate anxiety can operate like white fragility…”

    A made up thing with no meaning can be like another made up thing with no meaning. More BLM nonsense. People have problems and your theories about that are stupid and hurt society.

    Ray’s interests include environmental justice, cultural studies, critical human geography, disability studies, and issues of power, identity, and discourses of nature.

    • “Oppressed and marginalized people have developed traditions of resilience out of necessity. Black, feminist and Indigenous leaders have painstakingly cultivated resilience over the long arc of the fight for justice. They know that protecting joy and hope is the ultimate resistance to domination. Persistence is nonnegotiable when your mental, physical and reproductive health are on the line.”

      As a woke, non-binary Viking – obviously a disenfranchised grouping – whose ancestors were chained and transported below decks across the world to exist in servitude – I suggest developing an exquisite appreciation of the absurd.

  83. Everyone needs to listen to this new kid on the block, who makes Greta look like old news:

    • My God that’s repugnant bilge water from extreme fringe cretins who have abdicated responsibility and don’t have the intelligence or imagination to see why. They habitually fail democracy and free markets. They are grumpy old dullards at best – a galaxy away from our liveliest minds.

      “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage…. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark.” Friedrich Hayek

    • One can only imagine the power of the new rising star Xiye Bastida and others like her when they discover that not only was Sir Isaac Newton wrong about his gravitational theory which has led to climate hysteria but also that he profited from colonialism:

      ….
      Isaac Newton latest historical figure swept up in ‘decolonisation’ drive

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/
      ….

      • Let me think about that. Ah… no… Newton was about right at non-relativistic velocities. It’s a joke. If anyone paid any attention – that would be a threat to scientific enlightenment.

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Do volcanoes in Indonesia respond to geomagnetic storms? That’s the question.
    https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/#
    https://magma.esdm.go.id/v1/gunung-api/live-seismogram

  85. My mistake in posting this on another thread. It’s a good paper on reconciling the global sea level budget from 2018.

    Click to access essd-10-1551-2018.pdf

  86. Judith,
    You may be interested in this experimental result. The paper is naive, but the researcher have demonstrated that it is possible for a black body to reach a steady-state temperature which is different from the ambient temperature of a surrounding fluid, whereas a reflecting body tracks the temperature of the surrounding fluid. I am still considering the implications.
    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=103816

  87. There has been much written about the inherent instability of the Pine Island/Thwaites Glaciers complex in the Amundsen Sea Embayment region but it wasn’t clear why there and not other regions and whether the rate of thinning and ice discharge was unprecedented.

    The concern about the region was highlighted in this 1981 paper by Hughes, discussing the weak underbelly of Pine Island Bay in WAIS. The particular conditions and history making it so are listed.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/weak-underbelly-of-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet/61C4BC23CCF0106FDBC00502BF2291BF

    This is from a newer paper (2014) which provides more insight into the region’s history and vulnerabilities.

    “5.7. Long-term context of recent changes
    The rates of thinning and grounding line retreat observed on ice shelves and glaciers around the ASE over the past two decades are significantly faster than any that can be reliably established in deglacial records from the sector. With the available data, however, we cannot insist that such rapid changes are unprecedented since the LGM. Taking into account the evidence for highly episodic grounding-line retreat from the outer and middle shelf parts of PIT during the early stages of the last deglaciation, the grounding line may well have retreated from one GZW position to the next landward GZW position at a rate comparable to that of modern retreat. Although the net retreat of the PIG grounding line has been no more than 112 km over the past 11.2 ka (an average rate of 10 m yr−1), we cannot presently discount the possibility that this could have been achieved by up to four periods of retreat lasting no more than 30 years, each at rates similar to those observed over recent decades, with the grounding line remaining steady between those periods. Neither can we dismiss the possibility that the grounding line may have retreated beyond its present position at some stage during the Holocene and subsequently re-advanced prior to the period of historical observations. Although there is presently no clear evidence for such a scenario, it is one possible interpretation of recently-reported observations from beneath the PIG ice shelf. Similarly, if there were past, short-lived phases of ice thinning at rates similar to those observed in the recent past (i.e. several m yr−1), the sparse cosmogenic surface exposure age sample sets presently available from the sector are not yet adequate to resolve such abrupt changes.”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004101

  88. I feel sure that Judith and her denizens will be interested in my conversation this morning with Peter, Ken, Kevin and Greta. Although to be frank she’s been a bit quiet up to now.

    • Jim

      Bearing in mind that we will need well over 2 times the amount of electric by 2040 in order to meet the targets I do wonder where it will come from without a huge expansion in nuclear which most greens have been implacably opposed to.

      Mind you if we want to support child slave labour and massive environmental damage lets continue to use the rare earths owned by Chinas and many of which will be in very short supply anyway

      Wind too strong to go surfing today? Its VERY chilly here on the coast

      tonyb

  89. Mornin’ Tony,

    I probably shouldn’t given my relatively recent triple CABG operation, but this forecast is far too tempting:

    You will no doubt have noted that in the video from Exeter Uni Kevin said:

    I’m agnostic about nuclear power. My dad worked as a fitter in a nuclear power station and died as a consequence, but I remain agnostic about whether nuclear power is good or bad.

    From a climate perspective it’s very low carbon?

    Back in a bit. Hopefully!

    • Jim

      If we want sufficient electric I see no alternative to Nuclear, but unless we get a very rapid move on with a lead in time of 10 years, it looks like we shall run short of power if we continue to shut down power stations.

      I had no idea you had a triple CABG. When was this and when do you expect to be reasonably fit?

      tonyb

      • Evenin’ Tony (UTC),

        It came as a surprise to me as well! My op was in Derriford at the end of October. I went to A+E with a slight pain in my chest and came out 2 and a bit weeks later with the 2 halves of my sternum wired together.

        This afternoon’s excursion to the seaside went without incident, so I reckon I’m back to around 80% of what passes for “full fitness” these days:

  90. UK-Weather Lass

    Searching the internet with the question “How to prove someone has Covid-19?” gets you a lot of stuff about where you got Covid-19 from, how you got it, why and how long you need to isolate, how you can recover from it, what you mustn’t do now, testing that proves you have had the virus at some point in time but not necessarily now, how you may get long term symptoms of Covid-19 and what they are (smell and taste were never my strong points), but nothing about proof of you having it in the here and now.

    I produced only one derisory story about a Nigerian professor of genetics, who is apparently in Covid-19 denial, because he has asked his scientists and experts for proof the virus exists out in the open on a table top in front of TV cameras in a number of ways he has suggested it could possibly be done. What he requests is perhaps not as strange as it may seem given my search didn’t reveal a single clue – no reliable absolute proof for the here and now, no going to a GP or no having it written on the death certificate of the person concerned.

    Now I have spent hours reading scientific papers and experts discussing SARS-CoV-2 during the past year and the virus seems to be real enough and so why is it not possible to have absolute proof it exists in a patient in real time other than in their stated and observed symptoms and medical opinion? It just reminds me of the way seasonal ‘flu gets much the same treatment as do the many strains and variants that are on the loose every year … curious.

    • Why do you think you cannot get proof that someone has COVID19? PCR tests, done right, tell you the amount of virus in the area swabbed. Antigen tests tell you the amount in the blood.

      So if those are positive, and the PCR didn’t have too high a cycle threshold, then the person has the SARS-CoV-2 infection and thus COVID19.

      • UK-Weather Lass

        Neither PCR nor blood tests are ‘proof’ since both can be wrong even when ‘done right’. They are clinical tools for a medical professional to assess. Both must be read with and alongside other clinical data.

        I asked the same question about Covid-19 proof of the senior partner in a GP practice and she said that it is a professional judgement of the most likely cause of an observed conditions which can take many different forms and be described by patients in many different ways. Her own personal choice of symptom during flu seasons is a raised temperature since that indicates infection but even that has shortcomings.

        I anticipated at least one website giving me this kind of answer but found none perhaps because search engines these days are not intended to inform.

      • > since both can be wrong even when ‘done right’.

        Take the antigen test a couple of times and you’ll know with very, very high probability whether you’re infectious.

        You could do the same with the PCR test and you’ll know with virtual certainty as well.

        The chances of getting a false positive on repeated tests is exceedingly small.

      • I guess I missed the word “absolute” preceding proof.

        There are few cases where absolute proof of COVID is important.

  91. In this PDF you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth’s average albedo value of
    a = 0.3

    NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
    An Earth Albedo Model
    A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19940020024

    • You might like to access something a little more more recent when it comes to satellites.

      • Yes, Robert, I would like to access something a little more more recent. Please help me, I need your assistance, because you are in this for much longer, than me.
        What I am searching for is a paper saying satellites measure not only diffuse but also specular reflection from a planet surface.
        But, till now what came out is this very “old ” 1994 NASA technical Memorandum which states the opposite.

        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19940020024

        NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
        An Earth Albedo Model
        A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below

        Thomas W. Flatley
        Wendy A. Moore
        Goddard Space Flight Center
        Greenbelt, Maryland

        National Aeronautics and
        Space Administration
        Goddard Space Flight Center
        Greenbelt, Maryland

        1994
        (NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p

        Page 1
        “With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.

        Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”

        Page 2
        “According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:

        Fin = Fsun(ne’,S) wa_/m2

        This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3”

        Page 15
        “Conclusions

        This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”

        Best regards,
        Christos

      • Find your earlier comment and you will find two links.

      • Thank you Robert.

        I scanned both articles you have provided links to. Here is what I found:

        “Over the clear ocean, footprints influenced by strong sun glint (within 40° of the specular reflection direction) are excluded from the analysis.
        ……………..
        When a CERES FOV is over water and the satellite viewing geometry is near the specular reflection direction, the radiance-to-flux conversion is less reliable owing to the large variability in ocean reflectance at those angles.”

      • There are multiple instruments in a precise purpose designed observing system. I simply suggested that you needed to not rely on an one out of date text.

        “When a CERES FOV is over water and the satellite viewing geometry is near the specular reflection direction, the radiance-to-flux conversion is less reliable owing to the large variability in ocean reflectance at those angles…

        If an observation falls in an angular bin for which σR ≥ 0.05, a radiance-to-flux conversion is not performed. Instead, a mean flux value, corresponding to the ADM scene type over the FOV, is used. ADM flux values are determined when the ADMs are constructed by direct integration of the radiances for the corresponding scene type.” op. cit.

        https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/

  92. Matthew R Marler

    long excerpt from memoir of an academic misfit: As I’d already suggested in Evidence and Inquiry,[35] in Defending Science I argued that scientific inquiry is continuous with everyday empirical inquiry, only more so: It is usually more careful, more thorough, more rigorous; it often relies on instruments and other specialized tools; and it is generally the work of many people, both within and across generations. There’s no “scientific method,” i.e., no method used by all, and only, scientists. There are the familiar procedures of everyday inquiry: make an informed conjecture, see how well it stands up to the evidence you have and any further evidence you can get, use your judgement whether to accept it, to draw no conclusion but seek out more evidence, or to start over; but these are not used only by scientists. And there are the special tools and procedures developed by scientists over hundreds of years—from models and metaphors to aid the imagination, instruments of observation and measurement to aid the senses, through the calculus, the theory of probability, the computer, etc., to aid reasoning powers, means for the dissemination of results so that evidence can be shared, and incentives to keep scientists productive and honest; but these scientific “helps” to inquiry, always evolving and often local to a specific scientific field, aren’t used by all scientists. These helps engage scientists’ imagination, extend and refine their sensory reach, enable new reasoning powers, and (up to a point) maintain honesty and encourage creativity and the sharing of results. This is how the sciences have been as successful as they have.

    The evidence for scientific claims, my argument continued, is continuous with the evidence for everyday empirical claims, only more so—a mix of sensory evidence and reasons, but far more complex and tangled: The experiential components are often meditated by instruments, with all their theoretical backing; the reasoning is often dependent on computer programs, with all the assumptions built into them; and such evidence is almost always a shared resource, the result of many people’s work. Thinking about the sharing of results, i.e., scientists’ pooling of evidence, I was obliged to dig deeper into issues about social aspects of epistemology, only touched on in Evidence and Inquiry.

    The evidence for scientific claims rests ultimately on experience, and of course it’s individuals who have experience. But the evidence for such claims is almost always a shared resource. So, unlike the social epistemologists, who seemed concerned with the warrant of scientific claims for a group or team of people, I started from what I’d done in Evidence and Inquiry to explain the degree to which a claim would be warranted for an individual. Then I turned to how to handle the degree of warrant for many people, whether members of the same team or scattered around the world or even over centuries; a matter, I suggested, of the degree of warrant for a hypothetical individual who had all the evidence possessed by these people all together, discounted by some measure of how justified each person is in believing the others reliable. And finally I constructed an account of the degree of warrant of a scientific claim at a time.[36] (This, as I noted, turned Popper’s “epistemology without a knowing subject” on its head.)[37]

    I am glad to find someone besides me using the word “share” (and its relatives) in discussing the philosophy of science.

  93. “For much of human history, most individuals have lacked economic freedom and opportunity, condemning them to poverty and deprivation.

    Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2021, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.” https://www.heritage.org/index/

    The 2021 index was released last month. Australia is the third freest economy in the world – but how we came in behind the soulless New Zealanders is a bit of a glitch. On the other hand – the land of the free is less free than you should be. This is the essential cultural battleground. Fighting it on the climate science front is a losing strategy.

    High economic growth powers solutions – low economic growth will inevitably fail even in limited objectives of environmental conservation and emission reduction. The reason is very simple. I was playing hungry hungry hippos with my then 4 year old grandson. He explained to me that hungry hippos have no rules.

  94. I just finished the enjoyable essay by Susan Haack. I did that after reading a dozen studies about temperature and sea ice variability in the Arctic.

    All before getting out of bed.

    Sans PC, clutching my IPad, I reflected back to my youth when I lived 10 miles from a library, since my one room country schoolhouse had no literature beyond Jack and Jill. I wondered how many trips to the library would have been required to research all the terms, citations and concepts that were available this morning at my fingertips. All before I got out of bed.

    What a world.

  95. ‘Trees and methane’ – anyone would think that these carbon zealots have the insights of God, the way they talk about ‘just understanding methane-containing trees and the methanogenic bacteria that colonise them’ will miraculously allow their computer models to ‘bring carbon dioxide and methane’ under control through choosing the right trees to plant.

    If ever there were a subject where reductionist scientists should be banned, it is the global climate- and atmospheric gas budgets. There are a myriad of inputs and outputs to both systems and just tinkering with one of them is not going to miraculously right all the wrongs of the past.

    It’s a great little research number, identifying methane in trees. Lots of trees to analyse, lots of bacterial species to isolate, culture, and analyse. And each time you do some analyses in some lab and on some computer, the worldly experience of all that will make them fit to rule over the whole planet in terms of planting trees….

  96. Peter Zeihan cites indications that China’s population is already decreasing – CO2 emissions follow.

  97. 80% of CO2 emissions are from countries destined to follow:

    Will the world still care about carbon dioxide in the face of demographic collapse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s